It's interesting that no-one else puts "kleenex" on their boxes of tissue paper though
No, its really not that interesting. Kleenex still exists as a distinct brand and it still has rights to the name and logo. They just have fewer enforceable rights than other mark holders.
Assuming Google lost its trademark on search products
Like kleenex, it would not be an erosion, not a 'total loss'.
I wonder if other companies would start using the term "google" in relation to their search engines
I doubt it, as long as google.com belongs to google inc; it wouldn't make sense, and likely wouldn't be legal.
Seems like a rather shady thing to do, with no non-malicious motivations being apparent.
I tend to agree with you. At least within the context of online services that let you search for something. There is simply too much overlap with actual google and the actual google service. I don't really see a legitimate way to commercially capitalize on the trademark erosion.
Do you also harass people who ask for kleenex? After all they could ask for a 'facial tissue' instead. If they ask for saurkraut to do you ask them why they don't say "pickled cabbage"? If they want flapjacks to you tell them to say "pancakes"? If they want a cup of joe do you insist they say coffee?
Why don't I say "look it up"? Because. That's why. The language is rich and full of options.When I say "google it" people know I've suggested they look 'it' up online. It's well understood. I *could* say it lots of other ways... why should I?
but as a command or request I'd say you expect results from Google and nobody else
I disagree.
If my son says, "Dad, when did the T. Rex go extinct" I might say "google it". And I don't have any expectation that he'll specifically use google to get the answer; and in fact, because his default search engine is duckduckgo, I would expect him to use that.
But I'd never say 'duckduckgo it'. Because that's not a common thing to say...where as 'google it' has become a common thing to say.
Your example was a bit weird because you weren't looking for a final page... you were specifically asking for the google results page itself, which really just an intermediate step in most search interactions.
For example, suppose i want the instruction manual for my router. If I told my personal assistant (whether human or electronic) google the manual for an XXXXX, then I don't really care what search engine was actually used, I just care that when I look at the screen, the PDF of the user manual is open.
If you're saying "I'll Google it on duck duck go" that speaks to your ignorance
I've never said -that-. If I'm going to call out duckduckgo by name, then
I have said to my son, "google it" when he asked me a question.
And my son then used 'duckduckgo' to fulfill the request, and get the answer for himself, because that is the default search engine on his laptop.
And he (correctly) knew that when i said 'google it' I meant just meant look it up on the web, and it was not instructions to use a specific brand search engine to do it.
Words have meanings, and you just used them wrong.
If what is wrong becomes widespread enough, then its not wrong anymore. That's how language works.
"Seriously, the majority of people cutting the cord aren't looking to ensure a 1:1 replacement of all channels they may or may not have been watching previously,"
EXACTLY THIS.
People who want all the channels they currently have, in multiple rooms, with kids, and live new channels, and sports... aren't looking to 'cut the cord'... they want the cord.
And it is also no surprise that replacing the cord... with another cord that does exactly the same thing costs as much as the original cord.
Indeed. I have never heard anyone say "Google it with Bing" except as a joke.
Practically nobody says "can you pass me a kleenex from that box of puffs facial tissues" unless they are making a joke too. They just say 'pass me a kleenex'. But they'll point at the puffs box while asking without awareness or irony.
Likewise people do say 'just google X' all the time as a generic synonym for "search for it on the internet". And they'll open their browser and use the default search without any real awareness that its actually yahoo or bing.
I don't know that its sufficiently generic for loss of trademark. But lets not kid ourselves here, I will say 'google something' yet I use duckduckgo on all the systems at home. The word 'search' doesn't automatically mean 'on the internet'... if i say 'can you search for my drill' it's not immediately obvious that I want an internet search (e.g. for its specs / support / accessories / current price ), as opposed to finding my actual drill in the garage. And if I say 'google my drill' it means find a product page for my drill on the internet. And I don't care, or even intend for anyone to actually use google to do it.
"I am no willing to let MS off the hook for such pathetic UX screwup."
Let's look at what he actually did. I've got visual studio code... I'm looking at it; and I think i see what he did.
He created a folder for his project. He worked on it for 3 months. No backups, no source control. That's brain dead.
He tries out Visual Studio Code. I suspect he doesn't even really know how git works at all; and decides to just start playing with its source control features without knowing what he's doing.... on his 3 months of live irreplaceable data. That's brain dead squared.
He can't do anything with source control without a repo, so step one he has to initialize a repository. (essentially git init). No problem. Visual Studio code has an 'initialize repository' command.
