• BIll (unregistered)

    I literally cannot remember carving any data structures in stone.

  • @Deprecated (cs)

    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.

  • Tim (unregistered)

    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

  • Anon (unregistered)
    Data structures are literally chiseled in stone

    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.

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    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.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to @Deprecated
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Tom7 (unregistered)

    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...

  • Michael (unregistered)

    Spans or not the base64 is not similarly redacted. Redaction fail.

  • TarquinWJ (cs)

    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.

  • frits (cs)
    The Article:
    One of the inherent challenges that comes with data is that, once its structure has been defined, it can never be changed.
    What, you never heard of the "reserved pattern" for data structures? Just tack an arbitrarily large array of unsigned ints at the end of your struct for future expansion. I mean, it's practically a recommended practice in embedded programming. Bah, who needs XML?!
  • davedavenotdavemaybedave (cs) in reply to Michael
    Michael:
    Spans or not the base64 is not similarly redacted. Redaction fail.

    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.

  • wtf (unregistered)

    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.

  • Some RSS Guy (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that in the RSS version, the SSN is not blacked out.

  • Wat (unregistered) in reply to Some RSS Guy

    Or you can just highlight the black text.

  • Some RSS Guy (unregistered) in reply to Wat

    But I'm lazy, and it's Monday.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • wcm (unregistered)

    That looks suspiciously like a real live SSN there

  • G (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Rob (unregistered)

    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 ;-)

  • toth (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    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.
    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=literally:
    S: (adv) literally (in a literal sense) "literally translated"; "he said so literally" S: (adv) literally ((intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration) "our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War"
    go awayyyy

    Psh, they're just Ivy League Elitists.

  • Ben (unregistered)

    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.

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • David S. (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to David S.
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to Rob
    Rob:
    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. :)

    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.

  • frits (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Data structures are literally chiseled in stone

    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.

    Somebody literally needs to start an organization to save the word literally from this abusive de facto demotion to a meaningless intensifier.

    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.

  • Paul Holt (unregistered)
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <record> <dbKey>9035768</dbKey> <borrower1> <first>Jennifer</first> <last>Garner</last>
    4829 Oakview Lane
    <city>Perryview</city> <state>WA</state> <ssn>209-23-6874</ssn> </borrower1> </record>
  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to David S.
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Matt Westwood (unregistered)

    I literally laughed my head off. Good job I'm a touch typist.

  • JamesQMurphy (cs)

    TRWTF is that most of you have never heard of Jennifer Garner. She literally puts Irish Girl to shame.

  • Shishire (cs) in reply to davedavenotdavemaybedave
    davedavenotdavemaybedave:
    Michael:
    Spans or not the base64 is not similarly redacted. Redaction fail.

    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.

    hunter2

  • SuperAnalyst (cs)

    heh. Never thought i'd be the first one to post this reference. http://xkcd.com/725/ [image]

  • xtremezone (cs)
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <blob xmlns="http://thedailywtf.com/xml/blob/2010"> <author>root</author> <date>2010-11-01 15:12:42 -000</date> <data>PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0idXRmLTgiPz4KPGNvbW1lbnQgeG1sbnM9Imh0 dHA6Ly90aGVkYWlseXd0Zi5jb20veG1sL2Jsb2cvMjAxMCI+IAogICAgPGF1dGhvcj54dHJlbWV6 b25lPC9hdXRob3I+CiAgICA8ZGF0ZT4yMDEwLTExLTAxIDEwOjEyOjQyIC00MDA8L2RhdGU+CiAg ICA8Y29udGVudHM+VFJXVEYgaXMgdXNpbmcgWE1MIHRvIGRvIFhYTUwncyBqb2IuIFVzZSB0aGUg cmlnaHQgdG9vbCBmb3IgdGhlIGpvYiwgcGVvcGxlLiBVc2UgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IHRvb2wgZm9yIHRo ZSBqb2IuPC9jb250ZW50cz4KPC9jb21tZW50PgoK </data> </blob>
  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to David S.
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Anon:
    Data structures are literally chiseled in stone

    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.

    Somebody literally needs to start an organization to save the word literally from this abusive de facto demotion to a meaningless intensifier.

    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.

    How ironic, because your literally guaranteed that it's going to happen now.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Cad Delworth (cs) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    I think you are confusing English with French. English is not defined by scholars; it is defined by the great unwashed masses...innit tho.
    Up to a point, yes. But that doesn't stop those of us who care about the language getting upset and annoyed by cretins who debase it (even if the cretins in question are at that Princeton 'University' in the former Colonies).

    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.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Cad Delworth
    Cad Delworth:
    they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground.

    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.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    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.

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to Cad Delworth
    Cad Delworth:
    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.

    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.

  • Jaime (cs) in reply to Cad Delworth
    Cad Delworth:
    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.
    I can't find a single sentence in the article that is meant to be taken seriously, so I don't know why you would single this one out for redicule. The entire article is obviously meant to be satire and we should laugh AT anyone who can't figure this out for themselves.
  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    [b]Please note: Saying that data structures are "literally chiseled in stone" is a joke.

    I think you literally give them too much credit.

  • JamesQMurphy (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    ... Also, I'm pretty sure the OED was written by Jesus himself.

    I thought it was Samuel Johnson.

  • toth (cs)

    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.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    Comment held for moderation.
  • BentFranklin (unregistered)

    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.

  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Uncle Al (unregistered) in reply to davedavenotdavemaybedave
    davedavenotdavemaybedave:
    Michael:
    Spans or not the base64 is not similarly redacted. Redaction fail.

    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.

    So, if I type my ******** in, it looks like ********?

  • Jack (unregistered) in reply to @Deprecated

    Also the unobscured base64 was readily available to find poor Jennifer's phone number.

  • lyates (cs)

Leave a comment on “Extensible XML”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article