• (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    frits:
    Who hasn't created their own custom Exception type? I mean seriously, go away.
    throw new Exception("Funny exception messages are the lamest WTF of all time.
                         It isn't smart, it isn't clever, it isn't even funny.", 
                         new Exception("Oh look, funny inner exception too! That 
                         makes me TWICE AS FUNNY!"));
    They're not smart. They're not clever. They're not even full-time employees. They just end up getting posted here because of how
    unlikable they are.
  • (cs) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    It's a comic in a newspaper. Of course it isn't funny.
  • Sven (unregistered) in reply to Delicious pie is delicious.
    Delicious pie is delicious.:
    gramie:
    I called the number and left a voicemail asking several questions very slowly, reading large sections from the letter in a slow, mentally-handicapped voice. The voicemail stopped recording after 5 minutes, but I felt good knowing that someone would have to listen all the way through!

    What do we know about that "someone?" He or she works in a call-center, probably living check to check, and has no decision making authority whatsoever, and was concerned enough about doing his or her job to listen to your voicemail all the way through.

    But you sure showed those worthless fatcats!

    You have to save that kind of thing for a time when it really counts. For example, whenever I get a robo-call that asks me to press 1 to talk to a person, I always press 1 -- the purpose is not to annoy the poor schmuck who has to talk to me, but to deprive the boss of some of the benefit of robo-calling. I don't want them to call me at all, but if they insist on inconveniencing me, they should join me by experiencing some inconvenience of their own.

    I realize that the boss only loses a trivial amount of money (to labor who could have been talking to someone else who was really interested), but if everybody acted as I do, it could make a difference.

  • (cs) in reply to plaidfluff
    plaidfluff:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    It's a comic in a newspaper. Of course it isn't funny.
    TRWTF is having the Grim Reaper right next to Family Circus.
  • Big Jerk (unregistered) in reply to Delicious pie is delicious.
    Delicious pie is delicious.:
    gramie:
    I called the number and left a voicemail asking several questions very slowly, reading large sections from the letter in a slow, mentally-handicapped voice. The voicemail stopped recording after 5 minutes, but I felt good knowing that someone would have to listen all the way through!

    What do we know about that "someone?" He or she works in a call-center, probably living check to check, and has no decision making authority whatsoever, and was concerned enough about doing his or her job to listen to your voicemail all the way through.

    But you sure showed those worthless fatcats!

    Look at it this way: I'm doing that individual and the world a favor by making the job even more unappealing than it already undoubtedly is. Hopefully, I'll be able to influence him to make the right decision and quit.

  • (cs) in reply to Big Jerk
    Big Jerk:
    Delicious pie is delicious.:
    gramie:
    I called the number and left a voicemail asking several questions very slowly, reading large sections from the letter in a slow, mentally-handicapped voice. The voicemail stopped recording after 5 minutes, but I felt good knowing that someone would have to listen all the way through!

    What do we know about that "someone?" He or she works in a call-center, probably living check to check, and has no decision making authority whatsoever, and was concerned enough about doing his or her job to listen to your voicemail all the way through.

    But you sure showed those worthless fatcats!

    Look at it this way: I'm doing that individual and the world a favor by making the job even more unappealing than it already undoubtedly is. Hopefully, I'll be able to influence him to make the right decision and quit.

    Who said activism was dead?

  • caper (unregistered)

    Last week I had to use a system that needed a password of 6 to 8 chars, must be of mixed case and must contain a digit or special char.

    Come-on this is 2011, what's the deal with 8 chars maximum.

  • (cs) in reply to caper
    caper:
    Last week I had to use a system that needed a password of 6 to 8 chars, must be of mixed case and must contain a digit or special char.

    Come-on this is 2011, what's the deal with 8 chars maximum.

    The password text field in the DB was once configured to take eight characters at maximum, maybe to keep the size of the DB small, or maybe they didn't want the passwords to be too long in case they had to look it up and give it to the user. Be thankful you can use special characters!

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    The woman is the grim reaper's wife. Think about it.

    It's dark humor.

    Well, that wasn't apparent to me, but now that I know, I have to ask: if they're sharing the same bed, can the woman legitimately claim that every night she has a brush with death?

    And when they play chess, can she not resist the urge to move pieces when her husband isn't looking?

