• snaptogridincel (unregistered)

    snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel snaptogridincel...

  • (cs) 
    
ncelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincel
snaptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnap
togridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogr
idincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogridin
celsnaptogridincelsnaptogridincels
naptogridincelsnaptogridincelsnapt
ogridincelsnaptogridincelsnaptogri
dincelsnaptogridi has unexpectedly
made a comment.

The website and other forum boards
have not been affected

Would you like to submit a bug
report to Alex Papadimoulis?

Submit Report           Cancel
  • Vollhorst (unregistered)

    I don't know if that is a severe bug. Hurts like pain and my arm has fallen of but do you call that severe? Nah...

  • Ariston (unregistered)

    it's just a flesh wound /obligatory

  • (cs)

    Does writing a comment on thedailywtf.com count as a symptom?

  • (cs) in reply to T $
    T $:
    Does writing a comment on thedailywtf.com count as a symptom?
    For some of us it's the cure!
  • anders (unregistered) in reply to Vollhorst
    Vollhorst:
    do you call that severe?

    Don't know

  • (cs)

    Oh, c'mon that snaptogrid thing can't be real. I've seen the commercials -- apples don't get bugs.

  • (cs) in reply to shadowman
    shadowman:
    Oh, c'mon that snaptogrid thing can't be real. I've seen the commercials -- apples don't get bugs.
    Last time someone told me that, my friend and I brought down every Mac in the lab just so we could make him look stupid.
  • Slater (unregistered) in reply to Kederaji
    Kederaji:
    shadowman:
    Oh, c'mon that snaptogrid thing can't be real. I've seen the commercials -- apples don't get bugs.
    Last time someone told me that, my friend and I brought down every Mac in the lab just so we could make him look stupid.
    And who looks stupid now?
  • :-X (unregistered)

    Anybody know what application has the snaptogridcel bug?

  • StickyWidget (unregistered)

    Malkovich! Malkovich malkovich, malkovich.

    Papadimoulis?

    MALKOVICH!

    ~Sticky

  • Eternally Curious (unregistered)

    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?

  • 008 (unregistered)

    The application wtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtf... Has unexpectedly quit.

  • (cs) in reply to Eternally Curious
    Eternally Curious:
    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?
    You were able to look at the postal barcode and "couldn't help but notice" whether it was valid or not?

    I bow before thee, and offer my unworthy Geek Card as a sacrifice.

  • blot (unregistered) in reply to RobertB
    RobertB:
    Eternally Curious:
    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?
    You were able to look at the postal barcode and "couldn't help but notice" whether it was valid or not?

    I bow before thee, and offer my unworthy Geek Card as a sacrifice.

    I didn't look at the code at first, but it's pretty obvious that it's been purposefully obscured, even at first glance.

  • jtrindle (unregistered) in reply to Eternally Curious

    Although the postal bar code doesn't match the one on mail which comes to me, it still looks somewhat reasonable. What clued you in, exactly?

  • Tom (unregistered)

    Doesn't surprise me. I am programmer at a print and mail vendor. We'll take crap data from anyone who is willing to transmit it to us.

  • Paul (unregistered)

    The snaptogridincel seems likely to be generated by an Excel crash. I may be wrong, but I've never seen the term snap-to-grid used in any other Mac application except for the MS Office app.

    When any third party application crashes for whatever reason on OS X, you get offered the choice of sending a bug report to Apple. Like what happens when an app crashes on Windows.

  • (cs) in reply to blot
    blot:
    RobertB:
    Eternally Curious:
    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?
    You were able to look at the postal barcode and "couldn't help but notice" whether it was valid or not?

    I bow before thee, and offer my unworthy Geek Card as a sacrifice.

    I didn't look at the code at first, but it's pretty obvious that it's been purposefully obscured, even at first glance.

    He's not talking about the 2d grid code at the postage stamp area which is clearly blurred, he's talking about the bar code at the bottom that looks like ||..|.|..|. etc - which is obscured. The reason it is obvious that it's invalid, is that it lacks a long bar at the end, which would ordinarily be present to terminate the code.

  • ProudGeekDad (unregistered)

    HeadOnApplyDirectlyToTheForeheadHeadOnApplyDirectlyToTheForehead HeadOnApplyDirectlyToTheForeheadHeadOnApplyDirectlyToTheForehead HeadOnApplyDirectlyToTheForeheadHeadOnApplyDirectlyToTheForehead

    I hate your commercials, but I looove your product!

