Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.
*facepalms*
NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.
A typical pro-piracy comment in Slashdot is that "if I make a copy, no one loses anything"
Pro-piracy, or a response against the act of comparing it to literal theft? Those are not the same thing [being pro-piracy, using a statement to express the idea that an analogy is bad] in of itself.
Do you ever see any anti-piracy posts that are modded up on Slashdot so they can be read without drilling down?
When the post is actually rational, does not involve assumptions, does not involve being hostile, does not involve taking people's words out of context? Yes. It's not often it is seen, however, because a lot of the posts flame people, take their words out of context, or just try to pass off opinion as fact without any citations... so no shit, they get modded down and responded to w/ hostility more often than not.
*yawns* usual misinterpretation of an argument some make, and misapplication of that misinterpretation to everybody creating a false contradiction/double standard that ignores that Slashdot is not a singular hive-mind entity, but a site made up of lots of people with opinions - shared, similar, and completely different about different matters.
Remind me again, how in the fuck is this insightful?
People act like the FCC and.or FAA changing things will be the end of the world. These changes won't prevent airlines from acting their own policies, and odds are they will have their own rules... and why the hell would you want the FCC governing this - and not the airlines?
The question I'd ask in response: Why should we be weaned off Ethanol completely?
Because corn ethanol is a disaster?
Corn ethanol is IMO a disaster, but that doesn't mean the CONCEPT of using plants to make fuel is a disaster, or that alternatives - algae, sugar cane, etc - for making ethanol cease to exist/stop being better alternatives to look at/explore/refine... something that REALLY pisses me off about the 'ditch Ethanol' crowd.
No, copying is copying, no matter how arrogant you get, no matter how much "period"ing you do [do get some sanitary napkins while you're at it].
Your argument "You obtained a non-free product, good, or service that you didn't pay for." ignores that we're talking legality, and this is not the definition of theft - nor does a copyright infringer get the charge of theft because it is copyright infringement, not theft.
If you want to believe morally it is theft, that's your opinion. If you're gonna continue arguing that it is legally such, you're a blooming moron.
Never mind that privacy is hiding, by nature, regardless of good, bad, moral, immoral, legal, illegal, etc - the premise, IMO of course - along with other premises that use any variation of "is hiding from," "nothing to hide, " "something to hide," etc is inherently flawed out the ass.
Piracy is a hurdle to be jumped over, if it hasn't killed media in the decades it has existed, and even the recent post-Napster age, what makes your assertion plausible? People will create, people will find ways to monetize that should they choose to, and so far it seems like the industries are surviving in spite of these challenges.
Sure you are, you're taking the money you didn't pay me - a scarce good that I'm now deprived of.
Um... if I were to spend some money on something, and don't, regardless of of it is a physical good, or digital, how is what you're saying making ANY sense? I never spent the money, so I STILL HAVE MY money, you just didn't GAIN any. You can not logically lose money you never had in the first place. That defies both logic and physics.
Watch as the Luddites crawl out from out of their caves to tell us all how they think it's ridiculous people can't be without their devices for 30 minutes during the takeoff and landing and how they don't want to hear someone talking on the phone etc. Get of my lawn!
Hehehe, yeah, I HATE IT when those arguments are thrown around - when 1. being able or not to detach from a device can not be ascertained as easily as those making that argument make it seem, and 2. Just because a phone is an electronic device doesn't mean that they are including it in the allowed category, outside of airplane mode... something they'd be able to see for themselves IF THEY ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE[S} ON THE MATTER .
Hard to tell when they're apparently too stupid to differentiate between being "being too stupid to follow an instruction," and not giving a damn - being able to - regardless of simplicity or lack thereof.
A somewhat vocal minority think the government has gone too far in its war on terrorists. Perhaps you remember the TSA's short-lived attempt to relax restrictions. My local news never has any trouble finding a member of the public willing to say how much safer they feel each time a government agency proposes a new search method or new restriction.
Slashdot is a libertarian-leaning echo chamber and not representative of America.
