If you're getting offers of 30-40% higher and taking them, as an employer I don't think I'd blame you for hopping.
The problem is going to be this: You're costing your employers money every time you do this. Lots and lots of money.
No kidding. They were getting a 25-30% discount the whole time he was there. I guess they thought that making a lowball offer was a good idea at the time since it looked like a big enough raise to the hire to lure him from his last job.
Well you are currently online are you not? Are we not talking about this, online? Your rights offline? What would that be, this newsletter I keep hearing about, that everyone seems so anxious to subscribe to?
Awesome. That would be the perfect quote for when I write my script to reply to the usual grumbling crowd of respondants to a YRO story with their complaints that the topic isn't online-ish enough. Of course, if I do that, they'll just write another script. Oh, well.
The claim there is for some year (after 2002 -- site is not very clear if it is latest data), the net balance for tourism for Canada vs. the World is -3,862 million dollars. Also interesting is the majority of tourists coming to Canada are from the US, and the US is the largest destination of Canadian tourists. So for Canada, at least according to one source, closing the borders would be a net gain -- on the tourism industry balance sheets -- presuming that all those tourists that would be going abroad vacationed at home instead. Off the balance sheets, though, I don't think that isolationism is good for anyone.
These do NOT include things like parking violations, or minor criminal code offences. Those minor offences are "summary offences", and are not "indictable." These offences won't make someone inadmissible. Seattle website is too vague, which makes it look like there is room for interpretation. Its actually laid out very clearly. If you have any doubt about an offence, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate by fax or in person.
I believe you, but when the Consulate says one thing on their website, and the justice department says another thing, then I'm thinking that maybe if I want to go to Canada on a honeymoon, I might want to consider a travel agent who is also a Canadian attorney. Just because no one actually gets denied entry for littering in the 70s, doesn't mean that a certain percentage of travellers don't see this info on the consular website and decide to vacation at home. The Consular website looks plenty official to make the casual traveller with a minor record think it's easier just to go to Branson.
Yes, yes they will. See the current bruhaha over Bank of America and their giving credit cards to illegal aliens as well as allowing unapproved documents to be used to open accounts.
I sure hope this will finally drive a wedge between big-business Republicans and "social conservative" Republicans (former Southern Democrats who fled that party in protest of its civil rights platform). Every other year, those poor suckers elect another Republican to office to end immigration and abortion forever, get prayer back in schools and crack down on the homosexuals. And every time they get upper-bracket tax breaks and corporate welfare and a line about how the godless "demmycrat" party kept them from passing the important social legislation. So they send them back again to try again to prevail over the forces of darkness and the process repeats.
This article is bullshit media talking, what the hell do they know? Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g.
This implies that you would be denied entry into Canada only for offences ("offenses") that would have been criminal ("indictable") offenses ("offences") in Canada. Something tells me that border control isn't that nuanced an art. It would be really tricky to evaluate every case of old criminal record and ask "was this a serious crime if it were to have occurred in Canada at the time it was committed in the US (or other country)? People always do what's easiest, and that doesn't sound easy. Furthermore, even the exceptions leave some room for interpretation. Just reading the Seattle Consulate General's website, it says:
Those who have received TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (including parking/speeding tickets, etc.) and other minor violations (i.e. littering, etc.) most likely will NOT be prohibited from entering Canada.
This sounds like "Parking tickets are only a crime for people who look funny". I understand media exageration, but I also understand laws that are only enforced selectively -- and the power that gives to cops, governments, etc.
Remember way back when when your parents (hopefully) told you that you have to suffer the consequences for your actions, well, there isn't a time limit on those consequences.
So, besides you, who benefits from everlasting and unlimited consequences and retribution for minor crimes?
Really? That does not include the no-fly-list, does it?
He meant "wipe the slate clean" with Canada. Referring to their rehabilitation procedures. Which, reading about, sounds like I wouldn't bother with and just visit North Dakota instead -- but that's beside the point. Who am I kidding, everything you think is in ND is actually in South Dakota.
Well, it seems like US citizens are getting a taste of their own medicin...
It does sound like payback to me. Not that the US doesn't deserve it, especially with our jackass of a president, but Canada might be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Denying 50- and 60-something baby-boomers tourist entry into Canada because they toked up 30 or 40 years ago is not a good idea economically.
This quote is cute:
"People say, 'I've been going to Canada for 20 years and never had a problem,' '' Lesperance says. "It's classic. I say, 'Well, you've been getting away with it for 20 years.' ''
IOW, they've been "getting away" with spending tourist dollars for 20 years without interference. I doubt that Canadian hotelliers, restauranteurs and merchants had any moral qualms to selling rooms, meals and souvenirs to Americans "criminals" during that time.
