Do you think it'd be worth posting a Q&A (self-answered, of course) of what word length means and what implications it has for a computer? I understand it would be better suited for a blog post - and would be willing to write one - but was just wondering if anyone else felt this would be a good question to have pre-answered on SU (especially when classical 32 vs 64-bit questions come up).

+1 to you, sir. Sometimes you're like my Super User Hero, delivering logical arguments and viewpoints when we need them most.

@BonGart I'm tired of typing responses to your nonsensical arguments. Maybe you need a little reading material... Better call those professionals to secure your network from everyone who can afford that book (and the hundreds of thousands like it). And I asked you if SU was the only place because last I checked, most English dictionaries have completely different definitions for the words sharing and promoting.

@BonGart there's an explicit difference between sharing information and promoting it's use. If I posted a guide on how to break a type of encryption, and explicitly state that it should only be used to recover files that you own, am I promoting that activity? Are people all of the sudden going to go find encrypted files to break just to try it? No. The information is there for the people who need it. And last I checked, on the internet, there is no concept of "the only place" on the internet, especially since it's trivial to make a copy of something digitally.

@DanielBeck agreed, but sometimes, less is more. Obviously such a question should be closed if the user explicitly states "I want to break the DRM from this file I own to share it with others", but what if they only say "I want to break the DRM from this file I own"? I totally agree with your viewpoint, but anyone can just append "to put it on my other devices" after the question is written. If that small addition is enough to keep a question open on SU for legitimate purposes, I'm all for it - but I still don't think it's explicitly required.

@BonGart I don't understand your point. Do you really think Super User is the only place on the internet to find out how to hack things? If someone really wanted to find out how to do something, they could. We should take questions at face value, and leave each question (as well as the users on Stack Exchange) "innocent until proven guilty", so to speak.

Repressing information is far more dangerous than free information. We want to educate people - even if it can be used for good and bad actions alike. It's far better to bring the information to public light, rather than keep it in the dark, so it can be used unknowingly against the public. So long as the intentions are not malicious, I see no problem with any question regarding hacking. How else does one ensure their own system is secure (as @DanielBeck mentions above)?

Basically, so long as it's not abusive or illegal, and not about hacking Stack Exchange itself (including other SE users), it's fair game.

+1 because this is what I think of when I hear "language" now at parties. "Oh, what languages do you speak, Breakthrough?" "Oh, you know... English, C++, PHP, Python..."

I'd love to hear how you plan to "scientifically" solve the problem of "why do people care". People are illogical, and that is a scientific fact.

Solution: Use the tag mac-address for MAC-related questions, and imac for Macintosh hardware questions (software should all be under osx). Then again, just one man's opinion, as there's thousands of questions already tagged mac...

Sorry to all for keeping this going, but Tom likes to blatantly undermine my opinion while pushing his, so I'll finish this with what my point of this is. Breakthrough: "Do you feel that we should, as members of the community, promote guidelines and policies consistent with the Stack Exchange legal framework?" Tom: "Yes, I feel so [...]"

Discussion moved to chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3126/…

@TomWijsman maybe that's because I never said "you are not allowed to place warnings". Stop reading between the lines, and stop acting like I'm repressing your freedom of speech or something. I said, from a legal standpoint, it's a terrible idea to undermine the website's terms of service, as there is a more than adequate legal framework in place, presumably drafted by lawyers who know much more about the United States legal system than you or I ever will. You can do whatever you want - even if it's a bad idea. I'm providing guidance - nothing more, nothing less.

For what it's worth, Tom, I'm enforcing my viewpoint because it's on my own answer. It's clear that you don't agree with anyone else's but your own, which is why your viewpoints have managed to make an appearance on every single answer here. I'm not trying to suppress your freedom of speech, do what you want. I'm trying to defend Stack Exchange from a legal standpoint, and not based on what you "think is right"... Unless, like you tried to place upon me, you can show me legal terms that tell me I am wrong :)

"Scripts however, are of a different nature than source code" False. Scripts are source code, and are still applied under the relevant copyright/intellectual property laws. And again: "The warning functions as an temporary indication that we are uncertain at that moment, and are inspecting the software." We are not the right people to be determining if software is "safe" or not, the end user is. This is what the legal framework says. By doing so, you are undermining the Stack Exchange legal policies. QED.