  • (cs) in reply to plaidfluff
    plaidfluff:
    I had submitted a screenshot like this about a year ago when the problem first started occurring - Twitter had completely changed their developer API at one point, and to phase the old API out they slowly reduced the rate limit to 0, permanently. Unfortunately, the makers of Twitterrific did a terrible job of letting people know about the fact that the app had been updated for the new API when the rate limiting change went into effect, and so a lot of people were (and apparently still are) running an old, no-longer-functional version of Twitterrific.

    Anyway, Twitterrific 3.2.4 fixed the problem, in August of 2010.

    Thanks for sharing! Didn't know that.

  • The Bird is the Word (unregistered)

    99 roses are in a bouquet, 99 roses to sell! take one out, drop the price a bit... 98 roses are in the bouquet!

  • anonymous_coward (unregistered)

    That CitiFi letter was scary till I realized it was from 2008. That could have just killed my afternoon with production emer tickets.

  • Ken B. (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    In the first, the caller dialed my number, then put me on hold and forgot about the call, so I had to listen to 20 minutes of the company's radio station recorded on my voice mail. When I asked him about it later, he said that he had wondered why his phone wasn't working properly afterward...
    And robocallers getting voicemail are fun (FSVO) as well.

    "Please hold for an important message... [music] Please hold for an important message... [music] Please hold for[click] Can I talk to $(NAME) please?... Can I talk to $(NAME) please?... Hello?... Hello?... [click]"

    Yes, it's such an important message that they have a robocaller call us, and that robocaller doesn't know about voicemail, so when a human finally gets on the line at their end, they have no clue they were talking to a machine.

  • Ken B. (unregistered) in reply to Carl
    Carl:
    Chances are, you'll save on interest too
    Well my other bank only charges $0.00 per month on my $0.00 loan, so to beat that you'll have to be paying me. Yeah, gimme that check. In fact I'll take 100 of them!
    Long distance phone providers don't seem to understand that type of logic.

    "We can save you money on long distance by switching to us." "We don't make long distance calls on this line, so our bill is $0. Are you willing to pay us every month to switch to you?"

    We usually have to tell them that several times before they realize it's a losing battle.

  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to Rank Amateur
    Rank Amateur:
    boog:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    The woman is the grim reaper's wife. Think about it.

    It's dark humor.

    Well, that wasn't apparent to me, but now that I know, I have to ask: if they're sharing the same bed, can the woman legitimately claim that every night she has a brush with death?

    And when they play chess, can she not resist the urge to move pieces when her husband isn't looking?

    TRWTF is that this was funnier than the cartoon was, even after having the cartoon explained.

  • Ken B. (unregistered) in reply to da Doctah
    da Doctah:
    plaidfluff:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    It's a comic in a newspaper. Of course it isn't funny.
    TRWTF is having the Grim Reaper right next to Family Circus.
    But, by the time the Grim Reaper follows that dotted line to his "victim", they'll be long gone, and perfectly safe.

    Captcha: commoveo... Santana's latest hit.

  • North Shore Beach Bum (unregistered) in reply to Bill
    Bill:
    To be fair, Citi did say if you'd like more than $0, just ask and maybe we'll approve it. I used to work in a bank, and we would usually go as much as 200% of the original amount, if the person begged enough.

    200% of 0 is still 0.

  • Ted Powell (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic

    Perhaps they really are asking whether you want to grasp the coverage by one end and swing it about!

  • ConE (unregistered) in reply to My Name
    My Name:
    caper:
    Last week I had to use a system that needed a password of 6 to 8 chars, must be of mixed case and must contain a digit or special char.

    Come-on this is 2011, what's the deal with 8 chars maximum.

    The password text field in the DB was once configured to take eight characters at maximum, maybe to keep the size of the DB small, or maybe they didn't want the passwords to be too long in case they had to look it up and give it to the user. Be thankful you can use special characters!

    TFWTF is that they probably are recording your password. That's a huge no-no. You don't give people their passwords, you shouldn't be able to get it yourself. Should be hashed and salted with a side of green eggs and ham... uh, well, without the green eggs and ham. Either way, if they are storing the password in plain text, limiting you to 8 chars, and/or not letting you use special chars... well, you should be using different passwords on every site anyway, but not everyone does... saepius for the captcha

  • Stark (unregistered) in reply to ConE
    WhiskeyJack:
    I don't get the password one.

    The password field is blank, so of course it's asking for a longer password.

    If the joke is that there WAS a longer password, well, we can't see that from the screenshot.

    Also: Nepean, ON? That's where I am right now!

