It was happening after every backup. The files in one folder were consistently being skipped, even though they weren't in use at the time the backup ran. The only thing I noticed was that the color of the file name was different - red, I think (not sure as I have red-green color blindness) -- certainly not the default Windows Explorer color. Usually a short trip to one's favorite search engine (Bing is sometimes better at Microsoft.com search) results is all that's needed.  No such luck this time.  I tried:

- Windows explorer file name coloring - windows explorer icons
- windows explorer icon colors
- windows explorer color changes

and variations too numerous to mention.  Nothing.

After many right clicks into the properties tab, at last I observed that the checkbox for encryption was was checked.  Encryption wasn't used intentionally anywhere on this Vista system, but there it was.  Uncheck the box, and Ouila, it's normal. The only helpful piece of evidence I can offer here is that the folder originally come from another system on the local network -- though encryption wasn't used there, either.

If there is a legend for Windows Explorer iconography, the secret remains with its creator, as it remained undiscovered by this adventurer.   

A poor underlying model is often revealed through casually thrown (or thrown off) error messages. One post hoc way to address this deficiency -- though it may not improve the model's weaknesses -- is to request feedback from message recipients.  Microsoft Office users are sometimes requested to indicate whether a particular message is effective, as shown in this screenshot.  Not all messages offer this feature;  it would be interesting to know how Microsoft determines which messages deserve this treatment, and what internal workflow accompanies the feedback.

A poor underlying model is often revealed through casually thrown (or thrown off) error messages. One post hoc way to address this deficiency -- though it may not improve the model's weaknesses -- is to request feedback from message recipients.  Microsoft Office users are sometimes requested to indicate whether a particular message is effective, as shown in this screenshot.  Not all messages offer this feature;  it would be interesting to know how Microsoft determines which messages deserve this treatment, and what internal workflow accompanies the feedback.

Most of the screenshots collected in errorprocessing.com involve obvious errors.  Messages that are painfully obvious are thrown onto the screen, or traceback messages of use only to developers replace "normal" screens.  There are other sorts of errors.  Some errors are more abstract, or, stated in MVC / DSL language, occur at a higher level in the software model.  In this case, a screenshot may not reveal the error.

A recent example occurred when activating a replacement phone with Sprint. The Sprint web content that solicited the phone identification strings directed users to phone-specific instructions on programming the phone to reflect the new phone activation steps. I clicked into the phone-specific page, but instead of the new phone's instructions, the web content showed the old phone instructions.  After 15 minutes of browsing the Sprint site failed to find FAQs for the new phone, I resorted to Google, which returned the specific URL needed: http://support.sprint.com/support/device/HTC/HTC_Touch_PRO-PPC6850SP.  Result?  No screenshot, but an error nonetheless.

Considering how software test applications must be developed to detect failures of this sort, it is perhaps clearer why knowledge engineering is an integral part of developing model semantics as an integral part of software engineering.

SAIC won $249M frok SPAWAR for ModSim support (“Science Applications International Corp. will provide modeling, simulation and analytical warfare analysis support to the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command under a task order valued at up to $249 over five years. Under the task order, SAIC will provide services to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Assessment Division N81, company officials said Jan. 12. The N81 Division provides analysis of all aspects of naval warfare support. Specifically, the company will provide warfare support, campaign, and mission-level analyses and management, documentation, and modeling and simulation support, the officials said. The task order was awarded under the Navy’s’ SeaPort-e acquisition contract. Work will be performed in the Washington, D.C. area.”)