If they were in vicinity of HD, wouldn't it be more "quiet" to use a large magnet? Or a hammer?
Insider job and trying to maintain plausible deniability (avoid creating evidence of intention to vandalize the equipment).
That's my only thought, because a good CCTV installation ought to have the live data storage in a place shielded by some protective barriers AND concealed in a location that would be difficult to find/investigate/reach in a hurry.
Corrupted? That is the free market, through and through: people/corporations coming to an agreement via money without any regulatory interference.
Nope.... the second a collusive arrangement was constructed involving a cartel or large monopoly player bribing or inducing merchants to refuse payments through a competing method: it is no longer a free market ------ the fact that Visa is Not a governmental entity does NOT mean that what they do could never be regulatory interference -- for example: If they make their customers sign a contract that their customers won't accept cash payments, then Visa is now a regulator, and the markets are no longer free. It's the same deal offering their customers a bribe or cash incentive to change their behavior..... there is NOW an input coercing merchants to refuse cash that has nothing to do with whether or not their customers desire an ability to pay in cash AND the merchant desires to accept cash.
Not necessarily. If the store wants to restrict you to paying with VISA only, then the onus is on the store to collect your VISA card and charge you before giving you goods and services, so that it is not a debt ---- there is no legal requirement for restaurants to provide you food before you pay the bill; that is just a custom of certain kinds of restaurants.
Posting a sign somewhere visible in the premises doesn't automatically mean that everyone who enters has read the sign and agrees to it.
I believe if for some reason they should let you run up a bill --- after the debt is accumulated, then the shop has to either accept your payment in a lawful form if you have the cash available, Or allow you to leave and a reasonable number of days to acquire the special form of cash they are wanting, then come back later to settle the outstanding debt: There's no basis for accusing a customer for "THEFT OF SERVICES" for having cash and not a desired special payment instrument.
However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it.
Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests, and ELIMINATED government-backed cash as a competitor: Without the bribe, the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash --- because It is in their best interests to trade with everyone they can make a profitable trade with, but WITH the bribe, the free markets will fail perhaps, because in many venues there might not be quite $10k a year spent in CASH FORM, AND establishments that take in $20k or $30k in cash might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa to get a % point taken off their fees or something in addition to the $10k.
Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.
That's not an adequate answer to address the corruption of the marketplace. Point 1. being "Shop somewhere else" is not an acceptable resolution -- this places far too much burden on the consumer and threatens the viability of these government-backed notes, which the public has not affirmatively agreed to.
Point 2 is.... the people who are cardless through no real fault of their own OR don't want to pay Visa an extra free for a prepaid cashcard of some sort don't even have a choice.
Maybe I like unique food this restaurant has for sale. When the Civil Rights act passed; we as a society decided that places of public accommodation are important enough that some groups cannot be discriminatorily denied access "Cardless not welcome in our restaurant" simply should not fly.
None of these are reasons to justify government involvement.
Cattle cause damage to the land
When you own property; it is your land to "damage".
take enormous amounts of food and water to raise (draining aquifers in arid areas like California)
So do humans; these are costs that you will bear at the restaurant, AND if a proposed replacement takes less, then it should cost less, otherwise it's not a good replacement.
produce a powerful greenhouse gas
SO DO HUMANS produce/release a powerful greenhouse gas. You've forgotten that matter is not created in this process though --- this is a natural part of the carbon cycle. ALL the greenhouse gases that cattle "produce" are from gases that were captured in the process of growing ALL the extra food specifically for the cattle; Thus, the use of cattle does not INCREASE the total greenhouse gasses.
are raised in brutal factory farms where they walk knee deep in their own waste and carried by forklifts to processing
I thought you said you had reasons that aren't to do with Vegans / PETA ?
Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.
Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.
Exactly.... if the Artificial beef is a good substitute and its less-resource-intensive AND less expensive to produce and sell, then let it win the marketplace on its own..... first step: Is it good enough for Fast Food Restaurants like McDonalds to pick it up and use it as beef substitute without their customers noticing a deteoriation in the taste?
