Then you lose your offer when you're asked for a recent pay stub.
what employer asks you for a previous paystub? I've never been asked that. your previous employer can't even tell them that if they ask during your background checks or reference checking. All your previous employer can say is that you worked there for whatever date range and what your position was.
How to negotiate for a better salary.
This.... because for some ridiculous reason, the salary for your next job is based upon the salary of your current or previous job. Whenever I get called by a recruiter for a position I'm semi-serious about, they undoubtedly ask me what my current salary is so they can base my future salary on it. I always lie lie and lie some more up to the point of what I think their position is worth.
Actually last I looked my mothers job used it. it integrated into the rest of their software package so that addresses and route planning could be done easy.
Not sure if they currently can use it but since bing maps like google maps requires internet connections probably not. Not every where they travel have 2G service let alone 3G.
What gets me is why doesn't google or bing maps have an offline mode?Cache a couple of states or even just counties.
they do... https://support.google.com/gmm...
Parental responsibilities are owed to a child and cannot be waived by a parent.
Wrong. parental rights can be waived. This is how adoptions work. Both birth parents have to waive their rights to the child.
There's a certain advantage to the online or delivery based grocery stores. They don't need to manage as packaged and portioned product as the traditional grocery stores.
Take meat for example.
In a traditional grocery store, there's hundreds of cuts of meat that are packaged up into individual portions sitting in a refrigerator waiting to be picked up by some consumer. There's a good chance that it won't be picked up and will eventually need to be tossed. Also, storing cut up meat isn't as efficient as say storing an entire side of beef/whole chicken/pork etc..
With the on-demand grocery, the side of beef is whole until an order is placed and then that side is cut up as per the orders that are needed. So if you need 50 steaks, you cut up exactly 50 steaks. Compared that to the traditional store in which you have to base that days sales on historical numbers and predictions rather than actual orders.
If you as a meat-dept manager guess that 100 steaks will be sold on a thursday and only 50 are sold, you're going to lose money. With the online butcher, you only cut up 50 steaks. In this case you're much more efficient as you have less product waste.
It's the same with any other type of produce, also the shipping of produce from warehouse to grocery store via truck induces more issues around bruising/spoilage/damage etc. If it's sent to your house directly from the warehouse, then that's one less organization that your product has to pass through, thereby enabling you to have a better product. I'm also sure they'd allow you to refuse product say if for example, eggs were damaged.
The problem with the online is the same one as the movie rental business started out with. The impulse buy. Grocery stores are great at this, you walk by the steak counter and decide "this looks good, i'll have steak tonight". Online didn't have this ability as you had to wait a day or two to get your steak. Netflix had this problem vs. rental stores as you couldn't just do an impulse "movie night" if they had to ship you a dvd. Now with Netflix-streaming you can have a 'movie-night' as an impulse b/c the movie is provided to you the same day.
something tells me that amazon isn't individually slicing steaks when you order them...
I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question. If you put the punishment for copyright infrigement at a "reasonable" amount - say, 10 times the price of the CD/whatever it comes on, then it costs more to chase the punishment than it does to get it back. If you put the punishment at a level where it potentially becomes financially feasible for the copyright owner to chase it down, then it is an asinine figure for the actual infringement.
And I can't agree with this. The RIAA shouldn't be going after someone who shared 24 songs. They should be going after someone who is sharing thousands or millions of songs. Then the cost per song, even if it is small like 10 times the price of a CD, becomes more than enough to chase the punishment. If it isn't worth their time to go after someone sharing 10 songs, then they shouldn't be going after them. It may well be worth their time to go after someone sharing thousands of songs. This could be likened to shoplifting....it is illegal to shoplift, but you aren't going to do jail time for stealing a $10 magazine at walmart. You are likely only going to get a misdemeanor and 1 year of probation plus restitution. On the other hand, if you steal $1000 of merchandise (the threshold varies per state.. i think it is $500 in my state) then you are going to get a felony theft charge plus time in jail. It simply isn't worth it for the state or victim (walmart in this example) to pursue more charges on someone who didn't steal much.
Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda