SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-many-jobs-do-we-need-to-lose dept.
I came across the following ad on Indeed.com for a software position (copied directly from the ad, including errors):
Please read this job description carefully.
We are looking for solid C/C++ Engineer with valid h1b visa who are currently in US and willing to transfer his visa to our company for long term employment.No 3rd party.
Strong mathematical and analytical skills, in linear algebra, discrete mathematics and statistics. Have a strong knowledge of methods of dynamic programming.
Strong knowledge of parallel computing theory and tools like MPI or OpenMP.
In-depth knowledge of C/C++ language, strong knowledge of standard library and boost library and have a strong knowledge of template meta programming.
Have a solid experience with cross-compilation using gnu tools.
Development experience with Linux Red Hat, embedded Linux, Windows 7 using gnu tools like make, gcc, g++. Have experience with cross platform development and testing using Cmake.
Have a prove experience working with source control system Git, Cvs.
Have a strong knowledge of HPC and cluster's architecture.
Have a strong knowledge of scripting language like bash and python.
Strong object-oriented programming and design skills, like design patternsSalary: $85,000.00 /year
Required experience:
C/C++ experience ,Windows/Unix development: 8 years
Required education:Master's
Is it legal to limit a search to only H1B applicants? Do people see this often? Is it reasonable to expect a US applicant would be difficult to find? Or is it just no one would expect a US applicant to work for the mentioned salary in the Metro Boston area?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 22 2015, @01:27PM
It is legal to be biased against American citizens. It is ILLEGAL to be biased against any outside minority group, but biases against Americans, against males, against whites, those are all good.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Saturday August 22 2015, @01:54PM
-1 Totally and completely incorrect. It's explicitly illegal to discriminate on national origin under the civil rights act of 1964. US is a national origin.
You're right that you could discriminate on citizenship, but that doesn't distinguish between naturalized and natural born. And I'm pretty sure you could make a case in court that such a distinction is arbitrary and intended as a disguised discriminatory policy on national origin.
All-in-all I rate your statement 9 cow pies out of a maximum of 10 bullshits.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 22 2015, @02:11PM
Uh-huh. You are technically correct - and Hillary Clinton is technically in violation of laws that would put most people in prison for years. Let's just see how things play out, alright? No one is going to be fined, or spend any time in jail, for refusing to hire an American citizen. That has already been decided by the superjudicial cliques.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday August 22 2015, @02:24PM
Yeah, I have no idea where the Clinton thing is going. She may well get a slap on the wrist.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @03:35PM
Notice how once his persecution fantasy was proven false, he threw in that red herring about Clinton and then you swallowed it hook, line and sinker?
Runaway is a whiny little bitch who makes up lies in order to justify his bigotry and people are forever giving him the benefit of the doubt.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday August 22 2015, @03:40PM
Yeah, it's a red herring. Perfectly true.
"Ha! You claim to to care about the justice system and it's rules, but what about [politicized scandal]?" is always going to be vacuous. I was just trying to get the discussion back on course by not caring. I kinda failed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @06:07PM
Hillary Clinton is in violation of laws? That has yet to be proven. Seems like you're deflecting from the fact that you are very wrong by using a highly politically charged statement, commonly used by followers of Breitbart, The Drudge Report, and Fox News. Making up a controversy to deflect from bullshit is a skill you've honed well my friend.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @07:02PM
She's either in violation of laws or completely and utterly incompetent. Either way, that worthless corporatist fool should get out of the way of Bernie Sanders so the Democrat party can finally put forth a candidate that's at least slightly decent.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 23 2015, @03:18AM
Great comment, but one thing I'd add, is that it seems you hear all over that Clinton didn't violate any laws. That seems awfully presumptuous -- Are they really saying that intercepting official communications is not covered by that vast Federal code? I'm sure that buried in it somewhere is a rule making it illegal to intercept the physical mail destined for a public office, hoarding it at home, then destroying it later. I would be shocked if intercepting digital communications destined for that public office, hoarding them at home, and then destroying them later was not also illegal.
