Comment On Displaying FAILURE

"I was trying to update my ESXi server, but it took over an hour, so I rebooted the system," writes Erik, "a few seconds later, the update program failed with this error." [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:00 • by by (unregistered)
Error: the comment you entered appears to be a comment.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:06 • by Bill P. Godfrey (unregistered)
Is Shoving Buddies on after the news?

Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:07 • by JakeyC (unregistered)
The weight one isn't a WTF.

From Wikipedia: Gross weight is a term that generally is found in commerce or trade applications, and refers to the total weight of a product and its packaging. Conversely, net weight refers to the weight of the product alone, discounting the weight of its container or packaging; and tare weight is the weight of the packaging alone.

Gross = 19kg
Net = 18.4 kg
, i.e. the product weighs less than the sum of the product + packaging, which is normal for Earth.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:10 • by JakeyC (unregistered)
321396 in reply to 321395
JakeyC:
The weight one isn't a WTF.

From Wikipedia: Gross weight is a term that generally is found in commerce or trade applications, and refers to the total weight of a product and its packaging. Conversely, net weight refers to the weight of the product alone, discounting the weight of its container or packaging; and tare weight is the weight of the packaging alone.

Gross = 19kg
Net = 18.4 kg
, i.e. the product weighs less than the sum of the product + packaging, which is normal for Earth.



Okay, I'm TRWTF. Didn't notice the 20kf in the description.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:10 • by Synchronos (unregistered)
321397 in reply to 321395
JakeyC:
The weight one isn't a WTF.


Yes it is. If you order 20 kg dumbbells, you usually expect them to weigh 20 kg, not 18.4 kg.

Because it says "dumbbell set", I expect a bar is included.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:11 • by blah (unregistered)
321398 in reply to 321395
Except that the product is 20kg.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:11 • by JakeyC (unregistered)
321399 in reply to 321396
Or even the 20kg. I'm now retiring from the internet.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:11 • by Bit (unregistered)
321400 in reply to 321395
Whoosh. CLUNK. GLUG.

Hear that? That is the sound of a 20KG dumbbell (that only weighs 18.4KG) being thrown into the air, it falling on your head, and your blood gushing out.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:12 • by arms (unregistered)
321401 in reply to 321395
JakeyC:
The weight one isn't a WTF.

From Wikipedia: Gross weight is a term that generally is found in commerce or trade applications, and refers to the total weight of a product and its packaging. Conversely, net weight refers to the weight of the product alone, discounting the weight of its container or packaging; and tare weight is the weight of the packaging alone.

Gross = 19kg
Net = 18.4 kg
, i.e. the product weighs less than the sum of the product + packaging, which is normal for Earth.


All well and good apart from fact that the guy had ordered a 20 kilos worth of weights ...

Disgruntled Driver

2010-09-10 09:12 • by Proud Papa (unregistered)
That driver's ed quiz is deceptive. I got pulled over for doing February MPH in a 15-Oct zone. I couldn't tell if that meant I was speeding, driving too slow for traffic, or just the lucky recipient of the cop's bad day.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:13 • by Izhido (unregistered)
321403 in reply to 321395
JakeyC:
The weight one isn't a WTF.

From Wikipedia: Gross weight is a term that generally is found in commerce or trade applications, and refers to the total weight of a product and its packaging. Conversely, net weight refers to the weight of the product alone, discounting the weight of its container or packaging; and tare weight is the weight of the packaging alone.

Gross = 19kg
Net = 18.4 kg
, i.e. the product weighs less than the sum of the product + packaging, which is normal for Earth.


Um... did you happen to notice that the advertised product is supposed to weigh 20 kg?!?

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:14 • by TheThing (unregistered)
What is it with people that when something takes a long time, they decide to reboot the computer! If something takes a long time and I see the process isn't doing anything, I shutdown the program, not the whole computer :S

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:16 • by J (unregistered)
Just $1 for Fried Pickles? That's a deal.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:16 • by dpm (unregistered)
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:19 • by Vlad the Poutines (unregistered)
Straight away you can eliminate "A" and "Check the button next to your choice and then press ..." . Why wouldn't you expect such quality from LowestPriceTrafficSchool.com?

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 09:19 • by JakeyC (unregistered)
321408 in reply to 321403
Actually, it's not advertised as 20kg. If you put that catalogue number into the Argos website, it states it's an 18kg set...

