Censorship : China & VSA =Vegetative States of America
Chinese Journalists Beat Censorship With Web: "Freedom fighters
(Score:5, Insightful)
by MikeRT (947531) Alter Relationship on Tuesday February 21, @12:27PM (#14769565)
(http://www.blindmindseye.com/)
A lot of Americans, left and right, (yes, both sides do it equally) talk about giving up freedom like we can get it back in the next election. Freedom has rarely ever been given back in any form because an electorate said, 'please sir, might we have some more.' It usually takes overt acts of defiance which makes this journalist all the more heroic given which society we're talking about.
The irony is that in America, anyone who votes for the two major parties is voting for the rise of Fascism. The Chinese live tyranny daily compared to us. If we ever get to the point where we live like them, it'll be our fault, and I don't see many Americans today who have the guts to pull a stunt anywhere near like this. A nation that won't even tell private security officers at stores like Best Buy to leave them alone when they're harrassing them, won't stay free long.
--
My blog [blindmindseye.com].
----------------------------------------------
Re:Freedom fighters
(Score:5, Insightful)all of these were reversed and undone within a few months of the end of those respective wars,
so... after "Terrorism" has surrendered in this current "War", legislation that curtails the freedoms of americans will probably also be reversed? Oh well, that won't take long..
=====================
In A Related Story
(Score:5, Funny)================
Li Datong's Letter
(Score:5, Informative)==================
Freedom Fighters
(Score:5, Insightful) by Doc Ruby (173196) 
on Tuesday February 21, @12:41PM (#14769701)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @12:48PM)
on Tuesday February 21, @12:41PM (#14769701) (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @12:48PM)
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
===================
What China should learn from the US
(Score:5, Insightful) Clearly China does not do a good enough job of discrediting and ostracizing its critics in the public sphere. And clearly it has not done a good job at making the Chinese people self-centered and aloof from each other.
Play the same scenario in the story out in the US in your head, and imagine what would happen. Major media would ignore it. Mass populace would ignore it, writing it off as crackpottery, bolstered by the lack of media coverage. Most people would delete the message as an "obvious spam" or "liberal bullshit" or some such. Result effect: zero.
The Chinese people actually *care about* and *believe* these sorts of things. That's where the PRC has clearly failed. They have not properly desensitized and disinterested their public. They need a heavy dose of selfishness injected into their population. Then they could get away with an awful lot more.
Screwing US tech and CRM workers with offshoring? Who cares? Screwing the working poor with no benefits? Who cares? Screwing the poor with social service cuts? Who cares? Screwing the economy, international affairs, and budget with a poorly defensible war? Who cares?
Clearly, the Chinese people care far too much.
You are absolutely correct. We've always been at war with Eurasia.Play the same scenario in the story out in the US in your head, and imagine what would happen. Major media would ignore it. Mass populace would ignore it, writing it off as crackpottery, bolstered by the lack of media coverage. Most people would delete the message as an "obvious spam" or "liberal bullshit" or some such. Result effect: zero.
The Chinese people actually *care about* and *believe* these sorts of things. That's where the PRC has clearly failed. They have not properly desensitized and disinterested their public. They need a heavy dose of selfishness injected into their population. Then they could get away with an awful lot more.
Screwing US tech and CRM workers with offshoring? Who cares? Screwing the working poor with no benefits? Who cares? Screwing the poor with social service cuts? Who cares? Screwing the economy, international affairs, and budget with a poorly defensible war? Who cares?
Clearly, the Chinese people care far too much.
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
==============================================
===
For interested Americans, the 'big boom' video censored by Google [google.com] may be viewed here [youtube.com].
======================]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.
The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999, when the Central Intelligence Agency and five other agencies objected to what they saw as a hasty release of sensitive information after a 1995 declassification order signed by President Bill Clinton. It accelerated after the Bush administration took office and especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to archives records.
But because the reclassification program is itself shrouded in secrecy -- governed by a still-classified memorandum that prohibits the National Archives even from saying which agencies are involved -- it continued virtually without outside notice until December. That was when an intelligence historian, Matthew M. Aid, noticed that dozens of documents he had copied years ago had been withdrawn from the archives' open shelves.
Mr. Aid was struck by what seemed to him the innocuous contents of the documents -- mostly decades-old State Department reports from the Korean War and the early cold war. He found that eight reclassified documents had been previously published in the State Department's history series, "Foreign Relations of the United States."
