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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:wow, that's misleading (Score 1) 307

> Second, the employee stock options did cost the company money--although there is no direct expense, that dilution of stockholder equity reduces the stock price. Not only today, but it was most certainly a factor when the IPO was priced.

Dilution of the stock price doesn't cost the company money unless they plan to issue more stock to raise capital or decide they need to repurchase stock to counter the effects of dilution.

The practice of compensation of employees with stock options is rightly criticized as a disincentive to purchasing stock because of the dilution.

Comment Re:Steve Jobs (Score 1) 307

Well the problem with having just sales taxes is that the larger your income the lower the percentage of your income you generally spend on consumption. And for those in low income groups almost all of your consumption is non-discretionary.

On the other hand there are some studies that show a consumption tax does favor investment over consumption - something that is a positive.

As far as stock goes, it really doesn't matter. When you get a stock option it's still taxable income.

The nice thing about owning stock is that the long term appreciation and dividends that you may garner is taxed at preferential rates - again to encourage investment, and in recognition that dividends are taxed twice, once as corporate earnings and again as income.

Hope that people who own a lot of Apple stock have been cashing in on it. I've read too many stories about people concentrating their investments in Apple. Diversification is very important.

Comment Average students (Score 5, Insightful) 605

Average students attending universities with admissions standards that accept them will predictably attain - hold on now - average performance.

50 years ago average students didn't go to universities to get bachelor's degrees. Now they do.

So how is it a surprise that the standards are lower?

Comment Re:Perhaps someone can help me out here (Score 1) 160

The gene is naturally occurring, sure. The isolated, amplified gene described in these patents - not so much.

Lots of things that are claimed in patents are the result of manipulation of naturally occurring materials. In fact anything physical, made by man is basically a manipulation of naturally occurring materials.

Comment Re:He is out of order (Score 1) 160

If isolated genes actually did occur naturally this would be a discovery.

Since they don't, the argument is they are an invention.

It's more than just that though. Patents require that the invention be useful. In this case the gene in isolated form is useful because it can be used as a test for the likelihood of getting cancer.

So it's not a patent of a gene in vivo just because it's been sequenced.

It's a patent of an isolated gene that is useful in a lab test.

Now a lot of people have problems with this for various reasons, but it doesn't add to the discussion to whine about the genes in your body being patentable.

They aren't.

Slashdot Top Deals

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley