SivaGanesha

So the question then is raised--if they are known to be a-holes, why would a Canadian give CBP more power than necessary over their life by remaining in TN-1 status indefinitely? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I thought that running up the score was always considered to be in very poor form in football, even at the NFL level. Notice that he is only be asked to hold back when his team has a substantial lead. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I would think that if the Obama administration were to build a wall on the northern border, the purpose wouldn't so much be to keep the Canadians out. It would more be about keeping Sarah Palin in Alaska

The TN-1 visa is a wonderful tool often used by Canadians and their US employers for the wrong purpose. The TN-1 is intended to be a very fast way of obtaining authorization for short term work in the USA in a number of fields. You can apply directly at the border and completely bypass both the wait times and the quotas associated with other visas. No other nation besides Canada enjoys this privilege in the US job market. Properly used the TN-1 allows Canadians, at least in certain fields, to compete on close to a par with US citizens in the US job market. What it's not intended to be is a long term substitute for a green card. It can be renewed but it is intended to be temporary in nature. If you have a permanent job, you've passed your initial probationary period, had a good first annual review--the employer should be moving you to H-1B status and, ultimately, a green card. A Canadian who is hanging around the USA for 8 years in TN-1 status is going to raise some red flags, unfortunately. The TN-1 is supposed to help Canadians get their start in the USA, but you aren't supposed to get too settled in until you have a more long term kind of status. It's also not smart to stick in TN-1 status indefinitely because career advancement opportunities are limited. You limit yourself, career wise, to the limitations of the visa. You are trying to distance yourself from the Mexican illegal immigrants but you have more in common than you may acknowledge. Show me either a Canadian stuck in TN-1 status or a Mexican illegal immigrant--and most of the time I'll be able to show you a wealthy American employer taking the path of least resistance rather than doing the right thing. Because they are legal (and supposedly have a "great thing going" back home), however, the Canadian has more leverage to stand up to their US employer and insist that the right thing be done. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

You speak for yourself but apparently not for me. I am a heterosexual man and therefore my gross physical attraction to women happens as a matter of course. But my love must be earned. And "hijacking" me definitely isn't the way to earn my love. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Good point. The other side of the coin is that if I'm underemployed--but still have some kind of job--I'm not going to come work for you unless you offer me a substantial raise. The guy/gal whose unemployment is about to run out might be willing to take pretty much anything at any wage level. If you choose me because I'm a better candidate (which, in such a situation, I indeed am) you will have to put your money where your mouth is if you want me to work for you. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

That's part of it, but I think there's a bit more to it. There are a lot of what I would call "one jump whuffos". These would be people who have made, or could understand making, one jump to be able to cross that off the list. But they really don't understand why someone would want to stay on and make many jumps after that obligatory first jump. Look at it from the perspective of a non-jumper. If most people who jump only ever make one jump, then that will be the predominant impression that non-jumpers have of skydiving. It's something to do once but not something to make a hobby of, from their perspective. Then if someone they know does end up jumping repeatedly, that will be unexpected and perhaps a little hurtful to people who feel they're effectively losing a friend because of the time commitment required to be an experienced jumper. Basically most non-jumpers think of skydiving as NOT involving much time commitment. You do it once for half a day, get that t-shirt, certificate, and/or video, and that's pretty much it. For experienced jumpers, it is a very different picture, but there are far more "one jump whuffos" out there than experienced jumpers. So it is the "one jump whuffos" from whom people form their opinions of skydiving. Skydiving itself has played a role in creating a lot of "one jump whuffos" by catering so much to the tandem crowd. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