There is not a single person who can post to Slashdot who is Not privileged in some way. At least Bruce Perens is making a stand against evil, and injustice, and free speech suppression with his "privilege": Unlike you, anonymous coward, who are just abusing your privilege to try and insult a great man.
Such an event would cause sufficient gridlock to make the Internet useless.
No.... the internet would continue to function in the US, but it could create many network partitions, and communications between the US and other countries would be harder and slower.
A more concerning question is: Have they installed cable severing devices that can be remotely triggered? I suppose a remotely-triggered bomb would be easy enough, but it might be something more sophisticated,
Well..... we should help our carriers inspect our cables, and if anyone's installed such a device, then that in itself is an act of war and must be met with sanctions against the country responsible.
In fact.... we really should NOT tolerate foreign nations poking about with ANY craft on the ocean floors between other countries without permission from the countries adjoined by that section of ocean --- they're only allowed to transit their vessels through that space; the ocean floor itself and any cables is clearly the right of way and property of the countries that cables across that floor would intersect, And no other country has any legitimate business or right messing with, affecting that property, or "mapping out" cables in the first place...
Well, at least the ground-based 2005 wireless systems we have can survive common X-Class Solar flares and normal-magnitude CMEs we occassionally see without risk of equipment being permanently destroyed .
LEO Satellites at 1200 miles up will have a minimum Earth-Ground latency of 24 milliseconds and Earth-Ground-Earth Latency of 48 milliseconds because of the speed of light ---- this is a major latency issue unless there are MANY infrastructure Earth stations at major colocation facilities AND the traffic can be efficiently routed, so we're not landing traffic in a NEW YORK internet exchange that then needs to be routed to SAN FRANCISCO, or Atlanta, and thus appending another 50 milliseconds of ground latency after the satellite hop, for example.
Its price is notoriously volatile.... why are you surprised that it's Down a small amount after being Up a large amount?
The market is cooling down a bit, especially at the close of the year, and when its price was up there on the precipice it takes only a small push to result into some regression towards the mean.
In this case, the Litecoin founder being bullied into selling his coins -- the media playing Roger Ver's statements, the BCASH appearing on Coinbase, and some other recent events add up to a fairly significant Push, THEN the push gets even stronger with some initial price motion as some people react to a small dip by selling even more until it reaches a critical selling-off mass, and we have a minor price correction on our hands.
But how do you balance this Proof of Work so that a legitimate user with a mobile phone can complete it in a reasonable time but an attacker with a beefy GPU cannot?
You use Argon2D. The mobile phone user will be OK if it takes 10 seconds to signup. It's fine if you cut 99% of attackers short here; an attacker who is willing to analyze your system and bring a beefy GPU to the table is not really the concern.
How would that work if you have ten legitimate users behind one IP address logging in at the start of their workday?
You shouldn't ever have ten "legitimate" users behind one IP creating new accounts at the same time, and if you do, then some will have to wait or answer a Captcha, not a big deal.
Even then, sometimes the publicly available sign up option requires more intensive/time-exhausting work than simply logging in.
For example: you might specify your e-mail address, then be sent an e-mail with a link to continue the signup process.
You might have to specify your E-mail address before attempting to pick a username, and the username availability test will be delayed, and the number of usernames you can check per e-mail address will be limited, AND Some usernames that aren't actually in use will be shown as Unavailable --- for example, Simple dictionary words, and simple dictionary words appended by 1 or 2 digits might be pre-reserved.; The username is not in use but will show as Unavailable during signup.
Obscuring valid usernames / making them harder to figure out is RISK REDUCTION; the scheme NEEDN'T be PERFECT to be extremely useful.
The best way to mitigate brute-forcing the signup page (IMO) will be require users fill in info such as E-mail address and Captcha before picking username, then RATE LIMIT USERNAME CHECKS for example by using a Proof of Work in the browser.... Or If you try 10 usernames in 5 minutes on the signup page, then throttle or block.
Also, even if you can brute-force to find usernames through the signup process; it's going to be that much harder than through the LOGIN process. Furthermore, I have seen some websites make even THAT unlikely by requiring users to pick a username 8 or more characters and include at least two digits. The character comp requirement means that simple dictionary words won't be your username, and your dictionary search space is fairly large.
