The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Reminds me of the MSN/Live! Messenger protocol.

Markp · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Apparently I'm not the only one that finds it weird that Alex (or the submitter) sanitized the data, then redacted the sanitized data, but only the decoded data.

What exactly was it supposed to accomplish?

<?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>

As far as Google can tell, there's not even a town called Perryview.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

I can literally not believe that you're so stupid as to quote WordNet without understanding what it is. Therefore, I'm assuming this an attempt at a WTF and thus not ripping the piss.

da Doctah · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

ih8u:
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

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.

Everyone! You're missing the obvious answer to this controversy. It is quite possible and maybe even likely, that Alex was dead serious. Have you seen his place of work? Maybe data structures ARE literally chiseled in stone.

You might not do that. I don't because stone breaks too easily. I pour liquid adamantium into molds to describe my data structures.

What everyone seems to be overlooking is that data structures are "literally" carved in stone.

What's silicon if not stone?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

da Doctah:
ih8u:
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

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.

Everyone! You're missing the obvious answer to this controversy. It is quite possible and maybe even likely, that Alex was dead serious. Have you seen his place of work? Maybe data structures ARE literally chiseled in stone.

You might not do that. I don't because stone breaks too easily. I pour liquid adamantium into molds to describe my data structures.

What everyone seems to be overlooking is that data structures are "literally" carved in stone.

What's silicon if not stone?

What about the "carved" part?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

What if it's a literal, chiselled in stone?

frits · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

wtf:
da Doctah:
ih8u:
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

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.

Everyone! You're missing the obvious answer to this controversy. It is quite possible and maybe even likely, that Alex was dead serious. Have you seen his place of work? Maybe data structures ARE literally chiseled in stone.

You might not do that. I don't because stone breaks too easily. I pour liquid adamantium into molds to describe my data structures.

What everyone seems to be overlooking is that data structures are "literally" carved in stone.

What's silicon if not stone?

What about the "carved" part?

Oh, you mean ESD.

Cbuttius · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

The "extensibility" of XML is that you can get backward compatibility. For example, you add a new feature and give it a default value. You read the old configuration and it works fine even with no setting for the new feature.

You can also write it so you allow future-proofing to some extent. If you see an XML tag and don't know what it means, you ignore it. After all it may be something from a future version. Of course, you won't be able to implement what it does, but your old software version will still work as before even with the new configuration.

Thus XML is a very good prototype for one-time loading of configuration information. It is humanly-readable so a user can look at it and even edit it with a text editor if necessary, can handle nested structures and collections and can handle backward compatibility well.

It can also be used for client-server requests if there are not a lot of them and efficiency of parsing them is not an issue. It does become an issue if you have a server that must interpret a huge XML stream of data although it might be possible to have a "farming" system to parse them and not have them done on the server directly.

The totally wrong use of XML is to take it too far and turn it into a meta-scripting language. Yes, it actually can be used for that purpose but it is a totally inappropriate use.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Jay:
And of course the fact that a statement appears on a web site makes it Unquestionable Truth. How dare you blasphemers question the Almighty World Wide Web!
I am a little puzzled, though, at how it is possible that according to the web site of one toothpaste manufacturer, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend their brand, while a competing toothpaste maker says that 9 out of 10 recommend THEIR brand ...

It's easily possible. The explanation is simply that the advertising regulations in your village are designed by politicians who themselves advertise on television. If they weren't allowed to lie to the public, they wouldn't know what to do with the airtime.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Cbuttius:
The "extensibility" of XML is that you can get backward compatibility. For example, you add a new feature and give it a default value. You read the old configuration and it works fine even with no setting for the new feature.
You can also write it so you allow future-proofing to some extent. If you see an XML tag and don't know what it means, you ignore it. After all it may be something from a future version. Of course, you won't be able to implement what it does, but your old software version will still work as before even with the new configuration.

Thus XML is a very good prototype for one-time loading of configuration information. It is humanly-readable so a user can look at it and even edit it with a text editor if necessary, can handle nested structures and collections and can handle backward compatibility well.

It can also be used for client-server requests if there are not a lot of them and efficiency of parsing them is not an issue. It does become an issue if you have a server that must interpret a huge XML stream of data although it might be possible to have a "farming" system to parse them and not have them done on the server directly.

The totally wrong use of XML is to take it too far and turn it into a meta-scripting language. Yes, it actually can be used for that purpose but it is a totally inappropriate use.

I hope you're article is meant as a joke and trollbait, but I'll bite anyway.