So now he's got an empty repository, and his working directory has 3 months of worth of new/changed files. In git parlance he's got 5000 items or whatever to be staged and committed with the next commit.
He decides not go through with that which is fine.
Disastrously though, he now selects 'discard all changes' for the project. This is again, git talk -- it dumps everything in the working folder since the last commit; or alternatively it restores you to where your last commit left you. Developers do this all the time on purpose. We do it to individual files all the time, and to working folders as needed.
When you select it in Visual Studio code it prompts: "Are you sure you want to discard all changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!" (caps is as seen in the actual warning dialog box).
He clicks yes. Git restores the working directory to the last commit. In his case, though there is no last commit. Everything in his working folder is 'changes since the last commit' so it restores him to a blank slate. That's what discard all changes does in the context of source control. Its unfortunate he didn't know that. It's unfortunate the "IRREVERSIBLE" warning went unheeded. Its absurd that he was doing this on his live project rather than making a test project for... or a copy of his project folder to play with.
He throws a temper tantrum on the internet because he decided to learn how source control worked on a live project with no backups and didn't know what he was doing.
Be able to restore your data to a point in recent enough time that you deem the loss acceptable. With some stuff like code, you can lose a week... with other stuff like photos -- gone forever is gone forevor. you lose the wedding shoot from 3 days ago... and the fact that you still have the ones from the week before isn't going to help that particular couple.
Of course I find the situation to be highly unlikely... so am willing to accept that risk level.
Yeah, I used to do a weekly backup to an external USB drive. I had an 'electrical event' while it was plugged in and I was running the backups that fried both the PC's drive, and the external at the same time. (The PC power supply fried out spectacularly and fried the mainboard and pretty much everything it was attached to.
I *should* have had a 2nd external drive that I swapped back and forth with or something; so that I always had at least one drive not attached. But I didn't. I was actually able to recover the data via one of the clean-room platter transplant services but it cost about $1000... so i was lucky.
In hindsight I was also vulnerable to fire/theft/flood, and would have been even with additional hard drive.
So now, I don't consider anything onsite only as being sufficient. I've seen too many people lose everything despite having a backup on there home NAS or something; when both get damaged or stolen at once. And with malware (ransomware) I've seen people lose their backups because the malware was able to 'reach' the backup drives via file system mounts, even on remotes. So I don't consider that sufficient.
Some sort of cloud based system that uses a backup agent (so you aren't mounting the remote file system) like carbonite or crashplan etc... plus periodically connected local drive or 2... that's about the minimum that I consider adequate these days.
Unlikely stuff happens. I'm not trying to make backups to survive world war 3 or a comet strike. But malware infections and electrical shorts happen, and its not difficult or expensive to safeguard against them.
revision control is not proper backup, but are you aware that all modern revision control systems are atomic? A "backup" is either perfect or non-existant.
That's really beside the point. Revision control is not a backup because you can easily destroy or damage the entre repo while working against it. A simple git repo locally is literally just a hidden folder in the working directly that the git tools treat special... and that you aren't normally supposed to directly touch. But it's there and its vulnerable to all kinds of stuff. You can delete the folder, or corrupt it, or use git commands wrong to clear it out, if the hard drive fails, it fails. It's vulnerable to all kinds of stuff.
Offsite revision control with git starts approaching 'backup' levels of robustness. When think just in terms of commits. But you can still remove branches and delete things accidently etc. If you are going to "play" with the git repo management commands... you really need a backup of the repo itself; or you can do some REAL damage; because not everything can be undone.
Just because the user could have navigated the confusing user interface doesn't mean it's his fault. Microsoft created the user interface.
It's his fault because he had '3 months work' with no backup, not a proper offsite incremental backup, not even a zipped copy in another folder, not even using source control.
That's indefensible right there.
That he then took this highly valuable data, of which he had no backups, and decided to play with it with a tool he was unfamiliar with.
That's just reckless.
It sucks that he lost his data. It really does. I've been there. I feel for the guy. But It doesn't matter how you spin it the lesson here is not that Visual Studio Code is dangerous -- the lesson here is: MAKE REGULAR BACKUPS.
By your reasoning there is never any such a thing as a user interface problem because the user could always have done something else.
No. We can have a conversation about user interface problems, and I readily agree that Visual Studio code has some. But the reason he lost his data is not a user interface problem in Visual Studio Code. The reason he lost his data is because he didn't make backups.
