• (cs)
    No real design patterns
    I can't believe someone actually fessed up to that.
  • Anomaly (unregistered) in reply to Kevin
    Kevin:
    El_Heffe:
    Kell S:
    Project Information: 5000 hours worth of work in a 6 month time frame

    Team Dynamics: Lead Developer 1 other developer

    Let's see: 2 developers in 6 months = 1 man year = 52 man weeks. 5000 hours in 52 man weeks is about 100 hours/week!

    What else are you going to do in Monroe, Louisiana?

    According to the article you apparently misspell Lousiana while in Monroe.

    God Dangit Kevin you had 1 job!

  • (cs)
    iloveu (from Anon)

    We received the below here at TDWTF. Yeah...

    ________________________________________________________
From: an anonymous lover [mailto:[email protected]] 
To: Alex Papadimoulis
Subject: [AP] iloveu

dude wtf man u wer hittin on my GF amy? dude ill kick ur 
as if you ever hit on my girl again il hit u with my fist 
for seriously. do you even lift? bro i can benchp ress 
400 of youre little pipsqueak friends in one setting if 
u had that many but i bet you dont

but serioulsy brah stay away from my gf before i have to 
come show you why they called me the real wtf

    Maybe where this guy comes from WTF is automatically assumed to be a reference to the World Taekwondo Federation. You've seen it before, from people who send emails saying "so sorry to hear about your mom's death LOL" because for them LOL means "lots of love", or the three departments in your company who all have legacy applications called TMS, only the T stands for something different in each one, so communication between them is doomed.

  • me (unregistered) in reply to Loose Bree
    Loose Bree:
    No real design patterns
    I can't believe someone actually fessed up to that.
    Sounds pretty normal these days. But after all, that's what keeps this site in business!
  • (cs) in reply to da Doctah
    da Doctah:
    Maybe where this guy comes from WTF is automatically assumed to be a reference to the World Taekwondo Federation. You've seen it before, from people who send emails saying "so sorry to hear about your mom's death LOL" because for them LOL means "lots of love", or the three departments in your company who all have legacy applications called TMS, only the T stands for something different in each one, so communication between them is doomed.

    The Daily World Taekwondo Federation!

  • (cs)

    I found TRWTF.. £60k in London!

    On that kind of money I could afford spacious open plan accommodation right on the river side...

    http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/assets_c/2008/12/box-house-thumb-400x300.jpg

  • i❦ssl (unregistered) in reply to Black Bart
    Black Bart:
    The problem connecting to VPN and SSL over the hotel wireless network was likely caused by accidentally connecting to a malicious node broadcast from another room, the lobby, or a nearby building. They were hoping to frustrate users into connecting without a VPN or SSL so that they could steal credentials.

    (The "bad guy"'s signal was stronger than the hotel's Wifi, so he got the connection)

    If the only thing the bad guy is looking for is to steal credentials, why bother with the unnecessary step of frustrating users into connecting without a VPN or SSL?

  • gustav (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    initechrecruiting.com wrote:
    Development Methodology: Spiral
    Interesting model, didn't know of it before. Sounds like you talk about risks until the stakeholders give up in frustration and the project is abandoned.
    We spiral out of control all the time.....
  • Guru Evi (unregistered) in reply to Whoops

    Any e-mail client can send e-mails with a falsified From. You just fill in the wrong info and any server you're authorized to use will accept it. If the server doesn't, it's breaking some RFC's and a server that is off-standard (eg. Exchange) is a bad server.

    Off course spam filtering may mark it as spam however there is a reason From addresses may be modified (eg. secretary situation or group mailboxes)

    This is different than a number of other headers which display which account actually sent it etc.

  • Cheong (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev

    "The Deadly World Taekwondo Federation" sounds cooler. :P

  • (cs) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    initechrecruiting.com wrote:
    Development Methodology: Spiral
    Interesting model, didn't know of it before. Sounds like you talk about risks until the stakeholders give up in frustration and the project is abandoned.

    SDML

    Software Death March Lifecycle

  • (cs) in reply to Loose Bree
    Loose Bree:
    No real design patterns
    I can't believe someone actually fessed up to that.
    Makes me wonder if maybe they use Unreal design patterns. Like Out of this World!
  • (cs) in reply to nitePhyyre
    nitePhyyre:
    Can't tell if you are trolling, a massive idiot, or older than dinosaurs.
    Trolling, me? Of course. You wouldn't be the first to accuse me of idiocy, nor the last. And the less said about my age the better...

    That said, a remark suggesting that a layer 3 internetwork that dates from the late 1960s might make a 1970s layer 2 protocol obsolete is troll-worthy in its own right.