However this has been broken multiple times and likely won't ever be perfect. Even if reCAPTCHA was perfect [.....]
reCAPTCHA is currently GOOD ENOUGH protection to make guessing valid usernames hard. YOU WILL NEVER OWN A PERFECTLY SECURE SYSTEM.
People want to spend what they want to spend - this would cause a secondary grey market where people RMT in-game currencies and resell / trade on ebay/elsewhere.
That's fine, so long as the gray market sellers declare their profits and properly pay tax on them, And that it doesn't allow players to bypass the restrictions on random chance access, OR the game maker creates a Terms of Service policy against it and enforces the ToS by suspending players who violate the rules.
Lol $5. Many mobile games people blow 100,200, even 500 usd per month.
Well, the deal is the kind of chance a person would spend $5 is more like Class II gaming such as Bingo houses, and blowing $200 is definitely more like Class III Casino Gambling.
THAT behavior of blowing large amounts of money $100, $200, $500 is exactly the sort of thing that will get the government regulators in to BAN loot crates for everyone.
This just makes it MORE like gambling AND ruins the mystery by revealing what items could potentially be won. A more PROPER policy to avoid Loot boxes being like gambling would be require all the publishers do these two things:
(1) Establish a "daily purchase maximum" per player / per-user that is not more expensive than the typical costs of food one eats in a day, for example: you cannot buy more than $5 in loot boxes per day per player per game. AND 3x that as a limited monthly limit, E.G. $25 maximum loot boxes per month, and when that $25 limit is used up, resetting it requires calling a phone number, providing verbal proof that the player is age 18 or higher, and accepts some terms, to reset to $100, and finally, an annual limit of $200 per player that cannot be overridden.
And, (2) REQUIRE the player pass a skill-based challenge in game for each loot box "purchase"; in other words, simply BUYING a lootbox cannot be done without completing a skill-based challenge first for each purpose OR consuming some in-game resource that player skill was required to obtain ---- Thus changing it from simple Gambling to a Contest-type situation.
Our 'team' has been whittled down to the point that it consists of 3 guys - all over 60.
What a perfect situation for negotiating..... "I'm retiring. But i'll gladly do 3 to 4 hours of remote work per week to help support your app or train a junior replacement, as long as you keep the monthly $30K bonus coming to help pay for my retirement yacht"
It will reflect more badly on you and your profession than on your employer, so I don't recommend it. It's always best to leave on the best terms possible ---- leave the door open, just in case you need something in the future: maybe not a job, but one sort of favor or another from your former company, boss, co-workers, etc.
My suggestion would be start making your post-retirement plans now, and when you have them finalized, figure out a hard date you want to stop working. Make sure you used up your normal vacation time for the year, and afterwards let your employer know a few months before that date you want to retire and start cutting back your hours after 2-3 weeks, and how many hours you're still willing to put in a week to get the project done on time and work with others to offload your duties..
If you've been in the service of the company a long time; they'll probably work with you on prepping to retirement...
They are discriminating because unless you were between 25 to 36 - YOU DIDN'T SEE THE AD. Do you get it now....
MAYBE someone is. But the target-ad-by-age feature is not inherently discrimination. You can target 1 Ad to those 25 to 36, a different ad to those 37 to 50, and a different ad to those 51 to 100. All recruiting for the same position. AND This is a reasonable thing to do, because different humor, text, imagery, slogans, etc are likely to appeal to different age groups.
In fact.... you could say NOT targeting the ads by age is discriminatory, since you created an ad that only appeals to people 25 to 36, and older people will tend to ignore.
I see not necessarily an inherent issue that they can Age-target their ads.
If they are not discriminating, then they can run multiple Ads for the same job at the same time with each Ad taylored to attract applicants from a different age group.
If this becomes an issue, then additional government regulations could REQUIRE the advertisement of jobs in Online venues or Offline newspapers that can equally be viewed by candidates of any age.
Slashdot Mirror
What does god want with a starship?
If they were in vicinity of HD, wouldn't it be more "quiet" to use a large magnet? Or a hammer?