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:21 • by Bill's Kid (unregistered)
321409 in reply to 321406
dpm:
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.


Yes, because that is clearly written in Excel.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:22 • by Izhido
Hehehe... I see now this world isn't ready yet for mobile computing. I must be, like, the very first person to see the 20kg thing... yet my answer was the last in the batch... and all because I typed it into a phone...

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:24 • by dpm (unregistered)
321411 in reply to 321409
Bill's Kid:
dpm:
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.
Yes, because that is clearly written in Excel.
You've never heard of a web app being populated from an external source? Welcome to the party.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:28 • by pkmnfrk
The biggest WTF is the restaurant survey one. "Ctrl-click was disabled"? Yeah, no shit. It's a drop-down box. You can't ctrl-click those.

Oh, and the ranges in the box were weird too.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:31 • by highphilosopher (unregistered)
321415 in reply to 321404
TheThing:
What is it with people that when something takes a long time, they decide to reboot the computer! If something takes a long time and I see the process isn't doing anything, I shutdown the program, not the whole computer :S


It's propogated from IT departments. Turns out when you have a problem, and the IT guy tells you to try turning it off and back on, he really just wants to finish his coffee/smoke before coming to fix it.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:32 • by Markp
321416 in reply to 321413
pkmnfrk:
The biggest WTF is the restaurant survey one. "Ctrl-click was disabled"? Yeah, no shit. It's a drop-down box. You can't ctrl-click those.

Oh, and the ranges in the box were weird too.


Wow, that one really escaped you, dinnit?

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:32 • by tagno25 (unregistered)
321417 in reply to 321413
pkmnfrk:
The biggest WTF is the restaurant survey one. "Ctrl-click was disabled"? Yeah, no shit. It's a drop-down box. You can't ctrl-click those.

Actually you can, it is disabled by default though, IIRC.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:39 • by barc0de
321419 in reply to 321406
dpm:
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.


Except for sql datetime values, in which it discards the date and just shows the time.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:44 • by markbark (unregistered)
Unhandled state expection?

My code handles ALL expections!
(save those of the Spanish Inquisition, because... well, you know)

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:50 • by anon (unregistered)
321423 in reply to 321404
TheThing:
What is it with people that when something takes a long time, they decide to reboot the computer! If something takes a long time and I see the process isn't doing anything, I shutdown the program, not the whole computer :S


Umm, it was ESXi, and embedded form of ESX server with no direct console access, only a really shitty GUI that gives no no low level control or information. If it's not responding, there is literally nothing you can do except reboot, unless you're running the unsupported console, in which case you can first SSH in, complain that the unsupported console doesn't actually let you do shit, and then reboot.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 09:58 • by Pyrexkidd (unregistered)
321424 in reply to 321404
TheThing:
What is it with people that when something takes a long time, they decide to reboot the computer! If something takes a long time and I see the process isn't doing anything, I shutdown the program, not the whole computer :S


Haha... Yea but, in tech support, 99% of my calls PEBCK. So I've started answering the phone: "Did you reboot?" While it may not solve any problems

Caller: "My mouse isn't working."
Me: "Did you reboot?" (the guy was left handed and using the mouse from the work station to his left... During the reboot he asked me why there was a mouse on either side...)
Caller: "My monitor won't come on."
Me: "Did you reboot?"
Caller: "My key-thingy (she actually said key thingy) stopped working."
Me: "Did you reboot."
Caller: "My computer won't reboot."
Me: "Did you reboot?"

Seriously who wouldn't want my job... And these are just the calls from this morning.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 10:06 • by sino (unregistered)
321425 in reply to 321424
Pyrexkidd:
TheThing:
What is it with people that when something takes a long time, they decide to reboot the computer! If something takes a long time and I see the process isn't doing anything, I shutdown the program, not the whole computer :S


Haha... Yea but, in tech support, 99% of my calls PEBCK. So I've started answering the phone: "Did you reboot?" While it may not solve any problems

Caller: "My mouse isn't working."
Me: "Did you reboot?" (the guy was left handed and using the mouse from the work station to his left... During the reboot he asked me why there was a mouse on either side...)
Caller: "My monitor won't come on."
Me: "Did you reboot?"
Caller: "My key-thingy (she actually said key thingy) stopped working."
Me: "Did you reboot."
Caller: "My computer won't reboot."
Me: "Did you reboot?"