    Addendum (2011-01-28 12:58): Oh, must NOT be longer... oops. I get it now.

    ConE:
    "Your password must not be longer than 8 characters." in the error was the WTF they were talking about. It was 0 chars, so how could it be longer... unless I missed something.

    ideo!

    The point is that the submitter used a password longer than 8 characters. The application then complained that the password was too long. As an addendum to the specific error "password must not be more than 8 chars" the application also spat out that "the password should be more complex".

    TRWTF is that the submitter thinks these two errors are necessarily contradictory. For all we know the submitter's password could be a dictionary word, which would make it significantly less complex than 8 "random" characters. In fact, for all we know, the submitter discovered via trial and error that the system would not take passwords longer than 8 characters and also performed some rudimentary dictionary based password strength test and failed any weak passwords. Armed with that knowledge the submitter could have purposefully generated the error dialog because at least a quarter of these images are perfectly rationale outcomes to idiotic requests submitted by the intellectually and maturity challenged followers of this site.

  • ConE (unregistered) in reply to Stark
    Stark:

    The point is that the submitter used a password longer than 8 characters. The application then complained that the password was too long. As an addendum to the specific error "password must not be more than 8 chars" the application also spat out that "the password should be more complex".

    TRWTF is that the submitter thinks these two errors are necessarily contradictory. For all we know the submitter's password could be a dictionary word, which would make it significantly less complex than 8 "random" characters. In fact, for all we know, the submitter discovered via trial and error that the system would not take passwords longer than 8 characters and also performed some rudimentary dictionary based password strength test and failed any weak passwords. Armed with that knowledge the submitter could have purposefully generated the error dialog because at least a quarter of these images are perfectly rationale outcomes to idiotic requests submitted by the intellectually and maturity challenged followers of this site.

    lol, apparently I didn't read what I was copying either... Didn't even realize that it said "must not be longer than 8" and read it as "must be longer than 8"... See I did miss something. Why do they still require less than 8 rather than updating to a new DB? Doesn't make sense.

  • (cs) in reply to Sven
    Sven:
    You have to save that kind of thing for a time when it really counts. For example, whenever I get a robo-call that asks me to press 1 to talk to a person, I *always* press 1 -- the purpose is not to annoy the poor schmuck who has to talk to me, but to deprive the boss of some of the benefit of robo-calling. I don't want them to call me at all, but if they insist on inconveniencing me, they should join me by experiencing some inconvenience of their own.

    I do that and then I put them on hold, so when they pick up, there's just music, and it's BAD music too :)

  • Red (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    Ha, that actually IS funny!

  • (cs) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    Rank Amateur:
    boog:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    The woman is the grim reaper's wife. Think about it.

    It's dark humor.

    Well, that wasn't apparent to me, but now that I know, I have to ask: if they're sharing the same bed, can the woman legitimately claim that every night she has a brush with death?

    And when they play chess, can she not resist the urge to move pieces when her husband isn't looking?

    TRWTF is that this was funnier than the cartoon was, even after having the cartoon explained.

    Actually, that's fairly normal. Jokes tend to be a little less funny when you have to explain them.

  • (cs) in reply to Ken B.
    Ken B.:
    da Doctah:
    plaidfluff:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    It's a comic in a newspaper. Of course it isn't funny.
    TRWTF is having the Grim Reaper right next to Family Circus.
    But, by the time the Grim Reaper follows that dotted line to his "victim", they'll be long gone, and perfectly safe.

    Captcha: commoveo... Santana's latest hit.

    And Billy will at least be Age 9.

  • airdrik (unregistered) in reply to North Shore Beach Bum
    North Shore Beach Bum:
    Bill:
    To be fair, Citi did say if you'd like more than $0, just ask and maybe we'll approve it. I used to work in a bank, and we would usually go as much as 200% of the original amount, if the person begged enough.

    200% of 0 is still 0.

    But it's 200% bigger, which makes it better!

    Now can I get that in USD please?

  • airdrik (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    And Billy will at least be Age 9.
    Finally, after all these years.

    (TRWTF is that I just got the same captcha twice)

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to airdrik
    airdrik:
    JamesQMurphy:
    And Billy will at least be Age 9.
    Finally, after all these years.

    (TRWTF is that I just got the same captcha twice)

    airdrik:
    North Shore Beach Bum:
    Bill:
    To be fair, Citi did say if you'd like more than $0, just ask and maybe we'll approve it. I used to work in a bank, and we would usually go as much as 200% of the original amount, if the person begged enough.

