• DF (unregistered) in reply to kluminotty

    I've discovered this site while working with a contractor on a database project.  I've done a fair amount of programming but have very little database experience.

    After reading some very funny posts here... and not understanding why some of them are funny, I think this site could be an excellent way to weed out job candidates for database/programming jobs.  If a candidate can't spot why the post made it on the site,  then you don't want to hire them!

  • Memory Doesn't Serve (unregistered) in reply to nobody
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    i see! they mispelled mov[e] three times! someone needs to read their dos books...
    captcha=gene is an anarachist

    Ahh well... four times actually. And if memory serves me dos always spelt move as r-e-n-a-m-e. I think I know who really needs to brush up on their dos skillz :-)


    The DOS <code>move</code> command was introduced in DOS 6.0. Previously, the best way to move a file was to <code>ren</code>ame it.

  • dbalad123 (unregistered)

    In the absence of explicit key relationships (referential integrity) it is possible to enforce a relationship through the use of triggers it is possible this was happening.

  • EvilSquid (unregistered) in reply to Memory Doesn't Serve

    <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffbf0">???  what ???  </FONT>

    <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffbf0">REN changes the name of a file, leaving the renamed file in the original location.  One of the few things this could not help do is move a file to a new location.  The way to "move" a file was to copy it and then delete it. Thank the gods for the Move command, and later for the graphical file management utility.</FONT>

    <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffbf0">dos skillz indeed...</FONT>

    <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffbf0"></FONT> 

    Be Kind To Others, They Outnumber You Several Billion To One!

  • (cs) in reply to Mikademus
    Mikademus:
    Redundancy is good; makes for stable programs. Multiple redundancy is thus better.

    Redundancy does the precise opposite. It makes for unstable programs when all the redundant parts are not kept in sync.

    Pete

  • (cs) in reply to mynab

    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    pattern:
    all columns are same
    and the row data is same as the row index

    values in record 494 = 494, same in each column.
     


    The only fact of seriously answering this question is a WTF in itself. I am always amazed to see that some WTF readers are probably good WTF creators themselves!

    mynab

    You're ironic, right? Right... RIGHT?!? WTF!!!

  • (cs) in reply to aol kiddie

    >>> aol kiddie <<<:
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    > Can you guess what values are in record 494?

    42 has to be the answer!


    I agree!
    me 2!

    Ah, a classic :) Need some more exclamation marks and some 1s too though.

  • (cs) in reply to Cooper

    Cooper:
    The real wtf is that it is NOT RECORD 494, it is ROW 494. Clue: if you missed the prose, the screenshot has the word TABLE in the titlebar.

    Don't any of you know what databases are???

    By the way, I am burning in the suspense - could somebody puhleeze tel me what IS in row 494?

    I actually think there was a bright fella that had it figured out earlier... It's supposedly 494... No idea how he came to that conclusion though :(

  • (cs) in reply to impslayer
    impslayer:

    Cooper:
    The real wtf is that it is NOT RECORD 494, it is ROW 494. Clue: if you missed the prose, the screenshot has the word TABLE in the titlebar.

    Don't any of you know what databases are???

    By the way, I am burning in the suspense - could somebody puhleeze tel me what IS in row 494?

    I actually think there was a bright fella that had it figured out earlier... It's supposedly 494... No idea how he came to that conclusion though :(

     

     

    I believe he added 1 to 493

     

     

  • hammerHead (unregistered) in reply to Yo

    hmmm -

    are you all fools?
    can't you see this data has been normalized to the NULL normal form?

    hammerHead:

    whn all you've got is a nail - everything looks...

  • erm... (unregistered) in reply to nobody

    It's not DOS (as pointed out much, much earlier), it's Assembly.

  • erm... (unregistered) in reply to erm...
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    haresh kumarski:
    This reminds me of a time when I encountered a WTF years and years ago.  I had just hired on to a small startup company when I was given the task of fixing a small defect in the inventory control application.  Imagine my shock and dismay when I came across this little gem:
    <SNIP>
    mov    eax, 3           
    mov    edx, 1           
    mov    ecx, va682    
    mov    ebx, 1          
    int 0x80

    </SNIP>
    I can't image what the programmer was thinking!!!  Seeing the CnPrAI_LINK column was liking having a LSD flashback where swirling lines of code mingle with burning palm fronds and the smell of scorched flesh...


    i see! they mispelled mov[e] three times! someone needs to read their dos books...
    captcha=gene is an anarachist
    Ahh well... four times actually. And if memory serves me dos always spelt move as r-e-n-a-m-e. I think I know who really needs to brush up on their dos skillz :-)
    It's not DOS (as pointed out much, much earlier), it's Assembly.

    Bugger, forgot to quote.....

Leave a comment on “Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article