Comment On What Is The Matrix?

If only Neo had seen the first one!

The Matrix may be a clear reference to a commonly stated part of the data set/structure/GUI of the application in question, but there's not enough context here to know if that's a clear, but concise warning dialog.

Now, as for "spellchecker out to embarrass him" I have a far better example than that from my past employment, where I used to work in one of Sony's subsidiaries in the CD-ROM premastering department, and a lot of the internal documents used the word "masterable" (whether or not people agree it's a valid version of master or not, it was appropriate in the context of a CD) and I'm sure you can figure out the most embarrassing suggestion Microsoft Word (and probably most other word processor spellcheckers) could come up with... needless to say, I was very careful with the spellchecker: that's far more of a gaffe than referring to your manger! (most people should remove that word entirely from their dictionary, unless they compose documents about Christmas frequently).

One would think that by now, nearly seven years after Y2K, all the APIs that store a year as (the actual year - 1900) would have been taken out back and shot.

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

108? *cough*perl*cough*

FinnGamble:

Obviously, the real WTF is that it's 2007 and we are still using internal combustion engines in our 102 model Hondas! Where are the hover cars I was promised when I was a kid?!

Forget about hover cars! I first want my HoverBoard®!

If this were the real matrix we would all have a baby under the hood.

Say what you want, kids. Perl is still the best language. :-p

Tim at work:

If this were the real matrix we would all have a baby under the hood.

Finally a viable solution to the energy crisis. Let the harvesting begin!

alcari:

Always press continue.
You will be reborn a messiah to two races.

I have tried and tried and tried to press continue. I don't know what the deal is, but it refuses to do anything unless I press either Yes or Cancel.

Luca Masters:

Say what you want, kids. Perl is still the best language. :-p

Right; hence its popularity.

FredSaw:

Luca Masters:

Say what you want, kids. Perl is still the best language. :-p

Right; hence its popularity.

And it's bugless too!

Go to one of the warzones on this planet, and drive across a landmine. :)

FredSaw:

alcari:

Always press continue.
You will be reborn a messiah to two races.

I have tried and tried and tried to press continue. I don't know what the deal is, but it refuses to do anything unless I press either Yes or Cancel.

Instead only try to realize the truth: There is no Cancel.

So would you enter 102 as the model year guessing they were using old c-style date structures or something otherwise based on 1900?

operagost:

FredSaw:

alcari:

Always press continue.
You will be reborn a messiah to two races.

I have tried and tried and tried to press continue. I don't know what the deal is, but it refuses to do anything unless I press either Yes or Cancel.

Instead only try to realize the truth: There is no Cancel.

I propose the promotion of this message to "blue".

Still can't figure out what's wrong with that proofreading one...

damads:

Still can't figure out what's wrong with that proofreading one...

Must be some small dictionary if the closest suggestion to "disappearing" is "childbearing".

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

That would make sense. It is DCX.

so year 2k bugs was -not- a legend ?

Nothing to do with Y2K, it's the brand new Y108 bug.

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

No, it's a well-known inconsistency with old versions of Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, it returns "the year minus 1900" in certain javascript calls instead of the full 4-digit year.
The original specification was for GetYear() to return a 2-digit year, i.e. years since 1900. Unfortunately this broke completely at the year 2000. Standards got confused at this point, some made browsers that returned 0-99 before 2000, and 4 digits after, some returned "years since 1900" (0-99 before 1900 and 100-199 for 2000-2099), and some changed to returning 4-digit years for all years.
Nowadays GetYear() is deprecated and GetFullYear() is recommended instead, which always returns a 4-digit year.

Essentially the wtf isn't the message, it's the REALLY old browser the screenshot is taken from. e.g. Internet Explorer 3 behaved like this.

operagost:

FredSaw:

alcari:

Always press continue.
You will be reborn a messiah to two races.

I have tried and tried and tried to press continue. I don't know what the deal is, but it refuses to do anything unless I press either Yes or Cancel.

Instead only try to realize the truth: There is no Cancel.

There is no Cancel, only Zuul.

The Honda hover cars (powered by the souls of those indiscriminately who press "OK" on all pop-up dialogs) didn't come out until 104.

The Real WTF is disposing of a perfectly good 2002 Honda Civic.