    200% of 0 is still 0.

    But it's 200% bigger, which makes it better!

    Now can I get that in USD please?

    3 minutes apart. Same guy?

  • (cs) in reply to Delicious pie is delicious.
    Delicious pie is delicious.:
    gramie:
    I called the number and left a voicemail asking several questions very slowly, reading large sections from the letter in a slow, mentally-handicapped voice. The voicemail stopped recording after 5 minutes, but I felt good knowing that someone would have to listen all the way through!

    What do we know about that "someone?" He or she works in a call-center, probably living check to check, and has no decision making authority whatsoever, and was concerned enough about doing his or her job to listen to your voicemail all the way through.

    But you sure showed those worthless fatcats!

    Actually, the phone number was for the local office. Do you really think a call centre would have voicemail? Not much point in a call centre then!

    And, in case you have never seen the Citi Financial letters, they offer to lend you money at the bargain price of 30%/year plus fees. These guys are low-lifes preying on the poor just like cheque-cashing places.

    They also, in the terms, reserve the right to contact you with other products, services, and/or solicitations for two years after your last payment to them.

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to Sven
    Sven:
    whenever I get a robo-call that asks me to press 1 to talk to a person, I *always* press 1 -- the purpose is not to annoy the poor schmuck who has to talk to me, but to deprive the boss of some of the benefit of robo-calling.
    That's why I always send in those prepaid reply envelopes -- empty. You waste my time, I waste your money.
  • SomeYoungGuy (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    Aren't funny exceptions funny by definition?

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    Sven:
    whenever I get a robo-call that asks me to press 1 to talk to a person, I *always* press 1 -- the purpose is not to annoy the poor schmuck who has to talk to me, but to deprive the boss of some of the benefit of robo-calling.
    That's why I always send in those prepaid reply envelopes -- empty. You waste my time, I waste your money.
    Who hasn't done something like this?
  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Ralph:
    Sven:
    whenever I get a robo-call that asks me to press 1 to talk to a person, I *always* press 1 -- the purpose is not to annoy the poor schmuck who has to talk to me, but to deprive the boss of some of the benefit of robo-calling.
    That's why I always send in those prepaid reply envelopes -- empty. You waste my time, I waste your money.
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    Me. But I like the idea. I just never thought of it.
  • (cs) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    That's why I always send in those prepaid reply envelopes -- empty. You waste my time, I waste your money.

    Nah, the real challenge is to see how much crap you can stuff in the envelope. Postage is charged by weight, right? See if you can shove in a couple of old issues of Reader's Digest.

  • (cs) in reply to WhiskeyJack

    I like to fill them with garbage. I have to pay to get rid of garbage otherwise. And why do that?

  • (cs) in reply to da Doctah
    da Doctah:
    plaidfluff:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    It's a comic in a newspaper. Of course it isn't funny.
    TRWTF is having the Grim Reaper right next to Family Circus.
    [image]
  • neminem (unregistered) in reply to WhiskeyJack
    WhiskeyJack:
    Nah, the real challenge is to see how much crap you can stuff in the envelope. Postage is charged by weight, right? See if you can shove in a couple of old issues of Reader's Digest.
    Obligatory link to XKCD^HBash.org: www.bash.org/?127039

    Also, http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/566/can-i-mail-a-brick-back-to-a-junk-mail-firm-using-the-business-reply-envelope

  • (cs) in reply to Nagesh Kukunoor
    Is the balance $0.02, or $0.0002? ...No, that would be Verizon!

    Regarding the "waving" of the insurance: It's quite clear that the Yes/No/Yes/No/Yes/No/Yes/No/Yes/No/... choices represent the wa(i)v(er)ing of the undecided client.

  • (cs) in reply to Power Troll
    Power Troll:
    Dan:
    Rank Amateur:
    boog:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that the comic isn't all that funny. (Or did I miss it?)
    The woman is the grim reaper's wife. Think about it.

    It's dark humor.

    Well, that wasn't apparent to me, but now that I know, I have to ask: if they're sharing the same bed, can the woman legitimately claim that every night she has a brush with death?

    And when they play chess, can she not resist the urge to move pieces when her husband isn't looking?

    TRWTF is that this was funnier than the cartoon was, even after having the cartoon explained.

    Actually, that's fairly normal. Jokes tend to be a little less funny when you have to explain them.

