Comment On From the Billing Department

Boy I hope that bill isn't for the IRS...they'll make him pay it

CAPTCHA: bling - he wont be able to afford any after paying that bill

I remember in college eating lunch with a friend of mine (she now writes code for Cisco) when she opened her bank statement. The balance read $99,999,947.52. I looked over and said, "When do we get married?" But alas, she took her $53.48 checking account and married someone else.

The Word thing is not a WTF. YOu can easily add as many Print icons (or anything else) as you like from the Customize dialog.

Usher:

The Word thing is not a WTF. YOu can easily add as many Print icons (or anything else) as you like from the Customize dialog.

You don't think it's a bit of a WTF if someone has chosen to do that?

Each could be to its own printer... maybe this person prints to about 20 different printers.

1 for receiving...
1 for hr...
1 for rob...
1 for kim...

The sent in WTF implies that it is Microsoft's fault for the numerous print icons. It's a WTF on the user's end but not Microsoft's.

Global Warmer:

Boy I hope that bill isn't for the IRS...they'll make him pay it

The IRS, whose slogan is:
"We've got what it takes to take what you've got!"

Isn't it interesting how they expect you to "pay the claim" while they investigate? He will need to mortgage all of UTAH!!

Matthew:

Usher:

The Word thing is not a WTF. YOu can easily add as many Print icons (or anything else) as you like from the Customize dialog.

You don't think it's a bit of a WTF if someone has chosen to do that?

Not really. It's just dumb.

ParkinT:

Global Warmer:

Boy I hope that bill isn't for the IRS...they'll make him pay it

The IRS, whose slogan is:
"We've got what it takes to take what you've got!"

When you put the two words "the" and "IRS" together it spells "theirs."

ParkinT:

Isn't it interesting how they expect you to "pay the claim" while they investigate? He will need to mortgage all of UTAH!!

at 2.25 quadrillion dollars, I don't think a mortgage of Utah will cover it. MAYBE if he mortgaged Earth...Maybe

BUT I DON'T LIKE PRINT! >:-(

ParkinT:

Isn't it interesting how they expect you to "pay the claim" while they investigate? He will need to mortgage all of UTAH!!

Pay the non-disputed part of the claim, meaning the amount that he thinks he should have been charged.

purge:

Matthew:

Usher:

The Word thing is not a WTF. YOu can easily add as many Print icons (or anything else) as you like from the Customize dialog.

You don't think it's a bit of a WTF if someone has chosen to do that?

Not really. It's just dumb.

Aren't you really talking about the same thing, just using different terminology?

Strider:

ParkinT:

Isn't it interesting how they expect you to "pay the claim" while they investigate? He will need to mortgage all of UTAH!!

at 2.25 quadrillion dollars, I don't think a mortgage of Utah will cover it. MAYBE if he mortgaged Earth...Maybe

Don't worry, he can get a sub-prime loan for it from Countrywide.

Oh, wait a moment...

Doug#1:

purge:

Not really. It's just dumb.

Aren't you really talking about the same thing, just using different terminology?

No, when a programer or sysadmin does something dumb, it is a WTF. When a user does something dumb it is just plain dumbness.

Mrs. Bun: I don't like Print!
Mr. Bun: Don't make a fuss, dear. I'll have your Print. I love it. I'm having Print, Print, Print, Print, Print...
Vikings: (singing) Print, Print, Print, Print...
Mr. Bun: ...baked beans, Print, Print, and Print.

Anyone else find a hillarious similarity between the Excel 2007 bug and the fact that the high is 100000?

Maybe they're trying to convince us that 850 * 77.1 = 100000

The graph of the Cisco stock actually shows a remote similarity to their logo...

Someone at one of our retail stores scanned a UPC number into an amount field. (There are 12 digits in a UPC!)

The result was a $400+ billion charge which the POS system dutifully passed on to our system.

Mcoder:

Doug#1:

purge:

Not really. It's just dumb.

