I can, and from the perspective of protected areas, it doesn't much matter if they are all there at the same time or not. It's a persistent increase of traffic, some percentage of which will not play nice. One could, i suppose, ask game developers to be a bit thoughtful about location placement but yeah sure whatever. It would be better if everyone worked out these things in advance, but that is too much work. Just like it is too much work for governments to have more reasonable rules and then enforce them after damage has been done. Fines don't undo damage.
"They can no more control human stupidity and selfishness than the lawmakers."
No, but they are damn well aware of human behavior or they wouldn't be good at making and selling games. And they can stick in locations that would minimize impact. They can easily increase opportunities for stupidity and selfishness by placing game locations without thinking. Of course you won't stop hard core idiots, but you can remove the incentive for bad shortcuts by the merely careless, or outright prohibited locations.
"You really don't seem to understand how these games work."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But i don't understand that response.
Geocaching: It has nothing to do with unexpected boxes (heaven forbid they have lights or Moonites), and everything to do with bringing potentially damaging traffic to some locations because they are cool or hard to reach. (Or dangerous, etc.) The only difference is the number of people trampling natural or protected areas.
I don't see how it is unequal treatment of game players to not direct them to or through the protected spaces. I thought the problem was with "free speech" of developers anyway. I am sure there will be some ridiculousness in the permitting process, but i would work on fixing that. It would be better if it were free and "hey come work with us on this so everyone has a good time and our public and sanctuary spaces are preserved", but the force of law is helpful in getting people to come to the table, or just not put markers in the park at all so it doesn't get trashed. (Which is what they probably hope for, so i would totally file for a permit just to make them do their part of the work too.)
While true and valid, others apparently have no qualms whatsoever of paying large amounts of money, and losing potential sales, over gatekeeping and control. These extortionists probably don't examine much closely, but they assumed (not without reason) that such behavior is universal. They just happened to pick the wrong first target because it looked fatter.
They also may have been wrong as to how their other targets might choose to exert control. They may pay a lot more elsewhere, but pay the extortionists nothing.
This overlord is utterly hilarious. "We will destroy you! We are reasonable criminals. Be a shame if something happened to that show of yours. Uh, we will destroy someone else!"
Parade, event, etc., permits seem awfully restrainty in retrospect then.
Maybe game-makers can pay for extra rangers and make sure they don't place markers in or near sensitive locations where someone in a hurry to get there first won't violate sanctuary areas.
I'd like to graze my sheep for nothing on public lands, too. Maybe a Pokemon Go standoff...
Perhaps it is overly broad. Perhaps they should simply designate normal high traffic areas only are allowed and see if that is less prior restraint. Like any law, it has potential for abuse. I am not really seeing what is overly broad in itself at the outset, though. It seems to state exceedingly real and reasonable concerns, which are borne out by history and human behavior. If things like geocaching were ever that popular, at scale, there would have been extra laws like this already. If anything, prior laws should already apply here and this regulation is unnecessarily over-specific, like driving and texting laws. But then you would have the "oh i didn't know this applied to my gig" excuses.
Yes, they should probably test that law rigorously for constitutionality and all, and patch it appropriately, so it can be properly enforced so anyone making use of the park is treated equally.
At some point, the general expectation that the voice one is hearing does not in fact belong to the purported owner of the voice will outpace the technology anyway. Interesting times.
He improperly used clips of the films, but also he was mean about it.
OK so, subtract the clips... it seems like we still have a problem, no? Is that illegal too? Anyone with less than a glowing review gets jail time because of hurt sales?
They only build 20 at a time minimum. They aren't set up for one. Have you ever tried reducing family sized recipes for a single person? The woes of a modern contractor...
Re: this begs the question, "what constitutes THE MEDIA"
Anything they would argue, for the sake of convenience in some other case, does not constitute media (for purpose of removing any journalistic protections): In Brown's case, it does constitute media. Also your five year old daughter, if he happened to wave at her on the street.