That's why almost every article on the TSA I've read, Mr. A.C, has people lambasting the TSA more than not in the comments section [and lambasting those supporting the TSA in comment form in said comments section], right? *rolls eyes*
So... that's it then, lying is not ok in ANY situation, whatsoever? At all? Ever? In your opinion maybe. I personally cant agree with that sort of absolute.
Point 5: I call bullshit on. Complaining **IN OF ITSELF** is a response to dis-satisfaction. It's HOW you complain. IMO, those talking about intelligence, and lumping ALL complaining under one brush need to look in the mirror.
Well, making it so the results don' show up when they could... that';s still textbook censorship. It may be ACCEPTABLE censorship, but too many people seem too oblivious lately to what the term actually encompasses or not just IMO.
... *facepalm* The company wasn't providing free audio or video, they were providing SUBTITLES they made on their own - does it really warrant a police raid as opposed to other forms of communication or action should it be needed? We're not dealing with drugs, or organized crime for fuck's sake. The idea that it is all about wanting free media, and a conspiracy to spin the story, IMO of course, makes me wonder though if you are into honest debate.
You're right, logic seems to go out the window, but given your generalized characterizations, methinks you ought to re-evaluate who you aim this comment at. heh.
>because they were right, you were recording and harassing them! Ironic isn't it?
Well, it probably wouldn't get too far - unreasonable use of force is still unreasonable use of force.
And I'll say what many others say: [citation needed]... only since you insist on posting your position in a FACTUAL TONE [No shit you get flack for this opinion given that, Sherlock].
So... only criminals stay silent? I bet there are a fair lot of innocent people out there who have been through the process, remaining silent, even in SOME cases wrongly conviction or abused, who would want to call you a fucking moron right about now... and I wouldn't blame them.
Hmm, no wonder you posted as an anon. coward, your post is absurdly braindead, and as a result you want to not have to face the backlash for your braindead statements.
You're an idiot.
Nothing more needs to be sad - the way you ignore what is being said and create statements that couldn't reasonably be implied says it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.
*facepalms*
NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.
A typical pro-piracy comment in Slashdot is that "if I make a copy, no one loses anything"
Pro-piracy, or a response against the act of comparing it to literal theft? Those are not the same thing [being pro-piracy, using a statement to express the idea that an analogy is bad] in of itself.
Do you ever see any anti-piracy posts that are modded up on Slashdot so they can be read without drilling down?
When the post is actually rational, does not involve assumptions, does not involve being hostile, does not involve taking people's words out of context? Yes. It's not often it is seen, however, because a lot of the posts flame people, take their words out of context, or just try to pass off opinion as fact without any citations... so no shit, they get modded down and responded to w/ hostility more often than not.
*yawns* usual misinterpretation of an argument some make, and misapplication of that misinterpretation to everybody creating a false contradiction/double standard that ignores that Slashdot is not a singular hive-mind entity, but a site made up of lots of people with opinions - shared, similar, and completely different about different matters.
Remind me again, how in the fuck is this insightful?
People act like the FCC and.or FAA changing things will be the end of the world. These changes won't prevent airlines from acting their own policies, and odds are they will have their own rules... and why the hell would you want the FCC governing this - and not the airlines?
Please, mr. Anon. Coward, read my sig. It is quite applicable to your sentiment.
The question I'd ask in response: Why should we be weaned off Ethanol completely?
Because corn ethanol is a disaster?
Corn ethanol is IMO a disaster, but that doesn't mean the CONCEPT of using plants to make fuel is a disaster, or that alternatives - algae, sugar cane, etc - for making ethanol cease to exist/stop being better alternatives to look at/explore/refine... something that REALLY pisses me off about the 'ditch Ethanol' crowd.
No, copying is copying, no matter how arrogant you get, no matter how much "period"ing you do [do get some sanitary napkins while you're at it].
Your argument "You obtained a non-free product, good, or service that you didn't pay for." ignores that we're talking legality, and this is not the definition of theft - nor does a copyright infringer get the charge of theft because it is copyright infringement, not theft.
If you want to believe morally it is theft, that's your opinion. If you're gonna continue arguing that it is legally such, you're a blooming moron.
