The term "superhero" long ago lost any unique association with DC/Marvel, the same as aspirin did. Early D+D used the term "superhero" to stand for a mere 8th-level fighter (back when that really was a super character.) In short, the trademark can not be enforced.
But that's not necessarily the best path for a small publisher, considering that, as the article says: "It looks like all of the readers that took a chance and purchased our book before the title change are now in the possession of a collector's item."
1. Publish comic using generic term 2. Get form letter from DC/Marvel 3. Change name, so comic is now collector's item 4. ??? 5. Profit!!!
"... There are men of ambition so depraved, who would rejoice to be called wicked, if with that they could appear what the corruptions of the word, and the servility of historians, have denominated great.
"But these same men would never have courage to consummate their crimes, were they taught that these crimes would render them contemptible, and still more, ridiculous."
>Yes, this would slow down the passing of laws. Thats exactly how its supposed to be though!
You are proposing a massive change in our constitutional scheme, for the purpose of a small improvement in the education of legislatures.
ESA's fees are very small potatos in the budget of Illinois (although if ESA has sued a small town or a county, there would no doubt be some impact.) The constitutional separation of powers between the legislature and the courts is extremely important. Trading one for the other is not a good bargain, but at any rate, should require a constitutional amendment.
> If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.
Do you *really* think that a legislature will modify its behavior because it has to shell out, what, a million buck or so? That's not even pocket change in the state budget of Illinois.
And the Constitutional principle.. . despite your ad hominem attacks... stands unchallenged. The legislature has the right to pass any legislation it wants; the courts have the right to strike down the legislation. The court does not have the right to impose penalties on the legislature for bad legislation, under the "cases and controversies" limitation of our Constitution (...the courts cannot consider laws that have not been passed yet, because they have no jurisdiction until there is an actual "case" before it... and it follows that the legislature cannot be penalized by the court for not submitting its legislation to the court for approval before passing it.)
>That means that the legislature most certainly does NOT have the right to pass laws of this nature.
The legislature has the right to pass laws, period. The legislature can and does have the right to pass contradictory, non-sensical, idiotic and even unconstitutional laws. That's well established and no number of postings even on Slashdot can change that.
Courts have the right to overturn unconstitutional laws. The system works. For the courts to penalize the legislature is a massive change in our constitutional structure, which ought to be seriously discussed before implementation.
But if your intent is to prevent the passage of bad ("obviously unconstitutional") legislation, post-facto determinations in court don't work well. The legislature won't know until AFTERWARDS that it passed a bad law.
To modify its behavior, the legislature needs a way BEFOREHAND to tell that it's passing a bad law. Where would you draw the line?
AND PLEASE NOTE that ESA is asking for something is DIFFERENT from awarding fees for filing a lawsuit without merit. under Rule 11 or something similar. When you file a lawsuit, you have to follow court rules that require a minimum of inquiry into the merits; that's the pre-rogative of the courts and when you file a lawsuit, you agree to take your chances with the court's rules.
Legislation, OTOH, is entirely different. It is the pre-rogative of the legislature and not subject to court rules. For the court to require fees in this case is a serious change in our constitutional structure.
>it would be worse if legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation get reelected..... The most direct way to let the constituents feel it is with their wallets.
I sincerely hope that the voters of Illinois clean house, but don't you think it would be bad for the court to use its power to affect how people vote?
>So basically, you have to put up with bad laws unless you have lots of money for a lawsuit? That doesn't sound very democratic.
I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be defining "Democracy" as "only good laws survive; bad laws are destroyed". That would be a rather naiive definition, don't you think?
The legislature has the right to pass laws, even bad laws; that's democracy. If it's really a bad law, the people hurt by it will just have to fight it, either in the legislature or in the courts. Government funding for the fight against bad laws, either in the legislature or in the courts, corrupts the system. You may like the outcome in this particular case, but are you really sure that you like it in the long run?
Let's say that a legislature passes a law supporting freedom of speed on the internet, and China gets it overturned as an infringement on the WTO. Do you REALLY want the government of China to collect its legal expenses for that?
>Sorry, you're doing more to argue for reimbursement than against.
No, you don't get to simply assert that you win without proof. Make an argument, then assert victory.
I sympathize with ESA's substantive postion, but: it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature.
That's bad for democracy.
Of course, I REALLY would like my legal fees to be paid for overturning the laws that I know to be bad. That would be fair, right, just and valid! But I do not want people I disagree with to get the same sort of fees for overturning laws that I know are good.
Democracy is messy. ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price.
>How is the US going to prosecute my Timbuktoo company?
Same as it does with any other defendant located outside the USA. It first asks the foreign gov't to hand over the defendant for trial, and then, if refused, applies pressure. The pressure varies, depending on many diplomatic factors.