"The stuff they pulled should never have been removed," he said. "Some of it is mundane, and some of it is outright ridiculous."
After Mr. Aid and other historians complained, the archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees government classification, began an audit of the reclassification program, said J. William Leonard, director of the office.
Mr. Leonard said he ordered the audit after reviewing 16 withdrawn documents and concluding that none should be secret.
"If those sample records were removed because somebody thought they were classified, I'm shocked and disappointed," Mr. Leonard said in an interview. "It just boggles the mind."
If Mr. Leonard finds that documents are being wrongly reclassified, his office could not unilaterally release them. But as the chief adviser to the White House on classification, he could urge a reversal or a revision of the reclassification program.
A group of historians, including representatives of the National Coalition for History and the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations, wrote to Mr. Leonard on Friday to express concern about the reclassification program, which they believe has blocked access to some material at the presidential libraries as well as at the archives.
Among the 50 withdrawn documents that Mr. Aid found in his own files is a 1948 memorandum on a C.I.A. scheme to float balloons over countries behind the Iron Curtain and drop propaganda leaflets. It was reclassified in 2001 even though it had been published by the State Department in 1996.
Another historian, William Burr, found a dozen documents he had copied years ago whose reclassification he considers "silly," including a 1962 telegram from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia, containing an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program.
Under existing guidelines, government documents are supposed to be declassified after 25 years unless there is particular reason to keep them secret. While some of the choices made by the security reviewers at the archives are baffling, others seem guided by an old bureaucratic reflex: to cover up embarrassments, even if they occurred a half-century ago.
One reclassified document in Mr. Aid's files, for instance, gives the C.I.A.'s assessment on Oct. 12, 1950, that Chinese intervention in the Korean War was "not probable in 1950." Just two weeks later, on Oct. 27, some 300,000 Chinese troops crossed into Korea.
Mr. Aid said he believed that because of the reclassification program, some of the contents of his 22 file cabinets might technically place him in violation of the Espionage Act, a circumstance that could be shared by scores of other historians. But no effort has been made to retrieve copies of reclassified documents, and it is not clear how they all could even be located.
"It doesn't make sense to create a category of documents that are classified but that everyone already has," said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel of the National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University. "These documents were on open shelves for years."
The group plans to post Mr. Aid's reclassified documents and his account of the secret program on its Web site, www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv, on Tuesday.
The program's critics do not question the notion that wrongly declassified material should be withdrawn. Mr. Aid said he had been dismayed to see "scary" documents in open files at the National Archives, including detailed instructions on the use of high explosives.
But the historians say the program is removing material that can do no conceivable harm to national security. They say it is part of a marked trend toward greater secrecy under the Bush administration, which has increased the pace of classifying documents, slowed declassification and discouraged the release of some material under the Freedom of Information Act.
Experts on government secrecy believe the C.I.A. and other spy agencies, not the White House, are the driving force behind the reclassification program.
"I think it's driven by the individual agencies, which have bureaucratic sensitivities to protect," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, editor of the online weekly Secrecy News. "But it was clearly encouraged by the administration's overall embrace of secrecy."
National Archives officials said the program had revoked access to 9,500 documents, more than 8,000 of them since President Bush took office. About 30 reviewers -- employees and contractors of the intelligence and defense agencies -- are at work each weekday at the archives complex in College Park, Md., the officials said.
Archives officials could not provide a cost for the program but said it was certainly in the millions of dollars, including more than $1 million to build and equip a secure room where the reviewers work.
Michael J. Kurtz, assistant archivist for record services, said the National Archives sought to expand public access to documents whenever possible but had no power over the reclassifications. "The decisions agencies make are those agencies' decisions," Mr. Kurtz said.
Though the National Archives are not allowed to reveal which agencies are involved in the reclassification, one archivist said on condition of anonymity that the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency were major participants.
A spokesman for the C.I.A., Paul Gimigliano, said that the agency had released 26 million pages of documents to the National Archives since 1998 and that it was "committed to the highest quality process" for deciding what should be secret.
"Though the process typically works well, there will always be the anomaly, given the tremendous amount of material and multiple players involved," Mr. Gimigliano said.
A spokesman for the Defense Intelligence Agency said he was unable to comment on whether his agency was involved in the program.
