A public act by an organization ignoring robots.txt will only lead to the justification of other organizations ignoring robots.txt.
So what? When DoubleClick argues that they ought to have the same advantages as Archive.org, they'll only manage to look like douchebags reaching their filthy hands into a cookie jar.
It's not always a bad thing to set up douchebag-honeypot moral exemption, even if it does depend on the mass audience (mostly) managing to find two sticks to rub together.
The real solution here is to make the directives in robots.txt more explicit concerning the predatory/non-predatory use cases.
It'd probably be better to have projectile launchers built into residential homes which can fling the craft into the air
I have it!
We'll build projectile launchers into residential homes, and launch the people into the air! No "car" required! Think of the weight savings!
It might be an archaic term, but they've been in the business for a lot longer than you have (or you would have recognized the terminology).
I recognize the misuse just fine; I've been at this since the 1960's. Front panel toggles, punchcards and paper tape are wholly familiar to me, as are arranging diodes in a matrix and building CPUs out of RTL and TTL. The fact that I recognize the misuse is not motivation to appreciate it, any more than I would if some non-contemporaneous Babbage-era use of "gears" was suddenly thought to be a good idea to use as the go-to word for software, or if someone referred to a modern day stick of RAM as "core", or if someone insisted on referring to computers in general as abaci.
The industry is well centered around particular terminology right now and has been for decades. That's the terminology to use, unless you want people focusing more on what you said, than what you meant. Which tends to lead to the wrong place no matter what you do. Particularly in engineering. Words matter. Being sloppy is costly.
Remember when HP mattered?
Yeah, but that was before someone "competent like Carly Fiorina" got her hands on it.
Put down the bong, and pick up a book.
Referring to software and applications as 'codes' is common in many industries (example "here). People that use such terminology are of much higher than average intelligence.
And so they have even less excuse for their mangling of the terminology, and definitely should be smiled at, nodded to, and ultimately, ignored other than when they have some kind of arbitrary coercive power over you, in which case, do it in your head anyway.
If you walk up to a nuclear engineer with your 140 IQ and ask him to "turn up the atumz", he should probably just call security and have your ass thrown out on the street.
Seriously. If you don't know even the basics of an industry's terminology -- it's time to leave off trying to involve yourself until you get that handled. If you do.
Statistically, you probably aren't any nearer the smartest than I am.
If you can successfully write that prior down, you're almost certainly wrong.
If you can't write that prior down, you're still wrong (but in the opposite direction).
If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.
What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.
Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.
Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.
Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.
The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:
PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5