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.
Yes, it's a dupe.
Why bother.
it's their service, it's 100% free, and something tells me they covered there ass in the EULA. Is it nice? is it moral? probably not. But it is their company, and their service. Is this smart of them to do? Probably not, bad publicity could spell disaster for them.
If you don't agree with me, then discuss your view point, don't just mod me down cuz you disagree with me. FP.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Monster has removed all resumes with Arab-sounding names and has forward their contact information to der fuhrer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mr. Ashcroft.
If we have sanctions against other countries, people from those countries shouldn't be able to make money from jobs or companies in the US anyhow. So we are just preventing them from violating the law.
Thank you and God bless America.
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
After all, if its not the American Way, its the highway.
This isn't quite as bad as the "Freedom Fries" bullshit, but its pretty bad.. Can't people deal with the world at large without placing labels on certain ethnic groups, nationalities, etc. Perhaps that's too much to ask.
Yay patriotism..
Clearly that says: "SEE, YOU! 'EM BE OX! FIRE!"
He's telling you: "WATCH OUT, YOU! Those large animals are dangerous! Draw your weapon and SHOOT!"
The message is clear. The "large animals" represent the terrorist threat from middle-east nations. (The "OX" or beast of burden is clearly a reference to the primitive lives lead by many in the Middle East).
The admonishment to "shoot" is a sign that we must use our overwhelming force (as a man with a gun vs. an ox) to put down these countries, before they use their sheer mass (large populations) against us.
Make no mistake: Jesus is telling you (and us as a nation) that we must CONQUER and DESTROY the threat, we must create a great crusade against the EVIL that is someday going to come charging our way.
I guess you're not used to secret messages from Jesus delivered to you via your computer's entropy device file. That's okay, surprised me the first time too.
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
The biggest problem in many of the countries that the United States is currently sanctioning is that (relative) poverty has driven people to hate the United States. Terrorism is a funtion of that very hatred of our economic superiority. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to address the economic discrepancies between our nation and theirs and help to allow countries and people that have gotten left behind to join the global community. By preventing US companies from hiring these people, job sites can exacerbate that discrepancy and become part of the problem instead of a possible solution.
**When craziness is bliss, 'tis folly to be sane**
This is an associated press article and u can access it without the registration here
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
".. including immigrants wotj ties to some of the countries in question.."
Glad to see the New York Times have their spellcheckers working correctly.
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).
Monster.com has already partially retracted this new policy. Now you just can't pick one of the blacklisted countries as a place you'd like to work. News.com has the updated story.
If you can't even send so much as a marshmallow peep to these TERRORIST-RUN states, why the heck would you HIRE anybody from there? We should sever all ties with these corrupt regimes.
The corrupt regime or the people over whom it has dominion? They aren't the same thing.
For the last few months whenever I've been forced to register for any site, in the process of making up a fictitious address, I've set my country of origin to some random third world country. Afghanistan is nice and close to the top of the list, so it certainly gets used a lot. Otherwise, I tend to prefer Sudan. Lots of sun. Of course, I wouldn't do this on something like monster where they actually have a REASON for asking my address. I guess I'll have to stop though before the practice becomes more widespread.
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?
An excerpt:
All this while Hussein et al were shitting on golden toilets. Did the sanctions hurt Saddam? Sure. But the damage done to the Iraqi people was orders of magnitude worse. Twelve years of sanctions, and what was accomplished? The task of removing Saddam through the use of military force was made easier, I suppose. But the primary reason for using sanctions in the first place is to avoid the use of military force. So, our sanctions against Iraq inconvenienced Saddam, killed a quarter-million children, and failed miserably at their stated purpose.
Way to go, Monster. That'll teach 'em.
...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).
It's an outdated, Marxist view of conflict as "class struggle".
The fact is the majority of terrorism that exists today is state sponsored and has nothing to do with economics. To steal from Mark Steyn:
As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, 'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.'.
From the horses mouth, that little quote destroys your argument.
Ultimately terrorism isn't about getting money, it's about getting power. After all, terrorism is an expensive business. Terrorists usually aren't poor, and even the foot soldiers (like the ones in the September 11th attacks) usually have good economic prospects.
Terrorists don't attack us because we have 3 TV's per capita and they don't. If you follow that logic to it's logical conclusion, you'll give the terrorists 3 tv's and still have people hating and killing you.
Ultimately the best cure for curing terrorism is killing the terrorists and destroying the infrastructure (states) that support it. There really is no other way.
Not to stray too far off topic here, but since when has any story submission not prevented people at Slashdot from making a self-rightous post? ;-)
With ideas of "this isn't fair", "people are poor and starving over there", and if you go to any sort of liberal rallies you will see people using very expressive (sometimes overly exaggerated speech). Keep this in mind, this is a common technique to excite people and get them involved emotionally in your cause. And emotions have no place in logic.
HA HA sorry man I was totally with you up until this part of your post. I really don't think you can point the finger at libbies on this one.
How about when the president says "september 11" in every other sentence? How about whenever somebody says a certain law is unconstitutional, the other guy says "3000 lives lost ... tragic events of 9/11 ... post-9/11 world ... blah blah".
Seriously, when the guy across the table is talking about people who died in terrorist attacks, you'll look like a FOOL if you question his plan to install cameras in every bathroom around the country at a taxpayer cost of billions of dollars.
