A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com 537
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. (Score:2)
uhh (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't agree with me, then discuss your view point, don't just mod me down cuz you disagree with me. FP.
Re:uhh (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Soo (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.
Re:Soo (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, a private club should be able to do anything they please. A company that provides a free service should be allowed to give it to whomever they please.
Hey, if I don't want you coming to my house, I can kick you out. If I were to give free car-washes down the street and I don't like you, too bad, you're not getting one.
The hiring practices of corporations is unrelated to the issue. No one is hiring anyone to work at monster.com, they're simply denying their FREE SERVICE to whomever they please.
Remember when you walk into a store and they " reserve the right to kick you out for any reason?" Yeah, same idea.
Public does not equal private.
Paying service does not equal gift.
That's my 2 cents.
No they arn't (Score:3, Informative)
Too much PC bad too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too much PC bad too (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just not true...
From a legal point of view, all the court decisions on segregration should be more than enough to prove that. A grocery store can't refuse to sell food to people based on race, a restaurant can't refuse to serve people based on race. You can't refuse to sell your house to someone for racial reasons. Etc. etc.
The rest of your post just shows how far unbridled libertarianism can lead you.
Re:Soo (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
or for a company not to hire mexicans?
Yes.
Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.
Actually, it does. That's what ownership is.
I may think that it's stupid and bigoted for a club to not accept black members, and I think I have a right to tell them so, but I don't think it's my right to force a private club to do something it doesn't choose to do. Similarly, I may
Re:Soo (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of private ownership is that no one can take your stuff away from you. They have to buy it. Private ownership doesn't give you ultimate control over anything.
If I own a gun, it doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. Ditto for a car, and so on. Private ownership means the gov't shouldn't be able to come along and take those things away from me without some kind of due process.
The basic problem here is that, even if you own something, including a business, you still have to live in society with other people who also have rights. Private ownership doesn't eliminate all concern for other people or their rights, or their aspirations for equality.
Re:Soo (Score:3, Funny)
Re:uhh (Score:3, Funny)
You probably know me, I'm Attorney John Ashcroft.
I was browsing Slashdot this morning and stumbled upon your wonderfully written, and highly objective post. I'm hoping, my dear friend, that you would contact me. You seem to have the right attitude for helping my colleagues and I with our pursuit of Total Information Awareness.
Just five minutes ago I spoke with Condoleezza and she agreed you have what it takes: absolute submission to authority and belief in the morality of
In other news.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly how does protesting against the policy of detaining citizens without due process make one a "communist"?
Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you and God bless America.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:5, Funny)
It can't possibly be him. All the words are spelled correctly.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Funny)
If I mod you up, will you find me a nice job in the DC area?
(p.s. since I just posted to this discussion, I can't mod it any more.)
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it might be pertinent to point out that I seriously doubt that Afghanistan is under sanctions right now, seei
This just in! (Score:2, Funny)
"If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you."
The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Ignore them (Has little effect al la China)
(2) Sanctions (Cuba, Iraq, Libia)
(3) War
Do you have any suggestions? Remember, "dealing" with people goes both ways. All the worlds problems aren't the fault of the US.
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Not following American values not always bad (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is this obsession on "dealing" with a country come from? Why do you have to deal with a country?
Ignoring* a "evil" country/regime/place worked fine in the case of USA vs. Soviet Union. Eventually Soviet Union broke down inside by itself without any serious war.
Think about this: If the Soviet Union had existed today it would probably be one of the Axis of Evil- states. Bush-administration plans for preventive/pre-emptive warfare probably would have resulted in an attack on this "evil empire". Imagien the result if every other country on earth should start to "deal" with counties they don't like?
China would have started to deal with Taiwan, Japan and India. India would follow up with Pakistan. Russia would deal with some former republics... And Africa and the Middle East would be in total chaos.
*Ignoring here means not going to war or placing sanctions, not to ignore it completly or quit paying attention to a country.
Wored fine on Soviet Union. (in this context a little war over Vietnam/Afghanistan/some South-American contries don't count) It will probablly work on China in some years too. Cuba: Castro still rules...Do I really need to say more?Iraq: 600000 childrens dead under the sanctions; didn't work, Instead they strnghtened Saddams regime.
