Enough to change my life...
on
Odds-on Science
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...is only part of it for me, but I agree with you. Basically, I like my life just fine - but I easily get $5.00 of entertainment value out of my (rare) lottery ticket purchases. I've come up with some pretty wild schemes. The current winner, assuming a good-sized jackpot of $9 million:
1) Split about a third between my family and myself (well, my gf counts, too).
2) Give another third to a top-notch university in a city where I'd like to live. Two conditions: Create a world-class population institute, and give me free tuition/books/other fees etc. for life (a "Get Into School Free" card - wouldn't it be great?).
3) Distribute the rest, anonymously, into my friends' bank accounts after *somehow* surreptitiously getting their account numbers. Explain my sudden wealth by saying "Yeah, it happened to me, too - weird, innit?"
And yes, I know I probably couldn't keep part 3 secret because of all the publicity that surrounds lottery winners, but most of my friends watch as much TV as I do (exactly zero), so it might actually work. And that would be too cool!
OK, back to the grind. Feel free to mod off-topic now.;-)
Same thing happened to me on my work notebook (forced to use XP Pro). I waited until I was home to actually run Windows Update; it was pretty seamless from there. Tedious, but seamless. The only glitch I had was that it hung on the first boot; no problems after rebooting. It even detected my firewall and knew enough to leave the Windows firewall switched off, which was a pleasant surprise.
Aside from installing Media Player 9 (grrrr....), it was as painless a service pack as I've ever encountered (from Windows). Cheers!
I realize that you're probably either joking or trolling, but nonetheless I should clarify what I wrote. In fact, you've correctly identified the malady - but the patient is Dubya's administration.
Simply put, science is not - in itself - political. Scientists may be political, but science is just an idea (well, lots of them, including some really big ones we call theories, but you probably know what I mean) of how the universe works. That's it, that's all.
There are of course disagreements between scientists and their respective ideas, but that's generally in the rather early stages of turning ideas into theories. The thing that astounds me about Mr Bush and co. is his willingness to ignore generally accepted scientific conclusions that (as you so aptly put it) disagree with his politics. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented in modern US politics.
After following for some time the decline of rational discourse in US politics, I have come to believe this is a natural extension of the same phenomenon. Because genuine political debate has been replaced by a shouting match, certain people seem to have made the fundamental logical error of thinking that science works the same way. Sadly for them, it doesn't; sadly for the rest of the world, it doesn't seem to matter to most of the electorate.
I'd close with my customary "Cheers!" here, but that last thought is a tad too depressing.
Given GWB's known propensity for junk science (most on Slashdot are familiar with the two "letters of concern" his administration has received from a coalition of top US scientists, right?), I wouldn't be surprised if he ducks this.
If he agrees to take part, though, I expect there will be some pretty tough questions... and although I don't live in the States anymore, I'd sure like to follow the exchange. The sad thing about such a Q&A, though, is that most people are so science-illiterate that (a) they won't care, recognise its significance, or follow it; and (b) they probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway.
Which is a pity, because the whole election mess could use some more rationality - at least from my perspective across the border. Cheers!
(Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen by birth, Canadian by naturalisation, and thinking seriously of voting in this US election - which would be a first.)
I might be inclined to agree, but neither the airlines' lawyers nor the regulatory bodies' lawyers are, so the question is kind of moot. See, it's more than just "a few people getting problems". Individual medical history, individual sensitivity to varying dosage levels, and a delivery system that is less than precise combine to virtually guarantee that in order to knock all of the passengers out, you have to run a very high risk of killing some of them.
The liability in case of accidental deployment would be staggering. As for deliberate deployment, as I say, I might think it's worth it - but I'm not the one making the decision. Just as I'm not the one making the shuttle decision. I am not a lawyer, an anaesthesiologist, or an aerospace administrator.
However, I agree with what I take your main point to be: too many people want to have risk either removed from the world or assumed and managed for them, and they prevent people who don't think that way from doing things that need to be done. I know I'm better off for some of the risks I took, faced, and managed while growing up. Cheers!
This has been proposed numerous times; unfortunately, there is no "sleeping gas" that could be deployed at a guaranteed-effective dosage without an unacceptable risk of death or serious injury to passengers.
