Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

redcross.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 253 posts

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#241

Post by cableshaft »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #152
xvedejas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A green cross definitely means marijuana dispensary to my eyes. Is it actually used elsewhere?

I've seen green crosses used to signify healing in video games enough times that I wouldn't question it.

I always saw it as green 'plus signs', as in your health (or hit points) are increasing.

I've literally used them when developing a video game before, and that's what I was thinking as I implemented them.

I've also used the red cross when making a game before without even thinking about a possible trademark or protection, it was already a generic symbol to me. Come to think of it, I just used it again in the art for a board game I was making. I guess I should change it, but I'm not sure to what (I guess a green cross?).

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#242

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

MattRix wrote: post #137
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extraordinary naive comment. Claim is stronger than insinuate . claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually read what they write, or listen to what they say.

Gotta love how you misread their comment and then accused them of not reading what they wrote.

Yep, that was pretty dumb of me.

I have a tendency to be needlessly antagonist sometimes.

I’m trying to improve.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#243

Post by wolverine876 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

>> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians.

> I don't understand how these two sentences are related ...

Lots of their people are getting killed; thus the protection provided by the emblem is very important to them.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#244

Post by camjohnson26 »

alisonkisk wrote: post #233
camjohnson26 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should probably create a more distinctive logo to avoid that, it’s a lot easier to think the Red Cross is public domain than something more distinctive.

While we're here, LIFEGUARD is also a trademark and they expect all pool watchers to pay the license fee for pool watching gear with that word on it.

Maybe we need anti trust legislation for trademarks.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#245

Post by afiori »

kleene_op wrote: post #178
afiori wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

increasing awareness of the problem

This seems like a very petty problem to focus on in "an increasingly uncertain world". I think establishing a link between people making/playing video games and people who actually abuse the red cross symbol causing actual casualties is just plain counterproductive. Until they back that connection with actual data, I stand unmoved by their statement.

They gave little to no evidence that video games and other uses of the red cross symbol are responsible for those deaths; what they did is assert the importance of their mission and the risk in diluiting the meaning of the logo.

Personally I found that part to be badly written; but it is still reasonable position.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#246

Post by pindab0ter »

pvaldes wrote: post #223
lvs wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention covers all medical units, not just the Red Cross. It is just as illegal to target an enemy medic as it is to target a Red Cross medic. Both are war crimes.

And the law will fall on offenders with the force of ten eider feather pillows

While I like the play on words I don’t think we should be posting unsupported cynicism like this.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#247

Post by alkonaut »

pmyteh wrote: post #222
alkonaut wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone But didn’t that ship sail a century ago? Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real w…

That's certainly not true in the UK. The British Red Cross use it, and the military presumably do in war zones, but everything else you'd think would have a red cross tends to have something else. White crosses on green first aid kits, blue star of life (or blue NHS logo) on ambulances, green crosses at pharmacies... Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be possible.

Now that you mention it the same is what I saw: equipment had the cross on green while staff and vehicles used the white cross on a red circular bottom. I thought the choice was esthetic/camouflage but it’s the Geneva convention at work.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#248

Post by blooalien »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #172
blooalien wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.

> Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue. Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.

I believe they're trying to convince folk that unapproved (over)use of their trademark "weakens the brand" in the minds of individuals enough that they worry it could lead to that symbol not affording the protection on the battlefield that it has traditionally enjoyed in the past, and therefore could lead to deaths which might have been avoided.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#249

Post by machinehermiter »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

I am an American with a life long love affair with Canada. I follow Canadian news and media pretty closely.

Claims like these are what I read about all the time in Canada. As an American, to me their culture has moved to a very strange place as far as worry and blame.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#250

Post by wizzwizz4 »

schoen wrote: post #57
eldaisfish wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which otherwise has basically the same grammar as English German and English have similar grammar but they are very far from being the same. Particular here with commas. Clauses in German are almost always marked with commas. English uses the comma much more sparingly.

Yes, it's always odd to me to see native German speakers putting a comma before "that" in indirect discourse in English (like "ich glaube, dass dieser Satz richtig ist" -> *"I believe, that this sentence is correct"). In English there's also a difference in comma usage with restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses (restrictive relative clauses, which indicate which specific entity is referred to as opposed to…

Oh, yeah, this is what I was thinking of. The comma is the same side of aber as in English.
Post reply on HN