The article says: "By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering..." so jurisdiction would be based on the customer, not the financial system.
Governments jealously guard their right to regulate the behavior of their citizens. Whether or not they should is a whole 'nother question, but they will.
Your idea, however clever, sounds like a whole new level of gambling, with the prize being a taxpayer-funded vacation in an orange jumpsuit, alas!
>how about making technologies to which multiple purposes can be served
Yes, like the invention of the internet could lead to better communications (=massive economic increase), or to the discovery of the MMPORG gaming (=massive economic decrease, but improvement in civic moral!)
The Good News: >Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this. ... so's I gets my wish !!!
The Bad News: >Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this. ... so's I adds another game to my "must get around to playing" list !!!
Does Civ IV include tech trees that the player can know before hand?
That, for me, is one of the big flaws of Civ, AoE, and all that ilk.
Much of the fun of research is that it's hard to predict what you're going to get. Knowing in advance that investing X resources will result in Y improvement turns too much of such games into bookkeeping exercises.
At the least, it would be more fun to make tech advancement based on probability, so that investing X resources gives you a Y% chance of discovering gunpowder. Better would to make research into a topic have a % chance of leading to a variety of technologies, e.g. chem research could lead to the discovery of nylon, or it could lead to the discovery of LSD. It'd raise the amount of thinking and gaming to a new level.
A troll is an outrageous comment posted with the intent to arouse arguement.
In contrast, the posting uses a time-honored style of/. humor to comment on the content of the article in a humorous way. It refers to tabu subjects such as gayness and people who hate gays, but that's because the article is about those subjects.
If this posting is a troll, then the entire article is a troll and should be modded accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
The term "superhero" long ago lost any unique association with DC/Marvel, the same as aspirin did. Early D+D used the term "superhero" to stand for a mere 8th-level fighter (back when that really was a super character.) In short, the trademark can not be enforced.
But that's not necessarily the best path for a small publisher, considering that, as the article says: "It looks like all of the readers that took a chance and purchased our book before the title change are now in the possession of a collector's item."
1. Publish comic using generic term
2. Get form letter from DC/Marvel
3. Change name, so comic is now collector's item
4. ???
5. Profit!!!
>veal comes from COW
Alas, 'tis the harsh sting of mere FACT, ruining an otherwise fine joke.
If Microsoft were the shepherd, would it shear the sheep SHORT or LONG?
"... There are men of ambition so depraved, who would rejoice to be called wicked, if with that they could appear what the corruptions of the word, and the servility of historians, have denominated great.
"But these same men would never have courage to consummate their crimes, were they taught that these crimes would render them contemptible, and still more, ridiculous."
... the Shepherd "protects" his sheep from the wolves only so he can continue to shear them.
And occasionally have a bit of veal.
>Yes, this would slow down the passing of laws. Thats exactly how its supposed to be though!
You are proposing a massive change in our constitutional scheme, for the purpose of a small improvement in the education of legislatures.
ESA's fees are very small potatos in the budget of Illinois (although if ESA has sued a small town or a county, there would no doubt be some impact.) The constitutional separation of powers between the legislature and the courts is extremely important. Trading one for the other is not a good bargain, but at any rate, should require a constitutional amendment.
> If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.
Do you *really* think that a legislature will modify its behavior because it has to shell out, what, a million buck or so? That's not even pocket change in the state budget of Illinois.
And the Constitutional principle .. . despite your ad hominem attacks ... stands unchallenged. The legislature has the right to pass any legislation it wants; the courts have the right to strike down the legislation. The court does not have the right to impose penalties on the legislature for bad legislation, under the "cases and controversies" limitation of our Constitution (...the courts cannot consider laws that have not been passed yet, because they have no jurisdiction until there is an actual "case" before it ... and it follows that the legislature cannot be penalized by the court for not submitting its legislation to the court for approval before passing it.)
>That means that the legislature most certainly does NOT have the right to pass laws of this nature.
The legislature has the right to pass laws, period. The legislature can and does have the right to pass contradictory, non-sensical, idiotic and even unconstitutional laws. That's well established and no number of postings even on Slashdot can change that.
Courts have the right to overturn unconstitutional laws. The system works. For the courts to penalize the legislature is a massive change in our constitutional structure, which ought to be seriously discussed before implementation.
>t looks like you're defining "good laws" as "laws I like"
There's a reason why usually I screen out postings by Anonymous Coward. You've written a complete non sequitur
>The line is drawn in court obviously.
But if your intent is to prevent the passage of bad ("obviously unconstitutional") legislation, post-facto determinations in court don't work well. The legislature won't know until AFTERWARDS that it passed a bad law.