This has much more general implications. If things go as the article says, and international tourists from all over the world are turned away from their foreign destinations, you can bet that industries that cater to this business will get the laws changed in their favor and relax restrictions on jaywalkers.
If you can do step 9, aren't steps 1-8 kinda pointless?
It's sarcasm, man. Steps 1-8 are pointless whether or not you can do step 9. Excuse me, I've got to go embrace my core competencies, now. Those world-class synergies don't benchmark themselves.
The library will only need to follow those rules if they get federal funding.
And where do the feds get the money that they will be using to coerce the libraries with? Now tell me again that they can do anything they want with "their" money and if we don't like it we don't have to take their money.
I think their only option is to treat it as a sunk cost and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Maybe a slightly better variant on that option would be to consider it good publicity. If customers think they might accidentally get their order for free, they might shop there more.
If Amazon isn't able to charge your card, they'll just demand payment in some other form and eventually send you to collections.
That would generate a great deal of bad will. That bill would be dubious in the first place. Taking someone to collections for a small amount isn't going to net Amazon anything after the collections fees, so they'd have to do it soley to punish the customer for Amazon's own error. As Amazon is publicly held, their investors would have good reason to ask management why they were spending good money to alienate good customers -- very good customers, in fact, since they might just keep coming back in hopes of another billing error in their favor.
"Where I am is my business, and no one else's." Not if you are a guest in a foreign country.
Why is that? Do you consider all foreigners a threat? Do you have a good reason to track all movements of citizens of friendly neighbors visiting this country? If you don't trust foreigners, why even let them visit or work here? Do you have a reason for your statement, or is it just 'cause you say so?
But seriously, Civil Disobedience does not require that you get arrested (or even cited) for your offense and I wish people would stop claiming that it does. That's utterly nonsensical revisionism.
I've noticed a number of people these days saying something to this effect: that you must be willing to be arrested and accept your punishment to engage in any kind of protest. I suspect that it's a meme that Fox News/Republican Party/Religious Fundamentalists are throwing around to convince citizens that any type of protest is an arrestable offense.
The hallmark of civil disobedience is willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law as part of making your point.
No, the hallmark of civil disobedience is nonviolent disobedience that gets wider attention. Gettting caught, prosecuted, punished, etc. are not essential components. Might help in some cases. Might not in others. Civil disobedience does not depend on the "disobeyer" getting caught or not.
After all, if you escape punishment at any level then there is no need to change the law.
An unjust law should be changed regardless of whether anyone is ever punished under it.
The Boston Tea Party was not civil disobedience - it was outright protest. There's a difference, and one way to look at it is this: the Boston Tea Party injured the government's revenues to tell the government that the taxes were unjust.
Thoreau refused to pay taxes. He was directly "harming" the government. Would you say Thoreau's actions were not civil disobedience?
The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work.
When someone does something nice for you, like give you the opportunity to seize dictatorial powers, you would naturally seek to do something nice for them in return. It's just courtesy.
Screw the fact that he's black. His name is Barack Obama. The American people will not vote for someone named Barack Obama. It's that simple. He stands no real chance of winning.
His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Vote for him and the terrorists win.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. They were getting a 25-30% discount the whole time he was there. I guess they thought that making a lowball offer was a good idea at the time since it looked like a big enough raise to the hire to lure him from his last job.
Awesome. That would be the perfect quote for when I write my script to reply to the usual grumbling crowd of respondants to a YRO story with their complaints that the topic isn't online-ish enough. Of course, if I do that, they'll just write another script. Oh, well.
Interesting angle. I found one site: http://www.corporate.canada.travel/en/ca/research_ statistics/statsFigures/tourism_performance/annual _tourism_performance/annual_tourism_performance_in dex.html
The claim there is for some year (after 2002 -- site is not very clear if it is latest data), the net balance for tourism for Canada vs. the World is -3,862 million dollars. Also interesting is the majority of tourists coming to Canada are from the US, and the US is the largest destination of Canadian tourists. So for Canada, at least according to one source, closing the borders would be a net gain -- on the tourism industry balance sheets -- presuming that all those tourists that would be going abroad vacationed at home instead. Off the balance sheets, though, I don't think that isolationism is good for anyone.
I believe you, but when the Consulate says one thing on their website, and the justice department says another thing, then I'm thinking that maybe if I want to go to Canada on a honeymoon, I might want to consider a travel agent who is also a Canadian attorney. Just because no one actually gets denied entry for littering in the 70s, doesn't mean that a certain percentage of travellers don't see this info on the consular website and decide to vacation at home. The Consular website looks plenty official to make the casual traveller with a minor record think it's easier just to go to Branson.
