I need to log into a website, but i don't have the Username and Password. When I contact support they answered me by giving a link to view their comment on their secure tech support page. To view the page it requires me to log in with the credentials i asked for in the first place. What is the English word for this?
121543
So my wife and I were just having a conversation concerning a situation at her work, and I was trying to think of a term to describe the GM's approach but it's eluding me.  Here's the context:  Background: Newly opened hotel restaurant, all hands on deck including my wife (who was hired as a Sales Manager, not a server/buslady), situation has devolved into chaos  Conversation: I asked my wife who was responsible for hiring staff for the new restaurant, and she said ultimately it would be up to her boss, but her boss was given explicit instruction by the GM NOT to hire any additional restaurant staff, and simply make do with the existing skeleton crew.  I asked why the GM wouldn't hire any additional staff, and she said -  "Because [NAME] doesn't want to hire any additional staff until our numbers are up (sales numbers), but we can't get our sales numbers up until we hire additional restaurant staff to get us off the floor"  The term I'm trying to think of would describe the situation in which A cannot exist without B yet B cannot exist without A ad infinitum.  Almost like an infinite feedback loop? But that doesn't seem to be an appropriate term just given this has nothing to do with computers/software.  If this isn't clear just let me know.  Thanks for any and all help!
44470
When I'm on, for example, the secure SO site, and then open the "StackExchange" drop-down, links to other SE sites include their "https" equivalent as well, which is expected. (If I'm on the the regular http site, then the links are all http.)    But links to questions via the "Inbox" and "Achievements" drop-downs lead back to the insecure, http equivalent, even when I'm on a secure page.      Can those links be generated in such a way that we're kept on the secure version of the site?
13249
I have forgotten my Yahoo! Mail account password. What is the procedure to retrieve my password?  Note that I'm not asking where the link is. I want to learn about the procedure (i.e. if they ask me about my birthday, the secret question which I defined years ago, etc.).
64044
Possible Duplicates:             For instance, it occurred to me that the question "what's the difference between using 'sudo su - username' with and without a hyphen?" might be useful to others to have an answer to.  Is it okay to ask it myself and then answer it myself, so as to include the answer to that (or any other) question on these sites.  (I assume that one would be for superuser.)  It's possible that this question might already be answered on superuser.com, but that's not the point.  Substitute any example question you want: is it okay to answer your own questions, and even to ask them with the purpose of answering them.  The only reason not to do this, that I can see, are that some might perceive it as "gaming the system" to get more points.  But the reason for it is that it improves the supply of (hopefully) good questions and answers.  And I think the points would still be fairly earned.
76657
I forgot the answers of the security questions. Not that I seriously need to do it now, but there might be a problem if I need to answer those in future.  I still remember my password.  How can I reset the answers of the security questions?
42770
How do I log into my Linux laptop if I have forgotten both the username and password?
110091
For a web app I'm developing I was dreading having to   Require users to create yet another account / password to keep in mind. Handle retrieval of lost passwords etc.   What many sites (like this one for instance) has started offering is to use a third party account to create an account.   What I wonder is whether it would be considered OK to require having third party account, i.e.
49276
Ran across this line of code:  FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();   What do the two question marks mean, is it some kind of ternary operator? It's hard to look up in Google.
95011
When a user on our site loses his password and heads off to the Lost Password page we need to give him a new temporary password. I don't really mind how random this is, or if it matches all the "needed" strong password rules, all I want to do is give them a password that they can change later.  The application is a Web application written in C#. so I was thinking of being mean and going for the easy route of using part of a Guid. i.e.  Guid.NewGuid().ToString("d").Substring(1,8)   Suggesstions? thoughts?
40628
I remember there was a thread here on English.SE this month where someone explained this, but I can't remember how it was called. An example:     Where have you stolen this product?   This question implies that you've stolen this product, although I don't know for a fact you really did.
77907
Here are my circumstances:   I am running Ubuntu 12.04. I have one user account.   I absolutely hate the password requirement. How do I disable this requirement such that my Linux computer will behave more like Windows in this respect? I do not want to hear that I shouldn't this because it is not secure. This is my desire so the concern of security is effectively null and void.