Pity, that, as it is a good idea if workable. Cheers!
IIRC, the CO2 in question was volcanic in origin - not likely to be a problem in Lake Ontario.
And as for the lake-warming scenario (not voiced by parent, but I'll add my $0.02 CDN): Get some freakin' perspective, people! Go to a map or Wikipedia or something and check out the size of Lake Ontario. It should be immediately and intuitively obvious that the impact will be many orders of magnitude too small to matter.
But if you don't believe me, someone has already done the math. It looks good to me, and while IANAL (that's "limnologist"), I started working in limnological field camps before I started school. ("Raised by scientists"... has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Kinda like "raised by wolves".) Cheers!
You know, that could well be McCartney's original, and it makes more sense that way. Maybe it's a reverse Mondegreen, though - where you hear something that makes no sense and your brain ("The horror! The grammatical horror! Must... find... sensible... interpretation...") comes up with something that actually works.
Huh. A reverse Mondegreen. I've never really contemplated the notion before, but I think I may have actually done this. Cheers!
I don't think population should be reduced, just stop growing. Some countries in the world are almost empty, namely the USA and Russia. The main problems are caused by concentration in huge metropolis, leaving the rest of the country desert. It happens in my country, too.
The USA is hardly empty - with a population density of 31 people per square kilometre, it has 10x the density of Canada (my home). The result? Very little unspoiled wilderness and massive environmental impact (to cite just one parameter, the USA has almost no old-growth forest left). The true picture of the USA's environmental impact is hidden by the degree to which it relies upon imports - by outsourcing production, you also outsource those impacts resulting from it.
I am horrified at the thought that the land I love might one day be forced to support and absorb the damage caused by that many people. No, thank you - give me an "almost empty" country any day!
About economic growth, I totally agree with you. Perpetual growth is not possible. Nowadays, we produce a lot more than the whole world population can consume. That causes periodical crisis, massive pollution and social problems.
A balance should be found. That will be the main issue in the XXI century, I think.
I agree that reducing consumption is important. Think about this, though - if the human population was a tenth of what it is now, we could cut production by 80 percent, distribute what's left more equitably, and all enjoy a quality of life much better than the current reality for most of the world.
And yes, I think this will come to be a major issue for this new century. At least I fervently hope so. Cheers!
I don't think the population is that big, and I belive the population growth is going to slow down in the next years, as China and India begin to develop.
Population growth may indeed slow, but experts suggest that we are already at or near our sustainable carrying capacity. Slower growth is not the answer - population reduction may be.
There's more to consider than just carrying capacity, too - like quality of life. I'm fortunate enough to live in a country with vast natural wealth, both overall and per capita. I want it to stay that way. I want my descendants to be able to hunt and fish and canoe and hike in unspoiled wilderness just as I can. Many regions of our planet have already reached or surpassed their carrying capacity, and the environmental consequences are not pretty (to say nothing of the human tragedies).
The whole First World is facing demographic problems due to population reduction, now. It's mathematical, the more developed a country, the less the people have kids.
I agree that demographics are shifting, and there are short-term difficulties inherent in the shift (my generation having to pay the medical bills of the generation that prededed it, for example). To the best of my knowledge, though, the only other "problems" presented by the shifting demographics you site relate to business models that rely upon constant growth. I don't believe such models are any more sustainable than population growth; in fact, I believe they are inherently dangerous to our environment and our quality of life.
As to fusion, think about an infinite, clean power supply. Imagine you can depolute the rivers, recycle everything, turn deserts into forests, because energy is cheap. This is great. If the fusion, when possible, is offered to the world and not locked by private possession, it can solve our environmental problems for good.
I'm not knocking fusion - it would be great! My original post intended merely to point out the often-overlooked demand side implications of population dynamics.
If you're interested in a very good read on population, allow me to recommend Lindsey Grant's excellent Juggernaut: Growth on a Finite Planet. Cheers!
...given that Hobbes the tiger was named for Thomas Hobbes, in the same way that Calvin was named for John Calvin.
I hope you know what I'm on about, because if I have to explain about the best comic strip in history, I'll know I've suddenly become much older than I thought I was. Cheers!