How many people die in a year from non-terrorism related accidents..let's have some perspective...whenever somebody invokes the "tragic events of 9/11" he should be removed from the table and replaced with someone who can make a reasoned argument.
They interviewed the guy who was pouring expensive French champagne down the toilet and they asked him why .. he said "because 3000 of my countrymen died on 9/11" .. that doesn't even make any SENSE... but you can't say anything because invoking the ghosts of those people who died instantly shuts up all critics.
Cop: "Why did you just run that red light?"
Me: "On that tragic day September 2001, the world changed."
Cop: *sniff* "Yeah, shit, what was I thinking .. go ahead man .. may God be with you."
Emotional manipulation is at the core of any politician's speech.
I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people? or for a company not to hire mexicans?
Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
(Ok, slashdot is not the place to ask this.)
But don't the USA have laws against racism and discrimination that might apply?
I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people?
Sure, I don't have any problem with it. It's perfectly legitimate for organizations that practice discrimination along just about any lines they want to exist. There are a few very specific rules: government organizations and even private businesses when it comes to employment have some constraints on them. It's part of letting ideas flow freely. If people want to hang out with a bunch of other white supremacists and not let blacks join a club, I think they should certainly be entitled to do so. Trying to prohibit something like this becomes completely unenforceable, because race plays a role in all sorts of small organizations.
However, a business is more than entitled not to sell their product to anyone they want to, if they so choose.
or for a company not to hire mexicans?
As long as they're Mexican-Americans, legal citizens of the United States of America, I don't think it's legal to hire based on race, though it can be hard to prove.
Actually, I wish even this restriction was eliminated. Let natural selection take over. If IBM decides that it doesn't want to hire any Hispanics at all, and Apple does, and Miguel de Izaca works for Apple instead, it's IBM's loss.
When I see lawsuits like the infamous Hooters one (where a male was suing because he couldn't work as a waiter in a Hooters restauraunt), I get a little disgusted with the state of enforced PCness.
May we never see th
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
If you'd read the artical, you'd see the quote from someone at the government agency responsible for implementing those regulations saying that what monster did is not required by the law.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
--the act has a provision to re-classify you as a terrorist (primarily from participation in a protest 'threat, intimidate, coerce',or membership in an organization they deem terroristic, etc, fairly broad, you donated 5 bucks to some group before, they get classified as a terrorist group, whoops, you lose), which means you are no longer a "citizen" with any born with rights. This classification is completely on their say-so, no hearing or anything is required, they (any nameless governmental employee) merely state such and such is true, they win, you lose. You can then be "detained" and held in secret,deported to some other country, prosecuted, and punished up to the death penalty. It's about as extreme of a dictatorial move as you can get. Anyone who is aware of your detention and reclassification into sub human non citizen status is forbidden by law to inform anyone else, violations of which can get you reclassified. See above.
The gestalt is they left it broad enough that they can apply it to virtually anyone if they choose to do so. That is patriot act 1. Patriot act 2,which is even more extreme, after being leaked and denied, has now been chopped up and parts of it inserted into various other bills to disguise it.
What has happened is in essence the entire critical parts of the constitution have been re written, and most born-with rights are now null and void. Originally the constitution was written to detail government restrictions. Even the so called bill of rights was just a further description of the limits of government, as the basic fundamental to the constitution was that individual persons and the states had the most power and soverignty. The constitution doesn't "grant" anyone any "rights". You are born-with ALL rights, then there's a small sections of restrictions delineated in some detail which primarily apply to "government". That is now completely reversed, as full a 180 as is possible.
We are not supposed to have a royal, neo-royal, VIP class of "citizens" who are above the law. This explicitly applies to governmental employees. Explicitly, that was the entire purpose of the original secession from england and royal rule, there was no other reason of note. We got rid of the overlord class. that was the deal. This treatment of governmental employees as VIPs with unlimited powers to just grant themselves more powers, even calling them "laws" is not supposed to occur, nor are they even remotely *allowed* to grant themselves powers that they clearly do not have.
Any governmental employee who engages in unconstitutional actions, whether knowing or unknowing, is doing so under the explicit notice under the constititution that at some point they may be held personally liable for some serious citizen reactions, ie, "you don't want to go there", with "you" being any said employee,either elected, appointed, volunteered, or hired on, any "branch" or "level" or "title", civil, military, or "paramilitary", in any "government" federal, state, county, incorporated township or territory or unincorporated territory.
What would happen if, say, a bank were to introduce "single-look-and-feel" personal banking functionality... and then couldn't implement it because of not only the countries on the list now, but the fact that Yanks like to add a place or two to the list every once in a while?
Well, the project could go forward, but not in the United States. Certain parts of the system would have to be served abroad. We're not just talking about functionality here though -- legally you can't even link to Iranian-hosted resources from a US web site without the possibility of incurring criminal charges not only against the person in charge, but against everyone involved in the project (Thanks mmr. Helms and Burton! You bastards).
This is not just theoretical. These are ongoing concerns with a number of companies; I used the example of a bank because that's what seemed most obvious to me.
I used to roll my eyes when people called for "regime change in Washington"... now I'm not so sure the idea is either silly or unnecessary. Looks like the US Gov't. is falling victim to the Internet -- a tool it created.
My sig is too lon