Insider job and trying to maintain plausible deniability (avoid creating evidence of intention to vandalize the equipment).
That's my only thought, because a good CCTV installation ought to have the live data storage in a place shielded by some protective barriers AND concealed in a location that would be difficult to find/investigate/reach in a hurry.
Corrupted? That is the free market, through and through: people/corporations coming to an agreement via money without any regulatory interference.
Nope.... the second a collusive arrangement was constructed involving a cartel or large monopoly player bribing or inducing merchants to refuse payments through a competing method: it is no longer a free market ------ the fact that Visa is Not a governmental entity does NOT mean that what they do could never be regulatory interference -- for example: If they make their customers sign a contract that their customers won't accept cash payments, then Visa is now a regulator, and the markets are no longer free. It's the same deal offering their customers a bribe or cash incentive to change their behavior..... there is NOW an input coercing merchants to refuse cash that has nothing to do with whether or not their customers desire an ability to pay in cash AND the merchant desires to accept cash.
Not necessarily. If the store wants to restrict you to paying with VISA only, then the onus is on the store to collect your VISA card and charge you before giving you goods and services, so that it is not a debt ---- there is no legal requirement for restaurants to provide you food before you pay the bill; that is just a custom of certain kinds of restaurants.
Posting a sign somewhere visible in the premises doesn't automatically mean that everyone who enters has read the sign and agrees to it.
I believe if for some reason they should let you run up a bill --- after the debt is accumulated, then the shop has to either accept your payment in a lawful form if you have the cash available, Or allow you to leave and a reasonable number of days to acquire the special form of cash they are wanting, then come back later to settle the outstanding debt:
There's no basis for accusing a customer for "THEFT OF SERVICES" for having cash and not a desired special payment instrument.
However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it.
Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests, and ELIMINATED government-backed cash as a competitor: Without the bribe, the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash --- because It is in their best interests to trade with everyone they can make a profitable trade with, but WITH the bribe, the free markets will fail perhaps, because in many venues there might not be quite $10k a year spent in CASH FORM, AND establishments that take in $20k or $30k in cash might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa to get a % point taken off their fees or something in addition to the $10k.
Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.
That's not an adequate answer to address the corruption of the marketplace.
Point 1. being "Shop somewhere else" is not an acceptable resolution -- this places far too much burden on the consumer and threatens the viability of these government-backed notes, which the public has not affirmatively agreed to.
Point 2 is.... the people who are cardless through no real fault of their own OR don't want to pay Visa an extra free for a prepaid cashcard of some sort don't even have a choice.
Maybe I like unique food this restaurant has for sale. When the Civil Rights act passed; we as a society decided that places of public accommodation are important enough that some groups cannot be discriminatorily denied access "Cardless not welcome in our restaurant" simply should not fly.
None of these are reasons to justify government involvement.
Cattle cause damage to the land
When you own property; it is your land to "damage".
take enormous amounts of food and water to raise (draining aquifers in arid areas like California)
So do humans; these are costs that you will bear at the restaurant, AND if a proposed replacement takes less, then it should cost less, otherwise it's not a good replacement.
produce a powerful greenhouse gas
SO DO HUMANS produce/release a powerful greenhouse gas. You've forgotten that matter is not created in this process though ---
this is a natural part of the carbon cycle. ALL the greenhouse gases that cattle "produce" are from gases that were captured
in the process of growing ALL the extra food specifically for the cattle; Thus, the use of cattle does not INCREASE the total greenhouse gasses.
are raised in brutal factory farms where they walk knee deep in their own waste and carried by forklifts to processing
I thought you said you had reasons that aren't to do with Vegans / PETA ?
Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.
Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.
Exactly.... if the Artificial beef is a good substitute and its less-resource-intensive AND less expensive to produce and sell, then let it win the marketplace on its own..... first step: Is it good enough for Fast Food Restaurants like McDonalds to pick it up and use it as beef substitute without their customers noticing a deteoriation in the taste?
Our internet still works, but we can't see the pictures of Russian tanks invading Germany.
If Russian tanks invade germany, then there are channels of communication such as HF Radio stations and Satellite which do not rely on the internet.
Just another privileged white male.