Aren't you really talking about the same thing, just using different terminology?

No, when a programmer or sysadmin does something dumb, it is a WTF. When a user does something dumb it is just plain normal.

Fixed.

Ok, what some guys need to realize is, WTF not only stands for 'what the fuck' but also 'why the fuck' which perfectly sums up the printer WTF =)

catpcha: RIAA, hmmm...

Also, the error'd posts arent neccessarily so much WTFs, but theyre amusing nonetheless :D

Capthca: stinky... are you guys suggesting something here :D

Caine:

Ok, what some guys need to realize is, WTF not only stands for 'what the fuck' but also 'why the fuck' which perfectly sums up the printer WTF =)

catpcha: RIAA, hmmm...

I agree.
The ability to place multiple (identical) icons on the toolbar is a ridiculous feature.
Placing this power in the hands of a user simply provides an opportunity to illustrate how ridiculous it is!

FredSaw:

Mrs. Bun: I don't like Print!
Mr. Bun: Don't make a fuss, dear. I'll have your Print. I love it. I'm having Print, Print, Print, Print, Print...
Vikings: (singing) Print, Print, Print, Print...
Mr. Bun: ...baked beans, Print, Print, and Print.

Waitress: Baked beans are off.
Mr. Bun: Well, can I have Print instead?
Waitress: You mean Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, and Print?
Mr. Bun: Yes.
Waitress: Arrggh!
Vikings: (still singing) ...lovely Print, wonderful Print...

ParkinT:

The ability to place multiple (identical) icons on the toolbar is a ridiculous feature.

Except that this isn't a feature.
Preventing the user from putting identical icons on a toolbar would be a feature.

Moreover, it may make sense to put twice the same button, with the same icon & action, at two different (distant) places in the UI, for faster access.
Did you notice that there're two CTRL keys, with the same function and the same caption, on a 105 key keyboard?

So, a software that don't prevent the user from duplicating a button isn't a WTF.

Matthew:

Usher:

The Word thing is not a WTF. YOu can easily add as many Print icons (or anything else) as you like from the Customize dialog.

You don't think it's a bit of a WTF if someone has chosen to do that?

Actually, it's a WTF (albeit minor) that Word allows you do to that. Firefox, for instance, removes an icon from the customizable icons when you add it to the toolbar.

The print icon thing is an actual bug. I've witnessed it, but with another icon. I don't rememer what it was but every now and then when Word was started, it would add one of those icons to the toolbar. After a year or so there were quite a collection of identical icons, all useless. You see, none of those icons added by Word would actually carry on the task the icon would suggest.

Answer8879:

Did you notice that there're two CTRL keys, with the same function and the same caption, on a 105 key keyboard?

Touch-typing. Ever heard of it?

Answer8879:

ParkinT:

The ability to place multiple (identical) icons on the toolbar is a ridiculous feature.

Except that this isn't a feature.
Preventing the user from putting identical icons on a toolbar would be a feature.

Moreover, it may make sense to put twice the same button, with the same icon & action, at two different (distant) places in the UI, for faster access.
Did you notice that there're two CTRL keys, with the same function and the same caption, on a 105 key keyboard?

So, a software that don't prevent the user from duplicating a button isn't a WTF.

what do you mean "identical icons?" The same picture? Should they do a bitmap compare, and fail the creation if the picture is the same? Force the programmer/user to change the color of one pixel by a bit, so they can get similar icons up there?
What if the user wants two save buttons? Perhaps they want one on each side of the toolbar? What if the user wants a couple of print to printer X buttons. Doesn't know what other image to use, so he uses the same image, different tooltips? Why create a "feature" to stop the user from doing something, just because we think it is a dumb idea? Just because you think its dumb, doesn't mean everyone will think its dumb. No point in bloating the code over senseless "Features" (yeah, it is already done, but...)

I'm guessing this was cause by a bug in a macro.

