Proving my point about bringing out the stupid. You're either totally clueless, or else you're trying to get pedantic like people on the Internet often do and claim that there's no Marvel because they were named "Timely" at the time. In that case you didn't read well because the way I phrased it, the company that is *publishing* the Masterworks right now is certainly named "Marvel".. Furthermore, even getting pedantic on this point ignores that DC Archives, which I also mentioned, certainly include Golden Age volumes.

No, this is another case of the topic brinring out the stupid in Slashdot. Are you seriously suggesting that Golden Age comics have controversy about them similar to vi versus emacs or Windows versus Linux?

Did everyone take the original post, pick out the word "comics", and ignore the rest of it?

Marvel Comics has a Marvel Masterworks line which includes a lot of Golden Age volumes. They are very expensive, but there are also $20 paperback editions that come out 7-8 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

DC Comics has its DC Archives program, but most of those never get reprinted in paperbacks and the program rarely releases much nowadays.

Also, something about this topic seems to bring out the stupid in Slashdot. No, Flaming Carrot is not a Golden Age comic.

It's more influential than you or I, but it's not more influential than Jesus. The problem is that he's more influential in areas specifically related to the Wikipedia format.

If every page about someone born in August contained a link to Augustus Caesar, this would conclude that he's the most influential person in history.

You know nothing about libertarians.

Libertarians believe it should be legal to a lot of things that leftists don't like, including kicking someone out for bad reasons. However, this does not mean that doing so should not be subject to moral condemnation. Unless you have an example of libertarians saying that what the NBA did should be made illegal, you have no valid criticism.

What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.

He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.

In the US, a copyright assignment is not valid unless done in writing. (Google up copyright assignment writing, for instance http://www.copyrightcodex.com/... ). So either tvtropes is clueless, or that doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think that item #2 not only isn't the fauly of Wal-Mart, it's not a problem at all. It's true that someone who pushes costs onto suppliers may end up with suppliers going out of business. But all they're doing is pushing costs around. This moves around the identity of exactly who goes out of business, but it doesn't really increase the quantity.

In other words, if Wal-Mart were replaced by other stores that couldn't push costs onto suppliers, the stores would bear the costs instead of the suppliers. In the long run, this would increase the chance of the stores going out of business by exactly as much as the reduced chance of the suppliers going out of business.

Oh, please.

Someone already pointed out that the studio has no reason to make this offer instead of normal streaming, but even if they do decide they want to make that offer, the next question is what price the studio wants to charge. The studio would charge a price for the streaming agreement that is less favorable to Netflix than the price for the DVD agreement, because Netflix can't resort to first sale. They may even charge a price that Netflix feels isn't worth it. (If Netflix then refuses to buy, it's a standoff which is bad for both the studio and Netflix, but standoffs don't get resolved instantly.)

Furthermore, studios have marketing and marketing does not always mean "sell things whenever someone wants to buy one". There are all sorts of reasons why a studio might want to limit sales, ranging from "we only want to sell this in odd years to increase demand" to "that movie was produced under a company president who was replaced and having it make a lot of money would be really bad for our office politics".

Studios can't do any of these things for physical DVDs that are covered by first sale.

After Columbine, with reports (true or not) that the killers had been bullied, nobody took that to mean that the anti-bullying crowd is dangerous or that people who claim to be victims of bullies are really just misanthropic killers. "Geeks who don't like to be bullied are part of a murder culture".

(Well, I'm sure some people took it to mean that, but we recognize that they're being assholes about it.)

But replace "bullied" with "rejected by women" and all of a sudden it means there is rampant misogyny among angry geeks. No, it's not, it means that if a lot of people are rejected by society, a few of them will become killers. This doesn't mean that the complaints about rejection are wrong, or that geeks with such complaints are dangerous, any more than Columbine showed that complaints about bullies are wrong, or that a higher murder rate when unemployment goes up shows that we should ignore unemployment. (What's the unemployment equivalent to rape culture?)

You can reverse it and say that about politicians--trouble is, if you say it about politicians in the West, it will be false. Much of the Middle East is dependent on a tribal culture that is based around nepotism. We don't have anything like it in the West, even if there is more than one Kennedy in politics.

There's an Islamist group in Nigeria right now, Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is sinful". Their stated goals are to end education of girls.

"They hate our freedom" is very appropriate.

Middle Eastern cultures of the type that produce terrorists use family ties as a way of cementing political connections anyway. By Western standards terrorist organizations are at insane levels of nepotism. Even if you just kill terrorists and magically save all innocents, you'll still have killed someone's nephew, or cousin, or brother-in-law, or other family member for whom they'll feel a need to take vengeance.

Suicide terrorists are not leaders; they're low level employees. Terrorist leaders expect a good portion of their 72 virgins now just like CEOs; Osama bin Laden had five wives, and he didn't have to wait to be blown up in order to get them. It's sort of like an actual CEO and low level employees; the CEO makes a lot more money and the employees suffer in ways the CEO might not.

The problem with this is that failing to attack terrorists who hide among civilians give terrorists greater incentive to hide among civilians. You end up with fewer innocents killed from attacks on terrorists and more killed by terrorists. The people killed by the terrorists have their own life stories which are just as sympathetic as those of the innocent bystanders when the terrorist is caught at a wedding.

We don't need crowdfunding to advance meaningful discoveries in theoretical research. This project only went to crowdfunding because it doesn't have enough merit that it can get funding through the normal channels. You think any big company wouldn't be all over this if it actually had a chance of success?