46819
I went ahead and added my work account to my personal account's   chrome session and then revisited the google auth link from my main SO   account, and this time it gave me the 2 options, and I successfully   added it. However, I don't think it should work this way! You should   get that screen that either allows you to select an existing logged-in   account, or add a new one.      @RudyOnRails Yeah, I agree. Looks like there's a parameter we can pass   along for that, though I'm not sure off the top of my head how much   work it'd be for us to start doing that for the "add login" path.   Could you do me a favor and write up a quick feature-request for this   so we can track it easier? Thanks! – Adam Lear♦ 20 hours ago
38886
My boss has insisted for a while that our login process be divided into two steps on separate pages: on the first page, ask the user's e-mail address. On the second page, either display "user found" and ask for password, or "user not found" and ask for e-mail again.  He insists it is much easier for our users who often forget their credentials or if they even have an account yet. I've long been against this approach because it forces every user to go through two steps every time they login. (I also wonder if it's a security concern, knowing that it will confirm when an email exists in our system.) I would prefer to have a more standard login page with e-mail (all of our usernames are e-mails) and password, and one very clear link for "forgot password?".  Neither of us have any hard data to support our theories, and we have more important things to do than A/B test something that he doesn't think is even a problem. I was just wondering if anyone here could provide some arguments or hard data for or against either approach. I enjoy considering UX design, but I am not an expert.
120898
Here are the steps to reproduce this problem:   Be on a device where I am not logged-in to a meta site. Go to the main *.stackexchange.com site - Everything seems to work fine. Go to the meta.*.stackexchange.com site and click log in in the title bar - Page just refreshes without logging in. WTF?   Here is the workaround I have found to work:   Go to main *.stackexchange.com site and click on help=>meta Click through  about the . Log-in works.   I'm not fussy about whether my connection to SE is encrypted.  However, I do care that this problem created a barrier to my participation in meta.*.stackexchange.com.  I cared and knew enough to poke at this thing for five minutes and find a workaround so I could vote on a .  I doubt, however, that this is the case for most users.  It concerns me that participation in meta is being filtered by a technical problem.    I use chrome as my browser, and my google account to authenticate.  The problem exists on both Travel and English se.com on both a Windows 7 and 8.1 machine.     seems similar.  However, the symptoms are different in two ways: In my case no login page is ever presented, and I'm not using OpenID.
4341
My web application has a login page that submits authentication credentials via an AJAX call. If the user enters the correct username and password, everything is fine, but if not, the following happens:   The web server determines that although the request included a well-formed Authorization header, the credentials in the header do not successfully authenticate. The web server returns a 401 status code and includes one or more WWW-Authenticate headers listing the supported authentication types. The browser detects that the response to my call on the XMLHttpRequest object is a 401 and the response includes WWW-Authenticate headers. It then pops up an authentication dialog asking, again, for the username and password.   This is all fine up until step 3. I don't want the dialog to pop up, I want want to handle the 401 response in my AJAX callback function. (For example, by displaying an error message on the login page.) I want the user to re-enter their username and password, of course, but I want them to see my friendly, reassuring login form, not the browser's ugly, default authentication dialog.  Incidentally, I have no control over the server, so having it return a custom status code (i.e., something other than a 401) is not an option.  Is there any way I can suppress the authentication dialog? In particular, can I suppress the Authentication Required dialog in Firefox 2 or later? Is there any way to suppress the Connect to [host] dialog in IE 6 and later?    Edit Additional information from the author (Sept. 18): I should add that the real problem with the browser's authentication dialog popping up is that it give insufficient information to the user.  The user has just entered a username and password via the form on the login page, he believes he has typed them both correctly, and he has clicked the submit button or hit enter. His expectation is that he will be taken to the next page or perhaps told that he has entered his information incorrectly and should try again. However, he is instead presented with an unexpected dialog box.  The dialog makes no acknowledgment of the fact he just did enter a username and password. It does not clearly state that there was a problem and that he should try again. Instead, the dialog box presents the user with cryptic information like "The site says: '[realm]'." Where [realm] is a short realm name that only a programmer could love.  Web broswer designers take note: no one would ask how to suppress the authentication dialog if the dialog itself were simply more user-friendly. The entire reason that I am doing a login form is that our product management team rightly considers the browsers' authentication dialogs to be awful.
66420
I have frequently bumped into this issue: sites ask for my password (e.g. Stack Exchange itself) when I want to do something like updating my profile. This is per se a low priority site for me so I use my weakest password in mind that fits the minimum requirements. The event (profile update) is also rare so I forget my password completely. I then face the issue of not being able to login then go to the password reset screen where the criteria are written black and white. After that I return to the login screen and enter the correct password.    The question is not whether or not I am a moron but why the criteria are not shown when I mess up my password for the first time.  An example to weakest password:   Anything is permitted: dodge  Uppercase and lowercase needed: Dodge At least 8 characters and uppercase: Dodgerman At least 8 + uppercase &amp; number needed: Dodge1014
74755
Open up a privilege breakdown from the .  For this example, I'll use .  The "Privilege Type:" text should be before its related symbol. Instead, it's after.    This appears to be cross-network, as it is also displayed this way on  page. (Dark mode appears to be irrelevant)