Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 12 Apr 2019.
Okay, not that shocking.
"Dragonbleed" or "Dragonblood"? The byline uses one, the article the other.
edit: 'ee' or 'oo' not that important.
Although I echo liratheal - shocked... but not very.
"Dragonblood" - my poor brane's getting befuzzled between that and all the "*bleed" things like Heartbleed. I'll go fix, ta!
EDIT: No I won't, 'cos someone's beaten me to it again. Thanks, mysterious stranger!
I know what you mean, and I don't have to write copy on it. I really wish that all this "got to find a catchy name for it" nonsense would stop.
This hunt for catchy names is not far away from NMR pulse sequence territory now... COSY, ROESY, NOESY, EPT, INEPT, ADEQUATE, INADEQUATE, Proton-Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscopy... the list goes on...
I agree wholeheartedly.
Flaw should be feet, but this seems to be a common problem with tech standards these days. Everyone wants to act like these are proprietary trade secrets instead of standards used by literally everyone. And then give them sexy marketing names that obfuscate the functionality(though the WiFi Alliance is far behind the USB IF in that regard).
I'm still calling it 802.11 instead of WiFi.
"...which in turn came about owing to the woeful security offered by the original Wireless Equivalent Privacy (WEP) standard for Wi-Fi cryptography"
Gareth... I may be wrong, but isn't WEP 'WIRED Equivalent Privacy' (not Wireless)?
Not a sentence you expect to read, that. (Fixed, ta!)
You're absolutely right, and that's what I thought I'd written... but the published article says otherwise. Also fixed, ta!
Separate names with a comma.