    My bad; I shouldn't have given any hints. I ruined it.

    Some of the best comics require a little bit of thought to figure out. Only enough detail is given to get the point across, no more, no less.

    Example

    I won't explain this one. If you don't get it the first time, keep looking at it until you do.

  • frits (unregistered) (unregistered) in reply to Ken B.

    TRWTF is that that ever results in a marketer talking to a real human.

  • (cs) in reply to Stark
    Stark:
    Armed with that knowledge the submitter could have purposefully generated the error dialog because at least a quarter of these images are perfectly rationale outcomes to idiotic requests submitted by the intellectually and maturity challenged followers of this site.
    Excuse me; I just farted.
  • (cs) in reply to TarquinWJ
    TarquinWJ:
    Is there any point in partially redacting an email address but still leaving enough information to read it? Something about computer, smartie, on, gmail (the email address turns up on a web search). Is there a joke in there somewhere (too lazy to do a proper job of working it out), or was it just a really bad redaction job?

    (Edit; piskvorr ninja)

    It's the submitter's job to redact.

  • TK (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Ralph:
    Sven:
    whenever I get a robo-call that asks me to press 1 to talk to a person, I *always* press 1 -- the purpose is not to annoy the poor schmuck who has to talk to me, but to deprive the boss of some of the benefit of robo-calling.
    That's why I always send in those prepaid reply envelopes -- empty. You waste my time, I waste your money.
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    It was a somewhat common practice many decades ago in the US for companies to ship you some merchandise you never asked for. With this unwanted merchandise, they included a letter which informed you that you must either send them a check for the goods, or return the item with a pre-paid shipping label.

    Of course this was a major nuisance. If you didn't pay or return the item, these companies would send you nasty letters threatening to turn you over to a collection agency. For something you never needed, wanted, or asked for.

    One of my high school teachers received a watch in the mail this way. He didn't want the crappy watch, so he decided to return it. But he also figured if they were going to inconvenience him, he'd return the favor.

    He did return the watch, but this is how he did it. First, he went down to the local hardware store and purchased two cinder blocks and some twine. He then placed the watch between the two cinder blocks, tied them together, stuck the return shipping label on the outside and shipped it back to the vendor.

    He never heard from that company again!

  • michael (unregistered)

    Actually, it's €1,95 per rose... Perfectly linear (at least for the 90-100 bit I looked at)

  • Zongo (unregistered)

    More like Flapping Coverage.

  • foo (unregistered) in reply to North Shore Beach Bum
    North Shore Beach Bum:
    Bill:
    To be fair, Citi did say if you'd like more than $0, just ask and maybe we'll approve it. I used to work in a bank, and we would usually go as much as 200% of the original amount, if the person begged enough.

    200% of 0 is still 0.

    And the I-got-the-joke award goes to ...

  • foo (unregistered) in reply to My Name
    My Name:
    Jasmine:
    I didn't do the calculations on the numbers for the flowers, but when I worked in a flower shop, it didn't follow a regular bulk formula. So, 2 roses are not twice as expensive as one. The prices are for *arrangements* of X flowers. There's a fixed cost for arrangement materials like foam and baby's breath, and adding another flower doesn't increase that cost. So - it's a WTF, but I understand why they have to do it that way. Possibly TRWTF with that one is that they make available the arrangements with weird numbers of flowers - you don't buy 99 roses and you certainly don't buy 98...

    From what one can see in the picture, one might guess it's EUR 1,95 per "lange rode rozen" (not sure whether this is plural or singular). So, even though you're right, in this case there is a quite obvious pattern/formula for the prices.

    In fact, "99 lange rode rozen" is the Dutch version of "99 Luftballons".

  • Cheng (unregistered)

    TRWTF in rose case is IE. But anyway, small checkbox would have fixed that

  • grumpy (unregistered) in reply to caper
    caper:
    Last week I had to use a system that needed a password of 6 to 8 chars, must be of mixed case and must contain a digit or special char.

    Come-on this is 2011, what's the deal with 8 chars maximum.

    It's probably some conspiracy thing going on. The <insert TLA here> don't want to work too hard to crack the password and made a backdoor into the system to insert this rule. Or something. Tin-foil hat time.

  • exception (unregistered) in reply to SomeYoungGuy
    SomeYoungGuy:
    Aren't funny exceptions funny by definition?
    No, because they're exceptions.

Leave a comment on “An Empty Offer”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article