  • jtrindle (unregistered)

    The terminator is a good catch... also those groups of three long bars in a row imply impossible characters (no characters have three long bars in a row, and the characters starting with two or ending with two would require three short bars in a row, not in evidence near the three long bar groups).

  • KT (unregistered)

    (snaptogridincel snaptogridincel)

  • (cs)

    How severe is your muscle cramps or spasms (painful)?

    • severe
    • Don't know How weak are our grasp of singular versus plural?
    • weak
    • Don't know How random are our capitalization?
    • randoM
    • Don't know How scalable is our answer choices?
    • Don't know
    • FILE_NOT_FOUND
  • snaptogridincel (unregistered)

    snap

  • verto (unregistered) in reply to snaptogridincel
    snap

    to

  • G (unregistered) in reply to verto
    snap
    to
    grid
  • (cs) in reply to G
    G:
    snap
    to
    grid
    in
  • Eternally Curious (unregistered) in reply to Random832
    Random832:
    blot:
    RobertB:
    Eternally Curious:
    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?
    You were able to look at the postal barcode and "couldn't help but notice" whether it was valid or not?

    I bow before thee, and offer my unworthy Geek Card as a sacrifice.

    I didn't look at the code at first, but it's pretty obvious that it's been purposefully obscured, even at first glance.

    He's not talking about the 2d grid code at the postage stamp area which is clearly blurred, he's talking about the bar code at the bottom that looks like ||..|.|..|. etc - which is obscured. The reason it is obvious that it's invalid, is that it lacks a long bar at the end, which would ordinarily be present to terminate the code.

    Yes, the missing long bar at the end is what tipped me off. I wanted to decode it for the fun of it, to see if I could get the address that was obscured. I took one look and saw the missing long bar at the end. I decided to try anyway, thinking maybe that was the only mistake. 8 of the 12 digits appear valid, but of course I can't confirm that they match reality. Based on the POSTNET encoding, you get: 886-829 9 (with a check digit of 5). If you assume that the other numbers are using the PLANET encoding, two more appear valid: 886-7829 92 (5). According to the list at http://www.downloadzipcode.com/88.html, there are only 19 valid zip codes that match the 886 pattern. Only two of those are valid with that check digit, 88263 and 88560. Both of these are PO Box ranges, in Malaga NM and El Paso TX. So Alex, did you get the full address in the image you were sent? Am I right? (I know you can't confirm, but maybe the submitter can.)

  • (cs) in reply to untalented_newbie
    untalented_newbie:
    G:
    snap
    to
    grid
    in
    Cel
  • (cs) in reply to Mrrix32
    Mrrix32:
    untalented_newbie:
    G:
    snap
    to
    grid
    in
    Cel
    snap
  • Stewie (unregistered) in reply to Zombie_Hunter
    Zombie_Hunter:
    Mrrix32:
    untalented_newbie:
    G:
    snap
    to
    grid
    in
    Cel
    snap
    to
  • Moo cows go moo (unregistered) in reply to Stewie
    Stewie:
    Zombie_Hunter:
    Mrrix32:
    untalented_newbie:
    G:
    snap
    to
    grid
    in
    Cel
    snap
    to
    C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! </obligatory>
  • (cs) in reply to Eternally Curious
    Eternally Curious:
    Random832:
    He's not talking about the 2d grid code at the postage stamp area which is clearly blurred, he's talking about the bar code at the bottom
    Yes, the missing long bar at the end is what tipped me off. I wanted to decode it for the fun of it, to see if I could get the address that was obscured. I took one look and saw the missing long bar at the end. I decided to try anyway, thinking maybe that was the only mistake.
    I thought you all were talking about that wavy square thing in the upper right. That looks like an obscured QR code or similar to me.
  • Eternally Curious (unregistered) in reply to fbjon
    fbjon:
    Eternally Curious:
    Random832:
    He's not talking about the 2d grid code at the postage stamp area which is clearly blurred, he's talking about the bar code at the bottom
    Yes, the missing long bar at the end is what tipped me off. I wanted to decode it for the fun of it, to see if I could get the address that was obscured. I took one look and saw the missing long bar at the end. I decided to try anyway, thinking maybe that was the only mistake.
    I thought you all were talking about that wavy square thing in the upper right. That looks like an obscured QR code or similar to me.

    Ah, yeah I can see how you'd think that. If you're not from the US, that's typically just a marking that indicates what post office received that letter. It's sometimes used for special messages as well, such as "Happy Holidays" around Christmas and other useless crap like that. I'm not sure why it looks the way it does in this instance.