I sure hope this will finally drive a wedge between big-business Republicans and "social conservative" Republicans (former Southern Democrats who fled that party in protest of its civil rights platform). Every other year, those poor suckers elect another Republican to office to end immigration and abortion forever, get prayer back in schools and crack down on the homosexuals. And every time they get upper-bracket tax breaks and corporate welfare and a line about how the godless "demmycrat" party kept them from passing the important social legislation. So they send them back again to try again to prevail over the forces of darkness and the process repeats.
This implies that you would be denied entry into Canada only for offences ("offenses") that would have been criminal ("indictable") offenses ("offences") in Canada. Something tells me that border control isn't that nuanced an art. It would be really tricky to evaluate every case of old criminal record and ask "was this a serious crime if it were to have occurred in Canada at the time it was committed in the US (or other country)? People always do what's easiest, and that doesn't sound easy. Furthermore, even the exceptions leave some room for interpretation. Just reading the Seattle Consulate General's website, it says:
This sounds like "Parking tickets are only a crime for people who look funny". I understand media exageration, but I also understand laws that are only enforced selectively -- and the power that gives to cops, governments, etc.
So, besides you, who benefits from everlasting and unlimited consequences and retribution for minor crimes?
He meant "wipe the slate clean" with Canada. Referring to their rehabilitation procedures. Which, reading about, sounds like I wouldn't bother with and just visit North Dakota instead -- but that's beside the point. Who am I kidding, everything you think is in ND is actually in South Dakota.
It does sound like payback to me. Not that the US doesn't deserve it, especially with our jackass of a president, but Canada might be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Denying 50- and 60-something baby-boomers tourist entry into Canada because they toked up 30 or 40 years ago is not a good idea economically.
This quote is cute:
IOW, they've been "getting away" with spending tourist dollars for 20 years without interference. I doubt that Canadian hotelliers, restauranteurs and merchants had any moral qualms to selling rooms, meals and souvenirs to Americans "criminals" during that time.
This has much more general implications. If things go as the article says, and international tourists from all over the world are turned away from their foreign destinations, you can bet that industries that cater to this business will get the laws changed in their favor and relax restrictions on jaywalkers.
It's sarcasm, man. Steps 1-8 are pointless whether or not you can do step 9. Excuse me, I've got to go embrace my core competencies, now. Those world-class synergies don't benchmark themselves.
Is this your friend's actual terminology? Cause that's a disturbing metaphor for someone armed to use.
Apparently, it's a pretty well-known quote*. "Who will watch the watchers?" from Juvenal, a Roman Poet also famous for his "Bread and Circuses" quip.
*If you know those things, or have internet access.
And where do the feds get the money that they will be using to coerce the libraries with? Now tell me again that they can do anything they want with "their" money and if we don't like it we don't have to take their money.
Maybe a slightly better variant on that option would be to consider it good publicity. If customers think they might accidentally get their order for free, they might shop there more.
That would generate a great deal of bad will. That bill would be dubious in the first place. Taking someone to collections for a small amount isn't going to net Amazon anything after the collections fees, so they'd have to do it soley to punish the customer for Amazon's own error. As Amazon is publicly held, their investors would have good reason to ask management why they were spending good money to alienate good customers -- very good customers, in fact, since they might just keep coming back in hopes of another billing error in their favor.
Why is that? Do you consider all foreigners a threat? Do you have a good reason to track all movements of citizens of friendly neighbors visiting this country? If you don't trust foreigners, why even let them visit or work here? Do you have a reason for your statement, or is it just 'cause you say so?
An interesting theory . . . if only we could find a way to test it . . .
I've noticed a number of people these days saying something to this effect: that you must be willing to be arrested and accept your punishment to engage in any kind of protest. I suspect that it's a meme that Fox News/Republican Party/Religious Fundamentalists are throwing around to convince citizens that any type of protest is an arrestable offense.
No, the hallmark of civil disobedience is nonviolent disobedience that gets wider attention. Gettting caught, prosecuted, punished, etc. are not essential components. Might help in some cases. Might not in others. Civil disobedience does not depend on the "disobeyer" getting caught or not.
An unjust law should be changed regardless of whether anyone is ever punished under it.
Thoreau refused to pay taxes. He was directly "harming" the government. Would you say Thoreau's actions were not civil disobedience?
And of course, in women's tennis, I always root against the heterosexual.
When someone does something nice for you, like give you the opportunity to seize dictatorial powers, you would naturally seek to do something nice for them in return. It's just courtesy.
An atheist Republican? Now that's something for everyone (to hate).
His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Vote for him and the terrorists win.