• Someone You Know (cs)

    Those panties are not 80% off. They seem, in fact, to be 100% on.

  • XXXXX (unregistered)

    I don't get the medicare one, what am I missing.

    Are malformed fixed-length flat-file records funny? If so, it makes me sad that my job requires me to remove so much humor from our systems.

  • apaq11 (cs)

    I thought 'LED Tribute 3.avi' was overrated. When they killed off the all the main characters in 'LED Tribute 2.avi' I knew the series was going downhill...

  • Studley (unregistered) in reply to XXXXX
    XXXXX:
    I don't get the medicare one, what am I missing.

    Are malformed fixed-length flat-file records funny? If so, it makes me sad that my job requires me to remove so much humor from our systems.

    Contact [TDWTF_FRISTNAME] for an explanation.

  • Larry (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • frits (cs)

    It looks like you can order those underwear in yellow. Which is nice; that way you can eliminate the middle-man.

  • Pete (unregistered) in reply to apaq11
    apaq11:
    I thought 'LED Tribute 3.avi' was overrated. When they killed off the all the main characters in 'LED Tribute 2.avi' I knew the series was going downhill...

    Then that whole prequel 'LED Tribute 0.5.avi' trying to bring the characters back just made it worse.

  • TW (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    It looks like you can order those underwear in yellow. Which is nice; that way you can eliminate the middle-man.

    This makes me cringe.

  • airdrik (unregistered)

    All you'r numbers R wrong! There is only to numberz: yes and no. no is les of [object HTMLInputElement] and yes is biger of true making them only numberz. If thoz don't workz than you can uses 6, but that one'z imaginery.

    Sinserly, [CMNTR_FNAME] [CMNTR_LNAME] [CMNTR_SIGNATURE]

  • GalacticCowboy (cs)

    If we assume False is 0 and True is non-zero, then the first one is saying that your password cannot be blank and must be 22 characters or less. Odd limitation, but better than a lot of systems I've seen...

  • frits (cs) in reply to TW
    TW:
    frits:
    It looks like you can order those underwear in yellow. Which is nice; that way you can eliminate the middle-man.

    This makes me cringe.

    Why? Because they don't offer brown?

  • jdw (unregistered)

    The real error in #3 is the split infinitive.

  • Ouch! (unregistered)

    Am I missing something or is the 'funny' part of Remy Porter's submission that Oracle left out the 'if you install the feature at all', thinking that was self-evident?

  • JT (unregistered) in reply to Ouch!
    Ouch!:
    Am I missing something or is the 'funny' part of Remy Porter's submission that Oracle left out the 'if you install the feature at all', thinking that was self-evident?

    The GUI doesn't allow you to not install the Demo code, so it sort of defeats the purpose of allowing the user to perform a "custom" install. There's nothing to customize.

    The only way to not install stuff is to invoke the installer via command line. And in some cases even that doesn't work - you sometimes have to resort to editing the installer itself to prevent it from installing crap you don't need/want.

  • JamesQMurphy (cs) in reply to Ouch!
    Ouch!:
    Am I missing something or is the 'funny' part of Remy Porter's submission that Oracle left out the 'if you install the feature at all', thinking that was self-evident?

    Oracle left out the "This feature will not be installed" option.

    Yeah.... hillarious.

  • JamesQMurphy (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    TW:
    frits:
    It looks like you can order those underwear in yellow. Which is nice; that way you can eliminate the middle-man.

    This makes me cringe.

    Why? Because they don't offer brown?

    I was going to say that Nicole sounds hot. Not any more.

  • frits (cs) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    frits:
    TW:
    frits:
    It looks like you can order those underwear in yellow. Which is nice; that way you can eliminate the middle-man.

    This makes me cringe.

    Why? Because they don't offer brown?

    I was going to say that Nicole sounds hot. Not any more.

    I'm pretty sure that anyone with a girl's name sounds hot to most readers of this site.

  • boog (cs)
    "Well," writes Nicole, "that's one way to decorate the house."
    It certainly is. Is the underwear on sale too?
  • Your Name (unregistered)

    That image with all the arrows isn't that uncommon.