Replying to myself here in hopes of getting some explanation: a "Troll" modifier? Dude, check my posting history. I don't troll, and I'm not trolling here. The post is on-topic, rational, and contains no inflammatory language.
Unless your definition of "Troll" reads "Opinion unlike mine", or perhaps "May encourage exchange of views", I think you might need to get down off that high horse of yours - the air seems a mite thin up there. Cheers!
Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked. I would add that the most effective way to manage energy demand, environmental impact, and resource sharing on a global scale is to reduce the "demand side". In other words, reduce our population by an order of magnitude.
Sure, it's a political nightmare, and it would require measures that would make China's look Utopian. In the long run, though, I believe it is the only way to achieve sustainability as long as we are constrained to this planet. After all, it's axiomatic: If we don't manage our population, natural forces will manage it for us.:-/
"The fact that a M$ service pack (which replaces M$ only software) can blow up some systems up here and there..."
...and finally, NivenHuH gets this week's "Paul McCartney Memorial Throw-In-An-Extra-Preposition-And-Call-It-Artistic " award. Take it away, Paul: "In this ever-changing world in which we live in..." (Live And Let Die)
(Please note: all in fun, I'm really not a grammar Nazi!)
I think your logic is a bit off here. First, just because there are 35 million "Hispanics" (race, how quaint) in the USA doesn't mean that you're excluding them by not having a Spanish-language option in your e-commerce business. You are in fact excluding the fraction - and I'm guessing it's small - that don't speak English well enough to use your site, can't find an Anglophone to help, and yet still WANT to use it.
Second, as has been pointed out by others, you do not have to offer pages in French in order to get business from Canada. Oh, sure, you might lose some business from Francophones who (a) don't speak English well enough to use your website (again, probably a smallish fraction), and (b) are stubborn / proud / militant enough to avoid getting an Anglophone to help.
Thirdly, on selling to Mexico: good idea. Just remember that it would be more costly to accommodate a different language AND international shipping etc. than it would be to accommodate just the international shipping - and that is IIRC the question that started this whole thread.
All I can say is that it's never happened to me, nor have I heard of it happening to anyone I know - and my family orders a lot of stuff from the States. You can be sure that if it did happen, though, I'd be complaining loudly and publicly until they did something about it.;-)
I just ask the vendor to instruct the carrier that I will clear the item through customs myself once the carrier notifies me that it has arrived. Then I pick up the paperwork from the carrier, take it over to customs (usually a few blocks, they're all near the airport), clear it, take the completed paperwork back to the carrier, and go home with my stuff. I actually found out about this after UPS tried to charge me more than the original cost to clear some bike parts.
They like to make things difficult so they can charge you ridiculous fees, but it's really not that tricky. Make a few calls to the carrier and to CCRA. A disclaimer, though: I live in a smallish city that happens to be a major port of entry, which is a nice combination. It might be more of a pain in the ass if you don't. Cheers!
To sell IN CANADA, you have to conform to certain documentation regulations... if you're in Quebec. I don't believe you have to provide documentation or services in French if you're located in Canada but outside Quebec.
To sell goods TO CANADIANS, which is what we're talking about here, you don't have to do any such thing. And as for import duties:
1) anyone who has ordered anything from the States expects to pay GST and import duty on pickup;
2) import duties are not generally outrageous; in my experience they're less than the GST or about the same
Now, brokerage fees can be outrageous (see discussion earlier in this thread), but they are an avoidable scam by the carriers, and have nothing to do with the shipper.
...are far less of an obstacle than they are made out to be. I order from small specialty companies in the USA fairly often. I sometimes have to pay a shipping surcharge, and always specify that I will clear items through customs myself. However, the big courier companies have all managed to ship my purchases quickly and easily.
Now postal service is another issue. USPS shipments to Canada get blackholed so frequently it's just not worth it. But really - why use one country's postal service to ship to another country? Use an international carrier in the first place. (I don't know whether it's the USPS or Canada Post dropping my packets, and I'm not trying to assign blame. I just know stuff doesn't get through and it's kind of daft - for me at least - to keep using them.)