Someone You Know:

One would think that by now, nearly seven years after Y2K, all the APIs that store a year as (the actual year - 1900) would have been taken out back and shot.

try to shoot JavaScript

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

shitheads ain't know nothin at all

Lysis:

FredSaw:

Luca Masters:

Say what you want, kids. Perl is still the best language. :-p

Right; hence its popularity.

And it's bugless too!

...and it's not VB anyway

Thief^:

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

No, it's a well-known inconsistency with old versions of Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, it returns "the year minus 1900" in certain javascript calls instead of the full 4-digit year.
The original specification was for GetYear() to return a 2-digit year, i.e. years since 1900. Unfortunately this broke completely at the year 2000. Standards got confused at this point, some made browsers that returned 0-99 before 2000, and 4 digits after, some returned "years since 1900" (0-99 before 1900 and 100-199 for 2000-2099), and some changed to returning 4-digit years for all years.
Nowadays GetYear() is deprecated and GetFullYear() is recommended instead, which always returns a 4-digit year.

Essentially the wtf isn't the message, it's the REALLY old browser the screenshot is taken from. e.g. Internet Explorer 3 behaved like this.

"Nowadays GetYear() is deprecated and GetFullYear() is recommended instead, which always returns a 4-digit year."

that shows us the trouble when many people (script kiddies) TRY to program and there's nobody who takes control

akatherder:

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

That would make sense. It is DCX.

What, 610!?! Is that AD or BC?

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

That is EXACTLY why I always offset my years starting from 1920 instead of 1900, that way you can still use a 2 digit number to store the year, and it lasts alot longer, until 2019 this way...

1998 -> 78
1999 -> 79
2000 -> 80
2001 -> 81

Its a much better solution. I think in a couple years, I will change my algorithm to base off of 1930 that way it gives you another 10 years without having to change it.

For the sake of completeness, here is the JS method that throws the error. Unfortunately, without actually taking the survey I can't see what values were passed for min and max.

function HandleShortAnswerChange(element, min, max)

{

	// A relative year value is specified by prefixing the value with "YR"

	// The relative value can be either positive or negative

	if(min.toString().substring(0, 2) == "YR")

	{

		// Math.round() will explicitly convert the string value to an integer

		min = new Date().getYear() + Math.round(min.toString().substring(2, min.toString().length));

	}

	

	if(max.toString().substring(0, 2) == "YR")

	{

		// Math.round() will explicitly convert the string value to an integer

		max = new Date().getYear() + Math.round(max.toString().substring(2, max.toString().length));

	}

	

	var message = "Please enter a valid numeric value between " 

		+ min + " and " + max + ".";

		

	// If the element has the minimum number of digits, but is below the min

	// OR the element is above the max

	// OR the element is not numeric

	// Notify the user for correction and remove the offending character.

//	if(((element.value * 1) < min && element.value.length >= min.toString().length) 

//		|| (element.value * 1) > max || isNaN(element.value))

	if((element.value * 1) < min || (element.value * 1) > max || isNaN(element.value))

	{

		alert(message);

		//if(element.value.length >= min.toString().length || isNaN(element.value))

		//	element.value = element.value.substring(0, element.value.length - 1);

		element.select();

	}

}

Jonathan Thompson:

The Matrix may be a clear reference to a commonly stated part of the data set/structure/GUI of the application in question, but there's not enough context here to know if that's a clear, but concise warning dialog.

Now, as for "spellchecker out to embarrass him" I have a far better example than that from my past employment, where I used to work in one of Sony's subsidiaries in the CD-ROM premastering department, and a lot of the internal documents used the word "masterable" (whether or not people agree it's a valid version of master or not, it was appropriate in the context of a CD) and I'm sure you can figure out the most embarrassing suggestion Microsoft Word (and probably most other word processor spellcheckers) could come up with... needless to say, I was very careful with the spellchecker: that's far more of a gaffe than referring to your manger! (most people should remove that word entirely from their dictionary, unless they compose documents about Christmas frequently).

Its Oracle Reports. Its a valid error message when you are creating Matrix (crosstab..whatever you call them) reports and you drag a field out of the frame. It just tells you that its not going to be able to create the Matrix report like you want. Not a WTF other than maybe a funny way to say it.

alcari:

Always press continue.