  • (cs) in reply to Guru Evi
    Guru Evi:
    Any e-mail client can send e-mails with a falsified From. You just fill in the wrong info and any server you're authorized to use will accept it. If the server doesn't, it's breaking some RFC's and a server that is off-standard (eg. Exchange) is a bad server.
    Outbound relay servers (as commonly found in ISP networks to help out their clients) probably *should* reject "From" fields that do not belong, such as:

    ISP Orange (France): the normal domain for customer email addresses is orange.fr. Each customer has a handful of user-parts registered with the servers so that incoming mail can be directed to the correct customer. I would not be upset to find that when using their outbound relay server, I cannot claim to be [email protected], nor [email protected]. In fact, I would be distressed to find that I could claim to be [email protected] (because it would mean that some.other.customer could claim to be me while using his connection).

  • Peter Wolff (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    dpm:
    Kell S:
    2 developers in 6 months = 1 man year = 52 man weeks. 5000 hours in 52 man weeks is about 100 hours/week!
    Good thing that you don't take holidays off, that you have no vacation plans, that you never get sick, that you never have any family emergencies . . . which is exactly how Microsoft planned the schedule for "Excel for Macintosh". True story, told by the project manager years later.
    That's why books like Frederick Brooks "The Mythical Man-Month" exist.

    And witticisms like "9 women can't deliver a baby in one month".

    Nothing new under the sun... The Norse deity Heimdall is said to have nine mothers.

    Btw, what is a "project manager year"? (And how do they tell stories?)

  • Oscar Carserud (unregistered) in reply to nitePhyyre

    Sdlc, Stil in use. Like f.a.t. Obsolete, but in use.

  • Taekwonzen Master (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev

    Wait a sec... This isn't the Daily World Taekwondo Federation site? Explains why I, a Taekwondo master, couldn't understand most of what was on the website. This site should change its name so that the World Taekwondo Federation can start using the name as they should be allowed to. I suggest you use worsethanfailure, because nothing could go wrong with changing to that name, and your site and probably your Taekwondo skills are worse than failure. Actually, I might take that site name, because my opponents suffer something worse than failure when they go against me.

  • (cs) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    dpm:
    Kell S:
    2 developers in 6 months = 1 man year = 52 man weeks. 5000 hours in 52 man weeks is about 100 hours/week!
    Good thing that you don't take holidays off, that you have no vacation plans, that you never get sick, that you never have any family emergencies . . . which is exactly how Microsoft planned the schedule for "Excel for Macintosh". True story, told by the project manager years later.
    That's why books like Frederick Brooks "The Mythical Man-Month" exist.

    And witticisms like "9 women can't deliver a baby in one month".

    Linus Torvalds has already disproved the Brook's theory. Have you been reading anything since 1994?

    ESR:
    The fundamental problem that traditional software-development organization addresses is Brook's Law: ``Adding more programmers to a late project makes it later.'' More generally, Brooks's Law predicts that the complexity and communication costs of a project rise with the square of the number of developers, while work done only rises linearly.

    Brooks's Law is founded on experience that bugs tend strongly to cluster at the interfaces between code written by different people, and that communications/coordination overhead on a project tends to rise with the number of interfaces between human beings. Thus, problems scale with the number of communications paths between developers, which scales as the square of the humber of developers (more precisely, according to the formula N*(N - 1)/2 where N is the number of developers).

    The Brooks's Law analysis (and the resulting fear of large numbers in development groups) rests on a hidden assummption: that the communications structure of the project is necessarily a complete graph, that everybody talks to everybody else. But on open-source projects, the halo developers work on what are in effect separable parallel subtasks and interact with each other very little; code changes and bug reports stream through the core group, and only within that small core group do we pay the full Brooksian overhead.

    Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.
  • VeeTheSecond (unregistered) in reply to Kell S
    Kell S:
    Project Information: 5000 hours worth of work in a 6 month time frame

    Team Dynamics: Lead Developer 1 other developer

    Let's see: 2 developers in 6 months = 1 man year = 52 man weeks. 5000 hours in 52 man weeks is about 100 hours/week!

    I think, I'll pass, too.

    5000/52 is only 96.15. Slacker!

  • (cs) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    nitePhyyre:
    Can't tell if you are trolling, a massive idiot, or older than dinosaurs.
    Trolling, me? Of course. You wouldn't be the first to accuse me of idiocy, nor the last. And the less said about my age the better...

    That said, a remark suggesting that a layer 3 internetwork that dates from the late 1960s might make a 1970s layer 2 protocol obsolete is troll-worthy in its own right.

    Some banks are "too big to fail."

    Similarly, you're "too old to troll."

  • (cs) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    faoileag:
    dpm:
    Kell S:
    2 developers in 6 months = 1 man year = 52 man weeks. 5000 hours in 52 man weeks is about 100 hours/week!
    Good thing that you don't take holidays off, that you have no vacation plans, that you never get sick, that you never have any family emergencies . . . which is exactly how Microsoft planned the schedule for "Excel for Macintosh". True story, told by the project manager years later.
    That's why books like Frederick Brooks "The Mythical Man-Month" exist.