Anyway, Canadian law does restrict entry on certain items (off the top of my head, certain kinds of firearms would be a good example). Other than items that are banned in Canada, I haven't heard of legal issues shipping here from the States. Can you give me an example? I should add that I'm from the USA originally; not only does my family ship a lot of private stuff back and forth, we make a lot of purchases from the US as well.
And shipping via a big courier company from the US to Canada is pretty painless. If your shipping department can't handle it, I think there might be something wrong with your shipping department.;-)
Now what do you mean about programming for international shipping? Are you saying that if your order system was designed so poorly that it can't handle orders to the USA's biggest trading partner (let alone other international destinations), and can't easily be expanded to handle them, that it's not worth the cost of changing it? Sounds like a specious argument to me, but if you have specifics, I'd love to hear them. Cheers!
That's kind of my general rule, too (with the exception of my trusty power supply). Mostly because after the aforementioned episode, they sent me threatening letters for three months (despite numerous calls to their customer disservice line) asking me to pay the brokerage fees they'd already cancelled! Wankers.
I don't think too many companies operating in the States would voluntarily shut themselves out of TEN PERCENT of the US market; that's about the proportion in additional sales that Canada would represent.
In tech, since Canada is arguably the most wired nation in the world (can't recall where I saw the stats, but I did see them recently), the market gains might be even higher. Think that's insignificant? Walk over to your sales department and ask them if they'd like you to boost sales by ten percent.;-)
The first time a big brown courier company tried to charge me for brokerage, I dug into it a bit and discovered that I can clear stuff through customs myself for a tiny fraction of their charge. Since then, every item I order from the States has been accompanied by two crucial words: "clears own". In other words, have the shipper instruct the carrier that you will clear it yourself.
Now, if you're not in a major centre that might be a bit of a pain in the ass. I'm in Winnipeg, though, and it's a piece of pie. Last set of bike parts I ordered, I saved $50 in fees at the cost of 45 minutes of running around. YMMV of course. Cheers!
Slashdot Mirror
...is only part of it for me, but I agree with you. Basically, I like my life just fine - but I easily get $5.00 of entertainment value out of my (rare) lottery ticket purchases. I've come up with some pretty wild schemes. The current winner, assuming a good-sized jackpot of $9 million:
;-)
1) Split about a third between my family and myself (well, my gf counts, too).
2) Give another third to a top-notch university in a city where I'd like to live. Two conditions: Create a world-class population institute, and give me free tuition/books/other fees etc. for life (a "Get Into School Free" card - wouldn't it be great?).
3) Distribute the rest, anonymously, into my friends' bank accounts after *somehow* surreptitiously getting their account numbers. Explain my sudden wealth by saying "Yeah, it happened to me, too - weird, innit?"
And yes, I know I probably couldn't keep part 3 secret because of all the publicity that surrounds lottery winners, but most of my friends watch as much TV as I do (exactly zero), so it might actually work. And that would be too cool!
OK, back to the grind. Feel free to mod off-topic now.
Same thing happened to me on my work notebook (forced to use XP Pro). I waited until I was home to actually run Windows Update; it was pretty seamless from there. Tedious, but seamless. The only glitch I had was that it hung on the first boot; no problems after rebooting. It even detected my firewall and knew enough to leave the Windows firewall switched off, which was a pleasant surprise.
Aside from installing Media Player 9 (grrrr....), it was as painless a service pack as I've ever encountered (from Windows). Cheers!
I realize that you're probably either joking or trolling, but nonetheless I should clarify what I wrote. In fact, you've correctly identified the malady - but the patient is Dubya's administration.
Simply put, science is not - in itself - political. Scientists may be political, but science is just an idea (well, lots of them, including some really big ones we call theories, but you probably know what I mean) of how the universe works. That's it, that's all.
There are of course disagreements between scientists and their respective ideas, but that's generally in the rather early stages of turning ideas into theories. The thing that astounds me about Mr Bush and co. is his willingness to ignore generally accepted scientific conclusions that (as you so aptly put it) disagree with his politics. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented in modern US politics.
After following for some time the decline of rational discourse in US politics, I have come to believe this is a natural extension of the same phenomenon. Because genuine political debate has been replaced by a shouting match, certain people seem to have made the fundamental logical error of thinking that science works the same way. Sadly for them, it doesn't; sadly for the rest of the world, it doesn't seem to matter to most of the electorate.