    Creative Centrale is generating thumbnails for your video files, and calls VobSub to generate them for it.

    Windows Explorer does the same, but you usually don't notice it because it uses media player instead of

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    That Java installation one has been there for as long as I can remember. It has always annoyed me.

  • Larry (unregistered)
    The Article:
    "I think Creative Centrale couldn't handle the music stored in my computer," Maar wrote, "the text translates roughly 'Some tray icons can't be shown. There isn't enough space to show all objects in system tray. Uninstall some programs or try to use larger display resolution.'"

    Uh, no. I think it was

    The Other Article:
    "The text translates roughly "Some tray icons can't be shown. There isn't enough space to show all objects in system tray. Uninstall some programs or try to use larger display resolution.," writes Maar, "I guess that I'll be able to justify that larger monitor purchase after all!"
  • Sock Puppet 1 (unregistered) in reply to Larry
    Larry:
    The Article:
    "I think Creative Centrale couldn't handle the music stored in my computer," Maar wrote, "the text translates roughly 'Some tray icons can't be shown. There isn't enough space to show all objects in system tray. Uninstall some programs or try to use larger display resolution.'"

    Uh, no. I think it was

    The Other Article:
    "The text translates roughly "Some tray icons can't be shown. There isn't enough space to show all objects in system tray. Uninstall some programs or try to use larger display resolution.," writes Maar, "I guess that I'll be able to justify that larger monitor purchase after all!"
    Yeah, but that article was in November. He's slept since then.
  • THG (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    Ouch!:
    Am I missing something or is the 'funny' part of Remy Porter's submission that Oracle left out the 'if you install the feature at all', thinking that was self-evident?

    Oracle left out the "This feature will not be installed" option.

    Yeah.... hillarious.

    ... Right up to where their lawyers knock on your door.

    "Hello: Our records show that you did not pay for a license for the Oracle 'Demos and Samples' feature packaged with our 'Java(TM) SE Development Kit 6 Update 21' package you registered to download. We will need to audit all of your Windows servers and workstations for licensing violations."

    "Also we will need to copies of all your internal documents to make sure they correctly attribute the 'Java' trademark to Oracle Corporation."

  • Bert (unregistered)
    Spencer:
    "What integer do you suppose fits in this range?"

    The correct answer: Is Octobuary 13nd.

  • jimmy (unregistered)

    About the email error for an EDI message.... The real WTF is EDI; it's a communication protocol still used in the healthcare and retail industries 30-40 years after it was created, and quite possibly the worst / most ambiguous standard ever created. It's just God awful... pray that you never have to work with it.

  • Darth Superstition (unregistered) in reply to jimmy
    jimmy:
    About the email error for an EDI message.... The real WTF is EDI; it's a communication protocol still used in the healthcare and retail industries 30-40 years after it was created, and quite possibly the worst / most ambiguous standard ever created. It's just God awful... pray that you never have to work with it.

    I have prayed I never have to work with EDI. Pray I don't pray further.

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    What made me laugh is the beginning of the standard, useless, unenforceable e-mail confidentiality disclaimer at the end of the EDI mail. A lot of good that waste of space has done them, now hasn't it?

    When will people realize that once you stick an e-mail out on the interwebs, you no longer own or control it?

    So please, please, please stop adding a 14 line disclaimer to all of your e-mails. It's really annoying to get a one work message like "ok" or "thanks" followed by a 200 word essay on how you're going to sue my ass if I so much as even acknowledge your existence.

  • Barney Fife (unregistered) in reply to jimmy

    I had to work with EDI by writing an application that performed some pre-processing of purchase orders that went out via EDI and it is most unforgiving. I am still in therapy because of it sucking 2 years of my life away.

    If you should see any job posting with those 3 letters, you should do only one thing: (in my best Monty Python voice) "Run away!".

  • boog (cs) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    What made me laugh is the beginning of the standard, useless, unenforceable e-mail confidentiality disclaimer at the end of the EDI mail. A lot of good that waste of space has done them, now hasn't it?

