Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So how fast is it...? (Score 2) 142

by QRDeNameland (#46640723) Attached to: How Far Will You Go For Highest Speed Internet?

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?

Comment: Yeah, right... (Score 2) 15

by QRDeNameland (#46538611) Attached to: Working with Real-Time Analytics as a Service (Video)

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....

Comment: Re: Ridiculous. (Score 1) 914

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.

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.