I'd close with my customary "Cheers!" here, but that last thought is a tad too depressing.
Given GWB's known propensity for junk science (most on Slashdot are familiar with the two "letters of concern" his administration has received from a coalition of top US scientists, right?), I wouldn't be surprised if he ducks this.
If he agrees to take part, though, I expect there will be some pretty tough questions... and although I don't live in the States anymore, I'd sure like to follow the exchange. The sad thing about such a Q&A, though, is that most people are so science-illiterate that (a) they won't care, recognise its significance, or follow it; and (b) they probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway.
Which is a pity, because the whole election mess could use some more rationality - at least from my perspective across the border. Cheers!
(Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen by birth, Canadian by naturalisation, and thinking seriously of voting in this US election - which would be a first.)
Uh, it's not seperate (not separate) hardware
Uh, it's a bad idea to correct someone's proper spelling with your own incorrect one. The word is indeed spelt "separate".
I might be inclined to agree, but neither the airlines' lawyers nor the regulatory bodies' lawyers are, so the question is kind of moot. See, it's more than just "a few people getting problems". Individual medical history, individual sensitivity to varying dosage levels, and a delivery system that is less than precise combine to virtually guarantee that in order to knock all of the passengers out, you have to run a very high risk of killing some of them.
The liability in case of accidental deployment would be staggering. As for deliberate deployment, as I say, I might think it's worth it - but I'm not the one making the decision. Just as I'm not the one making the shuttle decision. I am not a lawyer, an anaesthesiologist, or an aerospace administrator.
However, I agree with what I take your main point to be: too many people want to have risk either removed from the world or assumed and managed for them, and they prevent people who don't think that way from doing things that need to be done. I know I'm better off for some of the risks I took, faced, and managed while growing up. Cheers!
Also a myth, however, as the Nova was never marketed in Latin America. Cheers!
This has been proposed numerous times; unfortunately, there is no "sleeping gas" that could be deployed at a guaranteed-effective dosage without an unacceptable risk of death or serious injury to passengers.
Pity, that, as it is a good idea if workable. Cheers!
I won't reproduce my earlier post here, but this links to an article on one of the lakes with volcanic CO2. Cheers!
IIRC, the CO2 in question was volcanic in origin - not likely to be a problem in Lake Ontario.
And as for the lake-warming scenario (not voiced by parent, but I'll add my $0.02 CDN): Get some freakin' perspective, people! Go to a map or Wikipedia or something and check out the size of Lake Ontario. It should be immediately and intuitively obvious that the impact will be many orders of magnitude too small to matter.
But if you don't believe me, someone has already done the math. It looks good to me, and while IANAL (that's "limnologist"), I started working in limnological field camps before I started school. ("Raised by scientists"... has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Kinda like "raised by wolves".) Cheers!
You know, that could well be McCartney's original, and it makes more sense that way. Maybe it's a reverse Mondegreen, though - where you hear something that makes no sense and your brain ("The horror! The grammatical horror! Must... find... sensible... interpretation...") comes up with something that actually works.
Huh. A reverse Mondegreen. I've never really contemplated the notion before, but I think I may have actually done this. Cheers!
I don't think population should be reduced, just stop growing. Some countries in the world are almost empty, namely the USA and Russia. The main problems are caused by concentration in huge metropolis, leaving the rest of the country desert. It happens in my country, too.
The USA is hardly empty - with a population density of 31 people per square kilometre, it has 10x the density of Canada (my home). The result? Very little unspoiled wilderness and massive environmental impact (to cite just one parameter, the USA has almost no old-growth forest left). The true picture of the USA's environmental impact is hidden by the degree to which it relies upon imports - by outsourcing production, you also outsource those impacts resulting from it.
I am horrified at the thought that the land I love might one day be forced to support and absorb the damage caused by that many people. No, thank you - give me an "almost empty" country any day!
About economic growth, I totally agree with you. Perpetual growth is not possible. Nowadays, we produce a lot more than the whole world population can consume. That causes periodical crisis, massive pollution and social problems. A balance should be found. That will be the main issue in the XXI century, I think.