Libia: I would call it even. Sanctions have crippled their economy, but Ghadaffi still in power. Going to war over every disagreement ain't a long term solution in conflicts. I agree. I think this is the problem with some parts of the corrent US administration; failing to see that they don't have to try t correct (in terms of correcting with military force) every regime they don't like.
But what I don't like about about your rethoric is that you try to limit the possible actions USA can take against other countries into two possibillities; either
1. Do nothing. When some republicans talk about this option on dubius radio shows they make it look like this is bound to result in every fucking country whom disagree with US will start supplying Osama with nukes.
2. Harsh reactions like sanctions or war.
When you do that, you and everyone following your rhetoric fail to see that there are other options; such as trying to work out a deal trough UN.
Re:The American Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. We ignored them. Sure.
Ever hear of the Cuban Missle Crisis? We had a gun on their temple for over 40 years -- and they had one on ours.
We did EVERYTHING we could to force them in to economic ruin. "Ignoring" was never an option.
Yeah. Say more. Like the part where Cuba suffers from such an economic burden that it can in no way be a threat to the US.
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American, I say "what fucking business is it of ours?" Not a single one of the so-called 'threats to national security' is any threat at all, if we just mind our own goddamned business and stop trying to impose a 'Pax Americana' on the rest of the world.
I don't want an empire, thanks. And no, I'm not so fucking paranoid as to think that every goddamned Third World country is out to 'get me' and that I have to conquer one of their asses every once in a while to show who's boss. That's the purview of dick-measuring loons, much like our own King George.
Let the world work out its own problems. All we need are places to buy things from, and places to sell things to. Other than that the rest just isn't our goddamned business.
Unfortunately both the government and my own people seem to think that *everything* is their business nowadays, including my own private life. Seems to me the only thing that'll teach the average American to keep the fuck out of my life and the life of others is to bitch-slap the cocksuckers into submission, much like those very same cocksuckers are doing to others right now.
Max
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Informative)
I wrote: "*Ignoring here means not going to war or placing sanctions, not to ignore it completly or quit paying attention to a country." Where they ever a treat to US? Yah, maybe 40 yeas ago during the Cubile missile crisis. (you started the whole thing by placing nukes in Turkey BTW. But the Soviet Union did not start with sanctions agaist them even though they also was a country pretty close with a diffrient type of government di they?
But, you know what? I Castro wanted to blow Miami to pices with a warhead today ( he don't as far as I know) he could probably done it. The luxary palaces was not build from money from the oil-for food prog. UN has stated that 95% of the money in the programm where used correctly (food, aid, drugs etc.) The remaining 5% went for UN admnistration of the program.
If Saddam built any major new palaces after '91 it was probably from money either from smuggling or from taxes
Yes, the sanctions worked in keeping them from rebuilding their military. But putting sanctions on a country is not a long term sollution on a problem as it hurts the people of the country more than the government.
Dealing with whoms fault it is... USA supported Saddams regime greatly (economic support,political and weapons as chemical and biological)during the eighties when it served US interest. Running away and saying it's all one mad mans faullt is to easy. I have never said that diplomacy is the only way of handling conflicts. But in many conflict even after diplomacy has ended is it possible to solving problems without the use of millitary.
In the recent case of Iraq it was your goverment who did not want to continue with inspections. In some cases the use of military force is legitimate, in some it's not. UN is nothing more then what it members wants it to be. Noone have ever said its a perfect system.
In the recent case of Iraq it was in fact USA who did not want to continue with pressure on Iraq and continuing of weapon inspections. Probably because they would not have been able to remove Saddam that way. The UN sanctions where made to keep Saddam from getting WMD, not to remove him.
According to the UN charter when diplomacy fails and the security council faills to agrre on a resolutions that is the end of the road per se. The fact that your country choose to ignore this and attack Iraq anyway says alot about the USA today.
In those 12 years Iraq never attacked any of their neighbours or used any WMD. As long as the inspections had continud it is also unlikly that Iraq would have been able to build, import or use WMD.An please show me where that poison gas is hidden will you?
