• (cs)

What about people who have fatal heart attacks three times a day with meals in order to stave off pills?

• (cs)

Well, I haven't had a fatal heart attack. Yet.

hytyt'çè(ty'(uiu < NO CARRIER

• Micah (unregistered)

Forget the fancy unblurring software, I think I can read that policy number without it.

• (cs) in reply to Micah
Micah:
Forget the fancy unblurring software, I think I can read that policy number without it.

You're right... Half a cup of social engineering, and voila! Identity theft pie!

mmmm, pie...

• (cs)

What's wrong with the Nescafe? You're assuming both are EXACTLY 7oz, but if the first is 198g and the second is 200g, both can be rounded to 7oz when converted. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

• Caffeine (unregistered)

OK, so the Fatal one is either just stupid, or to make sure people are actually answering the questions, but theoretically given a few different definitions of fatal it IS possible to answer something other than 'never'....

The grams/ounces one I'm not sure what the issue is...
198 grams is ~7oz. If they have another produce that is 200 grams would they realistically say 7.05oz?

Lastly how can we be sure that insurance age 16 screenshot wasn't taken 20 years ago (admittedly by the secret society that had access to technology not yet invented...)

• Juan (unregistered)

Carlos S. really needs to retake math and learn about significant digits.

Yes, both of these are correct: 198g = 7oz 200g = 7oz

• Robb (unregistered)

I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

• empire (unregistered)

What language is that in the photo kiosk image? It's a bit like PHP or Perl but both of those languages use a -> to refer to methods.

[image]

Captcha: odio, Spanish for "I hate" :)

• (cs) in reply to empire
empire:
What language is that in the photo kiosk image? It's a bit like PHP or Perl but both of those languages use a -> to refer to methods.
Maybe that was the bug...
• (cs) in reply to Robb
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

• (cs)

Technically, as "7 oz." is only one significant figure, "200 grams" is the correct answer.

• Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to C-Octothorpe
C-Octothorpe:
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

I'm surprised they would be running any lifts, most such equipment isn't very happy when run at less than -30C or so.

• (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward:
C-Octothorpe:
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

I'm surprised they would be running any lifts, most such equipment isn't very happy when run at less than -30C or so.

I should clarify that we didn't stay on the runs the whole day. They eventually shut the lifts down, but mostly because all the snow at the peak had blown off exposing a sheet of slick ice. And you can imagine skiing on ice is hard, and painful.

• SkinnyJoe (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward:
C-Octothorpe:
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

I'm surprised they would be running any lifts, most such equipment isn't very happy when run at less than -30C or so.

• Robb (unregistered)
Nagesh:
C-Octothorpe:
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

I am in India and I don't like cold wether. If it tempereter go down to 10C I light fire and sit next to it.

Yes because people typically go skiing with those conditions...

• (cs) in reply to empire
empire:
What language is that in the photo kiosk image? It's a bit like PHP or Perl but both of those languages use a -> to refer to methods.

Looks a lot like velocity, a templating engine for Java. I only know this because I've had the misfortune of debugging some of my company's velocity code recently...

• doctor_of_common_sense (unregistered) in reply to SkinnyJoe
SkinnyJoe:
Anonymous Coward:
C-Octothorpe:
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

I'm surprised they would be running any lifts, most such equipment isn't very happy when run at less than -30C or so.

Yes, but what do you do when the equipment becomes \$strings.canadian and the temperature gets stuck at \$strings.temperature ?

• (cs) in reply to Robb
Robb:
Nagesh:
C-Octothorpe:
Robb:
I remember skiing at this little resort in Michigan. The high was something like 2 degrees. After a single run you had to go warm up for 20 minutes!

I recall skiing where it was -52C at the peak (-47 without windchill). I had four layers, ski goggles and a neoprene mask. I was fine. I'm Canadian...

I am in India and I don't like cold wether. If it tempereter go down to 10C I light fire and sit next to it.

Yes because people typically go skiing with those conditions...

Yes, it's called water skiing...

• Not a coffee drinker (unregistered)

All you idiots commenting need to take a better look at that label.

• Anon (unregistered) in reply to The MAZZTer
The MAZZTer:
What's wrong with the Nescafe? You're assuming both are EXACTLY 7oz, but if the first is 198g and the second is 200g, both can be rounded to 7oz when converted. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

No, no, no. We want to see a label that says "7oz (198.44666 grams)" so then we can post that on TDWTF and laugh at it.

• (cs) in reply to pjt33
pjt33:
empire:
What language is that in the photo kiosk image? It's a bit like PHP or Perl but both of those languages use a -> to refer to methods.
Maybe that was the bug...

I don't have the answer, but I'd guess that it's not an actual programming language, and that they're not methods.

• Anon (unregistered)

Don't get the problem with the label. One is English and one is Spanish. Everybody knows that math is different in Spain.

• (cs) in reply to Anon
Anon:
Don't get the problem with the label. One is English and one is Spanish. Everybody knows that math is different in Spain.

That's just stupid... Everyone knows they don't have math in Spain.

• (cs) in reply to Steve The Cynic
Steve The Cynic:
Well, I haven't had a fatal heart attack. Yet.

I have, twice. It hurts really bad the first time, but for those of us who like to be thorough, dying twice ensures you are dead.

• Dotan Cohen (unregistered) in reply to C-Octothorpe
C-Octothorpe:
And you can imagine skiing on ice is hard, and painful.

Skiing on ice is easy. Stopping and steering is rather difficult, though!

Captcha: appellatio. Going down on a fruit.

• Anonymous (unregistered)

Does anyone else think that the Adobe Acrobat Pro one might be caused by a pirate/cracked installer that sets the date to the future just for the duration of the installation, just so the user gets decades of trial evaluation time?

• (cs) in reply to Anonymous
Anonymous:
Does anyone else think that the Adobe Acrobat Pro one might be caused by a pirate/cracked installer that sets the date to the future just for the duration of the installation, just so the user gets decades of trial evaluation time?

Stop ruining it for the rest of us...

• (cs) in reply to Caffeine
Caffeine:
Lastly how can we be sure that insurance age 16 screenshot wasn't taken 20 years ago (admittedly by the secret society that had access to technology not yet invented...)

That explains the location of the window controls. 20 years ago, Ubuntu had them on the right side.

• cappeca (unregistered) in reply to The MAZZTer
The MAZZTer:
What's wrong with the Nescafe? You're assuming both are EXACTLY 7oz, but if the first is 198g and the second is 200g, both can be rounded to 7oz when converted. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Problem is that you've been stolen of 2g of coffee if you buy the lighter one. 200g should be standard. In a production of 10.000 coffee jars, Nestle has saved 20kg of coffee, another 100 jars to sell.

Small, but profitable, all because you don't care about 2g of coffee and the industry standard.

• anon (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
Anonymous:
Does anyone else think that the Adobe Acrobat Pro one might be caused by a pirate/cracked installer that sets the date to the future just for the duration of the installation, just so the user gets decades of trial evaluation time?

That is correct, I once had the same crack. And for the Nescafe one, one is Spanish and one is English. The English one was probably measured in ounces, and the converted to grams, so 198.4.... was rounded down to 198. The Spanish one was measured in grams, and the ounces were rounded down to 7. Not really a WTF.

• (cs)

The last one might be due to two bugs: a localization error, which means that the "13" might be interpreted as the month; and the error handling, which totally fails and ends up claiming the user is too young when the real "problem" is that the date is invalid.

• The RealWTF (unregistered)

I think the wrong portion of the image is circled in #5.

The real WTF isn't that Acrobat can be installed in the future to avoid expiration, but rather that its nearly 2GB when installed. Last time I checked, it was a glorified document converter. What the f'ing hell did they jam in there to bloat that thing up to 100x the size it should be? (and that's giving it some liberty knowing that internationalization of Windows apps adds huge bloat)

• Bookrat (unregistered) in reply to The MAZZTer

Another perfectly reasonable explanation of the coffee container discrepancy could be that they are using ounces as a measurement of the volume, rather than as a unit of mass. The bottles are clearly different: perhaps the contents are different as well, and one volume-ounce of one product weighs slightly less than a volume-ounce of the other product.

Or maybe that's not reasonable at all. I really don't know much about archaic measurment units, given that I'm in one of the every-industrialized-country-in-the-world-except-the-US countries that has adopted a much more sensible system -- that is to say, one which doesn't use identical words to describe both mass-based and volumetric measurements.

"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"

• (cs) in reply to empire
empire:
What language is that in the photo kiosk image? It's a bit like PHP or Perl but both of those languages use a -> to refer to methods.

Captcha: odio, Spanish for "I hate" :)

Maybe it's really bad Ruby code?

• Meep (unregistered) in reply to cappeca
cappeca:
The MAZZTer:
What's wrong with the Nescafe? You're assuming both are EXACTLY 7oz, but if the first is 198g and the second is 200g, both can be rounded to 7oz when converted. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Problem is that you've been stolen of 2g of coffee if you buy the lighter one. 200g should be standard. In a production of 10.000 coffee jars, Nestle has saved 20kg of coffee, another 100 jars to sell.