Forget drive history... the hard drive could fail, or get stolen, or get damaged by lightning or coffee, or deleted by malware.
Where are the backups?
Revision control is not backups. NFTS file history is NOT proper backups. A copy elsewhere on the same hard drive or same computer or on another computer via a filesystem mount... is NOT proper backups. An external drive you attach once a week and copy files to is not proper backups. They are better than nothing, and each one is still useful... revision control has lots of uses after all, including recovering from certain messes, but it is not by itself proper backups.
If you can't survive a ransomware infection and a lightning strike all happening simultaneously with the backups *running* -- then you don't have proper backups.
Who was talking about you. Do you own the Internet?
By 'me' I meant, me, *or* anyone else (such as you, godaddy, google, or cloudflare). Don't be a pedantic twit.
Well, nowadays public speech basically means Internet
I agree.
and for most people the Internet is such a medium controlled by companies. I have no problem with certain forms of speech to be restricted by law (we actually have that in Germany). But restrictions of speech by private peer pressure on/by companies leads to a society where the minority (or the less loud majority) has no free speech anymore.
Basic Internet access (packet transit services) should be regulated as a common carrier and treated as a public utility. The ISPs should not know or care what is in your packets, and they should not be allowed to disconnect your service based on what is in the packets.
So if you want to host something buy some hardware and host it yourself. Nobody should have to do it for you, and if your message is so undesirable that you can't find anyone willing to do it, you can do it yourself. But I agree with you, to the point that you must be able to do it yourself; and to that end, as I said, basic packet transit needs to regulated as a common carrier and public utility.
""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Is entirely separate from, "I disapprove of what you say, but for $X I will actively carry around a placard saying it for you. I'll print your copies for you, and I'll even pound the pavement to deliver your flyers for you."
I'm not sure why you think believing in free speech, and defending free speech requires me to actively engage as a participant in spreading their crap around?
Why should some members of the public be singled out to have to do anything extra at all to receive official policy statements to the public from the president? That's ridiculous.
If Obama walked onto stage to address the public; and then prior to speaking said, hey CBS, Fox, CNN, etc. Broadcast this across the country... except arbiter1's house. He pissed me off so I'm blocking him; i guess if he really wants to see he can go to a neighbors or something and watch it there; but I don't want it sent to him directly.
And its really not that far fetched -- with modern digital cable boxes the networks / ISPs etc absolutely could blackout *you* for 20 minutes if they wanted to. And I don't care if it's Trump or Lincoln making that demand. Its not merely unpresidential, it's preposterous to single members of the public and deliberately exclude them like that from an *official broadcast*.
The whole thing goes away if Trump stops using twitter to communicate official white house policy, or to officially communicate with the public. Then if he wants to shoot off his mouth to his friends, and block whoever he wants, he remains undignified and stupid, but its personal life and he can make an ass out of himself as he sees fit there.
But if he's going to insist on using twitter in an official capacity, then yeah, he needs to treat it like an official communications channel, with all the deference to that role that it deserves. He can't have it both ways.
Why exactly? a) That chart is local temperature in antarctica not a global average. So it's doesn't really argue for or against what i said.
b) That chart if anything just shows that the concentration of carbon is reaching levels not seen in 300,000 years (we're at 400+ ppm right now) which also argues strongly against 'natural cycles'.
What exactly is the proof that global warming is due to human carbon emissions rather than a natural warming cycle
3 words: "Rate of change"
Look at the 1st derivative.
Look over the last 20,000 years of natural cycles and the rate of change has never been close to what it is right now. Natural cycles have never moved more than 1 degree over a 500 years, and usually moved 0.5 degrees or less. In the last 150 years we've moved nearly 1.5 degrees.
That's 5x the maximum rate change seen over the last 20,000 years.
But you probably stopped listening a long time ago.
In reality, the mixed case and punctuation is more difficult to crack
Agreed much more difficult. Which is expected. 10,000 common words is a blink of an eye. 10,000 common words with a number and punctionation mark at the end is in that order (first a digit, then a punctionation mark) is closer to 1,000,000 possibilities. If you allow for the punctionation mark to come first, or either or both to be at the beginning of the word... it jumps to 16 million or so variations. if the first letter is capitalized that's 32 million, if any letter is capitalized... if multiple letters are capitalized... it gets up to a billion pretty quick, which still isn't secure by modern standards, but its a HELL OF LOT stronger than the base dictionary word.
On the other hand 4 random words is a billion right out of the gate. and 5 a trillion or so. But it has to be random.
