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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Yeah, but... (Score 1) 112

There are no 'precise specfications' for alignment. There is printing on the bin that says 'This side toward street'. My trash has been picked up this way for more than a decade, never seen any problems with it, even in snow.

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 1) 471

This is not that difficult, although people on here certainly have problems with it.

Market cap is nothing but current stock price times number of outstanding shares. And those shares are the property of the INDIVIDUAL shareholders, NOT the collective company. There is no way for the company to get one dime of value out of those shares. Therefore, market cap means absolutely nothing to the company, and is in no way an indication of the company's ability to pay.

The actions of the company of course affects the share price, but regardless of whether the price goes up or down the company has no claim on any individuals shares.

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 1) 471

No, it gives you absolutely no idea of the company's ability to pay. The company has no access to that money. Market cap is nothing but stock price times outstanding shares. The only way a company can raise money from stocks is by selling new shares. And in this case, that means convincing people to invest their money in a company that just completely trashed the existing share value by diluting the value of the stock, and not to support some new corporate investment that may pay off in the future , but to pay for past events. Existing market cap has nothing at all to do with that ability.

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 0) 471

It makes no sense at all to compare the fine with the market cap. None.

The market cap is not the company's money, it is the shareholders money. What you are proposing is nothing less than taking money from the shareholders pockets. And you think that somehow a 'logical' market would accept that? No, a logical market would say 'WTF, this company apparently not only can't make a good product, they also commit a crime to hide that fact, and they expect ME to pay for it? Dump this stock as quickly as possible'. And your beloved market cap spirals towards 0.

Comment Re:Unibody? (Score 1) 345

I see you don't know how they actually recycle electronics. They don't recycle components, they recycle materials. Basically, they throw the entire device into a crusher and pulverize it, then use magnets, air currents, screens, chemical solutions, centrifuges, etc to recover the raw materials. Sealing the case has no impact on recyclability.

Comment Re:It's not for them (Score 1) 417

You seem to be missing a rather important point - they want to sell the cars now, not in the future. And to do that, you must market to the people who are buying cars now. And for some reason I think car manufacturers would rather sell a NEW car to the 'future' generation then have the buy a used car that already has all the crap they simply can't live without.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 0, Troll) 588

What an obnoxious asshole. Yes, I did attend an American school, and it taught me much more than whatever Dumbfuckian school you went to. You see, I learned not only what a blind experiment is, but WHY and HOW to conduct one.

The purpose of a blind experiment is to REMOVE biases and expectations. The only possible reason to have lights in the experiment is to EXPLOIT biases and expectations, the exact opposite of what should be done.

Now go crawl back under your rock.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 588

If people were sensitive, but also fooling themselves with the lights, more people would have shown something when the lights were dark but the radio was on.

I don't understand this. Why is the suggestion that the radio is off (dark lights) not as strong as the suggestion that the radio is on?

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1, Interesting) 588

But the South Africa test and this experiment are both strongly influenced by what the subjects thought. At most, that shows that the power of suggestion overrides any real effect. But that situation is not all that unusual - I gave some examples above.

Why would it not be a stronger experiment if there were no lights at all? Just put them in a room with an antenna and have them indicate when it is on or off. There is no reason to provides any other hints or clues, real or misleading, at all.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 588

I disagree. There is no reason at all to show lights if what you are really testing is sensitivity to radio signals. It is well known that humans are susceptible to suggestion. You can make people feel itchy by showing them pictures of mosquitos. You can make people feel warm by showing a rising thermometer. You can make people misidentify the taste of food by coloring it. Do those tests refute the fact that people can sense touch, temperature, or taste? Of course not.

Now, I don't believe at all that people can detect radio signals. But, demonstrating that by what amounts to parlor tricks is not going to convince anyone who does not already believe. A real test would not provide any misleading clues.

Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan