Notifications
Clear all
Hey JahRustyFerrari, cre, monogram and LiquidFlouride:
check out this info about IT training in the VI:
is that just the new version of the same crap cisco has been putting out for years now? it used to be called the "Cisco Two Year academy" back in 2002; it's been since shortened to almost a propaganda boot-camp for Cisco.. Though you definitely do learn a good amount about the basics of networking, switching and routing.
I did networking for a few years and honestly think it's a great "base" and definately helps when you understand packet flow & how TCP/IP traffic is handled (OSI model etc..) but really it's not a very good carrier choice... that's the "blue collar" of IT.
we need creators, coders, security professionals etc...
This is an ok start though, but from my experience none of what is needed to create a "silicone Valley in the Caribbean" comes from a university/public school... it's all about experience, which is very hard to get here.
I like the idea of a large lab set up, maybe something similar to the cyber defense range's we use in the military for practice: basically a huge sandbox where you can do what ever you want to learn & scenarios are injected to help foster learning.
anyone have a few million $ ?
Posted : December 24, 2015 3:01 pm
Richard Branson.
Posted : December 24, 2015 3:39 pm
Here's a different avenue:
http://www.ecopreservationsociety.org/careers
Posted : December 24, 2015 4:08 pm
Mapp vetoed the bill:
http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2016/01/04/mapp-vetoes-ill-considered-edc-bill
Posted : January 5, 2016 11:12 am
It was a pretty stupid law.
Posted : January 5, 2016 11:20 am
I'm not sure Mapp is literate, as his reasoning was completely erroneous. The bill doesn't affect Virgin Islanders who are away in the States.
Posted : January 5, 2016 2:05 pm
I'm not sure Mapp is literate, as his reasoning was completely erroneous. The bill doesn't affect Virgin Islanders who are away in the States.
That was only ONE of the reasons he gave for vetoing the bill and was highlighted by the reporter. It WOULD have been a problem for US Virgin Islanders who failed to maintain VI residency.
Posted : January 5, 2016 2:29 pm
It was a pretty stupid law.
....and probably unconstitutional as well.
Posted : January 5, 2016 3:04 pm
From the EDC website relating to the requirement that 80% of employees must be bona fide residents of the USVI:
“Resident of the Virgin Islands” means (1) Any U.S. citizen domiciled in the Virgin Islands for one (1) year or more; (2) A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years or is a high school or University of the
Virgin Islands graduate and who is registered to vote in the Virgin Islands; or (3) A lawful permanent resident alien domiciled in the Virgin Islands for one (1) year or more.
A person shall demonstrate that he/she has been a resident for one (1) year or more for the purposes of the EDC by using the date of issuance information from a W-2 form, a voter registration card, a permanent resident card, or a Virgin Islands driver’s license."
You said it best weeks ago. Virgin Islanders who grew up here will always be considered residents for the purpose of the EDC program, regardless of whether they domicile in another state. Mapp's hypothetical about people domiciling in New York is bunk.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:08 pm
"(2) A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years or is a high school or University of the Virgin Islands graduate and who is registered to vote in the Virgin Islands ..."
Missing out part of the qualifications misses the point.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:12 pm
"(2) A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years or is a high school or University of the Virgin Islands graduate and who is registered to vote in the Virgin Islands ..."
Missing out part of the qualifications misses the point.
Nope. You omitted the controlling "or."
It's sufficient to be "A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years."
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:18 pm
"(2) A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years or is a high school or University of the Virgin Islands graduate and who is registered to vote in the Virgin Islands ..."
Missing out part of the qualifications misses the point.
Nope. You omitted the controlling "or."
It's sufficient to be "A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years."
I believe you are incorrect in your grammatical interpretation.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:21 pm
I believe you are incorrect in your grammatical interpretation.
I believe you are incorrect in your grammatical interpretation.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:31 pm
Simple Grammar 101. Your interpretation is illogical.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:42 pm
Simple Grammar 101. Your interpretation is illogical.
Simple Grammar 101. Your interpretation is illogical.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:47 pm
parroting - one who imitates the words or actions of another, especially without understanding them.
