...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.
> 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.
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.
Ok I'll give it to just think it. I was thinking of "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss but apparently the colloquialism exists beyond my experience. A great read by the way. Which is ironic, as I criticized the ad and included an ad for my favorite series...
Slashdot Mirror
...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.
> 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.
There can be only one...
My stock Moto X seems to work.
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.
Ok I'll give it to just think it. I was thinking of "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss but apparently the colloquialism exists beyond my experience. A great read by the way. Which is ironic, as I criticized the ad and included an ad for my favorite series...
And bonus points to anyone who can correctly point out the literary reference in my post...
Is this supposed to be informative, or an ad? Has Crucial purchased a stake in slashdot?