. The passphrase "correcthorsebatterystaple" is now vulnerable because exactly that phrase has been mentioned in public literature
More specifically the pass phrase is worthless because it is not 4 *random* english words anymore.
and because people can and do use it for their own passphrase.
Which illustrates just how important it is to be a random selection, and just how bad people are at being random. If passphrases become the standard the brute force lists will include "It was a dark and stormy night", "row row row your boat", "in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth", "A long expected party", "live long and prosper", "once upon a midnight dreary", and "my milkshake brings all the boys to my yard"....
This passphrase is just a new "alphabet" of common/famous phrases and literary references... it's an alphabet of millions to be sure... but it's still going to be pretty finite and you'll still probably crack 30% of all people's bad passphrase choices in pretty short order.
The exponent of the equation (alphabet_size)^(length of password) matters MUCH more than the mantissa.
Quite so.
Put another character on the end of an alphanumeric password and you're doing more than selecting even the weirdest of keyboard-typeable symbols.
Sort of. Except averagte people aren't choosing random alphanuemeric passwords and adding a letter. They are choosing from common dictionary words; usually from lists of 2000 to 60,000 at best. puzzle and dynamite are equally good (equally poor) passwords. dynamite isn't length 2 longer than puzzle. Both are length 1 from an alphabet of 2000 common dictionary words.
And the change-your-password-every-X-days was always junk and just provide a route for social engineering of the password reset process on a pre-determined schedule.
Not changing your password every X days is also junk and leads to that one time you gave it to your assistant in 2003 because you were home sick still being valid and he still can login and check your messages even though your the VP of operations now and he's working with a competitor.
If your password hasn't been compromised in a reasonable time, it's not going to be compromised.
And if it has ever been compromised, then it stays compromised. That's not good either.
, it's game over whether you change every week or not.
It does keep your ex-assistant from 10 years ago out of your email though.
LOL... I don't think I could like any politician less than Dick Cheney; or disagree with any politician more -- but I still recognize and respect Cheney's intelligence, competence, and effectiveness.
"It's called "confirmation bias" in this case, of a partisan nature. "
BWAHAHAHAHA. Nope.
Dick Cheney - don't like, hated his policies, highly respect him as a policitian John McCain - like him as a person, disagree with a lot of his policy, highly respect him as a politician Lyndsey Graham - like him as a person, disagree with most of his policy, highly respect him a a politician Hillary Clinton - don't like her as a person, agreed with a lot of her policy, highly respect her as a politician G.W. Bush - like him has a person, disagreed with most policy, thought he was an average policitian G. Bush - didn't like him as person, disagreed with most policy, highly respect as a politician Mitch McConnel - don't like, disagree with, highly respect as a politician Jeff Sessions - like as a person, disagree with, respect as a politician Dianne Feinstein - dislike as a person, agree with some policy (disagree with her more high profile initiatives - 'e.g. assault weapons bill'), respect as a politician Elizabeth Warren - like as a person, generally agree with policy, respect etc
Who I "like" and "just don't like" crosses partisan lines.
And I respect the competency of LOTS of people on both sides, even of people I really don't like. Quite simply, most of the high ranking policitians are competent and good at their jobs on both sides of the aisle. The few I find unfit other than Trump... I don't know Anthony Wiener comes to mind as being incompetent thanks to his inability to stop sending dick pics.
Trump is almost unique in being a high ranking (the highest ranked) politician that I feel has virtually no ability to competently do the job. Evidently he's good at getting elected by the mob, but that is not a proxy for experience in governance, team building, effectiveness, or intelligence.
So, no, you are way off base calling this "confirmation bias of a partisan nature". Try again.
The "Qualifications" for the job of president are set out in the US Constitution and boils down to three things. 1. A Natural Born US citizen. 2. Over 35 years old. 3. Winner of the electoral college vote. Nothing else matters. Constitutionally Trump is qualified.
You want me to admit he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements? Sure. You want a trophy?
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that no-one else puts "kleenex" on their boxes of tissue paper though
No, its really not that interesting. Kleenex still exists as a distinct brand and it still has rights to the name and logo. They just have fewer enforceable rights than other mark holders.
Assuming Google lost its trademark on search products
Like kleenex, it would not be an erosion, not a 'total loss'.
I wonder if other companies would start using the term "google" in relation to their search engines
I doubt it, as long as google.com belongs to google inc; it wouldn't make sense, and likely wouldn't be legal.
