Geekosystem's Sci-Fi Scenarios Aren't as Far-Fetched as You Think

"Who owns the moon?" is the second most common question I get when I tell people I studied space law. "Space law: that's a thing?" is the first.

(No one, and yes.)

The electronic magazine Geekosystem ran a great article today about space law, a primer on the subject for your average non-lawyer. It's a great introduction for people who have never heard of space law, or who are wondering just what law there is in space. The interview portion also includes two extremely knowledgeable people I've had the pleasure of working with, Elsbeth Magilton and Frans von der Dunk. And I'm not just saying that because one of them quoted me. (I have never met the third interviewee, Julie McMahon, but, since she has the good sense to be a space law buff, I assume good things about her as well.)

Geekosystem, of course, got to the good stuff quickly. Star Wars. Gravity. Avatar. How do these movies stack up with space law? These are things that people really care about. I've written before about how science fiction says a lot about our culture, and literature can offer us important insights into our society.

But science fiction is just that: fiction. Star Wars and Avatar are unrealistic. (Gravity, although it gets a lot wrong on the science, highlights some real issues.) Questions like "Who is responsible for the space junk left over from blowing up the Death Star?" and "Can the Resources Development Administration be held responsible for damaging the Tree of Souls?" are fun, but fantastical. Right?

Wrong. They aren't as far-fetched as you think.

Cutting Law School by 1 Year Could Worsen Law Grads' Finances

(Note: I admit, this post really has nothing to do with technology.  But it might still be interesting to anyone with an interest in education, or graduate school.)

In comments that most non-lawyers probably glossed over, President Obama commented today that "law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three."

Obama made the comments during a pro-student tour in which the President is taking aim at the high and continually rising costs of education.  The logic seems sound -- if a legal education costs $70,000 per year (accounting for inflation and interest), then two years in law school costs $70,000 less than three years. If you then assume that these hypothetical students could work during what would be their third year of law school, this puts the students $100,000 or more ahead of where they would be.

Anecdotally, this proposal seems to be extremely popular, with lawyers and law students on various social networks decrying the uselessness of the third year of law school.  (A popular follow-on proposal is "add an optional third year" or "get an LL.M. if you disagree".)  Indeed, Obama himself was a law professor, and other law professors have made this proposal before.

Surely, it can't be that easy.

Why Into Darkness Retroactively Makes Star Trek Better

(This post is going to spoil the daylights out of the new Star Trek movie. I'll put all the spoilers after the jump, but, if you haven't seen the film and have managed to avoid the big spoilers so far, consider yourself warned.)

Science fiction is important. Our fiction says a lot about our society, and our science fiction says a lot about what we want (or don't want) for our future. Star Trek Into Darkness is a terrific example of how our society shapes our fiction, and the other way around. You need look no farther than the dedication in the credits to see how wrapped up in social commentary our fiction is.

Star Trek Into Darkness was a moderate box office success. The film had mixed reception from both critics and fans, who largely hailed it as a good popcorn flick but lacking in the lore and depth that made the original Star Trek great. One major criticism of the movie is that it buys too much into Hollywood "guy culture" mythology, for a lack of strong female characters.

Discussion about race, on the other hand, has been scant, but not entirely favorable. I want to focus on one casting choice in particular, however, and how a little bit of revisionist history makes the whole Star Trek franchise more nuanced.

And seriously, stop reading here if you do not want the movie spoiled.

Are Etsy Lawyers Bullying Jayne Hat Makers?

(If you're familiar with the Jayne hat controversy, skip the introduction and get right to the good stuff.)

The Jayne hat. Oh, the Jayne hat.

If you're a fan of the short-lived show Firefly, you already know what I'm talking about. If not, the shortest coherent explanation I can give is this: In one episode, Jayne Cobb, the big thug character (who secretly has a good heart) receives a hand-knitted laplander-style hat from his mother. It is brightly colored, with a pom-pom, and is fairly silly-looking and entirely inappropriate to his general demeanor -- which is what makes it perfect. Jayne loves the hat, and wears it in a climactic scene involving guns and threats of violence.

In the intervening years, the Jayne hat has become iconic for Firefly fans. "Browncoats" (Firefly fans) have been knitting the tricolor hats for about a decade. I actually own one, made for me personally as a birthday gift. You see them all over conventions; they're an instant symbol for the fanbase.

You can see where this is going. Recently, Fox, which owns the rights to Firefly, licensed a manufacturer to start selling official Jayne hats. I actually applaud that move -- why should only fans who know knitters get to show off the accessory? But, of course, it didn't stop there, and Fox (not having learned from, oh, any other decision they ever made involving the Firefly franchise) started sending cease & desist letters to online sellers of handmade Jayne hats.

Unlike most people commenting on the situation (and even most Jayne hat knitters talking about it), I actually think Fox is on pretty shaky legal ground. Despite what they would have people think, it's not at all clear that Fox has any legal right to stop people from knitting red, orange, and yellow laplanders and calling them "Jayne hats" -- and, if they can, that should give us pause. (That may be the subject of a future post, but it would take a fair bit of research to cover the topic adequately.) But let's, for the moment, suppose that they do.

There's someone in this controversy who is cutting a path even closer to the line, and even more dangerous, than Fox. It's Etsy. And it all relies on something we were never supposed to see.

Red Equal Signs: A Study in Sorting?

(Now that the bar exam is over and I have had time to sort out a number of personal and professional items, this blog is being revived. Sorry for the suspense.)

Odds are, you have a Facebook account. No, really. Over 50% of Americans have Facebook accounts. So, odds are, you have a Facebook account. (25 other countries are also over the 50% threshold, including the United Kingdom and Canada.) So, odds are, you've seen a red equal sign in the last few days.

In the extremely unlikely event you don't know what I'm talking about, here's what happened. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court, highest court in the country, heard challenges to the laws known as Proposition 8 (the California law prohibiting the performance of same-sex marriages in that state) and the Defense of Marriage Act (the U.S. federal law restricting federal marriage benefits from same-sex marriages*). Among the many memes and other trends on the Internet relating to the cases, Facebook was awash in red. The Human Rights Campaign urged followers to change their profile pictures in support of marriage equality, and it caught on. I haven't seen any estimates of how many people changed their pictures, but it was a lot. It also spawned a number of spoofs, from Ernie & Bert to corgis to bacon.

This is not a post about marriage equality. Sorry to disappoint. But I am going to talk about Facebook and social sorting, so click on!