Anna K. Nelson, a foreign policy historian at American University, said she and other researchers had been puzzled in recent years by the number of documents pulled from the archives with little explanation.
"I think this is a travesty," said Dr. Nelson, who said she believed that some reclassified material was in her files. "I think the public is being deprived of what history is really about: facts."
The document removals have not been reported to the Information Security Oversight Office, as the law has required for formal reclassifications since 2003.
The explanation, said Mr. Leonard, the head of the office, is a bureaucratic quirk. The intelligence agencies take the position that the reclassified documents were never properly declassified, even though they were reviewed, stamped "declassified," freely given to researchers and even published, he said.
Thus, the agencies argue, the documents remain classified -- and pulling them from public access is not really reclassification.
Mr. Leonard said he believed that while that logic might seem strained, the agencies were technically correct. But he said the complaints about the secret program, which prompted his decision to conduct an audit, showed that the government's system for deciding what should be secret is deeply flawed.
"This is not a very efficient way of doing business," Mr. Leonard said. "There's got to be a better way."
============http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178066&threshold=5&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14767544
=================
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
==============================================
===
Route around that censorship.
(Score:5, Informative)For interested Americans, the 'big boom' video censored by Google [google.com] may be viewed here [youtube.com].
======================]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.
The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999, when the Central Intelligence Agency and five other agencies objected to what they saw as a hasty release of sensitive information after a 1995 declassification order signed by President Bill Clinton. It accelerated after the Bush administration took office and especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to archives records.
But because the reclassification program is itself shrouded in secrecy -- governed by a still-classified memorandum that prohibits the National Archives even from saying which agencies are involved -- it continued virtually without outside notice until December. That was when an intelligence historian, Matthew M. Aid, noticed that dozens of documents he had copied years ago had been withdrawn from the archives' open shelves.
Mr. Aid was struck by what seemed to him the innocuous contents of the documents -- mostly decades-old State Department reports from the Korean War and the early cold war. He found that eight reclassified documents had been previously published in the State Department's history series, "Foreign Relations of the United States."
"The stuff they pulled should never have been removed," he said. "Some of it is mundane, and some of it is outright ridiculous."
After Mr. Aid and other historians complained, the archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees government classification, began an audit of the reclassification program, said J. William Leonard, director of the office.
Mr. Leonard said he ordered the audit after reviewing 16 withdrawn documents and concluding that none should be secret.
"If those sample records were removed because somebody thought they were classified, I'm shocked and disappointed," Mr. Leonard said in an interview. "It just boggles the mind."
If Mr. Leonard finds that documents are being wrongly reclassified, his office could not unilaterally release them. But as the chief adviser to the White House on classification, he could urge a reversal or a revision of the reclassification program.
A group of historians, including representatives of the National Coalition for History and the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations, wrote to Mr. Leonard on Friday to express concern about the reclassification program, which they believe has blocked access to some material at the presidential libraries as well as at the archives.
Among the 50 withdrawn documents that Mr. Aid found in his own files is a 1948 memorandum on a C.I.A. scheme to float balloons over countries behind the Iron Curtain and drop propaganda leaflets. It was reclassified in 2001 even though it had been published by the State Department in 1996.
Another historian, William Burr, found a dozen documents he had copied years ago whose reclassification he considers "silly," including a 1962 telegram from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia, containing an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program.
Under existing guidelines, government documents are supposed to be declassified after 25 years unless there is particular reason to keep them secret. While some of the choices made by the security reviewers at the archives are baffling, others seem guided by an old bureaucratic reflex: to cover up embarrassments, even if they occurred a half-century ago.
One reclassified document in Mr. Aid's files, for instance, gives the C.I.A.'s assessment on Oct. 12, 1950, that Chinese intervention in the Korean War was "not probable in 1950." Just two weeks later, on Oct. 27, some 300,000 Chinese troops crossed into Korea.
Mr. Aid said he believed that because of the reclassification program, some of the contents of his 22 file cabinets might technically place him in violation of the Espionage Act, a circumstance that could be shared by scores of other historians. But no effort has been made to retrieve copies of reclassified documents, and it is not clear how they all could even be located.
"It doesn't make sense to create a category of documents that are classified but that everyone already has," said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel of the National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University. "These documents were on open shelves for years."