Seems like a rather shady thing to do, with no non-malicious motivations being apparent.
I tend to agree with you. At least within the context of online services that let you search for something. There is simply too much overlap with actual google and the actual google service. I don't really see a legitimate way to commercially capitalize on the trademark erosion.
Then why don't you say "look it up"?
Do you also harass people who ask for kleenex? After all they could ask for a 'facial tissue' instead. If they ask for saurkraut to do you ask them why they don't say "pickled cabbage"? If they want flapjacks to you tell them to say "pancakes"? If they want a cup of joe do you insist they say coffee?
Why don't I say "look it up"? Because. That's why. The language is rich and full of options.When I say "google it" people know I've suggested they look 'it' up online. It's well understood. I *could* say it lots of other ways... why should I?
but as a command or request I'd say you expect results from Google and nobody else
I disagree.
If my son says, "Dad, when did the T. Rex go extinct" I might say "google it". And I don't have any expectation that he'll specifically use google to get the answer; and in fact, because his default search engine is duckduckgo, I would expect him to use that.
But I'd never say 'duckduckgo it'. Because that's not a common thing to say...where as 'google it' has become a common thing to say.
Your example was a bit weird because you weren't looking for a final page... you were specifically asking for the google results page itself, which really just an intermediate step in most search interactions.
For example, suppose i want the instruction manual for my router. If I told my personal assistant (whether human or electronic) google the manual for an XXXXX, then I don't really care what search engine was actually used, I just care that when I look at the screen, the PDF of the user manual is open.
If you're saying "I'll Google it on duck duck go" that speaks to your ignorance
I've never said -that-. If I'm going to call out duckduckgo by name, then
I have said to my son, "google it" when he asked me a question.
And my son then used 'duckduckgo' to fulfill the request, and get the answer for himself, because that is the default search engine on his laptop.
And he (correctly) knew that when i said 'google it' I meant just meant look it up on the web, and it was not instructions to use a specific brand search engine to do it.
Words have meanings, and you just used them wrong.
If what is wrong becomes widespread enough, then its not wrong anymore. That's how language works.
"Seriously, the majority of people cutting the cord aren't looking to ensure a 1:1 replacement of all channels they may or may not have been watching previously,"
EXACTLY THIS.
People who want all the channels they currently have, in multiple rooms, with kids, and live new channels, and sports... aren't looking to 'cut the cord'... they want the cord.
And it is also no surprise that replacing the cord... with another cord that does exactly the same thing costs as much as the original cord.
Indeed. I have never heard anyone say "Google it with Bing" except as a joke.
Practically nobody says "can you pass me a kleenex from that box of puffs facial tissues" unless they are making a joke too. They just say 'pass me a kleenex'. But they'll point at the puffs box while asking without awareness or irony.
Likewise people do say 'just google X' all the time as a generic synonym for "search for it on the internet". And they'll open their browser and use the default search without any real awareness that its actually yahoo or bing.
I don't know that its sufficiently generic for loss of trademark. But lets not kid ourselves here, I will say 'google something' yet I use duckduckgo on all the systems at home. The word 'search' doesn't automatically mean 'on the internet' ... if i say 'can you search for my drill' it's not immediately obvious that I want an internet search (e.g. for its specs / support / accessories / current price ), as opposed to finding my actual drill in the garage. And if I say 'google my drill' it means find a product page for my drill on the internet. And I don't care, or even intend for anyone to actually use google to do it.
We put Trump in there to punish both Democrats and Republicans.
I think the applicable idiom is "to cut off one's nose to spite one's face"
"I am no willing to let MS off the hook for such pathetic UX screwup."
Let's look at what he actually did. I've got visual studio code... I'm looking at it; and I think i see what he did.
He created a folder for his project. He worked on it for 3 months. No backups, no source control. That's brain dead.
He tries out Visual Studio Code. I suspect he doesn't even really know how git works at all; and decides to just start playing with its source control features without knowing what he's doing.... on his 3 months of live irreplaceable data. That's brain dead squared.
He can't do anything with source control without a repo, so step one he has to initialize a repository. (essentially git init). No problem. Visual Studio code has an 'initialize repository' command.
So now he's got an empty repository, and his working directory has 3 months of worth of new/changed files. In git parlance he's got 5000 items or whatever to be staged and committed with the next commit.
He decides not go through with that which is fine.
Disastrously though, he now selects 'discard all changes' for the project. This is again, git talk -- it dumps everything in the working folder since the last commit; or alternatively it restores you to where your last commit left you. Developers do this all the time on purpose. We do it to individual files all the time, and to working folders as needed.