    And witticisms like "9 women can't deliver a baby in one month".

    Linus Torvalds has already disproved the Brook's theory. Have you been reading anything since 1994?

    ESR:
    The fundamental problem that traditional software-development organization addresses is Brook's Law: ``Adding more programmers to a late project makes it later.'' More generally, Brooks's Law predicts that the complexity and communication costs of a project rise with the square of the number of developers, while work done only rises linearly.

    Brooks's Law is founded on experience that bugs tend strongly to cluster at the interfaces between code written by different people, and that communications/coordination overhead on a project tends to rise with the number of interfaces between human beings. Thus, problems scale with the number of communications paths between developers, which scales as the square of the humber of developers (more precisely, according to the formula N*(N - 1)/2 where N is the number of developers).

    The Brooks's Law analysis (and the resulting fear of large numbers in development groups) rests on a hidden assummption: that the communications structure of the project is necessarily a complete graph, that everybody talks to everybody else. But on open-source projects, the halo developers work on what are in effect separable parallel subtasks and interact with each other very little; code changes and bug reports stream through the core group, and only within that small core group do we pay the full Brooksian overhead.

    Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.

    The outsourcee thinks that throwing bodies at a problem is the way to fix it. Go figure.

  • None (unregistered)

    The worst post / article / whatever you call this.

    I don't know why I kept insisting on visiting this site since the quality has gone down for many days. Thanks you gave me the reason to stop reading it.

    captcha: praesent: I was reading this blog until the praesent day...

  • (cs) in reply to None
    None:
    The worst post / article / whatever you call this.

    I don't know why I kept insisting on visiting this site since the quality has gone down for many days. Thanks you gave me the reason to stop reading it.

    captcha: praesent: I was reading this blog until the praesent day...

    You missed the Hanzo stories, didn't you?

  • Nutrino (unregistered)

    No real design patterns.

    Just... wow.

  • Friedrice The Great (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Steve The Cynic:
    "Participates in the full Synchronous Data Link Control of planning, coding, testing and deploying applications"
    That was exactly what I was thinking when I got one a couple of months ago using that acronym. "Stop using decades-old IBM lock-in technologies!" I did eventually figure it out a couple of weeks later.

    I would have figured out PDLC a lot sooner.

    I knew what SDLC meant right away. I've never heard of PDLC. Is that a common term across the pond or something?

    Production of Dumb, Lousy Crap?

  • Peter Wolff (unregistered)
    It was a cold day, Gustav arrived for his first day at work clutching his laptop and some books on the Zend framework. [...] indeed he had many other interests in addition to his coding.......
    Sounds exactly like the first two thirds of a TDWTF story.
  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    Or, less formally, ``Given enough heartbeats, all bugs are shallow.''
    FTFY.
    Nagesh:
    I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.
    It wasn't his fault. Some bugs aren't shallow.
  • (cs) in reply to OldCoder
    OldCoder:
    foxyshadis:
    Even my own still hangs up or goes crazy from time to time, and it's 15 years since wifi showed up. Can't anyone make these things just work?
    Assume a spherical hotel room...
    of radius R. Let your initial position be on a great circle of the room's boundary perpendicular to the gravitational gradient (acceleration given by g), and your initial velocity V be tangential to it. Let the hotel room's boundary have a frictional coefficient fc > 0.

    Describe your subsequent path in the context of Synchronous Data Link Control.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Yes, I know that meanings change, but that doesn't make interpreting repurposed abbreviations easier.
    There are only so many TLAs and FLEAs to go around; more effort should go into developing effective ATHFLs.
  • afadas (unregistered) in reply to Black Bart

    In this case, however, it was certainly caused by The Cloud's router injecting a splash page into anything that looks like HTTP, and then causing a certificate failure because it's not got the private key of the site it's trying to impersonate.

    This kind of bogosity worked a lot better a few years ago when everything that looked like HTTP was a desktop browser, and browsers and users didn't really care about invalid certificates.

  • Guilhem (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic

    Actually yoi are wrong. We use orange, but do not use @orange.fr emails. You can use any email in the from header, and even in the envelope email. Orange identifies you by your ip, or by sasl if you want "decent" delivery delays.

  • Harrow (unregistered) in reply to The Fury
    The Fury:
    "You will be coding every day as well as overseeing other developers in a relaxed environment where you start work at 9 and finish at 5."

    Doesn't sound too bad!

    You don't understand -- that's from 9:00 AM to 5:00 AM the following day.

  • (cs)
    Article:
    Notes: Not able to do remote workers
    Is that some kind of scheme to support the local "working girl" population?
  • Charles Tetmpleton (unregistered)

    Well obviously Alex you need to stop hitting on anonymous lover's, lover.

Leave a comment on “Best of Email: (Un)Helpful Support, An Epic Opportunity, and more!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article