The group plans to post Mr. Aid's reclassified documents and his account of the secret program on its Web site, www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv, on Tuesday.
The program's critics do not question the notion that wrongly declassified material should be withdrawn. Mr. Aid said he had been dismayed to see "scary" documents in open files at the National Archives, including detailed instructions on the use of high explosives.
But the historians say the program is removing material that can do no conceivable harm to national security. They say it is part of a marked trend toward greater secrecy under the Bush administration, which has increased the pace of classifying documents, slowed declassification and discouraged the release of some material under the Freedom of Information Act.
Experts on government secrecy believe the C.I.A. and other spy agencies, not the White House, are the driving force behind the reclassification program.
"I think it's driven by the individual agencies, which have bureaucratic sensitivities to protect," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, editor of the online weekly Secrecy News. "But it was clearly encouraged by the administration's overall embrace of secrecy."
National Archives officials said the program had revoked access to 9,500 documents, more than 8,000 of them since President Bush took office. About 30 reviewers -- employees and contractors of the intelligence and defense agencies -- are at work each weekday at the archives complex in College Park, Md., the officials said.
Archives officials could not provide a cost for the program but said it was certainly in the millions of dollars, including more than $1 million to build and equip a secure room where the reviewers work.
Michael J. Kurtz, assistant archivist for record services, said the National Archives sought to expand public access to documents whenever possible but had no power over the reclassifications. "The decisions agencies make are those agencies' decisions," Mr. Kurtz said.
Though the National Archives are not allowed to reveal which agencies are involved in the reclassification, one archivist said on condition of anonymity that the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency were major participants.
A spokesman for the C.I.A., Paul Gimigliano, said that the agency had released 26 million pages of documents to the National Archives since 1998 and that it was "committed to the highest quality process" for deciding what should be secret.
"Though the process typically works well, there will always be the anomaly, given the tremendous amount of material and multiple players involved," Mr. Gimigliano said.
A spokesman for the Defense Intelligence Agency said he was unable to comment on whether his agency was involved in the program.
Anna K. Nelson, a foreign policy historian at American University, said she and other researchers had been puzzled in recent years by the number of documents pulled from the archives with little explanation.
"I think this is a travesty," said Dr. Nelson, who said she believed that some reclassified material was in her files. "I think the public is being deprived of what history is really about: facts."
The document removals have not been reported to the Information Security Oversight Office, as the law has required for formal reclassifications since 2003.
The explanation, said Mr. Leonard, the head of the office, is a bureaucratic quirk. The intelligence agencies take the position that the reclassified documents were never properly declassified, even though they were reviewed, stamped "declassified," freely given to researchers and even published, he said.
Thus, the agencies argue, the documents remain classified -- and pulling them from public access is not really reclassification.
Mr. Leonard said he believed that while that logic might seem strained, the agencies were technically correct. But he said the complaints about the secret program, which prompted his decision to conduct an audit, showed that the government's system for deciding what should be secret is deeply flawed.
"This is not a very efficient way of doing business," Mr. Leonard said. "There's got to be a better way."
============http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178066&threshold=5&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14767544
=================
registration
(Score:5, Insightful) by LaCosaNostradamus (630659) <LaCosaNostradamu ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday February 21, @11:48AM (#14769193)
(Last Journal: Sunday September 21, @10:32AM)
<LaCosaNostradamu ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday February 21, @11:48AM (#14769193) (Last Journal: Sunday September 21, @10:32AM)
Poster1: "skilled investigative reporters with the resources to pursue stories in depth"
Poster2: "Errr? We actually had those at one time?"
Yes, we did, but the 1990s were a hallmark in the die-off of investigative journalism. Several books have been written about the subject. The 1990s produced a corporatized media system that tipped over a hump in concerns of financial controls, corporate ownership, and the vast background hum of elite influence. The end product is that major media outlets are streamlined to produce consumerist news (HappyNews{tm}), not anything else. Investigating financial topics, for instance, not only takes a while, but tends to cross some corporate donor or owner somewhere.
The (in)famous meta-story of the Fox News / Monsanto story is an outstanding example of how highly-corporatized ownership of news (and in fact all industries, as well as corruption of government) kills investigative journalism.
An American is much more likely now to find investigative journalism from independents like Greg Palast, and foreigners (notably, the BBC). His domestic media otherwise has been completely subverted and simply cannot be trusted.
