So?
Doesn't necessarily mean "any means necessarily" is necessarily what they agreed to, or legal - especially something to goes that far without being explicitly confined. *sighs* I wish people who cite the EULA, etc not as an argument, but as a shutout to opposing arguments would just shut up and learn that it doesn't cancel out all arguments, particularly since it being written doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, nor does it negate that people will/can have an opinion about it.

Exactly, so why should congress make the law instead of leaving it up to the airlines?

(Hint: READ the fucking article!!!)

is that it becoming the default means it will become a norm, and then more accepted - instead of people asking "Why should it be this way? Why can't we do more to ensure less surveillance? "

Fuck it becoming a norm.

Doubting AGW != denying all climate change - climate does change over time, it's just the science behind AGW is very much up for debate in favor of, or in opposition of, it doesn't matter. Skepticism != outright denial, skepticism of one aspect of something != outright denial of it or something similar to it.

Only in a world where it being in a TOS automatically makes it legal and unchallengeable, which this is only if you are an idiot.
Not saying this is one of those times, but whether they win or lose is not based on it being in the TOS, but it being in there + either FB being able to prove it is legal, or the plaintiffs being able to argue its illegality. TOses, contracts, have been deemed either in whole or in part illegal/void before.

Irony how? And you do know that all that Godwin's law states is that as a discussion goes on, the likelihood of mentioning Nazis, Nazi Germany, etc increases - and that it is only the corollary that actually attempts to make use of the law to set forth any judgements - illogically too, IMO - about such uses?

*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.

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.

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.