I absolutely love every day being able to know that every time I click "read comments" I can expect about a dozen or more "This isn't a WTF because lah lah lah I'm so brilliant". fjsofklfkgfdjgkx.

CoyneT:

Someone at one of our retail stores scanned a UPC number into an amount field. (There are 12 digits in a UPC!)

The result was a $400+ billion charge which the POS system dutifully passed on to our system.

Had this happen to my purchase at a friend's store. Staff scanned in the barcode while the cursor is in the wrong field and hit enter too fast -- easy mistake to make.

My friend was ok with the mistake, but I heard the accountant had a heart attack...

CAPTCHA: gygax. How appropriate, it was a gaming store...

ParkinT:

Isn't it interesting how they expect you to "pay the claim" while they investigate? He will need to mortgage all of UTAH!!

I don't think Utah is worth two and a quarter quadrillion dollars. Even if the dollar is down a lot lately.

Damn beaten me to it!

Matthew:

You don't think it's a bit of a WTF if someone has chosen to do that?

I just created a shortcut to my desktop and placed it on my desktop. I titled it "Shortcut to Desktop". I will take a screenshot of it and post it to this site because it's totally a wtf!

WNivek:

FredSaw:

Mrs. Bun: I don't like Print!
Mr. Bun: Don't make a fuss, dear. I'll have your Print. I love it. I'm having Print, Print, Print, Print, Print...
Vikings: (singing) Print, Print, Print, Print...
Mr. Bun: ...baked beans, Print, Print, and Print.

Waitress: Baked beans are off.
Mr. Bun: Well, can I have Print instead?
Waitress: You mean Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, Print, and Print?
Mr. Bun: Yes.
Waitress: Arrggh!
Vikings: (still singing) ...lovely Print, wonderful Print...

Roffle!

I've done something similiar to that before. At the grocery store I used to work at we were trying to finish inventory under a deadline, and if you scanned a UPC on our handheld that was not in the system, and didn't "clear" that number before you scanned the next UPC, it used that value as the amount for the next item. Luckily easy to catch and fix (ya know when your total inventory is worth like 10x what it should be).

Why just the other day we got a bill for overdue payments on a loan that clearly had $0 balance on it (it was paid off some time ago). All it takes is a phone call to sort out, assuming you can get through.

Nobody sanity checks these things.

Arlen Cuss:

I absolutely love every day being able to know that every time I click "read comments" I can expect about a dozen or more "This isn't a WTF because lah lah lah I'm so brilliant". fjsofklfkgfdjgkx.

you misspelled brillant

Lynx@Work:

CoyneT:

Someone at one of our retail stores scanned a UPC number into an amount field. (There are 12 digits in a UPC!)

The result was a $400+ billion charge which the POS system dutifully passed on to our system.

Had this happen to my purchase at a friend's store. Staff scanned in the barcode while the cursor is in the wrong field and hit enter too fast -- easy mistake to make.

My friend was ok with the mistake, but I heard the accountant had a heart attack...

CAPTCHA: gygax. How appropriate, it was a gaming store...

I ran into something like this when I worked as a retail cashier ages and ages ago. The strange thing is that the item shouldn't have prompted for a price, as it appeared to scan correctly, showing its product name on the screen... it just came up with an $39,400.xx price (our system cut off after that, I don't remember what the cents were)

In case you're curious, it was a can of Bush's Baked Beans, whose UPC codes start with 039400...

Strangly, once the item was voided, scanning it again came up with its normal price.

Still, to this day, I remember the thirty-nine thousand dollar can of baked beans.

You don't know they're identical. They may all call different user macros and have different accompanying text, which the user has turned off.

It would be WorseThanFailure for a program to stop a user doing something perfectly legit because a UI person failed to imagine the user would want to do it.

Can we please change the CAPTCHA test thingy to use random letters?

Please?

I realise that it's a source of insane amounts of hilarity for some people who a) obviously don't read the comments regularly, or b) don't realise it's not randomly generated, and the likelihood of getting something which is relevant to computing or related in some way to WTF-speak is about, well, 100%.