===========================Poster2: "Errr? We actually had those at one time?"
Yes, we did, but the 1990s were a hallmark in the die-off of investigative journalism. Several books have been written about the subject. The 1990s produced a corporatized media system that tipped over a hump in concerns of financial controls, corporate ownership, and the vast background hum of elite influence. The end product is that major media outlets are streamlined to produce consumerist news (HappyNews{tm}), not anything else. Investigating financial topics, for instance, not only takes a while, but tends to cross some corporate donor or owner somewhere.
The (in)famous meta-story of the Fox News / Monsanto story is an outstanding example of how highly-corporatized ownership of news (and in fact all industries, as well as corruption of government) kills investigative journalism.
An American is much more likely now to find investigative journalism from independents like Greg Palast, and foreigners (notably, the BBC). His domestic media otherwise has been completely subverted and simply cannot be trusted.
--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
=====================
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
=====================
Time to start reading kiddies
(Score:5, Insightful) by slashdot_commentator (444053) on Tuesday February 21, @10:58AM (#14768670)
(Last Journal: Friday November 04, @04:20PM)
on Tuesday February 21, @10:58AM (#14768670) (Last Journal: Friday November 04, @04:20PM)
1984 [george-orwell.org] Yeah! I mean, what's the big deal. It's just super powerful government agencies flagrantly breaking the law. It's not like this is a bad thing. How could it be bad? The CIA is good. The government is good. They can't do bad things. It's just impossible. This is not bad. Ergo, it is good.
If you can control what people know, you control what they beleive, and thus how they act. Right to the point where they're not even aware that they're being played.
The Iraq Invasion is a wonderful demonstration of the US Ministry of Truth. There are people in the US currently running around thinking the US invaded Iraq to "liberate" the people, not go after WMD which wasn't there.
You 1st worlders can't see it firsthand, it is so scary to watch.
==================
Re:Secret?
(Score:5, Insightful) by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreak@eir c o m .net> on Tuesday February 21, @09:15AM (#14767607)
(Last Journal: Wednesday January 18, @06:36AM)
<obsessivemathsfreak@eir c o m .net> on Tuesday February 21, @09:15AM (#14767607) (Last Journal: Wednesday January 18, @06:36AM)
================
--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
===================
I couldn't agree with this more. I won't even look at job postings by recruiters. If an employer is serious about hiring, I fully expect them to be involved in the hiring process from the start. This Homer Simpson "can't someone else do it?" attitude completely turns me off of whatever job it may be.
On a related note, I wonder how long it'll be until the job recruiters are outsourcing their positions overseas so even THEY are barely involved. I hear capitalism works pretty well when jobs disappear and nobody can afford to buy anything.
===================
More jobs. If you aren't searching nationally (which most people aren't) or leaving the fields blank ; there aren't more than one or two matches. Even these are mostly fake jobs listed from headhunters and placement agencies looking to expand their pool of workers. I'd also like to see less competition between the job websites. I don't like checking 15 websites for a job every day.
PS: For Canadian bums like me that are looking for a job, check this site [jobbank.gc.ca] out.
===============================================================
Hmmm. Have you considered a career in Law Enforcement?
===========================================
... I really don't use job sites, but I've poked around a bit.
1) ban recruiters
2) manditory salary ranges
3) must include company name so I can do research
4) use a good set of standard tags (travel, COBOL, PMI, etc)
5) list when you're deciding to award the job
================
It just seems that the applicants I get are rarely suited for the position they're applying for. They seem to just fire resumes out of a shotgun. They don't have any experience in the specific field (database driven websites), or even in the general technologies (when to use a left join in SQL). At this point in the web's history, is it really too much to expect people who already know this stuff? And for them to be easy people to work with? The catches are just too few and far between.
It sounds from the other posts here that the would-be-employees have similar compaints from the other side. Too much noise, not enough signal. Recruiters annoy me too. What can these job sites do about it? Hell if I know. I'm too busy trying to hire people!
I've been relegated to including a link to my company's tech jobs page in my slashdot .sig for heaven's sake!
