Categories
Debated

Four Years Later, Still The Same Answer

I’ve been scrubbing through my blog archives since my WordPress migration to clean up categorization, tagging, formatting, and a bug caused by my blogging style that left some posts half-imported.

This morning, I went back over this post from February of 2007, regarding Sen. Carl Kruger’s proposed law to ban cellphones and music devices while walking.

“While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they’re tuning out the world around them… If you want to listen to your iPod, sit down and listen to it. You want to walk in the park, enjoy it. You want to jog around a jogging path, all the more power to you, but you should not be crossing streets and endangering yourself and the lives of others.”

The crux of my argument in 2007 was “we already have laws against jaywalking, why do we need this?”

Not ten minutes after cleaning the post, I saw that Colleen Taylor had shared a NY Times article from this week on Google Reader: States’ Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians.

The New York bill was proposed by State Senator Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat who has grown alarmed by the amount of distraction he sees on the streets in his neighborhood and across New York City. Since September, Mr. Kruger wrote in the bill, three pedestrians have been killed and one was critically injured while crossing streets and listening to music through headphones.

My argument in 2011 is the same as my argument in 2007.

I look forward to revisiting this proposed law again in 2015.

Categories
Debated Disliked

Pry My iPod From My Cold, Run-Over Hands

NYC blog-types are up in arms today over [Carl Kruger’s proposed “no-ipod-or-cellphone-while-walking” ban](http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2007/02/07/banning_ipod_ce.php).

> “While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they’re tuning out the world around them… If you want to listen to your iPod, sit down and listen to it. You want to walk in the park, enjoy it. You want to jog around a jogging path, all the more power to you, but you should not be crossing streets and endangering yourself and the lives of others.”

It’s good to know that after a landmark election, particular in NY state, we are still giving government jobs to the batshit insane.

Before we get to the snark, here’s the simple, logical response I’ve been pitching in response all morning:

* If you’re crossing a street – with or without an iPod – in such a way that you are a danger to traffic and those around you, then you must not have the right of way.
* Logically, this means you are crossing against the light.
* This, of course, means that you are jaywalking, which is literally defined as “to cross or walk in the street or road unlawfully or without regard for approaching traffic.”
* We already have laws against jaywalking that are barely enforced.
* Why do we need another law?

Okay, on to the snark. Other distractions to ban around NYC:

* **Tourists that stop dead on the sidewalk of Times Square.** I’m constantly running into people taking pictures or gawking at neon signs. This is dangerous.
* **Stairs.** They are often slippery and/or wet, causing injury and possible death.
* **Rain.** Rain is distracting. Also, wet. Again, safety hazard!!!
* **Children.** Not only are they a distraction, they are a waste of taxpayer resources.
* **Cars.** Did you know the #1 cause of accidents on NYC’s roads are automobiles? It’s true! They must be banned immediately.
* **Light.** Our tourist friends have proven that any sort of shining object can lead to a disaster. Total darkness is much safer.
* **Evening.** On second though, plenty of bad things happen in the dark. Why, 74% of NYC crime occurs between the hours of 6PM and 6AM! Let’s get rid of 12 hours in the day.
* **Sound.** What’s more frightening than a car backfiring, a glass breaking, or a loud siren? Abolish noise, and we can focus on the task at hand – putting one foot in front of the other, repeatedly.
* **Knowledge.** You know the saying about curiosity killing the cat? ONE DEAD CAT IS TOO MANY PEOPLE.

I look forward to our non-existence going forward.

Categories
Debated

Deconstructing Konami vs. Roxor

*Please note: I am not a lawyer.*

Big news hit the Bemani world yesterday, as Konami filed a 16 page patent suit in Texas against Roxor Games.

Konami, as most of the world knows by now, are the creators of the very popular Dance Dance Revolution (or DDR) video game series. While DDR was hugely successful in Japan in the arcades and has seen large success at home over the last few years, the series has been unofficially on hiatus since the end of 2002, when the last Japanese arcade version was produce. Players differ in opinion as to what exactly represents a hiatus – Konami continues to make home versions, particularly for the US where only one legal arcade mix was created – but many players realize that without constant new versions in the arcade, their interest in the game was diminshed.

In the last two years, one of the many DDR simulator programs – Stepmania – was spun off into an attempted commercial project called In The Groove (or ITG). Available as a PC setup called a “BoXoR” (as in “*RoXoR BoXoR*”; I will refer to them as “kits”), In The Groove raised eyebrows during its introduction to the marketplace as it required to be plugged into an existing DDR arcade machine to be used. People representing the project, as well as fans, hail ITG as a game designed for fans of the dancing game genre.

Konami’s attempt to get an injunction comes just days before the release of the home version of In The Groove, produced in conjunction with Red Octane, arguably the most successful dance pad maker in the US. The court filings, available in PDF form from DDR Freak, include seven separate counts that Konami is seeking damages for.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the community about what the exact point of the filing is, and what it means for DDR and ITG in the future. So, I’ll try my best to break it down to easy to digest portions. Click through for my deconstruction and analysis of the claims.