Comment On 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

François captured this brief video of his answering machine bug for our first-ever video Error'd. [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2Next »

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:12 • by Alasdair (unregistered)
Was the time correct on the answer machine?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:12 • by tombom
i love that instead of doing something simple, they decided that displaying the image they wanted to put up in Internet Explorer first would work best

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:20 • by T $
And yet he's still going to pay over 79 million dollars towards it? Mastercard must be getting pretty lax on their anti-theft policies.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:29 • by Matt (unregistered)
The cell phone bill reminded me of this QDB entry:

http://www.qdb.us/97327
DWang: a friend of mine
DWang: used 3 minutes on his phone last month
DWang: but he got refunded 4!
DWang: the phone company apparently uses 4-byte unsigned ints
DWang: because it UNDERFLOWED
DWang: he apparently used 2^32 minutes at 10 cents a minute
DWang: so he got a bill
DWang: for $430 MILLION

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:29 • by Skizz
192482 in reply to 192480
Those would be Zimbabwian Dollars.

Skizz

The IKEA one is not an Error'd

2008-05-01 08:32 • by erKURITA (unregistered)
It's the new product of IKEA!: Build your own advertisement screen!

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:33 • by ParkinT
Please pay Verizon! The tax on that amount would cure the National Debt!!!

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:33 • by AdT (unregistered)
Sounds like normal international roaming fees.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:34 • by Azd (unregistered)
192486 in reply to 192479
Sounds like something we have:

A dialog that uses a browser ActiveX control that hosts a web page containing only an ActiveX control, which in turn hosts up to 4 ActiveX controls.

The end result is that only the final (up to) 4 ActiveX controls are actually visible. Except occasionally you get the Google home page :-)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:45 • by Someone You Know
192487 in reply to 192478
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:46 • by BlueCollarAstronaut (unregistered)
In a message filter, no one can hear you call out.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:46 • by Sionnach (unregistered)
192489 in reply to 192487
Someone You Know:
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.


True, but some people require that extra bit of clarification so they don't get confused.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:48 • by Anonymous (unregistered)
192490 in reply to 192486
Azd:
A dialog that uses a browser ActiveX control that hosts a web page containing only an ActiveX control, which in turn hosts up to 4 ActiveX controls.

Let me get this straight: Application -> Browser widget -> ActiveX ->^4 ActiveX?
Why TF can't you at least use the master ActiveX directly?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:51 • by BestSnowman (unregistered)
I hope the video Error'd doesn't catch on unless the videos actually provide something that wouldn't have been easier just as text.

(Yes I am annoyed that I dug out my headphones for something that smile, a transcript would have saved me time pulling my work pc far enough out to plug my headphones in)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:57 • by dkf
192492 in reply to 192485
AdT:
Sounds like normal international roaming fees.
Or that you're calling long distance to another galaxy supercluster.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:59 • by NaN
192493 in reply to 192492
dkf:
AdT:
Sounds like normal international roaming fees.
Or that you're calling long distance to another galaxy supercluster.


On behalf of the Martian government, I would like to apologise for the reverse charge call.

(YES, I do know that's not another super cluster, but reverse charge calls are more expensive)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 08:59 • by rd (unregistered)
192494 in reply to 192489
Sionnach:
Someone You Know:
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.


True, but some people require that extra bit of clarification so they don't get confused.


Trying to remember that 18 is AFTER 12, and hence PM, does sound quite confusing. I wonder what Britney Spears' answering machine says.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:01 • by NaN
(I don't get reverse charge calls. Instead of saying your name to the robot, you could read out the phone number of the phone box, the robot would call the person you wanted to speak to, give them the number.
They could hang up and call you back without paying the charge for the reverse call.)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:02 • by Padraic (unregistered)
192496 in reply to 192487
Someone You Know:
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.


Darn, you beat me to it.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:04 • by Claxon
192497 in reply to 192492
dkf:
AdT:
Sounds like normal international roaming fees.
Or that you're calling long distance to another galaxy supercluster.


So in the movie E.T. do you think that the alien hunters were actually guys from the Verizon finance department?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:06 • by Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered)
$792 Octillion dollars? He needs to fess up - that money was spent on calling... Teh Irish Gril!