When you select it in Visual Studio code it prompts: "Are you sure you want to discard all changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!" (caps is as seen in the actual warning dialog box).
He clicks yes. Git restores the working directory to the last commit. In his case, though there is no last commit. Everything in his working folder is 'changes since the last commit' so it restores him to a blank slate. That's what discard all changes does in the context of source control. Its unfortunate he didn't know that. It's unfortunate the "IRREVERSIBLE" warning went unheeded. Its absurd that he was doing this on his live project rather than making a test project for... or a copy of his project folder to play with.
He throws a temper tantrum on the internet because he decided to learn how source control worked on a live project with no backups and didn't know what he was doing.
define "Survive"...
Be able to restore your data to a point in recent enough time that you deem the loss acceptable.
With some stuff like code, you can lose a week... with other stuff like photos -- gone forever is gone forevor. you lose the wedding shoot from 3 days ago... and the fact that you still have the ones from the week before isn't going to help that particular couple.
Of course I find the situation to be highly unlikely... so am willing to accept that risk level.
Yeah, I used to do a weekly backup to an external USB drive. I had an 'electrical event' while it was plugged in and I was running the backups that fried both the PC's drive, and the external at the same time. (The PC power supply fried out spectacularly and fried the mainboard and pretty much everything it was attached to.
I *should* have had a 2nd external drive that I swapped back and forth with or something; so that I always had at least one drive not attached. But I didn't. I was actually able to recover the data via one of the clean-room platter transplant services but it cost about $1000... so i was lucky.
In hindsight I was also vulnerable to fire/theft/flood, and would have been even with additional hard drive.
So now, I don't consider anything onsite only as being sufficient. I've seen too many people lose everything despite having a backup on there home NAS or something; when both get damaged or stolen at once. And with malware (ransomware) I've seen people lose their backups because the malware was able to 'reach' the backup drives via file system mounts, even on remotes. So I don't consider that sufficient.
Some sort of cloud based system that uses a backup agent (so you aren't mounting the remote file system) like carbonite or crashplan etc... plus periodically connected local drive or 2 ... that's about the minimum that I consider adequate these days.
Unlikely stuff happens. I'm not trying to make backups to survive world war 3 or a comet strike. But malware infections and electrical shorts happen, and its not difficult or expensive to safeguard against them.
revision control is not proper backup, but are you aware that all modern revision control systems are atomic? A "backup" is either perfect or non-existant.
That's really beside the point. Revision control is not a backup because you can easily destroy or damage the entre repo while working against it. A simple git repo locally is literally just a hidden folder in the working directly that the git tools treat special... and that you aren't normally supposed to directly touch. But it's there and its vulnerable to all kinds of stuff. You can delete the folder, or corrupt it, or use git commands wrong to clear it out, if the hard drive fails, it fails. It's vulnerable to all kinds of stuff.
Offsite revision control with git starts approaching 'backup' levels of robustness. When think just in terms of commits. But you can still remove branches and delete things accidently etc. If you are going to "play" with the git repo management commands ... you really need a backup of the repo itself; or you can do some REAL damage; because not everything can be undone.
Just because the user could have navigated the confusing user interface doesn't mean it's his fault. Microsoft created the user interface.
It's his fault because he had '3 months work' with no backup, not a proper offsite incremental backup, not even a zipped copy in another folder, not even using source control.
That's indefensible right there.
That he then took this highly valuable data, of which he had no backups, and decided to play with it with a tool he was unfamiliar with.
That's just reckless.
It sucks that he lost his data. It really does. I've been there. I feel for the guy. But It doesn't matter how you spin it the lesson here is not that Visual Studio Code is dangerous -- the lesson here is: MAKE REGULAR BACKUPS.
By your reasoning there is never any such a thing as a user interface problem because the user could always have done something else.
No. We can have a conversation about user interface problems, and I readily agree that Visual Studio code has some. But the reason he lost his data is not a user interface problem in Visual Studio Code. The reason he lost his data is because he didn't make backups.
Forget drive history... the hard drive could fail, or get stolen, or get damaged by lightning or coffee, or deleted by malware.
Where are the backups?
Revision control is not backups. NFTS file history is NOT proper backups. A copy elsewhere on the same hard drive or same computer or on another computer via a filesystem mount... is NOT proper backups. An external drive you attach once a week and copy files to is not proper backups. They are better than nothing, and each one is still useful... revision control has lots of uses after all, including recovering from certain messes, but it is not by itself proper backups.
