I actually do statistical modelling of car accidents for a living (Reinsurance Industry)... It's been proven times and times again that excessive speeds where one of the major causes of car accidents (along with alcohol, drugs legal or not, tiredness, ...) and proportionally even more so in casualties. Just Google (Scholar if you want more detailed studies) causes of car accidents... Unfortunately there are many car accidents statistics available for you to look around.

Sorry if I am a bit crude but I study cases of children who suffer tetraplegia or severe head traumas all day long and believe me that when you do comments like driving fast (and implicitly faster than speed limits) decreases the risk of accident, suddenly seem quite idiotic.

No, what I'm saying is that driving concentrated at 60 MPH is less dangerous than driving concentrated at 75 MPH. Of course driving 50 while completely drunk without a seat-belt and ignoring traffic lights is less dangerous than driving completely concentrated at 75 on a German highway with no one around... but that comparison is idiotic.

If everyone drove at the speed limits, all other things remaining equal, there would be less deaths on the roads.

It is insightful because the original statement was simply stated... idiotic.

The faster you drive, the longest the breaking distance (a function of the square of the velocity), the less time you have to react, the more momentum your car has and the less time other drivers have to react to your attitude. For any given driver, driving faster is more dangerous.

The original message is idiotic in the sense that it completely ignores the fact that you're simply not alone on the road and that generally drivers overestimate their capabilities (and the capabilities of their cars).

What if those 17,000 likes transforms into a few thousands?

Worth a shot I believe.

Actually the model would be:

Cheating and not getting caught = CNGC
Cheating and getting caught = CGC

Expected[Utility CNGC] = (1- Probability[CGC])*[Utility CNGC] > Expected[Utility CGC] = [Probability CGC]*[Utility CGC]

where [Utility CNCG] = f([how much work was done]; [utility of higher grades]; [Utility of the act of cheating independently of its outcome])

Your model describes the decision of "planning to cheat", not cheating itself.

Cash is much more expensive than electronic money.

An example of this is the 50 euro bill here in Europe. In most ATMs, 50 euros is the biggest bill available. This means that the 50 euro bill is almost never used to give change back. Now think about the life cycle of a 50 euro bill.

First, it is printed, checked etc and sent guarded by big men with guns to banks, where they are put inside an ATM machine.
Then, a consumer takes it out a 50 euro bill in the ATM. He then goes to a shop and buys product A, gives the 50 euro bill, and receives change (which is of course smaller than 50 euros).
The 50 euro bill then stays in the cash register where it is accumulated with other 50 euro bills since no one pays with a bill higher than 50 euros, it can never be used as change.
After a long day of work, the shopkeeper then bring the bill back to the bank, where it is counted, bagged and sent back to the national bank guarded by big men with guns.
The national bank then checks that the bill is in good condition, bags it ans sent it back guarded by big men with guns to the bank where it is put in the ATM for the next consumer.

This whole process is hugely expensive.

So you may have the impression that you don't give a cut when using cash, but that's merely because the cost is subsidized elsewhere.

Or maybe you just have a conflict with your team. Tried the default theme yet?

The real pioneers and leaders in Logistics are the Army... for the same reasons that Wall-Mart is better in logistics than FEMA was (is?). Incentives and experience. The hurricane Katrina was a once-in-a-career experience, where the Army and Wall-Mart are busy day-in day-out with logistics, of course Wall-Mart will be better.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being governmental or not.

That's not very surprising since income inequality and wealth inequality grew. So yeah, they paid more taxes, but simply because even if their nominal tax rate decreased, their additional revenues made up for the change...

Euh no... The Variable (Zed being right or not) is not stochastic. The "probability" of him being right is either 1 or 0.