Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
And just where did I used the word "removed." Do
learn to read.

nospam:
you said "selectively take comments out of context".

the entire post was quoted (again) and nothing was removed at
all, therefore nothing could be taken out of context.

do learn to read.

PeterN:
Do look up what the phrase: "taken out of context,: means. You
will quickly see that it does not mean anything was removed.

Sandman:
Ehm, if something is taken *out* of context, then the context need
to be missing, right? Looking it up, as per your request, I find
this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Which, in short says it means:

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as
"contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution
in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such
a way as to distort its intended meaning"

So, according to this explanation, it surely means you have to
remove something in order to take something out of context. Which
incidentally is exactly how I have used the phrase all these
years. And by logic, it's the only thing it *can* mean, seeing how
it couldn't be taken out of context if the context is still right
there.

Then you have been using the expression incorrectly. In American
usage the term also means ignoring ignoring the words that explain
what is intended.

Yeah, but give me an example of doing so while also not taking something
out of its context, as per the wikipedia explanation.

While Wikipedia can be helpful, it is not peer reviewed and therefore is
not considered authoritative. See Tony Cooper's explanation.

Uh, his explanation agreed with wikipedia, his quote did not include the
context from the original text. It removed it.

And "peer reviewed"? Is this the review board behind this book:

http://sandman.net/files/GreatBookofAcceptedWords.jpg


--
Sandman[.net]

On 7/17/2014 10:21 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there is no need to specify the default case since it's the default
case.

Who says? Where did they say it.

what do you think default *means*?

The important question is what do you think that default means?

what normally happens, without the user going out of their way.

Also why are we restricting the discussion to the default case when
there are alternative choices which should be taken into
consideration? Who made the decision to do so and when did they tell
us?

the user can do whatever they want, but if they go out of their way to
put one copy of data anywhere (cloud or not), then data loss is a real
risk and if it happens, it's of their own doing, based on the decisions
they have made.

it's *not* a fault of the cloud.


Still unanswered question.
Why did you say I was wrong when I said that any IT manager who relies
solely on the cloud should be fired?

this is the second or third time this question has been asked. Your lack
of an answer is telling.


--
PeterN

On 7/17/2014 10:42 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
Because if you didn't decline, and you had backup, then your
replacement iPhone would just ask for your iCloud credentials
and then just restore your new phone with all the data from
your old phone.

PeterN:
Decline what??

The discussion was about the data on my hone, not on my backup,
or restoration to a new phone.

nospam:
no, the discussion is data loss.

since you admit to having a backup, there can't be data loss.

The phone data is no longer available on the phone.

But your data is not lost, right? Also, the data on the phone *is*
available, only not easily so.

The phone is kaput. The data on the phone is lost

No, the threshold to access has been greatly elevated. It can be done, but
since you have a backup and your data hasn't been lost, it is not worth it
for you to access the data.

If your phone, and your phone only, contained the launch codes to US
missile bases, and an "internal switch" made the phone "kaput", then the
data would not be considered lost, and would be retrieved by a number of
different data retrieval processes.

As it is, your data wasn't valuable enough for you to retrieve the data,
since you had a backup and your data wasn't actually lost.


All agreed.

My comment was made in response to a statement that the iPhone has no
moving parts. It obviously does.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Although the data on any device may be there,

so you admit it's there!

you're a world of contradictions.

it's worthless if it
cannot be accessed.

it can, but since you have a backup, which you said you did, then it
doesn't matter if it can or not.

you're arguing just to argue, as always.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Still unanswered question.
Why did you say I was wrong when I said that any IT manager who relies
solely on the cloud should be fired?

i didn't.

this is the second or third time this question has been asked. Your lack
of an answer is telling.

your insistence on lying about what i said is what's telling.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The discussion was about the data on my hone, not on my backup, or
restoration to a new phone.

no, the discussion is data loss.

since you admit to having a backup, there can't be data loss.