Small, but profitable, all because you don't care about 2g of coffee and the industry standard.

Just goes to show: if it weren't for metric, we wouldn't have these problems.

• Bruce W (unregistered)

The heart attack question reminds me of a health assessment my wife took that asked whether she had a hysterectomy. The options were: Yes, No, Not Sure. Is Not Sure for women that don't know what the word "Hysterectomy" means?

• (cs) in reply to Bruce W
Bruce W:
The heart attack question reminds me of a health assessment my wife took that asked whether she had a hysterectomy. The options were: Yes, No, Not Sure. Is Not Sure for women that don't know what the word "Hysterectomy" means?
Well, she was presumably given anesthesia for the "hysterectomy" operation. So she can't really prove either way that it was performed without some form of external verification.

Likewise patients given anesthesia sometimes forget information given during the hours before the anesthesia, such as "We're about to perform a hysterectomy on you, Mrs. W."

• (cs)

If a heart attack is a period of time where the heart does not beat... well I have about 80000 heart attacks a day

• Anonymoose (unregistered)

The last one is just bad javascript code.

Date().getYear() returns awkward values, sometimes it returns getFullYear(), sometimes it returns since the epoch. It has now since been depreciated in ECMAScript 5, but it was for full use in ECMAScript 3.

Not sure what the WTF is, just cross-browser bugs. Welcome to my life of supporting 5+ runtimes (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE7+)

• Machtyn (unregistered)

Looking at the insurance one, I'm sure you all noticed the year, but what about the date. It's wonderful (sarcasm) how the US system of writing dates are rather ambiguous. Supposing that the date checker is using the US system, 13/10/1976 would be when: Jan 10, 1977 or "invalid date"?

It's really too bad we didn't standardize on the 24 hour clock and yyyy/mm/dd standard.

• (cs) in reply to The RealWTF
The RealWTF:
I think the wrong portion of the image is circled in #5.

The real WTF isn't that Acrobat can be installed in the future to avoid expiration, but rather that its nearly 2GB when installed. Last time I checked, it was a glorified document converter. What the f'ing hell did they jam in there to bloat that thing up to 100x the size it should be? (and that's giving it some liberty knowing that internationalization of Windows apps adds huge bloat)

It's really worrying once you think about it.

• Machtyn (unregistered)

Of course, if I look at the instruction text next to it, I'd notice that they specify dd/mm/yyyy. Perhaps it's a programmer error. :-/

• Jerry (unregistered) in reply to Machtyn
Machtyn:
It's really too bad we didn't standardize on the 24 hour clock and yyyy/mm/dd standard.
We did. It is just that some people steadfastly refuse to gain consciousness.
• (cs) in reply to Machtyn
Machtyn:
Looking at the insurance one, I'm sure you all noticed the year, but what about the date. It's wonderful (sarcasm) how the US system of writing dates are rather ambiguous. Supposing that the date checker is using the US system, 13/10/1976 would be when: Jan 10, 1977 or "invalid date"?

It's really too bad we didn't standardize on the 24 hour clock and yyyy-mm-dd standard.

FTFY. Using slashes breaks too many things (filenames, URLs, regexps, etc).

• Tunderrik (unregistered)

I had a fatal heart attack once. Good thing I was able to restore from a recent backup. Really, it's just common sense. Those who don't bother to make backups deserve everything that happens to them.

• bob (unregistered) in reply to C-Octothorpe
C-Octothorpe:
They eventually shut the lifts down, but mostly because all the snow at the peak had blown off exposing a sheet of slick ice. And you can imagine skiing on ice is hard, and painful.

Those of us who ski on the east coast don't have to imagine, that's all we ever do!

• Ralph (unregistered)

I certainly hope it is 2074 before I have to encounter Adobe Acrobat again!

• (cs)
Syl Bou wonders, "if I chose No, what is it going to do again?"
"Disable HTML in this post" is a checkbox.

'Always uncheck the "Disable HTML in this post" box' unchecks said box for you automatically.

It's not really that hard to understand if you can parse sentences, particularly since they already put the checkbox name in quotes.

If it makes it any easier for you, think of it like this: "Always uncheck the \$checkboxName box" (since this is likely some PHP bulletin board we're referring to)

• (cs) in reply to pjt33

I wonder if it is using Apache's Velocity?