Never mind that privacy is hiding, by nature, regardless of good, bad, moral, immoral, legal, illegal, etc - the premise, IMO of course - along with other premises that use any variation of "is hiding from," "nothing to hide, " "something to hide," etc is inherently flawed out the ass.
Piracy is a hurdle to be jumped over, if it hasn't killed media in the decades it has existed, and even the recent post-Napster age, what makes your assertion plausible? People will create, people will find ways to monetize that should they choose to, and so far it seems like the industries are surviving in spite of these challenges.
Take your doom and gloom, and cool it.
Sure you are, you're taking the money you didn't pay me - a scarce good that I'm now deprived of.
Um... if I were to spend some money on something, and don't, regardless of of it is a physical good, or digital, how is what you're saying making ANY sense? I never spent the money, so I STILL HAVE MY money, you just didn't GAIN any. You can not logically lose money you never had in the first place. That defies both logic and physics.
Watch as the Luddites crawl out from out of their caves to tell us all how they think it's ridiculous people can't be without their devices for 30 minutes during the takeoff and landing and how they don't want to hear someone talking on the phone etc. Get of my lawn!
Hehehe, yeah, I HATE IT when those arguments are thrown around - when 1. being able or not to detach from a device can not be ascertained as easily as those making that argument make it seem, and 2. Just because a phone is an electronic device doesn't mean that they are including it in the allowed category, outside of airplane mode... something they'd be able to see for themselves IF THEY ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE[S} ON THE MATTER .
Hard to tell when they're apparently too stupid to differentiate between being "being too stupid to follow an instruction," and not giving a damn - being able to - regardless of simplicity or lack thereof.
A somewhat vocal minority think the government has gone too far in its war on terrorists. Perhaps you remember the TSA's short-lived attempt to relax restrictions. My local news never has any trouble finding a member of the public willing to say how much safer they feel each time a government agency proposes a new search method or new restriction. Slashdot is a libertarian-leaning echo chamber and not representative of America.
That's why almost every article on the TSA I've read, Mr. A.C, has people lambasting the TSA more than not in the comments section [and lambasting those supporting the TSA in comment form in said comments section], right? *rolls eyes*
So... that's it then, lying is not ok in ANY situation, whatsoever? At all? Ever? In your opinion maybe. I personally cant agree with that sort of absolute.
Actually, posting opiniions, creating outcry is "deal[ing] with it" technically, it's just too many illiterate wankers are [mis]using the phrase.
Point 5: I call bullshit on. Complaining **IN OF ITSELF** is a response to dis-satisfaction. It's HOW you complain. IMO, those talking about intelligence, and lumping ALL complaining under one brush need to look in the mirror.
Well, making it so the results don' show up when they could... that';s still textbook censorship. It may be ACCEPTABLE censorship, but too many people seem too oblivious lately to what the term actually encompasses or not just IMO.
... *facepalm* The company wasn't providing free audio or video, they were providing SUBTITLES they made on their own - does it really warrant a police raid as opposed to other forms of communication or action should it be needed? We're not dealing with drugs, or organized crime for fuck's sake. The idea that it is all about wanting free media, and a conspiracy to spin the story, IMO of course, makes me wonder though if you are into honest debate.
You're right, logic seems to go out the window, but given your generalized characterizations, methinks you ought to re-evaluate who you aim this comment at. heh.
>because they were right, you were recording and harassing them! Ironic isn't it?
Well, it probably wouldn't get too far - unreasonable use of force is still unreasonable use of force.
And I'll say what many others say: [citation needed]... only since you insist on posting your position in a FACTUAL TONE [No shit you get flack for this opinion given that, Sherlock].
So... only criminals stay silent? I bet there are a fair lot of innocent people out there who have been through the process, remaining silent, even in SOME cases wrongly conviction or abused, who would want to call you a fucking moron right about now... and I wouldn't blame them.
Hmm, no wonder you posted as an anon. coward, your post is absurdly braindead, and as a result you want to not have to face the backlash for your braindead statements.
You're an idiot. Nothing more needs to be sad - the way you ignore what is being said and create statements that couldn't reasonably be implied says it all.