If you can't survive a ransomware infection and a lightning strike all happening simultaneously with the backups *running* -- then you don't have proper backups.
Being PC is being polite and civil.
I was actually careful to avoid using the word 'polite'. I said *thoughtful* and *civil*.
You can be thoughtful and civil without being PC.
Who was talking about you. Do you own the Internet?
By 'me' I meant, me, *or* anyone else (such as you, godaddy, google, or cloudflare). Don't be a pedantic twit.
Well, nowadays public speech basically means Internet
I agree.
and for most people the Internet is such a medium controlled by companies. I have no problem with certain forms of speech to be restricted by law (we actually have that in Germany). But restrictions of speech by private peer pressure on/by companies leads to a society where the minority (or the less loud majority) has no free speech anymore.
Basic Internet access (packet transit services) should be regulated as a common carrier and treated as a public utility. The ISPs should not know or care what is in your packets, and they should not be allowed to disconnect your service based on what is in the packets.
So if you want to host something buy some hardware and host it yourself. Nobody should have to do it for you, and if your message is so undesirable that you can't find anyone willing to do it, you can do it yourself. But I agree with you, to the point that you must be able to do it yourself; and to that end, as I said, basic packet transit needs to regulated as a common carrier and public utility.
""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Is entirely separate from, "I disapprove of what you say, but for $X I will actively carry around a placard saying it for you. I'll print your copies for you, and I'll even pound the pavement to deliver your flyers for you."
I'm not sure why you think believing in free speech, and defending free speech requires me to actively engage as a participant in spreading their crap around?
You've confused 'being PC' with 'being thoughtful' and 'being civil'. The latter two are not ruining anything.
"All they have to do"...
Why should some members of the public be singled out to have to do anything extra at all to receive official policy statements to the public from the president? That's ridiculous.
If Obama walked onto stage to address the public; and then prior to speaking said, hey CBS, Fox, CNN, etc. Broadcast this across the country... except arbiter1's house. He pissed me off so I'm blocking him; i guess if he really wants to see he can go to a neighbors or something and watch it there; but I don't want it sent to him directly.
And its really not that far fetched -- with modern digital cable boxes the networks / ISPs etc absolutely could blackout *you* for 20 minutes if they wanted to. And I don't care if it's Trump or Lincoln making that demand. Its not merely unpresidential, it's preposterous to single members of the public and deliberately exclude them like that from an *official broadcast*.
The whole thing goes away if Trump stops using twitter to communicate official white house policy, or to officially communicate with the public. Then if he wants to shoot off his mouth to his friends, and block whoever he wants, he remains undignified and stupid, but its personal life and he can make an ass out of himself as he sees fit there.
But if he's going to insist on using twitter in an official capacity, then yeah, he needs to treat it like an official communications channel, with all the deference to that role that it deserves. He can't have it both ways.
""Global" refers to Earth,"
No. global refers to things which are globes, including the earth.
The adjective that refers exclusively to the earth is "terrestrial"
If you need your assistant to see your email, adjust the permissions so he can.
Most people don't even know this is possible, let alone how to do it.
Password sharing is the dumbest way to give someone access.
Also the easiest, by far.
And a disciplinary offence in most places because it's counter to the data protection act.
And yet everyone does it, and the higher up the chain you go the more common it is; since few are in a position to 'discipline' the ceo.
Why exactly?
a) That chart is local temperature in antarctica not a global average. So it's doesn't really argue for or against what i said.
b) That chart if anything just shows that the concentration of carbon is reaching levels not seen in 300,000 years (we're at 400+ ppm right now) which also argues strongly against 'natural cycles'.
What exactly is the proof that global warming is due to human carbon emissions rather than a natural warming cycle
3 words: "Rate of change"
Look at the 1st derivative.
Look over the last 20,000 years of natural cycles and the rate of change has never been close to what it is right now. Natural cycles have never moved more than 1 degree over a 500 years, and usually moved 0.5 degrees or less. In the last 150 years we've moved nearly 1.5 degrees.
That's 5x the maximum rate change seen over the last 20,000 years.
But you probably stopped listening a long time ago.