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:13 • by DaveAronson
And down near the bottom of the page, the site asks us to "Share 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars". Sure, if I had 792 octiiiiiiilion dollars, I'd share some of it! You wouldn't even have to point a frikkin' "la-ser" at me....

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:14 • by similis (unregistered)
192500 in reply to 192498
Lets hope it was not the weird leaning back arms folded smiling guy in suit from the registrar ad...

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:14 • by akatherder
The time at the sound of the beep will be 18:50 am.
*beep*

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:15 • by Etan Reisner (unregistered)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:16 • by similis (unregistered)
192503 in reply to 192499
But i will spread rumors that the price of wales was cheating on his wife!!

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:32 • by Matt (unregistered)
192504 in reply to 192503
similis:
...the price of wales...


Why can't people re-read their posts before they hit Submit?
So what is the current price of wales? I bet it is less than 792 octilion dollars.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:33 • by Walleye (unregistered)
192505 in reply to 192489
Sionnach:
Someone You Know:
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.


True, but some people require that extra bit of clarification so they don't get confused.


I can see why you wouldn't want to confuse them when using the time to indicate the number of messages.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:35 • by Nick (unregistered)
So I know I'm nit-picking but why does Verizon display the three dates in three different formats "10 Nov 07", "Tuesday, October23, 2007", and "12/7/2007".

P.S. This is random but someone used the word laser in their post and this just occurred to me why do people use laser instead of LASER, the capitalized version is correct because it is an acronym. </random></rant><geekyness continue="continue">


Captcha: pecus

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:40 • by Office Bob (unregistered)
192507 in reply to 192494
rd:
Sionnach:
Someone You Know:
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.


True, but some people require that extra bit of clarification so they don't get confused.


Trying to remember that 18 is AFTER 12, and hence PM, does sound quite confusing. I wonder what Britney Spears' answering machine says.


You know, it might be difficult, consider this:

George Carlin:
Just think of how stupid the average person is, and think that half the world is dumber than that.


Seriously...Some people need things explicitly spelled things out for them...Common sense, really isn't so common.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:49 • by webrunner
192509 in reply to 192507
Office Bob:

You know, it might be difficult, consider this:

George Carlin:
Just think of how stupid the average person is, and think that half the world is dumber than that.


Seriously...Some people need things explicitly spelled things out for them...Common sense, really isn't so common.


Technically there could be less or more than half- you'd just need a few extraordinarily dumb people and lots of slightly smart people, for instance, in order to average out the same.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:54 • by Pseudonymous (unregistered)
The blacklist result doesn't surprise me at all. When I was diagnosed with prostate cancer some years ago, I hit all the search engines looking for info and got, among other things:

"Click here to shop for prostate cancer"

"See what savvy investors are saying about prostate cancer"

And the inevitable, "AltaVista found about 13 million web pages for you."

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 09:54 • by Tukaro
I like how Verizon made sure you could pay 10^8-1 dollars.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:03 • by null (unregistered)
192513 in reply to 192495
NaN:
(I don't get reverse charge calls. Instead of saying your name to the robot, you could read out the phone number of the phone box, the robot would call the person you wanted to speak to, give them the number.
They could hang up and call you back without paying the charge for the reverse call.)


Or you could provide a short message, as long as it doesn't take five seconds to deliver.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:07 • by Mike Dimmick (unregistered)
'Illegal to call out inside message filter' is a COM error.

To prevent UI code from blocking completely when making a call to a COM object implemented in another apartment, COM actually pumps messages on the thread's behalf. The thread can register a 'message filter' function to be called so that it can be informed of, for example, paint messages so that the UI is still painted properly, with no odd blank areas. The default message filter passes some messages on to the application (can't find any documentation of exactly what, though).

The called function can call back into another function in the original thread, and in turn that second function can call out to another, and so on, as long as it makes a sequence of nested calls. However, making a second call out to another COM function from the message filter, or a message handler called by the message filter, is not permitted.