Seriously who wouldn't want my job... And these are just the calls from this morning.

You need to watch The IT Crowd.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 10:15 • by PeriSoft
"Looks like my weights lost 1kg when they were boxed-up," notes Dave Carson..."

I call shenanigans. Nobody who reads TDWTF also pumps iron.

Re: Disgruntled Driver

2010-09-10 10:26 • by boog (unregistered)
321433 in reply to 321402
Proud Papa:
That driver's ed quiz is deceptive. I got pulled over for doing February MPH in a 15-Oct zone. I couldn't tell if that meant I was speeding, driving too slow for traffic, or just the lucky recipient of the cop's bad day.


If you'd just waited 4 months, you may have avoided the whole situation.

Re: Weight a minute

2010-09-10 10:27 • by dkf
321434 in reply to 321408
JakeyC:
Actually, it's not advertised as 20kg. If you put that catalogue number into the Argos website, it states it's an 18kg set...
Yeah, well they have to suffer the consequences of the UK's truth-in-advertising laws. But at least the weights were 20kg when they left the Chinese factory…

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 10:30 • by Jaime
321435 in reply to 321404
TheThing:
What is it with people that when something takes a long time, they decide to reboot the computer! If something takes a long time and I see the process isn't doing anything, I shutdown the program, not the whole computer :S
The people where I work don't even know how to log off without rebooting. One time I was doing a monitoring session where several users had to do their part of a workflow and we only had one computer. I came in to check up on them and they were complaining that it takes too long to go through the process. I watched for a few minutes and asked "why are you rebooting for the next user instead of just logging off". Someone responded, "That's how you log off". The funniest part is that in order to shut down, you have to select an option from a drop-down. One choice is "Restart" and another is "Log off". Until I told them, no-one had ever figured out that the option called "Log off" logs them off.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 10:39 • by Ben (unregistered)
321436 in reply to 321409
Bill's Kid:
dpm:
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.


Yes, because that is clearly written in Excel.


Or generated from an Excel file by some POS survey software.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 10:49 • by vt_mruhlin
I don't get the first one? What kind of message did you expect to see when an unhandled state expection occurs?

Re: Disgruntled Driver

2010-09-10 10:52 • by vt_mruhlin
321438 in reply to 321433
boog:
Proud Papa:
That driver's ed quiz is deceptive. I got pulled over for doing February MPH in a 15-Oct zone. I couldn't tell if that meant I was speeding, driving too slow for traffic, or just the lucky recipient of the cop's bad day.


If you'd just waited 4 months, you may have avoided the whole situation.


Just go to your court date on the 45mphth and tell the judge your case. He'll probably let you off with just a warning

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:00 • by Bob (unregistered)
Low-beam headlights are only effective for speeds up to ___ mph.


What's the answer? Is it foggy? Is it nightime? What does "effective" even mean? If you ask me, all the answers are absurd.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:00 • by CHiPs (unregistered)
TRWTF is 'V', amirite?

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:10 • by Max (unregistered)
321442 in reply to 321406
dpm:
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.

My favourite experience with this was when I entered Aug 31 and Excel dutifully changed it to date format... August 1931.

Misinterpreting the day as year I can kind of forgive, inconvenient as it may be, but apparently Microsoft Office fixed the y2k issue by shifting it 30 years. Is 2030 really so far in the future? (That's Office 2007 if you're wondering and want to try it yourself, I haven't checked with other versions.)

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:15 • by Neville Flynn (unregistered)
If a machine told me to "insert boot", I'd kick it.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:16 • by toth
So I figured the 15-Oct thing was probably a culprit of something (like Excel) interpreting it as a date, but Oct is 10, so was it originally "15-10"? That seems really weird, especially since all the other options are lowernumber-highernumber.

Also, I suspect the survey dropdown is implemented that was so that the developers can be lazy and generate reports by amount range without having to do all those useless, complicated database queries.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:16 • by RayMarron
TRWTF is that driver training question! I'm pretty sure any* headlight is effective until the car exceeds the speed of light. ;)

*must be turned on, not broken

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:26 • by Trbl (unregistered)
321446 in reply to 321440
for speeds up to the "speed of light" is obviously the right answer. Low-beams just can't keep up if you are going faster.
High-beams with the new sodium bulbs go 2x the speed of light, so then you'd be okay!