There is not a single person who can post to Slashdot who is Not privileged in some way. At least Bruce Perens is making a stand against evil, and injustice, and free speech suppression with his "privilege": Unlike you, anonymous coward, who are just abusing your privilege to try and insult a great man.
Such an event would cause sufficient gridlock to make the Internet useless.
No.... the internet would continue to function in the US, but it could create many network partitions, and communications between the US and other countries would be harder and slower.
A more concerning question is: Have they installed cable severing devices that can be remotely triggered? I suppose a remotely-triggered bomb would be easy enough, but it might be something more sophisticated,
Well..... we should help our carriers inspect our cables, and if anyone's installed such a device, then that in itself is an act of war and must be met with sanctions against the country responsible.
In fact.... we really should NOT tolerate foreign nations poking about with ANY craft on the ocean floors between other countries without permission from the countries adjoined by that section of ocean --- they're only allowed to transit their vessels through that space; the ocean floor itself and any cables is clearly the right of way and property of the countries that cables across that floor would intersect, And no other country has any legitimate business or right messing with, affecting that property, or "mapping out" cables in the first place...
Well, at least the ground-based 2005 wireless systems we have can survive common X-Class Solar flares and normal-magnitude CMEs we occassionally see without risk of equipment being permanently destroyed .
LEO Satellites at 1200 miles up will have a minimum Earth-Ground latency of 24 milliseconds and Earth-Ground-Earth Latency of 48 milliseconds because of the speed of light ---- this is a major latency issue unless there are MANY infrastructure Earth stations at major colocation facilities AND the traffic can be efficiently routed, so we're not landing traffic in a NEW YORK internet exchange that then needs to be routed to SAN FRANCISCO, or Atlanta, and thus appending another 50 milliseconds of ground latency after the satellite hop, for example.
Its price is notoriously volatile.... why are you surprised that it's Down a small amount after being Up a large amount?
The market is cooling down a bit, especially at the close of the year, and when its price was up there on the precipice it takes only a small push to result into some regression towards the mean.
In this case, the Litecoin founder being bullied into selling his coins -- the media playing Roger Ver's statements, the BCASH appearing on Coinbase, and some other recent events add up to a fairly significant Push, THEN the push gets even stronger with some initial price motion as some people react to a small dip by selling even more until it reaches a critical selling-off mass, and we have a minor price correction on our hands.
But how do you balance this Proof of Work so that a legitimate user with a mobile phone can complete it in a reasonable time but an attacker with a beefy GPU cannot?
You use Argon2D. The mobile phone user will be OK if it takes 10 seconds to signup.
It's fine if you cut 99% of attackers short here; an attacker who is willing to analyze your system and bring a beefy GPU to the table is not really the concern.
How would that work if you have ten legitimate users behind one IP address logging in at the start of their workday?
You shouldn't ever have ten "legitimate" users behind one IP creating new accounts at the same time, and if you do, then some will have to wait or answer a Captcha, not a big deal.
There's no publicly available 'sign up' option.
Even then, sometimes the publicly available sign up option requires more intensive/time-exhausting work than simply logging in.
For example: you might specify your e-mail address, then be sent an e-mail with a link to continue the signup process.
You might have to specify your E-mail address before attempting to pick a username,
and the username availability test will be delayed, and the number of usernames you can check per e-mail address will be limited,
AND Some usernames that aren't actually in use will be shown as Unavailable --- for example, Simple dictionary words, and
simple dictionary words appended by 1 or 2 digits might be pre-reserved.; The username is not in use but will show as Unavailable during signup.
Obscuring valid usernames / making them harder to figure out is RISK REDUCTION; the scheme NEEDN'T be PERFECT to be extremely useful.
The best way to mitigate brute-forcing the signup page (IMO) will be require users fill in info such as E-mail address and Captcha before picking username, then RATE LIMIT USERNAME CHECKS for example by using a Proof of Work in the browser.... Or If you try 10 usernames in 5 minutes on the signup page, then throttle or block.
Also, even if you can brute-force to find usernames through the signup process; it's going to be that much harder than through the LOGIN process.
Furthermore, I have seen some websites make even THAT unlikely by requiring users to pick a username 8 or more characters and include at least two digits.
The character comp requirement means that simple dictionary words won't be your username, and your dictionary search space is fairly large.
However this has been broken multiple times and likely won't ever be perfect. Even if reCAPTCHA was perfect [.....]
reCAPTCHA is currently GOOD ENOUGH protection to make guessing valid usernames hard. YOU WILL NEVER OWN A PERFECTLY SECURE SYSTEM.
People want to spend what they want to spend - this would cause a secondary grey market where people RMT in-game currencies and resell / trade on ebay/elsewhere.
That's fine, so long as the gray market sellers declare their profits and properly pay tax on them, And that it doesn't allow players to bypass the restrictions on random chance access, OR the game maker creates a Terms of Service policy against it and enforces the ToS by suspending players who violate the rules.
Lol $5. Many mobile games people blow 100,200, even 500 usd per month.
Well, the deal is the kind of chance a person would spend $5 is more like Class II gaming such as Bingo houses,
and blowing $200 is definitely more like Class III Casino Gambling.
THAT behavior of blowing large amounts of money $100, $200, $500 is exactly the sort of thing that will get
the government regulators in to BAN loot crates for everyone.
This just makes it MORE like gambling AND ruins the mystery by revealing what items could potentially be won.
A more PROPER policy to avoid Loot boxes being like gambling would be require all the publishers do these two things:
(1) Establish a "daily purchase maximum" per player / per-user that is not more expensive than the typical costs of food one eats in a day, for example: you cannot buy more than $5 in loot boxes per day per player per game. AND 3x that as a limited monthly limit, E.G. $25 maximum loot boxes per month, and when that $25 limit is used up, resetting it requires calling a phone number, providing verbal proof that the player is age 18 or higher, and accepts some terms, to reset to $100, and finally, an annual limit of $200 per player that cannot be overridden.
And, (2) REQUIRE the player pass a skill-based challenge in game for each loot box "purchase"; in other words, simply BUYING a lootbox cannot be done without completing a skill-based challenge first for each purpose OR consuming some in-game resource that player skill was required to obtain ---- Thus changing it from simple Gambling to a Contest-type situation.
Our 'team' has been whittled down to the point that it consists of 3 guys - all over 60.
What a perfect situation for negotiating..... "I'm retiring. But i'll gladly do 3 to 4 hours of remote work per week to help support your app or train a junior replacement, as long as you keep the monthly $30K bonus coming to help pay for my retirement yacht"
It will reflect more badly on you and your profession than on your employer, so I don't recommend it. It's always best to leave on the best terms possible ---- leave the door open, just in case you need something in the future: maybe not a job, but one sort of favor or another from your former company, boss, co-workers, etc.
My suggestion would be start making your post-retirement plans now, and when you have them finalized, figure out a hard date you want to stop working. Make sure you used up your normal vacation time for the year, and afterwards let your employer know a few months before that date you want to retire and start cutting back your hours after 2-3 weeks, and how many hours you're still willing to put in a week to get the project done on time and work with others to offload your duties..
If you've been in the service of the company a long time; they'll probably work with you on prepping to retirement...
They are discriminating because unless you were between 25 to 36 - YOU DIDN'T SEE THE AD. Do you get it now....
MAYBE someone is. But the target-ad-by-age feature is not inherently discrimination. You can target 1 Ad to those 25 to 36, a different ad to those 37 to 50, and a different ad to those 51 to 100. All recruiting for the same position. AND This is a reasonable thing to do, because different humor, text, imagery, slogans, etc are likely to appeal to different age groups.
In fact.... you could say NOT targeting the ads by age is discriminatory, since you created an ad that only appeals to people 25 to 36, and older people will tend to ignore.
Is ON THE COMPANY HIRING.
I see not necessarily an inherent issue that they can Age-target their ads.
If they are not discriminating, then they can run multiple Ads for the same job at the same time with each Ad taylored to attract applicants from a different age group.
If this becomes an issue, then additional government regulations could REQUIRE the advertisement of jobs in Online venues or Offline newspapers that can equally be viewed by candidates of any age.