Best practice is just to not make a call to a COM object in any core message handler that might be called by the message filter, unless you're very sure that it's running in your own STA (a DLL, ThreadingModel not present and on the first thread, ThreadingModel='Apartment' or 'Both' and you created the object on this thread). Obviously windowless ActiveX controls have to have their IViewObject::Draw method called by the window that they're drawing into, but these controls must have the right thread affinity anyway.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:17 • by Anon (unregistered)
You sure they didn't mean 792 Octiiiiiiilion cents?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:38 • by Ouch (unregistered)
192530 in reply to 192504
Matt:
similis:
...the price of wales...


... I bet it is less than 792 octilion dollars...


Yeah, it is about 10 pence but nobody is willing to pay for it

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:47 • by operagost
192533 in reply to 192494
rd:

Trying to remember that 18 is AFTER 12, and hence PM, does sound quite confusing. I wonder what Britney Spears' answering machine says.

"The big hand is on the 10, and the little hand is on the six!"

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:53 • by Steve (unregistered)
Wow! A broken answering machine. Imagine that!

I mean. . . WTF?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 10:59 • by Steve (unregistered)
192540 in reply to 192506
Nick:
. . . someone used the word laser in their post and this just occurred to me why do people use laser instead of LASER, the capitalized version is correct because it is an acronym. </random></rant><geekyness continue="continue">
Probably the same reason we don't capitalize RADAR, which is an acronym for RAdio D[
/b]etection [b]A
nd Ranging
. . . through use, it's become a word in and of itself

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 11:08 • by Farmie (unregistered)
i'm in ur message filter, blocking ur callz

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 11:19 • by Nerf Herder (unregistered)
192546 in reply to 192514
I bet you're a huge hit with the ladies

Mike Dimmick:
'Illegal to call out inside message filter' is a COM error.

To prevent UI code from blocking completely when making a call to a COM object implemented in another apartment, COM actually pumps messages on the thread's behalf. The thread can register a 'message filter' function to be called so that it can be informed of, for example, paint messages so that the UI is still painted properly, with no odd blank areas. The default message filter passes some messages on to the application (can't find any documentation of exactly what, though).

The called function can call back into another function in the original thread, and in turn that second function can call out to another, and so on, as long as it makes a sequence of nested calls. However, making a second call out to another COM function from the message filter, or a message handler called by the message filter, is not permitted.

Best practice is just to not make a call to a COM object in any core message handler that might be called by the message filter, unless you're very sure that it's running in your own STA (a DLL, ThreadingModel not present and on the first thread, ThreadingModel='Apartment' or 'Both' and you created the object on this thread). Obviously windowless ActiveX controls have to have their IViewObject::Draw method called by the window that they're drawing into, but these controls must have the right thread affinity anyway.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 11:34 • by G Money (unregistered)
192553 in reply to 192494
rd:
Sionnach:
Someone You Know:
Alasdair:
Was the time correct on the answer machine?


Strictly speaking, "18:50 PM" is never the correct time, since it's incorrect to use "PM" with a 24-hour time reference.


True, but some people require that extra bit of clarification so they don't get confused.


Trying to remember that 18 is AFTER 12, and hence PM, does sound quite confusing. I wonder what Britney Spears' answering machine says.


Something about rd and a restraining order.

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 11:51 • by smxlong
Hah! That's the Ikea in Renton, isn't it?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 11:51 • by September ain't over yet (unregistered)
Well, I'm pretty sure that actually says seventy-nine octillion, but what's an error of one quadrillion times the total world GDP between friends?

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 13:32 • by domingl
One-JILLION dollars!! (gasp!)

Sir, that's not a number. (gasp!)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 13:45 • by dcardani
I like how the sign is apparently made or leased by a company called "SmartSign." Yep, real smart!

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 13:57 • by Da' Man
Cool! IKEA invented the Do-It-Yourself Billboard(TM)

Let's all invent IKEA-style names for it. What do you think about "Tömmatavla" (look it up in your handy Swedish dictionary ;-)

Or how about "Nøstrøm" :-)

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 14:00 • by Global Warmer (unregistered)
Bet it is a whole lot of calls to 976 numbers (phone sex for those out of town).

Britneys answering machine:
"It's lunch time bitch"

Re: 792 Octiiiiiiilion Dollars

2008-05-01 14:22 • by zzo38 (unregistered)
Can you please post a description of the answering machine, in case I cannot see the video, or want to print it out, or something like that?
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2Next »

Add Comment