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:51 pm
Simple Grammar 101. Your interpretation is illogical.
Simple Grammar 101. Your interpretation is illogical.
Grammar and Logic are two very different things.
so is it Grammar 101 or logic 101?
I like this game, I vote it continues!
Posted : January 5, 2016 4:58 pm
It's really daft. Had the intent been as monogram assumes (which if you read it makes no sense anyway) then there would have been a semicolon or at least a comma after, "six (6) years".
Grammar and logic both!
Posted : January 5, 2016 5:36 pm
It's really daft. Had the intent been as monogram assumes (which if you read it makes no sense anyway) then there would have been a semicolon or at least a comma after, "six (6) years".
Grammar and logic both!
OldTart loses once again. Tregenza Roach, Esq., a noted attorney more qualified than Mapp's entire legal team combined, agrees that Mapp's interpretation was bunk:
Just as I noted, "Specific sections of our economic development law already address such persons who can qualify as resident hires by demonstrating that they attended high school or university in the territory, or other established criteria such as being registered to vote in the Virgin Islands," Roach said."
Posted : January 7, 2016 3:14 am
Formally, the logical expression
A or B and C
is ambiguous. The exact meaning depends on where the implied parenthesis are placed.
For example, it can mean
(A or B) and C, which appears to be OT's interpretation
It can also mean
A or (B and C), which is monogram's interpretation
The way it's writen, I think the intent was
A or (B and C)
That is, what they wanted to say was this:
1. A person who has attended a school in the Virgin Islands for at least six (6) years is a bona fide resident.
2. A high school or University of the Virgin Islands graduate who is registered to vote in the Virgin Islands is a bona fide resident, too.
It still does not make total sense, because with this interpretation, it's easier to qualify for a bona fide resident status if you are a high school dropout, compared to if you are a high school graduate.
Posted : January 7, 2016 5:01 am
I thought it was a stupid law as a whole, but had some good points. When I read what Mapp said about vetoing it, I couldn't help it, I just thought he is only saying this because it would affect Arc Light in a way they wouldn't want it to. Roach had a thing or two to say about the matter: St. John Source
Posted : January 7, 2016 8:03 am
OldTart loses once again. Tregenza Roach, Esq., a noted attorney more qualified than Mapp's entire legal team combined, agrees that Mapp's interpretation was bunk:
Just as I noted, "Specific sections of our economic development law already address such persons who can qualify as resident hires by demonstrating that they attended high school or university in the territory, or other established criteria such as being registered to vote in the Virgin Islands," Roach said."
Wrongly misinterpreted again. My family moves here from elsewhere and my minor children attend school here. We leave after 6 years but my minor children are forever considered bona fide VI residents even though they never return to live in the territory. Really?
Posted : January 7, 2016 9:15 am
Topic starter
I thought it was a stupid law as a whole, but had some good points. When I read what Mapp said about vetoing it, I couldn't help it, I just thought he is only saying this because it would affect Arc Light in a way they wouldn't want it to. Roach had a thing or two to say about the matter: St. John Source
To clarify, the law would not affect Limetree Bay Terminals as they are not an EDC beneficiary.
The purpose of the law was only to impact how EDC company employees are classified as resident or non-resident for compliance and reporting purposes.
It was not a measure of anyone's residency for purposes of taxes, voting, benefits, or any other related class.
Posted : January 7, 2016 1:11 pm
My ex-tenants moved here a couple years ago to work for a EDC company. He started work immediately but his wife studied their first year here to earn her master's degree while waiting to qualify for employment. Once the year had passed, she was able to be hired after completing the 1 year residency requirement. This is their 4th year here. They've purchased a house, continue to work and live here and be contributing members of our community.
Posted : January 7, 2016 1:30 pm
My ex-tenants moved here a couple years ago to work for a EDC company. He started work immediately but his wife studied their first year here to earn her master's degree while waiting to qualify for employment. Once the year had passed, she was able to be hired after completing the 1 year residency requirement.
To work for an EDC company, of course. There is no one year residency requirement for a non-EDC job.
Posted : January 7, 2016 1:36 pm