To modify its behavior, the legislature needs a way BEFOREHAND to tell that it's passing a bad law. Where would you draw the line?
AND PLEASE NOTE that ESA is asking for something is DIFFERENT from awarding fees for filing a lawsuit without merit. under Rule 11 or something similar. When you file a lawsuit, you have to follow court rules that require a minimum of inquiry into the merits; that's the pre-rogative of the courts and when you file a lawsuit, you agree to take your chances with the court's rules.
Legislation, OTOH, is entirely different. It is the pre-rogative of the legislature and not subject to court rules. For the court to require fees in this case is a serious change in our constitutional structure.
>it would be worse if legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation get reelected. .... The most direct way to let the constituents feel it is with their wallets.
I sincerely hope that the voters of Illinois clean house, but don't you think it would be bad for the court to use its power to affect how people vote?
Democracy is messy by design!
>Purposefully passing unconstitutional legislation is bad for democracy.
Many laws are subject to some constitutional challenge. Where would you draw the line?
>So basically, you have to put up with bad laws unless you have lots of money for a lawsuit? That doesn't sound very democratic.
I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be defining "Democracy" as "only good laws survive; bad laws are destroyed". That would be a rather naiive definition, don't you think?
The legislature has the right to pass laws, even bad laws; that's democracy. If it's really a bad law, the people hurt by it will just have to fight it, either in the legislature or in the courts. Government funding for the fight against bad laws, either in the legislature or in the courts, corrupts the system. You may like the outcome in this particular case, but are you really sure that you like it in the long run?
Let's say that a legislature passes a law supporting freedom of speed on the internet, and China gets it overturned as an infringement on the WTO. Do you REALLY want the government of China to collect its legal expenses for that?
>Sorry, you're doing more to argue for reimbursement than against.
No, you don't get to simply assert that you win without proof. Make an argument, then assert victory.
I sympathize with ESA's substantive postion, but: it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature.
That's bad for democracy.
Of course, I REALLY would like my legal fees to be paid for overturning the laws that I know to be bad. That would be fair, right, just and valid! But I do not want people I disagree with to get the same sort of fees for overturning laws that I know are good.
Democracy is messy. ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price.
>How is the US going to prosecute my Timbuktoo company?
Same as it does with any other defendant located outside the USA. It first asks the foreign gov't to hand over the defendant for trial, and then, if refused, applies pressure. The pressure varies, depending on many diplomatic factors.
When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.
The article says: "By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering..." so jurisdiction would be based on the customer, not the financial system.
Governments jealously guard their right to regulate the behavior of their citizens. Whether or not they should is a whole 'nother question, but they will.
Your idea, however clever, sounds like a whole new level of gambling, with the prize being a taxpayer-funded vacation in an orange jumpsuit, alas!
Insert joke here ...
> 14 hours a day is the new norm
... only 14?
People with pagers never have to worry about being away from work!
I didn't say it was RIGHT (or wrong), just that it is economically rational.
Not all human behavior is economically rational but it rarely hurts to look at economics for a 1st approxiamation as to why people do things ... just as long as you also look at stuff like morality too.
According to the article, a significant number of people say "access at work is sufficient."
That's a rational economic decision. 8 hours a day for reading personal email and blogging should be enough for most people.
... our new Dellaware Masters
>how about making technologies to which multiple purposes can be served
Yes, like the invention of the internet could lead to better communications (=massive economic increase), or to the discovery of the MMPORG gaming (=massive economic decrease, but improvement in civic moral!)
... M.A.G.G. is our only hope ... for the children!
The Good News:
... so's I gets my wish !!!
>Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this.
The Bad News:
>Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this.
... so's I adds another game to my "must get around to playing" list !!!
Thank you ... I think?!
Does Civ IV include tech trees that the player can know before hand?
That, for me, is one of the big flaws of Civ, AoE, and all that ilk.
Much of the fun of research is that it's hard to predict what you're going to get. Knowing in advance that investing X resources will result in Y improvement turns too much of such games into bookkeeping exercises.
At the least, it would be more fun to make tech advancement based on probability, so that investing X resources gives you a Y% chance of discovering gunpowder. Better would to make research into a topic have a % chance of leading to a variety of technologies, e.g. chem research could lead to the discovery of nylon, or it could lead to the discovery of LSD. It'd raise the amount of thinking and gaming to a new level.
A troll is an outrageous comment posted with the intent to arouse arguement.
In contrast, the posting uses a time-honored style of /. humor to comment on the content of the article in a humorous way. It refers to tabu subjects such as gayness and people who hate gays, but that's because the article is about those subjects.
If this posting is a troll, then the entire article is a troll and should be modded accordingly.