Re:The American Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you provide two good examples that immediately rubbish any idea that America and Britain "police" the world for humanitarian reasons, and any idea that America and Britain give a damn about the UN as a method of dealing with humanitarian crises. If you look at every intervention the two nations been involved with since WW2, then in every single one there is an obvious politica
Re:The American Way (Score:3, Interesting)
Free trade is the "third way" toward world peace
In the wake of the recent war in Iraq, there has been much public debate over the best approach for the United States to take in response to perceived threats from North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries, and as to how the U.S. can play a role in promoting democratic values in those nations. Most have
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Buddy, I'm an American and I can't get my government to leave me the fuck alone. Hell, I can't even get my neighbors to leave me the fuck alone. What chance do you furriners think you have?
Max
Re:The American Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:The American Way (Score:2, Insightful)
When was the last time you heard about torture chambers, mass graves, tens of thousands of people starving, sweatshops, and the like in America?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about that "information extraction" facility just outside of Chicago, or all those poor little schoolchildren in San Luis Obispo working 12 hours a day sewing sneakers. Then there's the spot in Tampa where Herr Ashcroft had 10,000 "dissidents" sum
Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
I know quite a few Europeans who make no secret of their disdain for everything and everyone American. Also, I know some native Mexicans who openly discriminate against blacks and Chinese.
If I may use a loaded phrase: it's like the pot calling the kettle black.
Show me the freshly-bulldozed mass graves of America, and I'll admit you have a point.
Re:The American Way (Score:4, Insightful)
They're in Iraq...
Re:The American Way (Score:2)
Re:The American Way (Score:2)
Re:The American Way (Score:2, Insightful)
I've always felt that the best way to make people like you is to completely isolate them, bomb them occassionally, and gradually starve them to death.
Because that really is the issue here, countries that don't like the U.S. History has shown that no matter how bad the dictator, no matter how repressive the regime, the U.S. has no problem with any country as long as they like America.
I think the problem is that the United States' public/government is generally incapable of understanding why people do
waiting (Score:4, Funny)
Once I can read the article you will get my self-righteous response
Ask and ye shall recieve (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:Ask and ye shall recieve (Score:2)
Does it even work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does it even work? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does it even work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Had I not limited my availablity to the Kansas area it would (probably) have been much worse. I did receive 3 offers from it, but I turned them all down for a job out of the local paper. Ahh the irony...
Does it work as well today? Probably not, I think that site, and others like it, have become over-saturated.
---
I dunt preveww meye stuff.
Re:Does it even work? (Score:2)
Re:Does it even work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies are only posting jobs to meet legal requirements on companies over a certain size. Which is probably the only thing keeping Monster in business at all.
Think about it, everyone knows at least 20 people out of work right now (more like 50), so if you are hiring you hire your friends, or the friends of a coworker.
So my advice if you are hiring, is to post the job, but use a temporary Yahoo/hotmail address for resumes. Do NOT list a phone number. That way you never have to deal with one resume, you're in the clear legally, and you can hire your friend right away.
Re:Does it even work? (Score:2)
So my advice if you are hiring, is to post the job, but use a temporary Yahoo/hotmail address for resumes. Do NOT list a phone number. That way you never have to deal with one resume, you're in the clear legally, and you can hire your friend right away.
Some friends and I were thinking about starting our own recruiting company and just hiring our
It goes both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, editing resumes to remove instances where an individual noted that he or she obtained education in one of those countries? That's freakin' insane! Barring any stupid legalese on Monster's part with regards to copyright of files hosted on their systems, that's tampering with someone's published work, and could definitely inconvenience someone who has perfectly fine qualifications, but happened to get his BS in, say, Iran.
Following the law with regards to sanctions is one thing, but please...let the DoJ sort out who's a terrorist and who isn't. (I can't believe I just said that...)
Re:It goes both ways. (Score:2)
So who gets into legal trouble? Monster, I'd assume, for editing the resume to be illegal, but what about the person who suddenly has an inaccurate resume- for example, it no longer listing a college that the would-be job applicant failed out of?
Re:It goes both ways. (Score:2)
Re:It goes both ways. (Score:2)
Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT articles (Score:2, Informative)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_sto
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:5, Informative)
username: freethepress
password: freethepress
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:2)
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:2)
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:2)
So I make use of that little account- and spread it wherever possible.