For the record:

CAPTCHA: craaazy - how appropriate

or some other hilarious, and I mean HILARIOUS comment, is not funny. If it were randomly generated, it might be funny and even interesting to a very small degree, but it's doubtful.

I realise people won't just stop doing this on their own, I just think if it were random, it would be less likely for people to tag with:

CAPTCHA: lzf7ww - hehe, yeah, erm... Oh...

Oh well, here's hoping for some sanity. As for the WTF, at least he named the variables in the swap algorithm fairly clearly. Yes, it's bad, but I suppose it could have been worse :o)

Hehe, my last comment here makes a bit more sense if I was talking about the right WTF, which was yesterday's.

Yep, that's pretty stupid.

Oh well, bring on the pain!

Why stop the user from having multiple icons with the same bitmap? If they want to, let them.

To stop them is arrogance on the part of the programmer.

Adam:

Can we please change the CAPTCHA test thingy to use random letters?

Please?

I realise that it's a source of insane amounts of hilarity for some people who a) obviously don't read the comments regularly, or b) don't realise it's not randomly generated, and the likelihood of getting something which is relevant to computing or related in some way to WTF-speak is about, well, 100%.

For the record:

CAPTCHA: craaazy - how appropriate

or some other hilarious, and I mean HILARIOUS comment, is not funny. If it were randomly generated, it might be funny and even interesting to a very small degree, but it's doubtful.

I realise people won't just stop doing this on their own, I just think if it were random, it would be less likely for people to tag with:

CAPTCHA: lzf7ww - hehe, yeah, erm... Oh...

Oh well, here's hoping for some sanity. As for the WTF, at least he named the variables in the swap algorithm fairly clearly. Yes, it's bad, but I suppose it could have been worse :o)

Lighten up. It's going to be okay. Really.

FredSaw:

Adam:

Can we please change the CAPTCHA test thingy to use random letters?

...

Please?

CAPTCHA: lzf7ww - hehe, yeah, erm... Oh...

Lighten up. It's going to be okay. Really.

BUT WHAT WAS YOUR CAPTCHA?

Captcha: darwin - heheheh, presumably.

They calculated the amount in Excel 2007

James:

Why stop the user from having multiple icons with the same bitmap? If they want to, let them.

To stop them is arrogance on the part of the programmer.

Let the users do what they want? To quote Egon Spengler: "I think that might be extraordinarily bad."

Seriously, your logic is rubbish. More specifically, users are rubbish, and it's our job to protect them from themselves. This is not arrogance talking, it's experience.

The best way to prevent users breaking things, is to not give them the opportunity. This is, for a simple example, why we have useful things like numeric-only entry fields for things which require a user to enter a number.

Perhaps if Microsoft focused more on building robust applications, rather than feeding users' want (not need) for flexibility and features, they might have a chance of turning out software containing a few less defects.

Adam:

For the record:

CAPTCHA: craaazy - how appropriate

or some other hilarious, and I mean HILARIOUS comment, is not funny. If it were randomly generated, it might be funny and even interesting to a very small degree, but it's doubtful.

If it's not funny, why did you say it was hilarious? I'm confused. ;)

CAPTCHA: RespondingToCrankyWTFPoster - huh, what are the odds? ;)

Mike:

Adam:

For the record:

CAPTCHA: craaazy - how appropriate

or some other hilarious, and I mean HILARIOUS comment, is not funny. If it were randomly generated, it might be funny and even interesting to a very small degree, but it's doubtful.

If it's not funny, why did you say it was hilarious? I'm confused. ;)

CAPTCHA: RespondingToCrankyWTFPoster - huh, what are the odds? ;)

Whoa, hang on a minute, there, slick. Cranky? Me?

If you check on my original post, I think you'll find a smiley face at the end, there. Yep, that there's a bonafide assurance of non-crankiness, and no mistake!