SamAtt
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/?agency=CALIFORNIA+HIGHWAY+PA...
Because that seems to be around the average pay (The CHP has a very powerful union so their base pay hours are capped at an average 40 per week). I'm not for big cuts but cut $20,000 a year off each salary and they're still making $80,000 a year which is pretty respectable
The fact that Google hasn’t been near as successful at entering new markets doesn't seem to have entered the equation.
I'm not saying it's super effective but it's positive attention and that's worth something.
Source: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/11/tv-ratings-against-sund...
"The problem is that our drugs, on the whole, cost about 50% more. For name brand pharmaceuticals, we pay about 77% more. Why? Some will say that it’s because we’re wealthier and need to subsidize for the rest of the world. But even if we paid more based on our relative wealth, it would come to about a 30% premium, not the 77% we do pay."
So the problem is obvious. The issue is how to fix it. We in the U.S. can either enforce our own price controls which will break the system or we can force U.S. companies to charge more to other countries and take the chance of denying medicine to sick people because foreign governments won't accept the higher prices.
Not an attractive choice no matter how you slice it.
It's kind of depressing though in that his point boils down to neither side's solution being all that effective at solving the problem. Moreover his meta point seems to be that it's too complicated a problem for politicians to solve based on their need to boil things down to a sound bite solution.
Video is a skill in itself. Put your average blogger in front of a camera and it will more than likely turn out badly because most people aren't skilled orators with the ability to manipulate their own body language.
"Rather shocked that someone who had, in fact, gone to university and was working for a major corporation, considered it okay to blatantly copy someone else’s article"
"I don’t know which I found more appalling: that someone had made it through university and into a major corporation believing it was acceptable to plagiarize"
What about "going to University" imbues someone with automatic moral virtue? Does this person believe the unwashed masses think it's absolutely acceptable to plagiarize? While the elite University students are somehow above that?
Maybe I'm just over sensitive as someone who didn't go to college but it really bugged me.
Every VC environment has loud personalities and personal conflict between various groups. Whether it's the Valley or Chicago you're going to have these types of stories. So to condemn the valley based on those stories getting more press is silly. It shows the author lives in a bubble and has never experienced what it's like to really raise money in such an environment.
Worse though is how high this got. The fact that this made it to #1 on HN actually makes me a little queasy. I don't tend to pay attention to all the HN is degrading talk but this makes me wonder
It amazes me that he can make a point of mentioning the tough competition from China and India (where degrees are more “skill oriented”) and then go on to suggest students spend their college years pursuing a “liberal education” as he calls it.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for General Education classes that introduce students to basic ideas of philosophy, other cultures and so on. But the University system needs to realize that those classes are the gravy and not the main course. The focus of college is to get a usable skill that will make you a productive member of society. I’m continually amazed by people in my professional life who have gone through 6 years of college (MBAs) and seemingly have no useful skills to show for it.
I think it’s time for University teachers to take ownership of the problem and start creating curriculums that are designed to fix it.
That's the big reason why the IMF was willing to bail them out.
They are clearly not helping yet either but keep in mind the current cuts were only enacted in May of this year.
What the government is trying to do is send a message to the world that they'll be prudent with their finances from this point on. That's why they've gone above and beyond what was required of them as far as austerity cuts go. It's a long term strategy that will hopefully draw private investment back to Greece in the future.
The whole article is stuff like that. They go on about the guy who used to work 300 days a year but now can only get 25 or the street where half the shops are closed but gloss over the reality that GDP only dropped 1.5% in the last quarter (2.5% in the last 12 months)
In the end Greece has it a lot better than they could have had it. To me this is like the guy who spent all his money and had to be bailed out by his neighbors complaining that his neighbors aren't doing enough for him.
(He was also the only Justice to drop dead in open court while reading a decision btw which is the reason I remember him)
Plus a brief message with a typo or two says "I don't care about you" if sent from the desktop. The same message says "you're so important that I responded right away" if it's from a cell phone.
The problem I see with the graph is it's based on percentage of total traffic but it doesn't take into account a huge increase in bandwidth and internet users. Put it in perspective and you realize the web's "peak" according to this graph was when most people were using 56k modems (2000 which was about a year after V.90 modems started hitting the street).
There's also an efficiency factor. Ajax type technologies have dramatically shrunk the size of the data chunks being passed back and forth. Back in 2000 most were still resending the whole page on every refresh.
I'd actually agree with the Tea Party on this if not for two things.
1. I don't truly feel people have a lot of broadband options available to them. Most Americans are still stuck between their phone company and their cable company and that's not enough free market protection.
2. At least in the case of the phone company they have a monopoly on their lines BECAUSE of the Government's half hearted break up of AT&T. Meaning Net Neutrality laws would be the Government undoing their meddling in many ways.
So to take an example look at vacation time. If the average person is making $39 an hour (based on the USA Today numbers) and they accrue 8 hours per pay period + 4 hours sick leave per pay period that alone is 39 days of time off per year. Add the 10 vacation days and you're up to 49 days a year or $15,288.
Then look at Health Care. Supposedly a U.S. citizen spends an average of $7,290 per year on health care. Assume even one child and maybe a spouse (which are all covered under the employee's health care plan) and you get into some serious money.
All in all it isn't a surprising number at all.
He also misses the point of Hurd's financial dealings which was to prop up HP's existing business. The reason for all the acquisitions is because the PC and Printer businesses aren't doing so great (HP's Printer Market Share has fallen 19% since 2003 and while its PC market share is up 3% since 2002 it is lower than the combined share that HP and Compaq had pre-merger). Meaning a split of the company would only serve to produce a failing PC company, a failing Printer company and a succeeding IT services firm. A move that would destroy investor value not increase it.
I'm not saying his logic is correct but it's not hard to understand
What he's saying is influence is a better strategy than money and I'm disagreeing with the truth of that statement.
Plus you have to sign up for a 20 year term or face a steep termination fee (I heard it was in the arena of $100 Million).
I'm not sure it goes to your point I just thought it might give perspective on how even easy money isn't all that easy to get.