This really isn't a surprise, BOP has been inconsistent, unclear, and ridiculous the entire time. Never minding he is a journalist by trade, and repeatedly questioned how he was supposed to do his job when released if he can't speak to anyone in journalism or touch a computer network.
I was wondering when you would get to this aspect of this case. I was practically rolling on the floor in front of a tenants TV and didn't know how to explain myself.
But to her credit, this much older, tech-illiterate person thought the whole law and blaming FB were idiotic, to say the least.
If Facebook should magically take down the video before anyone sees it, the cops should have magically stopped this guy before he managed to kill Mr. Godwin.
That is exactly the thing with 5G: waaaayyyy more towers. But "smaller". And everywhere. And they still need fiber for backhaul. But connecting nodes or premises? Pfffsshhh. We can't do that, not since we have failed forever for no good reason but increasing profits. Just like stupid 5G will. Fore everyone who needs to, idk, render graphics over a wireless network for some reason, while walking down the street.
Re: Response to: orbitalinsertion on Apr 25th, 2017 @ 8:45pm
I still imagine enough of a problem with brewery names. The rest of a generic label may not be distinguishable enough from another similar product ("confusion"). It may avoid trademarks, but not the problem that they all cry and whine over with trademarks in the first place.
Bill G.'s Pumpkin Spice Lager Bill M.'s Pumpkin Spice Lager
We can't have a trademark litigation festival, but the thing we decided that we have to Pertect Ar Terdmerks! over has not changed.
So why not just relax on the damn perception of trademark infringement around every corner? Or is this like an addiction thing, where you can't have a trademark without overindulging?
On the post: Game Maker Sues Milwaukee Over Permit Requirement To Make Augmented Reality Games
Re: Re:
I can, and from the perspective of protected areas, it doesn't much matter if they are all there at the same time or not. It's a persistent increase of traffic, some percentage of which will not play nice. One could, i suppose, ask game developers to be a bit thoughtful about location placement but yeah sure whatever. It would be better if everyone worked out these things in advance, but that is too much work. Just like it is too much work for governments to have more reasonable rules and then enforce them after damage has been done. Fines don't undo damage.
"They can no more control human stupidity and selfishness than the lawmakers."
No, but they are damn well aware of human behavior or they wouldn't be good at making and selling games. And they can stick in locations that would minimize impact. They can easily increase opportunities for stupidity and selfishness by placing game locations without thinking. Of course you won't stop hard core idiots, but you can remove the incentive for bad shortcuts by the merely careless, or outright prohibited locations.
"You really don't seem to understand how these games work."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But i don't understand that response.
Geocaching: It has nothing to do with unexpected boxes (heaven forbid they have lights or Moonites), and everything to do with bringing potentially damaging traffic to some locations because they are cool or hard to reach. (Or dangerous, etc.) The only difference is the number of people trampling natural or protected areas.
I don't see how it is unequal treatment of game players to not direct them to or through the protected spaces. I thought the problem was with "free speech" of developers anyway. I am sure there will be some ridiculousness in the permitting process, but i would work on fixing that. It would be better if it were free and "hey come work with us on this so everyone has a good time and our public and sanctuary spaces are preserved", but the force of law is helpful in getting people to come to the table, or just not put markers in the park at all so it doesn't get trashed. (Which is what they probably hope for, so i would totally file for a permit just to make them do their part of the work too.)
On the post: Hacker Extortion Attempt Falls Flat Because Netflix Actually Competes With Piracy
Re:
On the post: Hacker Extortion Attempt Falls Flat Because Netflix Actually Competes With Piracy
Re:
They also may have been wrong as to how their other targets might choose to exert control. They may pay a lot more elsewhere, but pay the extortionists nothing.
I don't think reasoning is their strong suit.
On the post: Hacker Extortion Attempt Falls Flat Because Netflix Actually Competes With Piracy
On the post: Game Maker Sues Milwaukee Over Permit Requirement To Make Augmented Reality Games
Parade, event, etc., permits seem awfully restrainty in retrospect then.