    When will people realize that once you stick an e-mail out on the interwebs, you no longer own or control it?

    So please, please, please stop adding a 14 line disclaimer to all of your e-mails. It's really annoying to get a one work message like "ok" or "thanks" followed by a 200 word essay on how you're going to sue my ass if I so much as even acknowledge your existence.

    Some organizations (try to) require it by policy. Some force it by having the mail server automatically append it.

    The best, however, are the combination of the two, when a user adds a disclaimer due to policy, but is unaware that the policy is already enforced automatically by the mail server. Now there are two 14 line disclaimers at the bottom of every email they send.

    Who hasn't worked with someone like this?

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog (unregistered):
    Andrew:
    What made me laugh is the beginning of the standard, useless, unenforceable e-mail confidentiality disclaimer at the end of the EDI mail. A lot of good that waste of space has done them, now hasn't it?

    When will people realize that once you stick an e-mail out on the interwebs, you no longer own or control it?

    So please, please, please stop adding a 14 line disclaimer to all of your e-mails. It's really annoying to get a one work message like "ok" or "thanks" followed by a 200 word essay on how you're going to sue my ass if I so much as even acknowledge your existence.

    Some organizations (try to) require it by policy...
    I'm pretty sure I would have strangled you before you got any further.

  • A Formerly-Satisfied Reader (unregistered)

    To Whom it May Concern,

    I have noticed that over the last couple of months the quality and frequency of the articles on this site have dropped dramatically. One or the other would probably be understood; but the templating and outright copying of past articles his reduced the satisfaction in the content, causing the following side-effects in formerly-satisfied members:

    1. Failing to check in on a regular basis
    2. Conversion to "internet trolls"
    3. The loss of even more satisfied members, increasing the ratio of trolls even more. At the best, this has caused the forums to be saturated with posts attempting to convert any article or statement into a past meme (from when thedailywtf.com contained amusing content). At the worst, it causes any serious post to be ridiculed in an attempt to pick a fight.

    I encourage you at minimum to take these two basic steps:

    1. Resume the daily posting of articles.
    2. Perform a quality check consisting of spelling, grammar, and readibility.

    I remain repectfully yours, Bert Glanstron

  • David F. Skoll (unregistered) in reply to Bert

    Surely not... Octobuary 43nd is the correct answer.

  • boog (cs) in reply to A Formerly-Satisfied Reader
    A Formerly-Satisfied Reader:
    2) Perform a quality check consisting of spelling, grammar, and readibility.
    Cute.
  • boog (cs) in reply to boog
    evil boog:
    boog:
    Some organizations (try to) require it by policy...
    I'm pretty sure I would have strangled you before you got any further.
    I understand you're evil, but isn't that a bit harsh?
  • Ã (unregistered)

    They don't give options to unicorn lovers, Remy Martin.

  • operagost (cs)

    Smart quotes or no, I'm pretty sure I can afford to NOT live in a tiny, depressing box inside a shabby old warehouse.

  • Someone You Know (cs) in reply to Ã
    Ã:
    They don't give options to unicorn lovers, Remy Martin.

    Okay, clearly I've missed something. Why are people calling him Remy Martin instead of Remy Porter?

  • aptent (unregistered) in reply to A Formerly-Satisfied Reader
    A Formerly-Satisfied Reader:
    To Whom it May Concern,

    I have noticed that over the last couple of months the quality and frequency of the articles on this site have dropped dramatically. One or the other would probably be understood; but the templating and outright copying of past articles his reduced the satisfaction in the content, causing the following side-effects in formerly-satisfied members:

    1. Failing to check in on a regular basis
    2. Conversion to "internet trolls"
    3. The loss of even more satisfied members, increasing the ratio of trolls even more. At the best, this has caused the forums to be saturated with posts attempting to convert any article or statement into a past meme (from when thedailywtf.com contained amusing content). At the worst, it causes any serious post to be ridiculed in an attempt to pick a fight.

    I encourage you at minimum to take these two basic steps:

    1. Resume the daily posting of articles.
    2. Perform a quality check consisting of spelling, grammar, and readibility.