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:2)
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:2)
Re:Wish /. would take such a policy with NYT artic (Score:2)
I track articles about NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope and such (Mozilla has 1337 spam filtering capabilities now). Still no real useful info though (especially since the pop server is located in a different state than I am in).
Monster.com: Unethical Pirates (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase [wirex.com]
Re:Monster.com: Unethical Pirates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Monster.com: Unethical Pirates (Score:2)
Crispin
Ignorant Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ignorant Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, why is it the US's responsibility to address the economic discrepancies? At the end of the day, the only person who can improve your lot in life is you. Certainly, it makes no sense to _reward_ countries which we consider our enemies with economic aid. It only amounts to simple blackmail. I also doubt that sending money to a corrupt regime would prove effective for anything except lining Swiss bank accounts.
Throwing money at a problem isn't the solution. Some of these countries are still trying to get a grip on the aftershocks of centuries of BRITISH and FRENCH colonialism. If anyone's fully responsible for cleaning up some of those places, it's those two former colonial powers. Don't underestimate cultural problems which arose with colonization, such as corruption and the like. But, of course, it's much simpler to blame the US, as any
This is not to say the US is blameless - indeed, every country makes mistakes, and the US certainly made more than its fair share of them. But thrusting full and total responsibility on the US for fixing broken former colonies is stupid. It is a problem which needs to be addressed by _EVERYONE_. The policy may or may not be ignorant, but your solution is certainly naive.
-Erwos
This is wrong, wrong, wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
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,
Re:Ignorant Policy (Score:2)
Associated Press (Score:5, Informative)
Proofreading wotj pleasure (Score:3, Funny)
Glad to see the New York Times have their spellcheckers working correctly.
Re:Proofreading wotj pleasure (Score:3)
I hope this doesn't start a trend.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hope this doesn't start a trend.. (Score:2)
Re:I hope this doesn't start a trend.. (Score:2)
Re:I hope this doesn't start a trend.. (Score:2)
all right... (Score:2)
or not.
Re:all right... (Score:2)
Old news, out of date (Score:5, Informative)
I'll say what's on all our minds...flame away. (Score:2)
Okay, okay, I'm kidding. Well, sort of.
Darn, I'll have to change my policy. (Score:2, Interesting)
Off Topic: Spyware? (Score:3, Interesting)
stop using IE (Score:2)
Sanctions Instead of Military Force? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sanctions Instead of Military Force? (Score:2, Flamebait)
BTW, using worst-case estimates for civilian casualties in the Iraqi war (aka Three Week War), fewer Iraqi
Re:Sanctions Instead of Military Force? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, sure, we might rise up to overthrow the government just like Finland wants. But I bet when all was said and done Finland wouldn't be real popular in the hearts and minds of American citizens
"They starved us because of our evil rulers."
Why does it matter... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh No! (Score:4, Funny)
I was planning to hire 20 contract programmers from Libya. Where else can I find some guys to code Java widgets? I'm like, so at a loss. Can anybody give me a clue as to some other country at least as big as Libya with lots of Java programmers for hire on the cheap? How can they do this to us. It just isn't fair.
Why? (Score:3, Funny)
"Downtown firm seeking entry level technical professionals for a fast paced career with a competitive salary."
You're better off working for frickin' Amway than trying Monster.
The article for those who those not registered... (Score:2)
But the nation's largest Internet job board is taking heat from some users over a new policy blocking consumers or employers from seeking work or posting jobs in countries sanctioned by the U.S. government.
Under the policy, which took effect Thursday, Monster will no longer allow posting of resumes or job openings originating from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.
In an e-mail explaining the change, Monste
Self-rightous post (Score:3, Funny)
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? ;-)
Can this be legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't the USA have laws against racism and discrimination that might apply?
Re:Announcement of Great Religious Significance (Score:2, Funny)
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 th
Re:Really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think you might be over-reacting there? (Score:2)
Re:Think you might be over-reacting there? (Score:2)
Somalia is 5.75
Don't tell me that there are more people wanting to live in the bombed out country like Afghanistan than US.
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)
The corrupt regime or the people over whom it has dominion? They aren't the same thing.
Re:God help me... (Score:2)
Re:And this surprises you? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.