I'm sure they would balk at a simulation of the death of William Wallace. Which by the way would be more fun than just three bullets:
"At that time (and for the next 550 years), the punishment for the crime of treason was that the convicted traitor was dragged to the place of execution, hanged by the neck (but not until he was dead), and disembowelled (or drawn) while still alive. His entrails were burned before his eyes, he was decapitated and his body was divided into four parts (or quartered).
Accordingly, this was Wallace's fate. His head was impaled on a spike and displayed at London Bridge, his right arm on the bridge at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his left arm at Berwick, his right leg at Perth, and the left leg at Aberdeen."
Thanks, I think you hit it on the head. People are caught up in "Coding in English" while there are some really insightful observations being missed.
I would also point out that this seems a pretty arbitrary place and time to draw a line in the sand on how much more natural programming should become. What we do now is obviously more natural than machine code and don't see anyone demanding that we code in ones and zeros.
This is a valid example of the media working in the interest of its readers. There is a security issue as a result of what Google has created and there is a need for that flaw to be exposed. There is not an excess of negative publicity or a bandwagon.
GDS departs, subtly, but significantly, from a resonable definition of search because it caches data and thus misleads it's users (though, without malice). When the average person thinks "search" they do not think "cache". Cacheing does not enter into the experience of searching, from which most people are going to base their assumptions.
The average person when searching for their keys will try to remember where they put them. They may even have written down where they put them last, but they would not put a copy of their key in their pocket, nor would they keep a history of all the keys they had ever used as they moved from house to house.
Its the difference between what a resonable person expects when Google says to them "Desktop Search!" and what actually happens that creates the potential security problem.
When you delete a sensitive document is it reasonable that your "Search" tool underminds your intentions?
Reading the GDS documentation you can glean that GDS caches data and that users should be wary, but I see nothing wrong with the explicit manner in which the media has pointed it out.
The headlines are mild at best: "Google's desktop search a serious privacy risk?" and "New Google tool creates privacy risk on shared PCs"There is really only one article on this topic by Anick Jesdanun of The Associated Press that appears to be syndicated to many different sites. I read one other original article by Wolfgang Gruener, Senior Editor Tom's Hardware Guide (and I don't count the Motely Fool article). At best, a lonely and awkward bandwagon ride for the two of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I can create my own Oort Clouds after eating Mexican. I will stay behind and water the plants.
I'm sure they would balk at a simulation of the death of William Wallace. Which by the way would be more fun than just three bullets:
"At that time (and for the next 550 years), the punishment for the crime of treason was that the convicted traitor was dragged to the place of execution, hanged by the neck (but not until he was dead), and disembowelled (or drawn) while still alive. His entrails were burned before his eyes, he was decapitated and his body was divided into four parts (or quartered).
Accordingly, this was Wallace's fate. His head was impaled on a spike and displayed at London Bridge, his right arm on the bridge at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his left arm at Berwick, his right leg at Perth, and the left leg at Aberdeen."
from
Point for historically acurate body part placement.
Thanks, I think you hit it on the head. People are caught up in "Coding in English" while there are some really insightful observations being missed.
I would also point out that this seems a pretty arbitrary place and time to draw a line in the sand on how much more natural programming should become. What we do now is obviously more natural than machine code and don't see anyone demanding that we code in ones and zeros.
Daniel LaRusso did.
This is a valid example of the media working in the interest of its readers. There is a security issue as a result of what Google has created and there is a need for that flaw to be exposed. There is not an excess of negative publicity or a bandwagon.
GDS departs, subtly, but significantly, from a resonable definition of search because it caches data and thus misleads it's users (though, without malice). When the average person thinks "search" they do not think "cache". Cacheing does not enter into the experience of searching, from which most people are going to base their assumptions.
The average person when searching for their keys will try to remember where they put them. They may even have written down where they put them last, but they would not put a copy of their key in their pocket, nor would they keep a history of all the keys they had ever used as they moved from house to house.
Its the difference between what a resonable person expects when Google says to them "Desktop Search!" and what actually happens that creates the potential security problem.
When you delete a sensitive document is it reasonable that your "Search" tool underminds your intentions?
Reading the GDS documentation you can glean that GDS caches data and that users should be wary, but I see nothing wrong with the explicit manner in which the media has pointed it out.
The headlines are mild at best: "Google's desktop search a serious privacy risk?" and "New Google tool creates privacy risk on shared PCs"There is really only one article on this topic by Anick Jesdanun of The Associated Press that appears to be syndicated to many different sites. I read one other original article by Wolfgang Gruener, Senior Editor Tom's Hardware Guide (and I don't count the Motely Fool article). At best, a lonely and awkward bandwagon ride for the two of them.