My understanding is that flightaware presently (or until very recently) allowed the suppression of IFR filed plans for "privacy" reasons. The change that either has been made or is being considered would change that to only allow suppression for "security" reasons--a narrower category probably. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Does anyone know whether the proposed change to FAA privacy regarding release of flight plan info has gone into effect yet: DOT move would allow anyone to follow flight plans Has this already happened or is it still pending? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It seems that the new debt legislation creates four different scenarios, one of which will play out in November. I'm wondering which scenario you expect will actually happen. A Supercongress (6 Dems, 6 Reps) will be created to recommend additional budget cuts. Scenario #1 is that the supercongress approves, and Congress, ratifies, at least $1.2T in budget cuts. This would result in the debt ceiling being raised without further ramifications. Scenario #2 is that the supercongress approves, and Congress ratifies, less than $1.2T in budget cuts. This results in the debt ceiling being raised, but automatic 'trigger' cuts, intended to be politically painful for both parties, kicking in to make up the difference. Scenario #3 is that either the supercongress or Congress cannot agree on any cuts. This results in the debt ceiling being raised, but automatic 'trigger' cuts, intended to be politically painful for both parties, kick in for the full $1.2T in cuts. Scenario #4 is that Congress passes and sends a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states. This results in the debt ceiling being raised but with no immediate budget cuts at all. I personally think scenario #4 (a balanced budget amendment) is a far more likely outcome than people seem to think. The 'supercongress' and Congress are likely to deadlock, as usual, on proposing any cuts. The only way to avoid the pain of the 'trigger' cuts, for either party, will be the balanced budget amendment--which may be enough to attract the 2/3 majority required. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Sometimes monarchy has its advantages. When Australia faced the same situation, Sir John Kerr (Her Majesty's representative) fired the prime minister's ass. It was controversial but it worked. There doesn't seem to be a similar fallback mechanism in the US system. Some have said that the 14th amendment gives Obama the right to invoke similarly autocratic powers in an emergency, but so far he seems reluctant to go that route. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It seems to me that socialism can refer to any system where the government has a very high degree of power. What the government does with that power--in theory or in practice--is another matter. For example, both fascism and communism are examples of socialist systems because they both propose giving the government significant power. However--in theory at least--fascism and communism are exact opposites in terms of what the government is supposed to do with that power. In a capitalist system, the role of government is much more limited, and power is supposed to reside mostly in the hands of private individuals, companies, institutions, and organizations. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

True. But I've gotten good results sending 10 identical CV's to 10 similar, but not identical, jobs at the same recruiter (not necessarily the same client company). For one thing the 10 identical CV's might be forwarded automatically to different employees of the agency, so, as you say, it is a way of casting the net wide. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

At certain stages of my career I've had good results getting jobs through friends. I've had less satisfactory results getting jobs through friends of friends of friends. The reason is that I know what I want in my job search. My friends often know what I want in my job search. My friends of friends of friends--not so much. If the person I know also has direct knowledge of the job, then that can work well. If the person I know has NO direct knowledge of the job, then they may point me in a certain direction in a well meaning attempt to help, but more often than not the position will turn out not to be a match. At a certain point I then need to decide whether my time would be better invested doing my homework for an interview arranged through a professional recruiter--or pursuing a well meaning but doubtful lead offered by a friend. When I'm looking for a job, I listen to all possibilities but I don't always follow up on dubious indirect leads. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not sure if I fully agree with this although I pretty much agree with everything else Nataly said. If you are, as Nataly says, dealing with recruitment agencies, they may or may not actually post all of their openings on the job boards and/or their own website in a timely fashion. If I'm looking for a job, I want to start a conversation with as many recruitment agencies as possible, so I'll apply to any job that seems to even remotely match my skill set. Like I say, it gets the conversation started with the recruiter. The recruiter and I may end up politely agreeing that the posted job is not an ideal match. But if I keep the conversation going with the recruiter, I may find out a week or a month down the road that they have something that DOES match my skill set--something that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't gotten the ball rolling. And, yes, a few recruiters may end up thinking that I'm flaky because I'm not a match for their position. That doesn't matter if I can get the ball rolling with a significant number of recruiters. Later in a job search, once I have had some interviews and many conversations with recruiters and have a clear feel for the realities of the current market and how my skills measure up, I will usually become more selective about what I apply for. At this point I'm trying to zero in on the ideal position at this stage in my career. But early on, I just want to send resumes out and get things started. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

A good recruitment agency will know how to close the deal with a particular company. They know the people because they talk to them every day--that represents inside knowledge you cannot hope to get from a website. If you have a friend you can trust who works for the company, that is better still, but a professional recruiter is definitely to be preferred to just replying to an ad on the web. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