    I remain repectfully yours, Bert Glanstron

    You had me until the end...good job.

  • Michael Scott (unregistered) in reply to aptent
    aptent:
    A Formerly-Satisfied Reader:
    To Whom it May Concern,

    I have noticed that over the last couple of months the quality and frequency of the articles on this site have dropped dramatically. One or the other would probably be understood; but the templating and outright copying of past articles his reduced the satisfaction in the content, causing the following side-effects in formerly-satisfied members:

    1. Failing to check in on a regular basis
    2. Conversion to "internet trolls"
    3. The loss of even more satisfied members, increasing the ratio of trolls even more. At the best, this has caused the forums to be saturated with posts attempting to convert any article or statement into a past meme (from when thedailywtf.com contained amusing content). At the worst, it causes any serious post to be ridiculed in an attempt to pick a fight.

    I encourage you at minimum to take these two basic steps:

    1. Resume the daily posting of articles.
    2. Perform a quality check consisting of spelling, grammar, and readibility.

    I remain repectfully yours, Bert Glanstron

    You had me until the end...good job.
    That's what she said.

  • da Doctah (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Andrew:
    What made me laugh is the beginning of the standard, useless, unenforceable e-mail confidentiality disclaimer at the end of the EDI mail. A lot of good that waste of space has done them, now hasn't it?

    When will people realize that once you stick an e-mail out on the interwebs, you no longer own or control it?

    So please, please, please stop adding a 14 line disclaimer to all of your e-mails. It's really annoying to get a one work message like "ok" or "thanks" followed by a 200 word essay on how you're going to sue my ass if I so much as even acknowledge your existence.

    Some organizations (try to) require it by policy. Some force it by having the mail server automatically append it.

    The best, however, are the combination of the two, when a user adds a disclaimer due to policy, but is unaware that the policy is already enforced automatically by the mail server. Now there are two 14 line disclaimers at the bottom of every email they send.

    Who hasn't worked with someone like this?

    Or my previous employer, who insisted on two disclaimers thus:

    {Company redacted} made the following annotations on Tue Jan 04 2011 11:15:41


    "This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."

    {Company redacted} a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Tue Jan 04 2011 11:15:41

    Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci.

  • neminem (unregistered)

    I can top that: a year ago, one of our resellers sent the entire company an email. His signature contained his name, title, two phone numbers, email, url, and then two different, lengthy confidentiality agreements in which we were notified that his email might contain privileged or proprietary information, we should delete it if we got it in error, don't distribute it to anyone ever or even so much as mention its existence to anyone, etc.

    The contents of the message? "Happy birthday!"

    I kept that one in my "amusing emails" file.

  • Gern Blaanston (cs) in reply to frits
    "I was trying to install the latest JDK," writes Remy Porter
    You had me up to this point.
  • golddog (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Andrew:
    What made me laugh is the beginning of the standard, useless, unenforceable e-mail confidentiality disclaimer at the end of the EDI mail. A lot of good that waste of space has done them, now hasn't it? <snip>
    Some organizations (try to) require it by policy. Some force it by having the mail server automatically append it. <snip>

    I once worked for an organization which wanted me to append the "This email should only be read by the intended recipient..."-type of disclaimer to my emails.

    So I asked them exactly how a recipient was supposed to know they weren't the intended recipient and not read the message. Further, since the disclaimer comes after the message, even if they knew they weren't the intended recipient, how would they erase that reading, since they've already gotten through the message to see the disclaimer?

    After not being able to provide an answer of any kind, they told me to "just add the disclaimer".

    I can't remember if "you" or "off" was the second word I used.

  • Jerry (unregistered)

    If you stare at those panties without blinking for 30 seconds and then glance over to a completely white surface, you can see the face of Jesus reproaching you for your sins.

    Don't ask me how I know.

  • Sudo (unregistered) in reply to apaq11
    apaq11:
    I thought 'LED Tribute 3.avi' was overrated. When they killed off the all the main characters in 'LED Tribute 2.avi' I knew the series was going downhill...