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:38 • by shadowman
321448 in reply to 321440
Yeah, I'm not sure what they are suggesting. It seems to infer that if you are exceeding ___ mph then they want you to throw on the high-beams to blind everyone else. I'd ask for my money back on that course.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:38 • by Markp
321449 in reply to 321445
RayMarron:
TRWTF is that driver training question! I'm pretty sure any* headlight is effective until the car exceeds the speed of light. ;)

*must be turned on, not broken


When you walk in the woods at night, you shine a flashlight a few feet in front of you at the ground, illuminating about 10 feet in front of you. Would you like to go 100 mph with that lighting? That would give you approximately 0.07 seconds to see a deer, react, and come to a complete stop. Accelerating from 100 mph to 0 in 0.07 seconds puts a force on you of about 65g, instantly killing you.

In short, it's the angle of the beams, not the speed that's the problem. Obviously.

That said their guidelines are ridiculous.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:41 • by operagost
321450 in reply to 321442
Max:
dpm:
Anyone who doesn't immediately realize the cause of the "15-Oct" WTF hasn't had to suffer under Excel's insane eagerness to regard ANYTHING as a date.

My favourite experience with this was when I entered Aug 31 and Excel dutifully changed it to date format... August 1931.

Misinterpreting the day as year I can kind of forgive, inconvenient as it may be, but apparently Microsoft Office fixed the y2k issue by shifting it 30 years. Is 2030 really so far in the future? (That's Office 2007 if you're wondering and want to try it yourself, I haven't checked with other versions.)

It's configurable in the Windows Regional options (not Excel). TRWTF is expecting anyone to "fix" the ambiguity of two-digit years.

Re: Disgruntled Driver

2010-09-10 11:42 • by newfweiler
321451 in reply to 321402
Proud Papa:
That driver's ed quiz is deceptive. I got pulled over for doing February MPH in a 15-Oct zone. I couldn't tell if that meant I was speeding, driving too slow for traffic, or just the lucky recipient of the cop's bad day.


What you did wrong was you didn't correct for Daylight Savings Time.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:48 • by boog (unregistered)
321454 in reply to 321437
vt_mruhlin:
I don't get the first one? What kind of message did you expect to see when an unhandled state expection occurs?


My take on the first one is that while the error message says "UI doesn't know how to display FAILURE", somehow the UI behind the error box seems to have found several perfectly appropriate ways to display that there was a failure.

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:49 • by flyboyfred (unregistered)
321455 in reply to 321444
toth:
So I figured the 15-Oct thing was probably a culprit of something (like Excel) interpreting it as a date, but Oct is 10, so was it originally "15-10"? That seems really weird, especially since all the other options are lowernumber-highernumber.


I just put "10-15" into an Excel spreadsheet. What'd it change it to? "15-Oct".

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 11:53 • by neminem (unregistered)
...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and fried pickles?

Re: Displaying FAILURE

2010-09-10 12:07 • by Bobbo (unregistered)
321459 in reply to 321425
Pyrexkidd:

Haha... Yea but, in tech support, 99% of my calls PEBCK. So I've started answering the phone: "Did you reboot?" While it may not solve any problems

Caller: "My mouse isn't working."
Me: "Did you reboot?" (the guy was left handed and using the mouse from the work station to his left... During the reboot he asked me why there was a mouse on either side...)
Caller: "My monitor won't come on."
Me: "Did you reboot?"
Caller: "My key-thingy (she actually said key thingy) stopped working."
Me: "Did you reboot."
Caller: "My computer won't reboot."
Me: "Did you reboot?"

Seriously who wouldn't want my job... And these are just the calls from this morning.



Jaime:
The people where I work don't even know how to log off without rebooting. One time I was doing a monitoring session where several users had to do their part of a workflow and we only had one computer. I came in to check up on them and they were complaining that it takes too long to go through the process. I watched for a few minutes and asked "why are you rebooting for the next user instead of just logging off". Someone responded, "That's how you log off". The funniest part is that in order to shut down, you have to select an option from a drop-down. One choice is "Restart" and another is "Log off". Until I told them, no-one had ever figured out that the option called "Log off" logs them off.


This kind of talk is exactly why 'normal people' think of us as geeks who talk nonsense all day.
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Add Comment