I agree that reducing consumption is important. Think about this, though - if the human population was a tenth of what it is now, we could cut production by 80 percent, distribute what's left more equitably, and all enjoy a quality of life much better than the current reality for most of the world.
And yes, I think this will come to be a major issue for this new century. At least I fervently hope so. Cheers!
I don't think the population is that big, and I belive the population growth is going to slow down in the next years, as China and India begin to develop.
Population growth may indeed slow, but experts suggest that we are already at or near our sustainable carrying capacity. Slower growth is not the answer - population reduction may be.
There's more to consider than just carrying capacity, too - like quality of life. I'm fortunate enough to live in a country with vast natural wealth, both overall and per capita. I want it to stay that way. I want my descendants to be able to hunt and fish and canoe and hike in unspoiled wilderness just as I can. Many regions of our planet have already reached or surpassed their carrying capacity, and the environmental consequences are not pretty (to say nothing of the human tragedies).
The whole First World is facing demographic problems due to population reduction, now. It's mathematical, the more developed a country, the less the people have kids.
I agree that demographics are shifting, and there are short-term difficulties inherent in the shift (my generation having to pay the medical bills of the generation that prededed it, for example). To the best of my knowledge, though, the only other "problems" presented by the shifting demographics you site relate to business models that rely upon constant growth. I don't believe such models are any more sustainable than population growth; in fact, I believe they are inherently dangerous to our environment and our quality of life.
As to fusion, think about an infinite, clean power supply. Imagine you can depolute the rivers, recycle everything, turn deserts into forests, because energy is cheap. This is great. If the fusion, when possible, is offered to the world and not locked by private possession, it can solve our environmental problems for good.
I'm not knocking fusion - it would be great! My original post intended merely to point out the often-overlooked demand side implications of population dynamics.
If you're interested in a very good read on population, allow me to recommend Lindsey Grant's excellent Juggernaut: Growth on a Finite Planet. Cheers!
...given that Hobbes the tiger was named for Thomas Hobbes, in the same way that Calvin was named for John Calvin.
I hope you know what I'm on about, because if I have to explain about the best comic strip in history, I'll know I've suddenly become much older than I thought I was. Cheers!
Replying to myself here in hopes of getting some explanation: a "Troll" modifier? Dude, check my posting history. I don't troll, and I'm not trolling here. The post is on-topic, rational, and contains no inflammatory language.
Unless your definition of "Troll" reads "Opinion unlike mine", or perhaps "May encourage exchange of views", I think you might need to get down off that high horse of yours - the air seems a mite thin up there. Cheers!
Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked. I would add that the most effective way to manage energy demand, environmental impact, and resource sharing on a global scale is to reduce the "demand side". In other words, reduce our population by an order of magnitude.
:-/
Sure, it's a political nightmare, and it would require measures that would make China's look Utopian. In the long run, though, I believe it is the only way to achieve sustainability as long as we are constrained to this planet. After all, it's axiomatic: If we don't manage our population, natural forces will manage it for us.
"The fact that a M$ service pack (which replaces M$ only software) can blow up some systems up here and there..."
...and finally, NivenHuH gets this week's "Paul McCartney Memorial Throw-In-An-Extra-Preposition-And-Call-It-Artistic " award. Take it away, Paul: "In this ever-changing world in which we live in..." (Live And Let Die)
(Please note: all in fun, I'm really not a grammar Nazi!)
I think your logic is a bit off here. First, just because there are 35 million "Hispanics" (race, how quaint) in the USA doesn't mean that you're excluding them by not having a Spanish-language option in your e-commerce business. You are in fact excluding the fraction - and I'm guessing it's small - that don't speak English well enough to use your site, can't find an Anglophone to help, and yet still WANT to use it.
:-)
Second, as has been pointed out by others, you do not have to offer pages in French in order to get business from Canada. Oh, sure, you might lose some business from Francophones who (a) don't speak English well enough to use your website (again, probably a smallish fraction), and (b) are stubborn / proud / militant enough to avoid getting an Anglophone to help.
