Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Let's keep it fair... (Score 1) 760

> Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. An excellent argument for making fines strictly a function of how recklessly the offender drives. Making this about income seems like a stretch.

Comment: Re:More (Score 1) 150

No. The point of punitive damages is to change the managers' behavior. What you suggest would hurt the stock holders and the customers (let's be real, the cost of a judgement gets passed on to them), neither of which were involved in the misdemeanor. How much money was "saved" by the illegal collusion? How often would companies expect to get away with such behavior? These two are critical in determining the correct fine. If they can't expect to get away with it, the penalty should be "a little" higher than the money they hoped to "save". If they expect to get away with it 80% of the time, then it needs to be 5X that amount, to ensure the costs outweigh the benefits. I understand the anger over such behavior, but letting that anger drive a legal response would have unintended consequences. We should carefully consider a punishment to only harm those deserving of that punishment.

Single tasking: Just Say No.