Crazy kids ...

anutensil · 2012-05-27T13:23:58.370326+00:00

And by "baffled mathematicians ever since" they mean, everyone completely forgot about it and never thought about it since

anutensil · 2012-05-27T13:22:24.144060+00:00

What about:

It's true #Grammarisnotaphysicistsfriend

twolf1 · 2012-05-26T08:45:17.220416-07:00

Alright, if you're willing to consider Billy Bob from Billy Bob's Bait & Tackle to be the CEO of his own 1-person company then yes, the data doesn't necessarily represent all CEOs. I think when most people think of a CEO they are not considering owners of small mom-and-pop shops, though.

twolf1 · 2012-05-26T08:06:27.970369-07:00

Because for small businesses only a local manager is usually needed, and not a "CEO". Most small businesses are not large enough to require a complex management scheme with multiple levels of executives. The majority of all companies in the US have less than 20 employees. That's about 90% of employer firms.

Again, the AP data is a sampling of 20,000 CEOs, and there are only about 40,000 firms in the US total that are not "small businesses" (< 500 is considered a small business in the US).

Not including managers of small businesses, the AP CEO estimations are good indicators of CEO awards.

twolf1 · 2012-05-26T14:49:29.922445+00:00

You have to define what you mean by "top earner" and where you draw the line where it is no longer considered a top earner. I think 20,000 CEOs is a good representation for the CEOs of medium/large businesses, but small businesses probably aren't going to be reporting their salary details to the SEC.

twolf1 · 1 day

According to another, related article, the AP based their data off of the Equilar data set, which includes of over 20,000 executives of public companies. I'd say that's a pretty good representation of the companies out there.

twolf1 · 1 day

I think the ratio of bonuses/stock awards to CEO pay actually is that high: http://projects.nytimes.com/executive_compensation

The top CEOs on that list receive only a few million dollars in salary but typically over $80 million in bonuses, stock and options

quadcem · 1 day

Productivity's numerator depends upon the denominator (GDP/hour), so the more hours you work, the higher your GDP is supposed to be (your profits and exports should at least increase). This isn't the case here, of course, since they're working more hours (and theoretically producing more stuff, for instance) but their GDP is not increasing at a rate fast enough to compensate for it (which is the opposite of what is intended).

quadcem · 1 day

I'm more concerned about size of the water tank you'll have to wear on your back for the phone's cooling system

twolf1 · 1 day

It looks like the AP is taking into account the CEO's total pay package (including bonuses and stock awards, etc.) while the BoL is only looking at the raw salary by itself.

Based on the AP article:

David Simon of Simon Property received a pay package worth more than $137 million for last year, and the typical CEO took home $9.6 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Simon's $137 million is almost entirely in stock awards that could eventually be worth $132 million

quadcem · 1 day

Absolutely, there's clearly a major breakdown happening here and it's certainly not the workers who are all to blame. I guess it's a "Mythical Man-Month" type of mentality, where if your company is not making enough money you demand you workers work harder, but in actuality this ends up lowering productivity even further and makes things worse.

You can spend 16 hours a day making a product or service, but if the product isn't competitive or desirable enough for others to want to buy then you're wasting your time. This certainly isn't the employee's fault, since they're just doing their job. Like I wrote before, it's about "how much the output/result of your work is worth", not about how much work you put into it. If higher-ups are failing to do their jobs (or realize problems with the business), then having the workers work harder will certainly not fix the problem. The entire Greek economy can't be held up by just tourism alone, especially when the global economy is suffering and fewer people are traveling.

quadcem · 1 day

I'm sure there are a lot of hard-working Greeks that generate a lot of income for the country, but the overall stats don't lie -- Greece is below average on productivity compared to the rest of the EU, even though they're tied as the hardest-working country (based on hours) in the EU

quadcem · 1 day

Unfortunately for Greece it's not about how many hours you spend at work, but how much useful work you actually get done throughout the day, and how much the output/result of your work is worth.

justinisntfunny · 2 days

It was most likely taken down through the automated system on YouTube, which is not an official DMCA takedown request. It does highlight the hypocrisy where select groups of corporate giants are given permission to violate the content distribution rights of others en masse in an effort to protect their own content. It also shows how they already have more power than they can control, and clearly need no additional legal help in protecting their IP online.

sullen_ole_geezer · 3 days

You can always start your own website and forbid anyone from posting to it unless they have published, peer-reviewed evidence to back everything they say up.

thamuffinmane · 3 days

Apparently they're a titanium-based alloy

okayUK · 3 days

So 1000 students at a university all behind 1 IP will all count as a single user? And the same thing with people working at companies? And people who use computers at work and at home (i.e., almost everyone) will be counted at least twice, potentially with different browsers each time (if they use a different browser at work than at home). Attempting to track unique users by single visits is a more flawed way of determining popularity than basing it off of page views, especially when you cannot use cookies to track them.

And it is relevant, because if time spent on the internet is equal across browsers on average (which it mostly likely is) then the number of page views per browser is equivalent to how many people are using that browser when you're talking about percentages. What part of that is hard to understand? I am convinced at this point that you are just trolling me.

edit: This is the last message I'm posting about this, then I'm clearing out this nonsense debate that's cluttering up my overview page.

If each user, on average, views 1000 pages per day, and we have (in a single day) 3000 page views for IE, 6000 for Firefox and 8000 for Chrome, then we have 3000/17000=18% for IE, 35% for Firefox and 47% for Chrome.

Equivalently, we can estimate that 3000/1000=3 people were on IE that day, 6 were on Firefox and 8 were on Chrome. 3/17 = 18% of the people are using IE, 35% Firefox and 47% on Chrome. Ta-da! Equivalent measurements. I'd give my left nut that there is not, on average, a very strong correlation between time spent online and browser choice, so this estimate should be pretty darn accurate, and a heck of a lot more accurate than tracking by cookie or IP address.

quadcem

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login