Thirdly, on selling to Mexico: good idea. Just remember that it would be more costly to accommodate a different language AND international shipping etc. than it would be to accommodate just the international shipping - and that is IIRC the question that started this whole thread.
I stand by my analysis.
All I can say is that it's never happened to me, nor have I heard of it happening to anyone I know - and my family orders a lot of stuff from the States. You can be sure that if it did happen, though, I'd be complaining loudly and publicly until they did something about it. ;-)
I just ask the vendor to instruct the carrier that I will clear the item through customs myself once the carrier notifies me that it has arrived. Then I pick up the paperwork from the carrier, take it over to customs (usually a few blocks, they're all near the airport), clear it, take the completed paperwork back to the carrier, and go home with my stuff. I actually found out about this after UPS tried to charge me more than the original cost to clear some bike parts.
They like to make things difficult so they can charge you ridiculous fees, but it's really not that tricky. Make a few calls to the carrier and to CCRA. A disclaimer, though: I live in a smallish city that happens to be a major port of entry, which is a nice combination. It might be more of a pain in the ass if you don't. Cheers!
To sell IN CANADA, you have to conform to certain documentation regulations... if you're in Quebec. I don't believe you have to provide documentation or services in French if you're located in Canada but outside Quebec.
To sell goods TO CANADIANS, which is what we're talking about here, you don't have to do any such thing. And as for import duties:
1) anyone who has ordered anything from the States expects to pay GST and import duty on pickup;
2) import duties are not generally outrageous; in my experience they're less than the GST or about the same
Now, brokerage fees can be outrageous (see discussion earlier in this thread), but they are an avoidable scam by the carriers, and have nothing to do with the shipper.
...are far less of an obstacle than they are made out to be. I order from small specialty companies in the USA fairly often. I sometimes have to pay a shipping surcharge, and always specify that I will clear items through customs myself. However, the big courier companies have all managed to ship my purchases quickly and easily.
;-)
Now postal service is another issue. USPS shipments to Canada get blackholed so frequently it's just not worth it. But really - why use one country's postal service to ship to another country? Use an international carrier in the first place. (I don't know whether it's the USPS or Canada Post dropping my packets, and I'm not trying to assign blame. I just know stuff doesn't get through and it's kind of daft - for me at least - to keep using them.)
Anyway, Canadian law does restrict entry on certain items (off the top of my head, certain kinds of firearms would be a good example). Other than items that are banned in Canada, I haven't heard of legal issues shipping here from the States. Can you give me an example? I should add that I'm from the USA originally; not only does my family ship a lot of private stuff back and forth, we make a lot of purchases from the US as well.
And shipping via a big courier company from the US to Canada is pretty painless. If your shipping department can't handle it, I think there might be something wrong with your shipping department.
Now what do you mean about programming for international shipping? Are you saying that if your order system was designed so poorly that it can't handle orders to the USA's biggest trading partner (let alone other international destinations), and can't easily be expanded to handle them, that it's not worth the cost of changing it? Sounds like a specious argument to me, but if you have specifics, I'd love to hear them. Cheers!
That's kind of my general rule, too (with the exception of my trusty power supply). Mostly because after the aforementioned episode, they sent me threatening letters for three months (despite numerous calls to their customer disservice line) asking me to pay the brokerage fees they'd already cancelled! Wankers.
I don't think too many companies operating in the States would voluntarily shut themselves out of TEN PERCENT of the US market; that's about the proportion in additional sales that Canada would represent.
;-)
In tech, since Canada is arguably the most wired nation in the world (can't recall where I saw the stats, but I did see them recently), the market gains might be even higher. Think that's insignificant? Walk over to your sales department and ask them if they'd like you to boost sales by ten percent.
The first time a big brown courier company tried to charge me for brokerage, I dug into it a bit and discovered that I can clear stuff through customs myself for a tiny fraction of their charge. Since then, every item I order from the States has been accompanied by two crucial words: "clears own". In other words, have the shipper instruct the carrier that you will clear it yourself.
Now, if you're not in a major centre that might be a bit of a pain in the ass. I'm in Winnipeg, though, and it's a piece of pie. Last set of bike parts I ordered, I saved $50 in fees at the cost of 45 minutes of running around. YMMV of course. Cheers!