    When people were saying it was obviously obscured, I thought they meant the address area right underneath the actual WTF in the image. I was trying to figure out what country puts barcodes there.

    Off Topic Post Script: Has anyone else noticed how incredibly hot the chick in the BustedTees.com ad on the left is? I can't take my eyes off her. (At least I've verified that I can type without even looking at what I'm typing, much less the keyboard! :)

  • Jamar (unregistered)

    Well, the name has DO NOT USE in it so I'm guessing that the barcode is invalid to prevent the sorting machines from sending it out in the first place (obviously they failed here).

  • Ed (unregistered) in reply to Eternally Curious
    Eternally Curious:
    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?

    I did indeed go out of my way to obscure the information. That includes blottong out my name and address, the square thing in the top right and the barcode along the bottom right.

  • Ed (unregistered) in reply to Eternally Curious
    Eternally Curious:
    Random832:
    blot:
    RobertB:
    Eternally Curious:
    I couldn't help but notice that the postal barcode on the Fidelity envelope appears to be invalid. Did you actually go out of your way to obscure that, or is there a new encoding scheme they're using that I'm not aware of?
    You were able to look at the postal barcode and "couldn't help but notice" whether it was valid or not?

    I bow before thee, and offer my unworthy Geek Card as a sacrifice.

    I didn't look at the code at first, but it's pretty obvious that it's been purposefully obscured, even at first glance.

    He's not talking about the 2d grid code at the postage stamp area which is clearly blurred, he's talking about the bar code at the bottom that looks like ||..|.|..|. etc - which is obscured. The reason it is obvious that it's invalid, is that it lacks a long bar at the end, which would ordinarily be present to terminate the code.

    Yes, the missing long bar at the end is what tipped me off. I wanted to decode it for the fun of it, to see if I could get the address that was obscured. I took one look and saw the missing long bar at the end. I decided to try anyway, thinking maybe that was the only mistake. 8 of the 12 digits appear valid, but of course I can't confirm that they match reality. Based on the POSTNET encoding, you get: 886-829 9 (with a check digit of 5). If you assume that the other numbers are using the PLANET encoding, two more appear valid: 886-7829 92 (5). According to the list at http://www.downloadzipcode.com/88.html, there are only 19 valid zip codes that match the 886 pattern. Only two of those are valid with that check digit, 88263 and 88560. Both of these are PO Box ranges, in Malaga NM and El Paso TX. So Alex, did you get the full address in the image you were sent? Am I right? (I know you can't confirm, but maybe the submitter can.)

    Subby can confirm that only the first digit of the 5 digit zip code made it through in tact. I don't know my complete zip code.

    If I'd realised people would try to decode it, I'd have put in something silly, for fun. All I did was move random bits around using the clone tool in the Gimp.

  • Ed (unregistered) in reply to Jamar
    Jamar:
    Well, the name has DO NOT USE in it so I'm guessing that the barcode is invalid to prevent the sorting machines from sending it out in the first place (obviously they failed here).

    Turns out there's websites all about barcodes and ZIP+4 and everything. Neat. Anyway, the barcode is mostly correct. The last two digits of the +4 and the street address digits are incorrect. The checksum digit is correct.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    I work in the part of the USPS that deals with machine-unreadable mail. Letters such as the one pictured above or others with "TEST MAIL DO NOT DELIVER" show up from time to time. It's common to see about 5 to 10 of these letters during a shift. I'm guessing whoever put in the test address for the Fidelity letter didn't know that it was a valid address. Test addresses usually look like "100 TEST ST."

    It's also common to see user-summited addresses that aren't checked to see if they are valid by the sender, such as "ASDF ASDF", "DECLINED", people only listing their apartment number or PMB number, and people putting their email addresses where the street address is suppose to be.

    The biggest mail-related WTF that I see is how very few companies that use computerized address systems know how to handle street names that are alphanumeric. With an example of 100 West Ave. J11, they usually get mucked up as

    100 West Ave. Apt J11

    I see this WTF hundreds of times per shift. From the typing rules that I have to follow, we can only type in what we see, even if it's obviously wrong.

  • stevec (unregistered) in reply to T $
    T $:
    Does writing a comment on thedailywtf.com count as a symptom?

    It does if you are writing this on you phone/blackbury in the triage area with your remaining good arm.

  • MF (unregistered)

    i am wondering whether 'don't know' is a worse symptom than 'severe' ...?

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw

    1000 internets to you sir.

    Brilliant!

Leave a comment on “Dear Mr. REVIEW XTRAC DO NOT USE”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article