========================
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
===================
To quote Orwell
(Score:5, Insightful) Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/02/21/0152242--
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
========================================
Only people who are constantly willing to believe the worst in the government are going to see a grand conspiracy here.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
========================================
Re:Tempest in a teapot
(Score:5, Insightful) by geoffspear (692508) <geoffspear.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 21, @09:23AM (#14767678)
(http://www.geoffreyspear.com/blog/)
<geoffspear.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 21, @09:23AM (#14767678) (http://www.geoffreyspear.com/blog/)
If the government will stop proving on a regular basis that it deserves to be thought of in that way, we'll stop.
=======================To be blunt...
(Score:5, Insightful) Jobs not recruiters..
================--
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Re:To be blunt...
(Score:5, Insightful)On a related note, I wonder how long it'll be until the job recruiters are outsourcing their positions overseas so even THEY are barely involved. I hear capitalism works pretty well when jobs disappear and nobody can afford to buy anything.
===================
More jobs. If you aren't searching nationally (which most people aren't) or leaving the fields blank ; there aren't more than one or two matches. Even these are mostly fake jobs listed from headhunters and placement agencies looking to expand their pool of workers. I'd also like to see less competition between the job websites. I don't like checking 15 websites for a job every day.
PS: For Canadian bums like me that are looking for a job, check this site [jobbank.gc.ca] out.
===============================================================
Re:More Real Jobs
(Score:5, Informative)Indeed.com [indeed.com] is a good step in the right direction. (disclaimer: I work there)
Indeed currently has 3.4 million jobs from the last 30 days. It lets you search jobs from thousands of sites in one place. And it has a cool job trends [indeed.com] tool.
Oh yea, and it has a site for Canadian jobs [indeed.com], too.
==========================
I want A job that pays me to tastes coffee and doughnuts with a good wage, benefits and an early retirement plan.
Re:I want...
(Score:5, Funny) by themoodykid (261964) on Monday February 20, @11:50PM (#14765663)
(http://blaargher.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 03, @03:53PM)
on Monday February 20, @11:50PM (#14765663) (http://blaargher.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 03, @03:53PM)
===========================================
As a contractor..
(Score:5, Insightful)1) ban recruiters
2) manditory salary ranges
3) must include company name so I can do research
4) use a good set of standard tags (travel, COBOL, PMI, etc)
5) list when you're deciding to award the job
================
As an actual employer...
(Score:5, Insightful)It sounds from the other posts here that the would-be-employees have similar compaints from the other side. Too much noise, not enough signal. Recruiters annoy me too. What can these job sites do about it? Hell if I know. I'm too busy trying to hire people!
I've been relegated to including a link to my company's tech jobs page in my slashdot
========================
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Driving consumerism & export development
(Score:5, Interesting) This has been an ongoing thing in Japan. It drives the Japanese imported car idustry in places like New Zealand. Forcing local consumption also helps Japan develop new products in its quest to export. For an interesting read http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Japan/J apanYes [virtualschool.edu]. I don't endorse or condemn what's written here, not that my endorsement or condemnation are worth jack.
====================--
Rocket science isn't rocket science!
===================
This is only retail sales, not individuals. And it isn't a ban, it merely requires the retailer to take responsibility that the device is safe according to the new standard. And it involves only the safety of high-voltage (mains-powered) equipment, not electronics.
Here's a link discussing it: http://www.mutantfrog.com/2006/02/22/2nd-hand-elec tronics-sales-will-not-soon-be-illegal-in-japan/ [mutantfrog.com]
====================
This is rather disheartening news. One of the most wonderful things about Japan is its thriving second hand market, and I for one spent an awful lot of money in shops like Sofmap [sofmap.com], mostly on Mac stuff. .../...
Rocket science isn't rocket science!
===================
Only retail
(Score:5, Informative) by JanneM (7445) on Wednesday February 22, @05:12PM (#14780628)
(http://lucs.lu.se/Pe...ren/log/current.html | Last Journal: Friday October 31, @02:49AM)
on Wednesday February 22, @05:12PM (#14780628) (http://lucs.lu.se/Pe...ren/log/current.html | Last Journal: Friday October 31, @02:49AM)
Here's a link discussing it: http://www.mutantfrog.com/2006/02/22/2nd-hand-ele
====================
Disappointing
(Score:5, Insightful) by ickoonite (639305) on Wednesday February 22, @05:14PM (#14780645)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/ickoonite/)
on Wednesday February 22, @05:14PM (#14780645) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ickoonite/)
posted by USSSlavebation @ 2/27/2006 12:33:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home