In reality, the mixed case and punctuation is more difficult to crack
Agreed much more difficult. Which is expected. 10,000 common words is a blink of an eye. 10,000 common words with a number and punctionation mark at the end is in that order (first a digit, then a punctionation mark) is closer to 1,000,000 possibilities. If you allow for the punctionation mark to come first, or either or both to be at the beginning of the word... it jumps to 16 million or so variations. if the first letter is capitalized that's 32 million, if any letter is capitalized ... if multiple letters are capitalized... it gets up to a billion pretty quick, which still isn't secure by modern standards, but its a HELL OF LOT stronger than the base dictionary word.
On the other hand 4 random words is a billion right out of the gate. and 5 a trillion or so. But it has to be random.
. The passphrase "correcthorsebatterystaple" is now vulnerable because exactly that phrase has been mentioned in public literature
More specifically the pass phrase is worthless because it is not 4 *random* english words anymore.
and because people can and do use it for their own passphrase.
Which illustrates just how important it is to be a random selection, and just how bad people are at being random. If passphrases become the standard the brute force lists will include "It was a dark and stormy night", "row row row your boat", "in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth", "A long expected party", "live long and prosper", "once upon a midnight dreary", and "my milkshake brings all the boys to my yard"....
This passphrase is just a new "alphabet" of common/famous phrases and literary references... it's an alphabet of millions to be sure... but it's still going to be pretty finite and you'll still probably crack 30% of all people's bad passphrase choices in pretty short order.
The exponent of the equation (alphabet_size)^(length of password) matters MUCH more than the mantissa.
Quite so.
Put another character on the end of an alphanumeric password and you're doing more than selecting even the weirdest of keyboard-typeable symbols.
Sort of. Except averagte people aren't choosing random alphanuemeric passwords and adding a letter. They are choosing from common dictionary words; usually from lists of 2000 to 60,000 at best.
puzzle and dynamite are equally good (equally poor) passwords. dynamite isn't length 2 longer than puzzle. Both are length 1 from an alphabet of 2000 common dictionary words.
And the change-your-password-every-X-days was always junk and just provide a route for social engineering of the password reset process on a pre-determined schedule.
Not changing your password every X days is also junk and leads to that one time you gave it to your assistant in 2003 because you were home sick still being valid and he still can login and check your messages even though your the VP of operations now and he's working with a competitor.
If your password hasn't been compromised in a reasonable time, it's not going to be compromised.
And if it has ever been compromised, then it stays compromised. That's not good either.
, it's game over whether you change every week or not.
It does keep your ex-assistant from 10 years ago out of your email though.
"You just don't like him"
LOL... I don't think I could like any politician less than Dick Cheney; or disagree with any politician more -- but I still recognize and respect Cheney's intelligence, competence, and effectiveness.
"It's called "confirmation bias" in this case, of a partisan nature. "
BWAHAHAHAHA. Nope.
Dick Cheney - don't like, hated his policies, highly respect him as a policitian
John McCain - like him as a person, disagree with a lot of his policy, highly respect him as a politician
Lyndsey Graham - like him as a person, disagree with most of his policy, highly respect him a a politician
Hillary Clinton - don't like her as a person, agreed with a lot of her policy, highly respect her as a politician
G.W. Bush - like him has a person, disagreed with most policy, thought he was an average policitian
G. Bush - didn't like him as person, disagreed with most policy, highly respect as a politician
Mitch McConnel - don't like, disagree with, highly respect as a politician
Jeff Sessions - like as a person, disagree with, respect as a politician
Dianne Feinstein - dislike as a person, agree with some policy (disagree with her more high profile initiatives - 'e.g. assault weapons bill'), respect as a politician
Elizabeth Warren - like as a person, generally agree with policy, respect
etc
Who I "like" and "just don't like" crosses partisan lines.
And I respect the competency of LOTS of people on both sides, even of people I really don't like. Quite simply, most of the high ranking policitians are competent and good at their jobs on both sides of the aisle. The few I find unfit other than Trump... I don't know Anthony Wiener comes to mind as being incompetent thanks to his inability to stop sending dick pics.
Trump is almost unique in being a high ranking (the highest ranked) politician that I feel has virtually no ability to competently do the job. Evidently he's good at getting elected by the mob, but that is not a proxy for experience in governance, team building, effectiveness, or intelligence.
So, no, you are way off base calling this "confirmation bias of a partisan nature".
Try again.
The "Qualifications" for the job of president are set out in the US Constitution and boils down to three things. 1. A Natural Born US citizen. 2. Over 35 years old. 3. Winner of the electoral college vote. Nothing else matters. Constitutionally Trump is qualified.
You want me to admit he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements? Sure. You want a trophy?
That doesn't make him qualified.