Not sure why a selfie-stick should get a pass anywhere this sort of class of objects is banned already. The one that really screams out to me is (Brazilian, or any other) soccer matches. Yes yes, please do let everyone bring their photographic ordnance with them, it should be spectacular.
Re: Someone's cheering, and it's not just the spies
Well, sure, and since players are more likely to spend money on such a thing rather than actually securing anything in the first place, I'm sure it would make for interesting times when everyone can cyberstand their cyberground.
This is the same as for a world in which Grindr does not exist. Sometimes one is fooled, and the law doesn't like to take that into account, but also people like to pretend they are fooled when they are not. It's a grey area from an outside viewpoint. (Excepting cases where the minor is very clearly not of legal age.) But yes, if the person looks a little young, curb your hormones for a moment and either check or decline.
What about the 80% (imagined number) of people who are never anywhere near a water cooler? (And why don't office types save that for an actual break? Or would that cut into their porn surfing time?) ;)
Indeed, why is it that one can exclusively trademark names of people, living or dead, or even found in common folklore? I can see having a registration on particulars of the mark - design and such - but this is more idiotic than trademarking common existing words, phrases, concepts, and letters.
Maybe I should make an application for 'Eberhard Anheuser Soap-Flavored Nutritional Shakes' and see where that goes.
Fingerprint examination is the problem there, yes. No one matches whole prints on a regular basis, even when they have 2 whole prints to compare. Machines don't, either. But one could hope for tech companies getting it better if they are going to follow this rather stupid route for security.
If Uber is forced to suddenly take thousands of employees on board, along with the added expenses and liabilities such a move would entail,
The expenses of becoming a "traditional company" and those up-front costs of finding ways out of those expenses like "traditional companies". Then they can become a mega-corp and incur the expenses of buying politics to lower expenses and make law as they see fit.
Imagine all the employment opportunities and economic growth that entails!
It's news here regardless of of what any Republican news-milking agendas there might be, and whatever angle other news media has on this, and whatever anyone else did wrong, because she is the next person to be doing this incredibly stupid thing. There is a fair bit of history of people doing it wrong or intentionally playing games before or after the fact. As was noted about members of the Bush administration doing so quite on purpose (where there was much whining about what should be archived by the government or subject to FOIA requests, because dumbasses trying to be clever don't realize (or care) the email they sent using Google or whatever is still sitting in their mail client's sent box and quite possibly in the archived user mailboxes on the government computers and servers).
It would be in the news here, very likely, even if most of the rest of the media universe had ignored it, once it was discovered. You can make a claim of partisanship in some cases as a counter-argument to some statements made elsewhere (and maybe in the comments here), but that isn't what techdirt is about, and that claim isn't a counter to anything in the article.
And just plain sucking, for those who seem to insist these thing are just fine and not a problem human cultures at all. Which very well could be most of them.
But it's probably more of the "moral rights" idiocy, where people think they actually made money off sounding like something someone else did. Once someone pointed it out and whined loudly. Because Ghost Busters sounded like Huey Lewis or some shit. Just like great whacking chunks of any music will sound like something else if one looks long enough.
Like the Constitution. Which we can venerate with religious fervor while violating it and inventing history to claim certain intents of those distant gods with the ridiculous name of Founding Fathers. Cherry-pick, revise history, and lie à la carte, whatever is convenient at the moment.
It's what Jeb is doing, make shit up and see what sticks. An awful lot seems to stick long enough for these guys to get their way. I'm sure Clinton will say something equally idiotic. One-upsmanship is very popular in the partisan circles.