How long before a handful of entities, having already ingested the available content into their proprietary systems, bankroll assaults on Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
Depends on what you mean by alternatives. Some gear focused forums (ModWiggler, Lines, Elektronauts, etc) necessarily cover some of the same ground. The Dogs On Acid forum is also still around, though it's changed hands over the years.
You say that as though this is a brand new problem and not something that's been an issue for many, many decades regardless of what party has majority control at the federal level.
> people in their cars pretended to ignore me, and one couple leaving theirs just walked away, as I asked if they could move so we could unload my dead car
I wonder if they would have started responding if you motioned the tow truck driver to unload your car directly behind them, in a position that would obviously seriously inconvenience the other driver(s) or prevent them from leaving entirely...of course, also mentioning that was your plan to them loudly so you're sure they can hear.
> leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death while tripping on magic mushrooms
So if keeping them illegal apparently utterly failed to prevent people from having ready access to them as your anecdote suggests, what was the benefit of keeping them illegal in the first place? Other than funneling government coffers into the prison-industrial complex, itself perpetuating far more tragedy and engendering a far more dangerous society as a result...and not just for your daughter, but for everyone.
Or more likely, there were probably some legitimate alerts that would have gone out at the same time as per normal operations, and they do not want to conflate these with the ones sent in error.
> some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error
Our VP made no statement about the totality. Draw what conclusions you may from the equivocal register of this public-relations statement, but he is relegating his statement to those alerts which, by his own words, he cannot say to a certainty whether or not they were triggered in error. I presume that this statement is calculated to exclude all those alerts that they can know were legitimate. If you want to expand the scope of the statement, then the only implication would be that they cannot discern the legitimate from the illegitimate alerts.
The only purpose of my comment was to draw attention to the apparent equivocation, that is, the art of misleading without lying. If they can't tell right from wrong (alerts), so much the more damning.
>Is it really a terrible idea to restrict your software from being used to control weaponry?
Seems reasonable until you do something unrelated to offend the licensor and they decide to leverage a very loose definition of weaponry/munitions against you. For example, have a look at what is consider munitions for the purpose of export controls in the USA, and consider what additional items have been regulated as munitions in the past:
reply