Just take a look at, in particular paragraph b, of the following statute. It was one of the things Ollie North was originally convicted on.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 23 2015, @03:19AM
oops, blockquote fail there at the end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2015, @12:03PM
So again, she hasn't been proven to have violated laws. The impetus is on the sender not the receiver. As far as has been reported the emails that contained classified material were not marked properly, which would clear former Sec. Clinton of wrongdoing. Having a home server was not illegal until after her term and was a rule specifically created as a "gotcha" against Mrs. Clinton. If on the other hand they find that she did do something wrong, fine. As far as has been reported she's followed the legal advice she's been given and complied with the letter of the law. Just because she's guilty in the court of conservative American public opinion, doesn't mean that holds true in actual law. It's the same reason Pres. Reagan wasn't put in jail for treason, Pres G.W. Bush and VP Cheney aren't in jail for war crimes(which they admit to), and former Pres. Clinton isn't in jail for perjury(which..I mean..c'mon).
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 23 2015, @05:12PM
1: having a home server is beside the point.
2: I'm not convinced that was legal -- HRC was the only one of those DC scum who used private email, to actually use a private server. All the others used a third party server.
Mostly though, respond to this:
HRC had custody,
of an "other thing",
she willfully (meaning intentionally),
obliterated (deleted contents of) her server,
That's a fucking crime dickhead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:59AM
> willfully and unlawfully
Her argument is that everything she did, she did lawfully. All the other words in those statutes don't matter, the question is whether she could do them lawfully or not. She's stated that as head of the department of state it was within her authority to determine what records could be lawfully destroyed.
Whether you agree with her interpretation or not, the question of lawfulness is the key and it isn't addressed in the statutes you've quoted.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 24 2015, @04:14AM
So what you are saying is that destruction of documents sent to the SOS is legal.
How much you want to be that if some unknown started deleting official documents he had access to, he'd get prison time?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 22 2015, @08:14PM
Well, looks like we will need more "off-topic" mods, stat!
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday August 22 2015, @03:25PM
"Totally and completely incorrect. It's explicitly illegal to discriminate"
Naive. What's illegal is one thing; what's common practice is another.
Discrimination happens all the time, because - unless the person discriminating is stupid about it - it is essentially impossible to prove. "Gee, the guy we hired was a better fit for our company culture", or "Gee, the guy we hired had skill X that you didn't have". How are you going to prove that the real reason was H1B status, or hair color, or whatever?
It is clearly a failure of the government, to allow too many H1B visas. Equally clearly, the US government is pwned.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday August 22 2015, @03:32PM
They talked about legality in their post. It's okay to object to that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @04:01PM
How the hell is this rated 4, informative? There isn't a since scrap of information in there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @07:32PM
Being male, white, or American is not a protected class, therefore those that are those things do not get lawful protection from discrimination. Quite simple really. How else do you think women-only or black-only businesses survive when white-male only businesses get sued?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @11:26PM
Nonsense, one's gender, race and national origin are all protected classes.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/ [eeoc.gov]
http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G714.htm [hr-guide.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2015, @12:52AM
Citations needed.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @07:13PM
Give me a fucking break. You privileged little butt hurt whinny little fuck.
White people who have never attended a day of college make more than blacks who have-- it continues all the way up through blacks with advanced degrees making less than whites without them.
Women make 20-30% less than men.
White people, like your ancestors created laws that offered special financing on home loans and educational benefits for your white ancestors while denying blacks the same (e.g., GI Bill). Your family's wealth, and the privilege you still enjoy came from institutionalized racism.
Now the little white losers with all the privilege in the world are butt hurt because there are (small and insufficient) efforts to address these historical and contemporary wrongs. If there was justice, there would be strange white fruit hanging from the trees.
Crawl out of your mom's basement, and ask how she feels about women getting paid 20-30% less for the same job as men.
You stupid little whiny fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @07:34PM
You do know that everything you just said was racist and sexist right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @11:36PM
Don't be that fool who confuses racism and sexism for discussion of racism and sexism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2015, @09:01AM
All men are stupid [theguardian.com]