It's a line from Caddyshack.

Is that welder working in an oil field? There are a HUGE number of extra qualifications and certifications you need to be a pipe or tank welder. I speak from project management experience that these guys get paid very well and it is hard to find enough good ones.

Not to mention, this kind of work often requires you to chase work to far-flung places like N. Dakota or the Alberta tar sands and live your life in an itinerant worker 'community'. There is a huge premium paid for working in these places for precisely that reason, even for much less skilled work than pipe/tank welding. So yes, these are not typical incomes being cited.

A 20-year old can be a parent these days.

I'm curious, when were the days when a 20 year old *couldn't* be a parent?

Oh...never mind...subtle whoosh on my part. :)

Did you read the article?

Yes. And the closest thing to a quantification was "10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway." Which means....what? It tells me that the guy has 43 TB of storage capacity, and even specific climate info about the town, but I'm left to guess the specs of the internet link, which is the subject of the article?

Did I miss something?

How do you write an article about the "highest speed internet" in the world without a single quantification of how fast it actually is?

... what is their definition of a terrorist?

My guess? Anyone who "communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist." Add your six degrees of separation, and presto, that's everyone.

Because the more you know about functions in your company besides IT (such as finance, investor relations, and -- yes -- marketing), the more valuable you are as an employee.

Right, because every place I've ever worked in IT, they've been totally transparent and forthcoming about finance, marketing, and investor relations to make the people in the trenches more valuable. Oh wait, no, that never happened....

Of course it can. "I believe I have a 90% chance of succeeding in this crime, i.e., of not being convicted for it. If I succeed, I receive benefit (money, the elimination of an annoying person, whatever) which I value at A, a positive number. I have a 10% change of failing, i.e. being convicted, and receiving sentence B, which I value at a negative number. My expected outcome is .9A + .1 B. In this case that sum is greater than 0. Logically, I should commit the crime."

I suggest doing a search on "certainty vs. severity of punishment". If you poke through the literature, it appears to be well established that criminals are far more sensitive to the perception of the *certainty* of punishment (which is what you are arguing would change a rational risk assessment) than they are to the *severity* of punishment (which is what I kan read is arguing would *not* change a rational risk assessment).

In other words, these two arguments are not contradictory. To the extent that criminals are rational actors, they will make risk assessments based primarily along the lines you cite, i.e., the chances of getting caught; with the severity of the consequences playing a much more minor role. So given an equal chance of being caught/punished...i kan read is correct...if one is rationally deterred from committing a crime punishable by the death penalty today, it is highly unlikely that the same person would be undeterred if the punishment for that crime was reduced to 10 years in prison.