You better believe it's the truth. And the most important truth in this post are the dates, all of which are pre-2001. Since 2001, America has been far too concerned with seeking revenge, justified or otherwise, in Iraq and Afganistan, to care about the suffering of Americans domestically. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

This is the new Sputnik. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It always takes time and energy to find a new job--and that time is never (directly) compensated. If an employee is being paid at or above market level wages, and is otherwise happy, there is no reason for them to make that investment of time and energy to find a new job. Another way of putting it is that in today's day and age you win employee loyalty by keeping them happy on a day-to-day basis--not by making promises that won't be delivered (or, more likely, broken) until years in the future. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The manager in such situations needs to be careful. They can find themselves in a position where they have little leverage to actually insist that work get done. I was a manager recently and the CEO insisted that I hire two people into unpaid positions. Neither arrangement worked out--they were just using us to pad their resumes, as I warned the CEO. One was a summer student doing an internship. Fine, that type of arrangement CAN work--but in this case the guy not only had done PAID internships in the past, but he had another concurrent internship the SAME summer that was a paid internship. Guess which company got all of his energy? I'll give you a clue: it was the folks who were signing his paychecks. The other was an older worker who was between jobs. He was just using us to pad his resume until he found paid work--which he did about a month into his "gig" with us. Then, of course, we were history. I'd invested a lot of my own time that month getting him up to speed and had nothing to show for that effort. Indeed--I think it damaged us, perhaps fatally, being an early stage startup. The arrangement CAN work if you give them non-critical work, that doesn't take up much of the paid staff's time, that is used as a test of their abilities as much as anything. Eventually you have to them on the payroll, though, if it works out. Having unpaid staff doing mission critical work while they interview for paid positions is just playing with fire IMHO. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Was the intent to beat Steve Sutton's record--by 2 jumps--forty years later? Were Steve's jumps made under squares? I'm not sure whether square canopies existed in 1969 although Domina Jalbert definitely had the patent by then. I'm afraid my own maximum is just five jumps in a day, although I hope to exceed that soon. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes they were our decisions but we have an established history of making poor decisions in such circumstances, and bin Laden exploited that known weakness. I'm referring to past similar situations where we've overreacted to similar threats--for example McCarthyism in the 1950's or the so-called War on Drugs beginning in the 1980's. One didn't need to be a rocket scientist to predict that the USA might respond similarly to a terrorist attack. Yes we again made some poor decisions but until we acknowledge that there's a pattern of behavior that long predates 9/11 we are going to remain vulnerable to future bin Laden's. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

There seems to be some question about whether the article is referring to an absolute drop in life expectancy--or merely a relative drop in the USA as compared to other nations. Nevertheless I've been expecting life expectancies to begin dropping in Western nations at some point. There are many social safety nets--not only Social Security but also private company pension plans--which have traditionally led to a relatively stress free life in the early part of old age if one is still in fairly good health. It seems to me that many of these safety nets "peaked" for my grandparents' generation and will be significantly less for my parents' generation and even less so for my own generation. If the quality of life drops in old age--which it certainly looks like it will soon--life expectancies will also drop. Some people will be smart enough to figure out a good plan for retirement on their own--but not everyone will be that smart and overall we'll see life expectancies drop. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The unprecedented shutdown of various aspects of infrastructure for a little while after 9/11 was clearly directly the result of bin Laden's actions (or the actions of the 9/11 mastermind if it wasn't bin Laden). As for fear causing a lot of things that happened on a more long term basis--they aren't called terrorists for nothing. A terrorist's greatest weapon is fear (along with secrecy about the exact ways they plan to attack). To the extent that people are living in fear, a terrorist has largely succeeded. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

True, but there is a legal requirement to be able to speak English to naturalize as a US citizen. Compare that with Canada where one must be able to speak either French or English--but not necessarily both--to naturalize as a Canadian citizen. In this sense, at least, the USA is legally unilingual in a way that other nations like Canada are not. In an immigration context in the USA (and the article quoted is about immigration), I think it is reasonable to ask why someone isn't speaking English if they profess to want to become a citizen. Rudely interrupting a Spanish speaker, though, does seem uncalled for. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014