The problem with this is that it would require issuing stock - which requires knowledge of securities law for wherever you are (and possibly wherever Kickstarter is). Issuing stock on Kickstarter would possibly count as an IPO, which gets even more complicated.

If this were to happen, the only decent, streamlined method would be for Kickstarter to have a staff to do it for you. Which could be good if you want to become a publicly traded corporation, but that adds more overhead in reporting and investor meetings/etc. as well.

Yes, unless there's a clause specifically setting a point in time that the delegation of power ends or needs to be renewed.

No, because they haven't legislated away any power. If an act of Congress grants or delegates a power, then another act of Congress can reverse that - if they really wanted to, Congress could pass new legislation revoking or amending the previous legislation. The only way they could permanently legislate power away is via Constitutional amendment - which, by definition, cannot by unconstitutional.

You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.

Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.

This is totally at odds with reality. Strong pushes in branding can and will warp public perception. If Google pushes ".dev = good developers" it will cause a branding in people's minds. At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have .dev, but eventually, as the .dev becomes a cognitive shortcut for "good developer" people will start thinking that those without .dev are in some way suspect - after all, if they were that good, why wouldn't they have a .dev?

This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.

I'd actually think it was the other way around - I'm less blue colorblind which is why I always see blue, regardless of surrounding context. You've got slight blue colorblindness which is why context causes you to interpret the blue as a different color.

This could indicate another possible explanation; that in many people the color you first see it as becomes the "right" color, and it becomes difficult/impossible to see it otherwise, as your brain has already interpreted it, and is remembering the "right" color even if you're trying to see it "wrong".

I think their application for .dev to be Google-only highlights a major problem with a company like this having control over any TLDs: They intend to use their control to crowd out competitors in a monopolistic fashion. That no non-Google developer can register a .dev is akin to saying that if you don't work for Google you're not really a developer. The only TLD restriction I would be OK with Google having reserved entirely for personal use is .google - and even that I'd be wary of without concrete rule for revoking the exclusive use if a good reason comes up.

I can only see it as blue, period. Not trolling - I really cannot see this as white in any circumstances, even the XKCD "color balanced" bit I still see it as blue (albeit a much lighter blue on the left).

Maybe this has more to do with some effect similar to color-blindness? There are more types of color-blindness than just the standard red-green, and they have different effects on how colors are seen (and some kinds of color blindness can actually make you see other colors better). Maybe this dress has highlighted a previously unknown type of color-blindness?

A unicorn is a symbol of a mythical (i.e. man-made) creature of beauty and purity - so it's heavily symbolic for Rachael. The dream is symbolic of Deckard falling in love with Rachael. Gaff's unicorn at the end is also symbolic of Rachael. Also, Gaff's other uses of origami/similar throughout the film are all heavily symbolic of the scene it's placed in - why would this one use be the only one not symbolic?

More a reference to the book, where the same question comes up, and he has.

Production error. They were originally going to have six (and even had the part cast), but had to cut one for budget reasons, and forgot to change it in the dialogue. This has been fixed in the Final Cut, as they changed the dialogue to having two replicants fried by Tyrel's security grid.

I'd put this evidence more to him not being one. He even gets his ass kicked by Pris "a pleasure model", and while he takes a hell of a beating it's not past the realm of believability for humans. Also, he doesn't display the ability to ignore pain that the replicants do.

This is a colloquialism that means about the same as "you've done a good day's/hard day's work". It's not meant to imply that anything about the listener not being a man.

Also, every single writer on the project has said that Deckard was never meant to be a replicant. Plus, there are multiple literary themes that lose their impact if Deckard is a replicant, too.

I'd say that Deckard is not, and never was, a replicant, and I'll be pissed off if they try say he was one. I've never gotten this assertion that he's a replicant, since so much of what's the in movie points to him not being one, and how much better the story and symbolism is if he isn't.

If the few things I read about this late last year are any indication, that's what it is - something with a new Blade Runner as the primary protagonist, and Deckard is in the script as the old man who used to be one.

And really, it's not like they could reasonably do this with Ford playing the hunter of Replicants anymore - he's 72 years old, and is starting to show it.

Ah, OK - I just remember they sold it off in the midst of financial problems. I was probably confusing their story and that of TSR's (all-but) bankruptcy, since they happened at about the same time.

As for Hasbro/Wizards sitting on the IP, the simple fact is that the vast majority of the IP is unusable at this point. They might have names that are too generic, or too close to other games on the market. Or, if they have a unique enough name for that to be valuable, the game is unknown outside of very small and specialized gaming circles. A very large majority of their games are basically the same type of game with slightly different rules (i.e. Diplomacy/Machiavelli, all the various WWII combat games, etc.). A large number of their games would compete with WotC/Hasbro's other IP (other WWII games vs. Axis & Allies, fantasy games vs. the various D&D incarnations, etc.). And, in a large number of cases, the rules are woefully out of date with the modern game industry - most of them were developed in the 70s or 80s, and would need to have major updating done to make them viable alternatives to other currently-published games.

You are entirely missing the point. There's a difference between something that by default publishes very little content that is hand-picked for the readers (a magazine), and a platform for public posting (a blog hosting site).

Add to that the fact that, in this current Google fiasco:
A) These blogs are already posted and are going to be censored due to a change in the TOS.
B) Google is going to literally be deciding content on a case-by-case basis, and you won't know their decision until you post ("we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, [...]" - so THEY decide if your nudity is "graphic" or "artistic").

Is it a physical magazine with a finite space that you have to pick and choose what goes into (i.e. default state is unpublished)? Then no.

Is it an online paper, whose default state is that everything is published?
Then yes.