- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
- Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
I literally cannot remember carving any data structures in stone.
Admin
Seriously now, what's with the spans attempting to hide personal information? Maybe you could try x's? I assume that the barely-obscured data is in fact anonymized.
Signed,
Jamie.
Admin
I once worked on a system that stored simple variable values (strings, ints etc) in the database with each variable as a separate row and the value in base-64 encoded XML.
unfortunately it had to be rewritten due to some unanticipated performance problems
Admin
The word you're looking for is figuratively. Literally is not an intensifier, it literally means you actually do that. Which I'm pretty sure you don't.
-- Note from Alex: No. I meant literally. Haven't you ever taken a Data Structures 101 class? Duh... every time you deploy a data structure, it is sent via etherwire to the Freeware Masons, who laboriously transcribe it onto the giant stone wall known as The Über Model.
Admin
No, I think he means literally, because he's making a joke.
Seconding the concern over the data; please placate us and tell us it's fake. If not, you really should fix it, fast.
Admin
Since the name is Jennifer Garner, I'm literally sure it's anoymized and the use of non-concealing spans was deliberate.
Admin
Make that three for the data concerns. The black background does a great job.. until you select the text, when you can see it. Or until someone pastes the Base64 text into a decoder...
Admin
Spans or not the base64 is not similarly redacted. Redaction fail.
Admin
This is just begging for an Xzibit Mad Xzib, something about XML in your XML.
But then, I have seen plenty of stuff from Novell that looks just as bad as this - using XML as a structure to hold anything; entire configuration blobs, more XML, etc. As long as it's wrapped in a simplistic XML structure (usually containing only a single data item which then holds the mountain of data in whatever format), it's an XML configuration. It's that enterprisey factor that allows them to put "* Uses XML" as a bullet point.
Admin
Admin
What are you on about? The base64 encodes the same fake information.
For anyone who doesn't realise, this site has some nigty features built in - for example, if you already have authorised access to the redacted information, you will be able to see it by highlighting, and if not, it will just appear as a black box.
Similarly, if you type your password in the body of your next post, it will just appear as ****** to us, although you will be able to see it in plain text.
Admin
Since Google doesn't come up with a town called Perryview WA, I'm thinking, probably fake. I know, I know - just because it's not in Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it seems a safe bet.
Admin
TRWTF is that in the RSS version, the SSN is not blacked out.
Admin
Or you can just highlight the black text.
Admin
But I'm lazy, and it's Monday.
Admin
Admin
That looks suspiciously like a real live SSN there
Admin
Although I don't like it either, literally is an intensifier.
Admin
You guys don't give Alex enough credit.
The listed SSN is a non-issued number, according to a couple of SSN validator sites that search Social Security Administration records.
A Google search for the address brings up... only this article. The address also appears to also be fake.
So... it appears that Alex knew enough to create fake data, and then go back and Base64-encode it into the example sent by the submitter.
Imagine that. :)
-- Note from Alex: Some might call it trolling... but I always find redacting anonymized data to be funny ;-)
Admin
Psh, they're just Ivy League Elitists.
Admin
XML is TRWTF. Sure, he could have imported a dozen namespaces. It would still just be an overly complicated s-expression.
Remember, kids, every time you use XML, God puts a bunny in a blender.
Admin
So some doofus at Princeton got it wrong, big deal. It's still an inane colloquialism used by exclusively by illiterates.
Admin
Admin
FTFY.
Admin
I never give Alex any credit whatsoever, because he might start expecting money or something, but it should be obvious to any reader that he trolls his own site, quite effectively.
CAPTCHA: enem
The first stage of an enema, also known as the pucker stage, before the "aaaaaahhhh" stage.
Admin
Yawn I'm glad the word ironic wasn't used ironically wrong in this article, or we would have to hear that tired old diatribe, too.
Admin
Admin
I think you are confusing English with French. English is not defined by scholars; it is defined by the great unwashed masses...innit tho.
Captcha: "valetudo" - note to self: get car cleaned.
Admin
I literally laughed my head off. Good job I'm a touch typist.
Admin
TRWTF is that most of you have never heard of Jennifer Garner. She literally puts Irish Girl to shame.
Admin
hunter2
Admin
heh. Never thought i'd be the first one to post this reference. http://xkcd.com/725/ [image]
Admin
Admin
L(iterally)QFT.
What is the world becoming?
Admin
How ironic, because your literally guaranteed that it's going to happen now.
Admin
Sorry, but unless it's in the Oxford English Dictionary it doesn't count. It's "The definitive record of the English language" because it literally says that on their website. Also, I'm pretty sure the OED was written by Jesus himself.
Admin
As Oxford Dictionaries comments about this inane use of 'literally:' "In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects (we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread."
So I am within my rights to not only consider Alex's use of 'literally' as unacceptable, but also to laugh AT him (not WITH him) for doing so.
Admin
I guess the out here is that the phrase "ran it into the ground" as well as "chiseled in stone" are metaphors, and as such you might add literally before a metaphor to mean the thing that the metaphor represents is literally true. For example:
they bought the car and literally ran it until it stopped working
Data structures are literally unable to be changed
Of course, I still think it's inane.
Admin
Please note:
The "redacted" text is a joke.
Saying that data structures are "literally chiseled in stone" is a joke.
This is a humour website. It often contains jokes.
Now can we please get on and discuss the article? Oh wait, no discussion needed, this is just plain retarded in every way. Not the first time I've seen the "XML magic bullet" either. I fail to comprehend the level of ignorance required to look at this solution and think it solves anything.
Admin
Just as anyone who's stupid enough to think the incorrect use of 'literally' is somehow acceptable when writing for the public is free to laugh at those of us who use the language correctly. It's all fair game.
What gets me is the pleadings from the Inept Writers of America for their clumsy usage. If you spent half as much effort on just writing like normal people, you wouldn't need to apologize for your writing.
Admin
Admin
I think you literally give them too much credit.
Admin
I thought it was Samuel Johnson.
Admin
I don't know what you're all talking about. Where I work, we have a stone mason on staff to write our requirements documents.
Admin
No, he failed when he left out sausage.
Admin
So, you can define your data structures externally in documents, or you can define them internally such as in XML, or some hybrid/nesting/recursion of those two options. But is there any way to program without actually defining your data structure at all? That would be something to see.
Admin
As to this article, I have to wonder if the designer of the XML realized they could just make optional tags instead of nesting a second XML object full of them in there. It's not clever, though...
Admin
So, if I type my ******** in, it looks like ********?
Admin
Also the unobscured base64 was readily available to find poor Jennifer's phone number.
Admin
cut and paste
http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp