If a copyright holder wants to claim damages, they can't sit on it (waiting for damages to pile up for an example of what the incentive of doing that might be.)
But you cannot lose your copyright ownership via inaction as you can trademark.
If the magazine boasted that it had technological measures in place that ensured only men read *could* or *did* it, then you'd absolutely have a legal basis for discrimination.
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job." That's not a complicated case for discrimination. Newspapers and job posting websites like monster didn't offer protected class attribute targeting and employers didn't find this so economically burdensome as to not to advertise in them so it's pretty stupid to charge that this is something that employers need to be able to do as the cost of making the job market significantly less transparent for everybody.
Job wanted ads are not the same as advertising for consumer products and services. A job is not a product - they are two different things treated in very different ways by the legal system.
God damn this "old man complains world is getting dumber and making his life difficult/annoying" shit is super tedious. Doubly so because it never fucking changes and it's always the same kind of morons who whine about it, regardless of what decade it is.
The difference is with cards, you end up owning something physical. I don't really care what you say they're worth, it's a physical tangible thing that you spend money on that you then physically own. That's a discrete difference.
Also because the barrier of effort required to spend is much lower with virtual currencies/items in game storefronts, it's more prone to taking advantage of people who have spending control problems or gambling issues which is why you're seeing increased scrunity.
You just named a bunch of technologies mentioned by name in law to regulate how they are used. Nobody is trying to unvent things - that's impossible. Suggesting people propose that things be unvented is again just a logical fallacy to make the concern about how technologies get used appear ridiculous or unreasonable even tho it's something we have done since the beginning of history. You're being stupid. Don't be stupid.
Poorer societies with lesser access to education are prone to violence and unrest. This has nothing to do with malfunctioning humans. You're making a very attractive and popular mistake of attributing behavior all humans are capable to to the intrinsic nature of.. a country? Something in the water? Surely you're not saying it's a racial thing, right?
Everyone on earth was happily doing stuff like this not so very long ago. Those "witches" weren't doing it to themselves anymore than the victims of social media fueled violence in India are doing it to themselves - and frankly it's stupid to expect everyone in the entire world to behave the way you do, to use technologies in the same ways you do, given the stark differences in the environment, resources, education, political and economic stability in which people grow up and live.
But damn you seem worried that Facebook is being accused of killing people. That's reductio ad absurdum - but engineers and makers of technology should be expected to have a social responsibility to try and limit the ways in which different societies may abuse their work. That's nothing new. Engineering programs the world over include social science courses teaching us Engineers as much, and those responsibilities are part of the values professional engineering organizations seek to uphold.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?
Anything does that. We're talking about deeply stupid people here. These are all people Trump has selected. Any swamp or deep state at this point isn't something he inherited but something he is responsible for creating.
You're talking about millions of active users. Are you telling me you're surprised out that group that a tiny percentage of those people might not be perfectly well adjusted (never-mind outright suffer from mental or emotional problems?)
The barrier to access and use websites is zero. I really have trouble figuring out how anyone can be surprised that out of millions of people, some of those people are capable of unacceptable social behavior.
Ah sweet, you're conflating privacy and security, issues that nobody really thinks every handler of data on the internet should be responsible and accountable for, with content issues for two entirely different segments of service and function on the internet. Waters sufficiently muddied, false dichotomy suggested! Telcos pleased!
Net neutrality doesn't have shit to do with what kind of data is published on websites anymore than the owner of the only road in town should be able to say that because a store can kick somebody off their property, the road owner should be able to as well.
You claim that rising CO2 and climate change are the exact same thing.
The headline makes no such claim that they're the exact same thing. But they are so closely linked as to be interchangeable for the sake of this headline. I'm sure you can, but will politely decline acknowledging why that is. Indeed, I'm offended by your concern pedantry, because it's bad faith nitpicking masquerading as sincerity.
How is that a different discussion? Research like wouldn't even be happening if the scientific community at large wasn't absolutely sure that CO2 levels will continue to rise due to human produced CO2. The research and take-away is political by nature. Click-bait is a term you can use dismissively on anything that's designed to attract attention, but "Comet about to hit earth" isn't a click bait headline if a comet is going to hit the earth.
Climate Change Could Lead To Nutrient Deficiency For Hundreds of Millions.
Rising levels of CO2 is climate change. Could. Not will, but could. Hundreds of Millions is a relatively modest percent of humans on earth. And that's click-baity to you? I really have no idea what you're fucking complaining about, short of the headline being "Don't read this, it's boring and has nothing to do with you."
Slashdot Mirror
The amount of people who opt in to receive settlements affect your math.
Does it matter if the people involved no longer work there?
This is how people talk when they're trying to imagine how the real world works.
If a copyright holder wants to claim damages, they can't sit on it (waiting for damages to pile up for an example of what the incentive of doing that might be.)
But you cannot lose your copyright ownership via inaction as you can trademark.
Compilers don't run or manage the project.
If the magazine boasted that it had technological measures in place that ensured only men read *could* or *did* it, then you'd absolutely have a legal basis for discrimination.
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job." That's not a complicated case for discrimination. Newspapers and job posting websites like monster didn't offer protected class attribute targeting and employers didn't find this so economically burdensome as to not to advertise in them so it's pretty stupid to charge that this is something that employers need to be able to do as the cost of making the job market significantly less transparent for everybody.
Job wanted ads are not the same as advertising for consumer products and services. A job is not a product - they are two different things treated in very different ways by the legal system.
God damn this "old man complains world is getting dumber and making his life difficult/annoying" shit is super tedious. Doubly so because it never fucking changes and it's always the same kind of morons who whine about it, regardless of what decade it is.
The difference is with cards, you end up owning something physical. I don't really care what you say they're worth, it's a physical tangible thing that you spend money on that you then physically own. That's a discrete difference.
Also because the barrier of effort required to spend is much lower with virtual currencies/items in game storefronts, it's more prone to taking advantage of people who have spending control problems or gambling issues which is why you're seeing increased scrunity.
Garret
Fortunately you'll never be awarded enough responsibility to have to put your money where your stupid mouth is.
Ignorance is bliss and these people are pissing bliss.
Those words apply equally to you.
False dichotomies are fun!
You just named a bunch of technologies mentioned by name in law to regulate how they are used. Nobody is trying to unvent things - that's impossible. Suggesting people propose that things be unvented is again just a logical fallacy to make the concern about how technologies get used appear ridiculous or unreasonable even tho it's something we have done since the beginning of history. You're being stupid. Don't be stupid.
That would require a weak willed, if not entirely deliberate, misunderstanding of history and science.
Poorer societies with lesser access to education are prone to violence and unrest. This has nothing to do with malfunctioning humans. You're making a very attractive and popular mistake of attributing behavior all humans are capable to to the intrinsic nature of .. a country? Something in the water? Surely you're not saying it's a racial thing, right?
Everyone on earth was happily doing stuff like this not so very long ago. Those "witches" weren't doing it to themselves anymore than the victims of social media fueled violence in India are doing it to themselves - and frankly it's stupid to expect everyone in the entire world to behave the way you do, to use technologies in the same ways you do, given the stark differences in the environment, resources, education, political and economic stability in which people grow up and live.
But damn you seem worried that Facebook is being accused of killing people. That's reductio ad absurdum - but engineers and makers of technology should be expected to have a social responsibility to try and limit the ways in which different societies may abuse their work. That's nothing new. Engineering programs the world over include social science courses teaching us Engineers as much, and those responsibilities are part of the values professional engineering organizations seek to uphold.
That's why there are laws in electoral advertising.When you don't have to be transparent, advertising can be far more effective/manipulative.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?
Anything does that. We're talking about deeply stupid people here. These are all people Trump has selected. Any swamp or deep state at this point isn't something he inherited but something he is responsible for creating.
I love it when dumb people lament how dumb everyone has become.
You're talking about millions of active users. Are you telling me you're surprised out that group that a tiny percentage of those people might not be perfectly well adjusted (never-mind outright suffer from mental or emotional problems?)
The barrier to access and use websites is zero. I really have trouble figuring out how anyone can be surprised that out of millions of people, some of those people are capable of unacceptable social behavior.
Ah sweet, you're conflating privacy and security, issues that nobody really thinks every handler of data on the internet should be responsible and accountable for, with content issues for two entirely different segments of service and function on the internet. Waters sufficiently muddied, false dichotomy suggested! Telcos pleased!
Net neutrality doesn't have shit to do with what kind of data is published on websites anymore than the owner of the only road in town should be able to say that because a store can kick somebody off their property, the road owner should be able to as well.
You claim that rising CO2 and climate change are the exact same thing.
The headline makes no such claim that they're the exact same thing. But they are so closely linked as to be interchangeable for the sake of this headline. I'm sure you can, but will politely decline acknowledging why that is. Indeed, I'm offended by your concern pedantry, because it's bad faith nitpicking masquerading as sincerity.
You wish, or perhaps need, the world to be that simple.
How is that a different discussion? Research like wouldn't even be happening if the scientific community at large wasn't absolutely sure that CO2 levels will continue to rise due to human produced CO2. The research and take-away is political by nature. Click-bait is a term you can use dismissively on anything that's designed to attract attention, but "Comet about to hit earth" isn't a click bait headline if a comet is going to hit the earth.
Climate Change Could Lead To Nutrient Deficiency For Hundreds of Millions.
Rising levels of CO2 is climate change. Could. Not will, but could. Hundreds of Millions is a relatively modest percent of humans on earth. And that's click-baity to you? I really have no idea what you're fucking complaining about, short of the headline being "Don't read this, it's boring and has nothing to do with you."
And if things get that bad, you can just eat it!