The phone data is no longer available on the phone. The phone is kaput.
The data on the phone is lost

that's false since it's still there, but once again, you said you had a
backup so it doesn't matter whether the data is there or not and
nothing was lost.

as usual, you're arguing just to argue.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

So regardless of this "internal switch" whatever that is supposed to
mean,
your phone data - while unrecoverable inside your old phone - was not
actually lost since you're smart enough to utilize the automatic and
free
of charge backup mechanism in iCloud (or the automatic free of charge
backup mechanism in iTunes if you distrust the cloud).

a backup certainly makes things easier, but the data in his old phone
was still there.

he's wrong.

Sorry, I forgot you were aware of what the Apple Store people told me.

i didn't say anything about what they said or didn't say.

stop making **** up.

If you knew how to read, you would have seen that all technical
information was from the people at the Apple Store.

if you had any resemblance of a clue, you'd realize that the apple
store staff is not the sole source of technical information and
actually they don't know as much as you think they do.

there's far more information than you could possibly comprehend at
apple's web site. start he https://developer.apple.com/.

again, the apple store employee's job is to repair the phone, not
recover data. apple even says they're not responsible for data. it's
not what they do.

you're *well* out of your league.

I'm sure you wold have fixed my phone.

moving the goalposts again!

this isn't about fixing a phone, it's about data loss.

the fact that the phone can no longer be used as a phone does not mean
the data is gone, which in another post you finally admit is correct.

No doubt abut that. Amazing how
when show to be wrong, you consistently turn to personal insults.

i'm *never* the one who first turns to insults.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The phone is kaput. The data on the phone is lost

No, the threshold to access has been greatly elevated. It can be done, but
since you have a backup and your data hasn't been lost, it is not worth it
for you to access the data.

If your phone, and your phone only, contained the launch codes to US
missile bases, and an "internal switch" made the phone "kaput", then the
data would not be considered lost, and would be retrieved by a number of
different data retrieval processes.

As it is, your data wasn't valuable enough for you to retrieve the data,
since you had a backup and your data wasn't actually lost.

All agreed.

i'll take that as an admission that you admit to being wrong.

My comment was made in response to a statement that the iPhone has no
moving parts. It obviously does.

none of which matter to data loss and anyone with any clue knows that.

you only mentioned buttons/switches because you want to argue for the
sake of argument.

On 7/17/2014 10:58 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
And just where did I used the word "removed." Do
learn to read.

nospam:
you said "selectively take comments out of context".

the entire post was quoted (again) and nothing was removed at
all, therefore nothing could be taken out of context.

do learn to read.

PeterN:
Do look up what the phrase: "taken out of context,: means. You
will quickly see that it does not mean anything was removed.

Sandman:
Ehm, if something is taken *out* of context, then the context need
to be missing, right? Looking it up, as per your request, I find
this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Which, in short says it means:

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as
"contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution
in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such
a way as to distort its intended meaning"

So, according to this explanation, it surely means you have to
remove something in order to take something out of context. Which
incidentally is exactly how I have used the phrase all these
years. And by logic, it's the only thing it *can* mean, seeing how
it couldn't be taken out of context if the context is still right
there.

Then you have been using the expression incorrectly. In American
usage the term also means ignoring ignoring the words that explain
what is intended.

Yeah, but give me an example of doing so while also not taking something
out of its context, as per the wikipedia explanation.

See Tony Cooper's example.


While Wikipedia can be helpful, it is not peer reviewed and therefore is
not considered authoritative. See Tony Cooper's explanation.

Uh, his explanation agreed with wikipedia, his quote did not include the
context from the original text. It removed it.

And "peer reviewed"? Is this the review board behind this book:

You are proficient enough with research to understand the academic
meaning of "peer reviewed."

http://sandman.net/files/GreatBookofAcceptedWords.jpg




--
PeterN

On 7/17/2014 11:46 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Although the data on any device may be there,

so you admit it's there!


you're a world of contradictions.

You state a lie and then accuse me of contradicting myself?



it's worthless if it
cannot be accessed.

it can, but since you have a backup, which you said you did, then it
doesn't matter if it can or not.

Yet, another statement taken out of context.
The issue was data loss. Not backup. You only brought up backup when
shown to be wrong on the loss issue.

Not reasonably available = loss.


you're arguing just to argue, as always.

Still talking to a mirror.

--
PeterN