[OT] Deafening silence

[Marcel Rieux]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs at clemson.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 23:56 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We are *not* irrelevant. I'm not, and neither is the OP, and the
>> >> attitude
>> >> that says we are is the *problem*.
>> > ----
>> > #1 - mentioning Red Hat or the NYSE on a Fedora list is irrelevant.
>>
>> Before this becomes another occasion for a beat around the bush
>> diffrential discussion, I would like to correct what I wrote. Red Hat
>> is on NASDAQ.
>
> No, they started on NASDAQ, but now (as of 12/12/06) they are on NYSE.
>
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4955650991.html

Thanks for the info. I had noticed that teh ticker name had changed
from RHAAT to RHT but not that RH had switched to the NYSE: that's not
where your eyes go on the page at finance.yahoo.com.

I don't understand this paragraph, though:

"In addition, businesses must now expense their stock options. Thus,
if you can better estimate the value of your stock options, you can
lower your option expenses. While options aren't as significant a
factor as they were in the dot com days in most companies' bottom
lines, they still are no small matter in determining many technology
companies' bottom lines"

I thought that stock options were no expense for companies, that they
only had to print them and give them away... thus diluting the
investors' actions value, of course. OTOH, anf that's the good part,
since they count as expense for accounting, they reduce the profits,
hence taxes.

So, I don't understand.