Bad'l Ron, Wakener, Morgan Polysoft:

Abort, Retry, Fail?' was the phrase some wormdog scrawled next to the door of the Edit Universe project room. And when the new dataspinners started working, fabricating their worlds on the huge organic comp systems, we'd remind them: if you see this message, always choose 'Retry.'

Wait... have you *seen* the way people drive? And that's with just 2 dimensions and not much inertial movement to deal with. Flying cars don't scare me. The people that would be driving them do!

Got to love Perl's Year base = 1900 AD.

Never did quite become Y2K compliant.

they'll get here as soon as people can drive down the interstate without crashing into one another

Harry:

Got to love Perl's Year base = 1900 AD.

Never did quite become Y2K compliant.

Except it's JavaScript, not Perl. And a year base of 1900 (or any base date) does not *on its own* indicate Y2K compliance or lack of it. What really matters is how many digits are significant, and how overflow is handled.

TopCod3r:

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

That is EXACTLY why I always offset my years starting from 1920 instead of 1900, that way you can still use a 2 digit number to store the year, and it lasts alot longer, until 2019 this way...

1998 -> 78
1999 -> 79
2000 -> 80
2001 -> 81

Its a much better solution. I think in a couple years, I will change my algorithm to base off of 1930 that way it gives you another 10 years without having to change it.

This amplifier goes up to 11!

I have a vague feeling that the Matrix screenshot is a dup.

Phill:

Tim at work:

If this were the real matrix we would all have a baby under the hood.

Finally a viable solution to the energy crisis. Let the harvesting begin!

I'd prefer to do the planting.

TopCod3r:

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

That is EXACTLY why I always offset my years starting from 1920 instead of 1900, that way you can still use a 2 digit number to store the year, and it lasts alot longer, until 2019 this way...

1998 -> 78
1999 -> 79
2000 -> 80
2001 -> 81

Its a much better solution. I think in a couple years, I will change my algorithm to base off of 1930 that way it gives you another 10 years without having to change it.

Why not store it as a full 4 digit year? Are you strapped for a few bytes or something? Do it right the first time, and you don't have to keep hacking around design issues.

ChiefCrazyTalk:

The Real WTF is disposing of a perfectly good 2002 Honda Civic.

If it was perfectly good. Maybe it didn't work?

Pitabred:

TopCod3r:

Anttu:

I've seen that some Germans want to write year numbers in this format:
1998 -> 98
1999 -> 99
2000 -> 100
2001 -> 101

Does the last picture have something to do with this?

That is EXACTLY why I always offset my years starting from 1920 instead of 1900, that way you can still use a 2 digit number to store the year, and it lasts alot longer, until 2019 this way...

1998 -> 78
1999 -> 79
2000 -> 80
2001 -> 81

Its a much better solution. I think in a couple years, I will change my algorithm to base off of 1930 that way it gives you another 10 years without having to change it.

Why not store it as a full 4 digit year? Are you strapped for a few bytes or something? Do it right the first time, and you don't have to keep hacking around design issues.

There's this new thing called SARCASM. Ever heard of it?

FinnGamble:

Where are the hover cars I was promised when I was a kid?!

They've been built. Unfortunately, they were looking for a highly skilled developer to build the navigation system, and, well, you know how hard it is to find them - so they settled for a few of the consultants who're obviously brillant because they've been earning 6-figure salaries for years. It'll be a while til they're finished.

Also, even if the message is technically correct, the real WTF is developers who write technically correct error messages instead of useful messages, or building interfaces that don't implement undo. Destroy the matrix if the user wants to, but make it visible, and make it undo-able.

I'm sure that Matrix one has been featured before. I remember, as I commented at the time that I'd had a screenshot of it on my webpage since 2000... (God, I've been an Oracle Developer for TOO long).

the Matrix one has been on here before.

Thief^:

No, it's a well-known inconsistency with old versions of Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, it returns "the year minus 1900" in certain javascript calls instead of the full 4-digit year.

From what I recall, the JavaScript standard specifies that getYear() should return the year minus 1900, while Internet Explorer (even in version 7) goes its own way and returns the full year if it's after 2000. Mozilla, Opera and Safari all handle it as the standard specifies, even in the most recent versions.