The clearinghouse "doesn't necessarily prevent trademark infringement or cybersquatting, but it does help trademark owners and brand owners somewhat in mitigating the damage that might occur," he added. "We've been telling brand owners it's not that expensive to protect themselves and they ought to do it."
That's a real nice looking trademark you got there. It'd a shame if something were to happen to it....
1. Hacker takes over Computer A
2. Hacker uses Computer A to hack into Computer B
3. User of Computer B notices hack attempt from Computer A
4. User B installs covert software to snap a pic from the webcam of Computer A to catch evil hacker
5. User A happens to be a teenage girl who's changing clothes at the time.
6. User B gets 50 years in PMITA prison for child porn.
7. Lawmakers pat themselves on the back for catching dangerous predator of America's youth.
8. Lawmakers continue to propose stupid laws. Americans continue to elect stupid lawmakers.
I actually don't mind this statement from Maxis. If they decide they want a game to function in a certain manner, then fine - let the consumers decide if the benefits of said function outweigh the negatives. Maxis has a right to design the game the way they see fit, and if it fails spectacularly, then they can go back to the drawing board and say "OK, that sucked. Let's not do that again"
However, this would've been a better statement to make BEFORE all this crap went down. They've already been busted lying their asses off about the mandatory-online feature. They said it was essential to basic gameplay - LIARS! They're reeling from the massive amount of negative feedback from a launch so frakked up that they got a Hallmark card from the Soviet space program. This statement is the equivalent of sour grapes - nobody believes our lies anymore, so we'll just rationalize the whole thing away, with an emphatic "End of Story!" at the end.
If they'd come out and said, well before release, that they wanted SimCity to be online-always because they wanted to move the franchise in a more social multiplayer direction, then fine. This move reeked of DRM from the start, and every day something new pops up that confirms that. EA can no longer deny it anymore, so they make hindsight justifications for it.
A) 400 metric tons of federal laws, most of which are written so vaguely that they could be interpreted to criminalize improperly washing your hands after taking a leak.
B) Businesses that are petrified of being sued out of existence that they'll write policies that have less give than a titanium mattress.
C) Employees that are petrified of being fired for showing the most minute sense of "oh, come the fuck on! It's a picture of a backseat television! I seriously doubt he gonna single-handedly commandeer the plane and crash us into the Golden Gate Bridge" that they'd rather just keep their head down and not get themselves in trouble. After all, what does it matter to the pilot if the guy gets tossed off the plane?
Re: Quite a stretch, Mike. -- But pleasant fantasy!
As the hippies would say, "Go to bed, old man!"
Your arguments could be extended to any invention over the past 400 years to paint them as somehow "evil" inventions.
Airplanes allow drug smugglers to bring in their toxic cargo, and terrorists to take hostages and crash into buildings. Thanks a lot, Orville and Wibur!
Cars kill thousands on the road every year. Thanks a lot, Daimler Motor Car Company!
Railroads allowed a-holes like Cornelius Vanderbuilt and Jay Gould to become obscenely wealthy. Thanks a lot, James Watt!
Three easy examples. Three developments that revolutionized not just the country, but the entire world, and provided incalculable benefit to humankind. Did they produce some bad apples? Yeah - our inventions are merely tools conjured from our imagination and utilized by our flawed souls. They have every bit the capability of evil and good as their human operator. No more, no less. There is no such thing as "bad" innovation. Those who look at change as a threat to their livelihood are both shortsighted and underestimate their own abilities to adapt and change.
That's the kind of "innovation" that I think is good? Frak yeah. Innovation grows us as a species. It actively repels stagnation. It drives cultural and physiological changes and in more cases than not, increases prosperity across the entire planet. Innovation begets change, which begets more innovation. Stagnation begets complacency, which will beget extinction.
To quote Robert Heinlein:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."
I kinda feel sorry for the players, but at the same time, I was LMAO at the reports coming in on PC Gamer and Kotaku. I (and probably everybody else here) saw this fiasco coming from 20 miles away. And the sucky thing about it is that it's not going to deter one frakking company from doing anything differently.
EA is not going to say "hey, we may have made a big mistake making this online only." No, they're sitting in their boardrooms RIGHT NOW saying "We need more hardware to handle the load." Their fundamental grasp on reality has slipped away. They're going gung-ho to treat a symptom with zero thought as to what the underlying cause of it is.
And nothing will change because of it. Millions of people will still buy Diablo 4, forgetting (or ignoring) the infamous day that Diablo 3 came out.
Eliminating piracy at the expense of pissing off your customers? At EA, absolutely. After all, the majority of their customers already hate them.
it's a conflict of interest because it means the doctor and nurses are forced to think about more than the patient's health. They also have to think about the bottom line.
Who's bottom line do they have to think about? The hospital's? I'm don't understand why a doctor or nurse needs to give a frak about making sure the hospital is charging enough. Do you think the cashier at the Tesco cares what they're getting for a Snickers bar?
Pretty simple: The reason health care services are so expensive is that there's 90 layers of paperwork and bureaucracy between those that provide and charge for the services (doctors, etc) and those who receive and partially/wholly pay for the service (patient).
All those layers make it insanely easy for the providers to jack up the prices to whatever they think they can get away with. And patients take the attitude of "Who the fuck cares what it costs? I've got health insurance!"