Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 599

...and I see no environmental reason for females to not perform as well in these subjects. Yet, as you stated, there clearly must be some reason. Assuming it is an adversarial environment seems to be a stretch, without any data to indicate that. In fact, many now see schools as adversarial towards males and this is clearly a huge step in that direction...

Is it really the best use of our money, energy, resources, etc. to try to even the playing field this way, by swimming upstream? If we want to compete with China, India, Europe, and others, shouldn't we just identify those minds (male, female, gay, straight or otherwise, black, asian, white or otherwise, etc) who are interested and have an aptitude and support them to excel to their full potential?

Fighting fire with fire is a nice metaphor, but in this case seems a stupid and wasteful idea. I as an engineer only want to be treated as a clever mind that can think, and think well.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Roman Polanski makes his own blood. He's smart -- that's why his movies work." -- A brilliant director at "Frank's Place"