    I only watch the original LED anime anyway. The whole "Tribute" arc was totally lame, not enough ninjas.

  • David Wright (unregistered) in reply to neminem
    neminem:
    I can top that: a year ago, one of our resellers sent the entire company an email <full of legal crap> plus "Happy birthday!"
    But that is not the WTF. The WTF was when lots of people replied to say "Thanks", complete with all original text plus their OWN disclaimer, using Reply All.

    But that is not TRWTF. The TRWTF was what happened when lots more people replied to say "Don't use 'Reply All'", using Reply All, and others said "Please take me off your mailing list", using Reply All, and yet others said "Stop replying to these messages", using Reply All.

    (And yes, I do remember a real situation like this. It was what convinced our directors to let us limit use of EVERYONE and similar over-large maining lists.)

  • AndyCanfield (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward

    I've been through the Oracle Java install. IMHO the WTF is not the text, it's that Oracle insists on using check boxes that nobody can recognize as check boxes and nobody can tell checked from unchecked without experience. Cute little pictures of disk drives - who ever sees a disk drive these days? - just make it more confusing. Standard browser check boxes would make it much easier to understand.

  • My Name (unregistered) in reply to GalacticCowboy
    GalacticCowboy:
    If we assume False is 0 and True is non-zero, then the first one is saying that your password cannot be blank and must be 22 characters or less. Odd limitation, but better than a lot of systems I've seen...

    If we assume False is 0 and True is 1, we can do a lot of shit.

    $root = 'Universe';
    $$root .= " ".!substr($root, -(false===!1)).L.substr($root, "2", true).f.substr($root, strlen($root)-strlen(true), !!$root);
    $of[false] = "Don't try this at home!";
    $of = strtolower(substr("$of", false, true).substr($$root, true, true));
    $of .= substr($of, true, true);
    $$of = 't'.substr("Oh my god", true, "I'm going to throw up!"+true).substr($$root, -strlen(t));
    $$$of = $root;
    $$$of = $$of.substr($$root, false, true).strtoupper($of[0]).str_replace(substr($the, false, true), false, $$$of);
    $$$root = strtolower(substr($$$of, $love-1).substr($$$of, "7", true).substr(ltrim($$root), true, true).substr($$root, !!$of[true], !!$root[true]));
    $$$of = substr($$$of, $love, 6).substr($$$of, -(true+$of[null]+1), true).w.substr($root, $root[28]+true*3+1, !null+1);
    $$$$root .= strtoupper(substr($$$root, -1*null, pow(pi(), false))).substr($root, (!$root[128]+true)*-2.5, !null+2).y.substr($$$of, false, floor(sqrt(8)));
    $$$$root .= substr(ltrim($$root), true, true).$root[true].g;
    $$of = strtolower(substr(strstr($$$of, substr($$root, !$root[4], 1)), round(sqrt(true+true)), '1')).($root[1].d);
    $of = $root;
    $root = substr("goto hell", true+true, true+true).$$root.',';
    echo "PHP is $the $root $of $all $evil!";
    
  • Techz (unregistered)
    Spencer:
    "What integer do you suppose fits in this range?"
    Seeing that boolean could be represented as 0 (false) or 1 (true), I'd say the minimum of the range is 1.

    No clue about the [object HTMLInputElement]...

  • Gern Blaanston (cs) in reply to David Wright
    But that is not the WTF. The WTF was when lots of people replied to say "Thanks", complete with all original text plus their OWN disclaimer, using Reply All.

    But that is not TRWTF. The TRWTF was what happened when lots more people replied to say "Don't use 'Reply All'", using Reply All, and others said "Please take me off your mailing list", using Reply All, and yet others said "Stop replying to these messages", using Reply All.

    We came up with an idea at work to promote safety awareness. I would send out an e-mail to everyone with a question and everyone who replied back to me with the correct answer would get a small prize.

    The fun part was that several people would send their answer using Reply To All which meant that their answer would get sent to everyone. And then other people would submit that as their answer, which was quite hilarious when the answer that got sent out to All was wrong.

Leave a comment on “A Complex Range”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article