What does that have to do with the OP's desire to search for specific error messages?

That's been a single character wildcard in regular expressions since the 1970's.

Probably because the period is a wildcard character. For the OP, he's looking for a specific string and the advanced search "Find pages with... this exact phrase" option (which, they tell you, is the same as enclosing the string in quotes in the regular search field) is what he is looking for. The fact that you can contrive an example that doesn't do what you want is largely irrelevant.

Sure, in an unquoted string. But enclosing the whole thing in quotation marks does help.

If all else fails, you can do an advanced search where you can enter an exact phrase to look for.

Try enclosing your error output in quotation marks. That tells Google that you're looking for that phrase, not just that combination of words.

Yeah, it's sad that 95% of the ads out there had to ruin it for the rest of them. ;)

There's only two reasons California would do this. 1) They are after more tax revenue. 2) Some bureaucrat wants to throw his weight around.

Good luck fighting their respective lobbies. But yeah, simply eliminating subsidies would be a good first step.

Yes. I blame all simple sugar (HFCS and cane/beet sugar), specifically the grossly increased consumption in the last few generations. Was that not clear?

...and bread, and pretty much every "low fat" food out there, and "healthy" snack bars, and "healthy" breakfast cereal, and...

You do see the same with cane/beet sugar. Just not as badly as you do with HFCS. But eating food filled with simple carbohydrates (i.e. any kind of simple sugar) causes you to crave and over consume to one degree or another.

Like cane/beet sugar, which is only slightly less bad than HFCS.

Despite all the propaganda, sugar is not much better than HFCS. Not to take away from how bad HFCS is, because it's terrible. But sugar has no nutritional value and it spikes your insulin almost as bad as HFCS.

I'm not a fan of banning them either. However, given the rate of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country with strong evidence they are caused by our increased consumption of various kinds of sugar ("real" sugar and HFCS), I would be very much in favor of a relatively high tax on them.

The reason they're used in processed foods is because they are an effective and cheap flavor enhancer. Tax them and they become less economically viable in cheap bulk processed foods. Consumption would naturally go down as alternatives were substituted. And for the people that still consume it in quantity, the tax revenue can be funneled into taking care of the health problems caused by over consumption. Win win.

One can also argue that any kind of refined sugar is not good for you. HFCS is certainly the worst but cane/beet sugar in any form is not healthy in any way. Even the "raw" forms that are just slightly less refined than table sugar are terrible for you, especially in the quantities we consume them.