Slashdot Mirror
A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com
Duke submits a link to this New York Times story, according to which "it seems that Monster.com has taken the U.S. government's policy of sanctions against certain countries and run with it where no man has gone before. Monster 'has deleted resumes that list current addresses in those countries.' and more fun stuff. If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you." Update: 04/28 01:34 GMT by T : Note that the New York Times ran the story, but like many other newspaper stories, the real credit goes to the Associated Press.
Advice to job seekers: never, ever, ever deal with Monster.com or their subsidiaries. I have monster.com and flipdog.com in my spam filters.
Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase
Hopefully, companies will realize that there is some talent out there that cannot be filled by a US citizen. I'd like to see Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf get his own late -night talk show. He'd beat the crap out of Conan or Letterman (or at least strenously deny there presence).
Didn't know where else to put this, but I hope that one of the admins here will see it. A lot of your adds seem to be trying to install the Avenue A Inc. Cookie on my comp. Is Spyware really something Slashdot should be supporting?
...it's not like anybody is really hiring, sponsoring visas, etc. That and it sounds like a publicity stunt to me (no such thing as bad PR).
Probably not, bad publicity could spell disaster for them.
;-)
Isn't monster.com a corporation based in the USA? Maybe it's not even bad publicity, considering current events. They say any publicity is good publicity
Ride the apocalypse...
May the threads progress competently.
I agree, but for a little bit different reason.
If we are going to have "diplomatic" solutions to everything, then any country in the world can "threaten" and then get diplomatic solutions right?
If we were in the world of Pre-Bush strong handed politics, what exactly would we be doing if say... Cuba, said "hey guys you know back in '68, we really do have nukes" and say... someone more "level headed" was in office (level headed I mean, and facetiously, a far left liberal) would they "give" Castro whatever he wanted, if thats what he said. If he said "lets do a diplomatic solution" what "diplomatic" solution COULD there be in a case like that?
That is something I always wondered about Saddaam Hussein, we had 12 years of attempting "diplomatic solutions" and they found that when "diplomatic" people were in power (Clinton God bless 6 years of financial bliss for the country) the situation in Iraq got worse considerably, because the person we were contending with was not searching for diplomatic solutions, he wasnt searching for "compromise" unless you mean "compromise" as "you give us everything we want, because what your doing now only makes you look bad" as compromise.
I think that the United States WAS justified in attacking Iraq, the only thing I feel is that it was not done soon enough. The United NATIONS should have done something about it earlier, the problem with the United Nations, is it really is as teathless a body as the League Of Nations (for those of you that miss that, its the ones that watched hitler do what he wanted prior to WW2).
The United States IS the teeth of the U.N. without the U.S. the U.N. has no teeth. We have shown that against Russian technology, we can litterally take destroy an entire modern army into mush within 90 days (not talking about iraqi freedom). The only countries with as modern equipment are the European countries, and the thing is, they will always take a diplomatic solutiion before going to war, and it doesnt even need to be to there advantage, because you can stall them..
That is all this has shown the world, yes a lot of people HATE the U.S.A. but the thing is, it reflects JUST AS BADLY on the United Nations, and how does that reflect on the world?
The thing is shows is that.
1. If the U.N. goes and says something, lets say against a foriegn power that attacks its neighbors, its sanctions against that country mean nothing to its leaders.
2. It shows that the U.N. cannot control its own members, IE the United States.
Those two things completely invalidate the United Nations as a legislative body, because legistlation means absolutely nothing without enforcement of that legislation.
And the United Nations does not seem to really enforce its legislation. As for "enforcement" power, the United States has more Enforcement Power than the United Nations, simply because you would never get the United Nations to agree on anything.
You could have the entire known world going "you know I think these guys are bad" but it doesnt matter a wit if you do not do something about it.
And I think thats what people really are getting at when they say things like "....Chinese and Russians put as much PRESSURE on IRAQ to comply with the previous 17 SANCTIONS..." (previous post).
It isnt that they are United States Imperialist Warmonger (which I have seen people say), its simply that there is no faith in the United Nations, the world has not matured enough to have a United Nations, because the world cannot agree on what is right and wrong.
How does this affect jobs for Monster.com? It is not simple United States arrogance, it is a company trying to obey the spirit of the United States sanctions and Embargos. Sanctions and Embargos ARE OUR Diplomatic solutions, to allow jobs to be exported oversees, and work to be imported, is to CIRCUMVENT our diplomatic solutions.
People often have the beleif that diplomacy is a peacfull solution to a problem, this is NOT true. D
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Apartheid?
Apartheid is a legitimate choice that the people of South Africa decided to live with for a while (and as it happened, went away after a while). I think it's a bit silly, but the US has no business waltzing in and shaking things up. The US has a far darker history of racial problems than most nations do.
I *do* think that it might be legitimate for the US to push the idea that if someone wants to emmigrate to the United States, and the United States is willing, that the host country should be forced to allow him to do so (barring a few international crimes like spying or espionage). That would solve quite a few problems...if the US wants to allow people to have the US's value system, they can open their arms to the people that want to take part.
Communism?
Communism is also a perfectly legitimate view. The only time it's potentially nasty is when it's advocating global revolution and actively trying to foment revolution. Communism was quite popular among intelligentsia for a long time, and we have a Communist Party in the United States.
Taking over a country to wipe out a communist regime is pretty disgusting, frankly. The US promotes the concept of self-determination, and then simply waltzes into other countries and forces a government and political system on them. You can't have it both ways.
May we never see th