Maybe game-makers can pay for extra rangers and make sure they don't place markers in or near sensitive locations where someone in a hurry to get there first won't violate sanctuary areas.
I'd like to graze my sheep for nothing on public lands, too. Maybe a Pokemon Go standoff...
Perhaps it is overly broad. Perhaps they should simply designate normal high traffic areas only are allowed and see if that is less prior restraint. Like any law, it has potential for abuse. I am not really seeing what is overly broad in itself at the outset, though. It seems to state exceedingly real and reasonable concerns, which are borne out by history and human behavior. If things like geocaching were ever that popular, at scale, there would have been extra laws like this already. If anything, prior laws should already apply here and this regulation is unnecessarily over-specific, like driving and texting laws. But then you would have the "oh i didn't know this applied to my gig" excuses.
Yes, they should probably test that law rigorously for constitutionality and all, and patch it appropriately, so it can be properly enforced so anyone making use of the park is treated equally.
On the post: New Tools Allow Voice Patterns To Be Cloned To Produce Realistic But Fake Sounds Of Anyone Saying Anything
On the post: New Verizon Video Blatantly Lies About What's Happening To Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
On the post: ISPs Lose En Banc Appeal, Current Net Neutrality Rules Remain Intact...For Now
Absent a showing of market power,[...}
What fucking planet are you from?!
On the post: Parody Protection For Fair Use Is Important: Taiwanese Man Faces Jail Time Over Parody Videos Of Movies
OK so, subtract the clips... it seems like we still have a problem, no? Is that illegal too? Anyone with less than a glowing review gets jail time because of hurt sales?
GTFOOH
On the post: Homeowner's House Burns Down, He Tries To Rebuild... But Facing Copyright Threats From Original Builder
Re: Aside from the copyright issue...
On the post: Mac DeMarco Tells Concert Goers To Go Pirate His Music
Re:
They certainly think of themselves enough that i think they are rather well covered in this regard.
On the post: Over 800 Startups Tell FCC's Ajit Pai Not To Kill Net Neutrality
Re: Stunning is the open corruption here
On the post: Barrett Brown Re-Arrested For Giving Media Interviews Without Permission
Re: this begs the question, "what constitutes THE MEDIA"
This really isn't a surprise, BOP has been inconsistent, unclear, and ridiculous the entire time. Never minding he is a journalist by trade, and repeatedly questioned how he was supposed to do his job when released if he can't speak to anyone in journalism or touch a computer network.
On the post: Over 800 Startups Tell FCC's Ajit Pai Not To Kill Net Neutrality
Mom's kitchen secrets
As we pointed out that, that's complete hogwash.
Hogwash is a major ingredient of Idjit Pie.
On the post: Response To Facebook Video Of Murder Is The Call For An Actual 'Godwin's Law'
But to her credit, this much older, tech-illiterate person thought the whole law and blaming FB were idiotic, to say the least.
On the post: Response To Facebook Video Of Murder Is The Call For An Actual 'Godwin's Law'
Re:
On the post: AT&T Unveils A Fake 5G Network In The Hopes You'll Ignore T-Mobile Is Kicking Its Ass
Re: Shannon's Law
On the post: AT&T Unveils A Fake 5G Network In The Hopes You'll Ignore T-Mobile Is Kicking Its Ass
Re:
On the post: More IP Attorneys Predict More Craft Beer Trademark Disputes As The Industry Continues To Grow
Re: Re:
On the post: More IP Attorneys Predict More Craft Beer Trademark Disputes As The Industry Continues To Grow
Re: Response to: orbitalinsertion on Apr 25th, 2017 @ 8:45pm
Bill G.'s Pumpkin Spice Lager
Bill M.'s Pumpkin Spice Lager
We can't have a trademark litigation festival, but the thing we decided that we have to Pertect Ar Terdmerks! over has not changed.
So why not just relax on the damn perception of trademark infringement around every corner? Or is this like an addiction thing, where you can't have a trademark without overindulging?
Next >>