Any well-written data structure is backwards-compatible. XML is no guarantee of backwards compatibility, as it is perfectly acceptable to change the name of a tag or any of its feachures.

This "human-readable" BS really gets on my nerves. It's no more readable or editable than properties files (much less so). See almost everything done in Linux for a point of reference.

There is nothing implicitly special about using XML for client-server requests, except in these days of the WWW, where sending things over HTTP bypasses the firewall.

XML is good for handling hierarchical data, and that's it. It's possibly the most-abused and misunderstood technology that exists right now.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Bonus WTF:

The blacked out info in the XML is actually visible if you select the text with the mouse. For the sake of poor Jennifer, I hope the SSN is fictitious ...

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

T:
Bonus WTF:
The blacked out info in the XML is actually visible if you select the text with the mouse. For the sake of poor Jennifer, I hope the SSN is fictitious ...

Translation: "I just arrived on the short bus."

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

boog:
See almost everything done in Linux for a point of reference.

Seriously? You want to use Linux config files as an example of anything good?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Anon:
boog:

Cbuttius:
[XML] is humanly-readable so a user can look at it and even edit it with a text editor if necessary
See almost everything done in Linux for a point of reference.

Seriously? You want to use Linux config files as an example of anything good?

As opposed to what? The Windows registry?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

American Idiot:
T:
Bonus WTF:
The blacked out info in the XML is actually visible if you select the text with the mouse. For the sake of poor Jennifer, I hope the SSN is fictitious ...
Translation: "I just arrived on the short bus."

Lmao: "And missed the queue of idiots clamoring the same thing."

Jaime · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

boog:
Cbuttius:
The "extensibility" of XML is that you can get backward compatibility. For example, you add a new feature and give it a default value. You read the old configuration and it works fine even with no setting for the new feature.
You can also write it so you allow future-proofing to some extent. If you see an XML tag and don't know what it means, you ignore it. After all it may be something from a future version. Of course, you won't be able to implement what it does, but your old software version will still work as before even with the new configuration.

Thus XML is a very good prototype for one-time loading of configuration information. It is humanly-readable so a user can look at it and even edit it with a text editor if necessary, can handle nested structures and collections and can handle backward compatibility well.

It can also be used for client-server requests if there are not a lot of them and efficiency of parsing them is not an issue. It does become an issue if you have a server that must interpret a huge XML stream of data although it might be possible to have a "farming" system to parse them and not have them done on the server directly.

The totally wrong use of XML is to take it too far and turn it into a meta-scripting language. Yes, it actually can be used for that purpose but it is a totally inappropriate use.

I hope you're article is meant as a joke and trollbait, but I'll bite anyway.
Any well-written data structure is backwards-compatible. XML is no guarantee of backwards compatibility, as it is perfectly acceptable to change the name of a tag or any of its feachures.

This "human-readable" BS really gets on my nerves. It's no more readable or editable than properties files (much less so). See almost everything done in Linux for a point of reference.

There is nothing implicitly special about using XML for client-server requests, except in these days of the WWW, where sending things over HTTP bypasses the firewall.

XML is good for handling hierarchical data, and that's it. It's possibly the most-abused and misunderstood technology that exists right now.

XML has a well-defined behavior for storing special characters. It's not the only technology that has this property, but it is automatically better than all of those that don't. I often have a choice between XML and fixed-width files; XML has the concept of nullability and arbitrary length that fixed-width doesn't.

In short, XML doesn't do much. However, the main competitors of XML are so utterly horrible that it doesn't have to do much to be the clearly better choice. Even better, most toolsets have foot-shooting protection for XML. If somebody would have standardized, named, and marketed tab separated data with backslash escape characters (or one of ten other sane formats), then XML wouldn't have been necessary.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

BentFranklin:
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.

Of course there is, don't be silly.

Any language with expandos and some form of reflection will open that door for you (of course, if you have any sense, you'll slam it back shut and board it up with common sense, rigor and discipline).

Just tack any value on any object under any name, and use the reflection to dig back out anything that looks more or less like what you think you need. Viola, a deep violin!

P.S.: Good luck with that... o_0

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Mike:
Literally (adv):

In fact. Actually.

Not in fact. Not actually.

Joined the list of auto-antonyms, then, has it?

...sigh...

I literally knew it was going to come to this!

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

boog:
It's clear that the whole article is a parity (minus the XML code, of coarse). Those seduced by XML justify it with similar (though less-hyperbolic) arguments, despite the fact that you have to modify the specification. Alex points out that to do it right requires the same amount of effort as it does to change a data structure. I believe this to be a mute point, however, because it is done right almost never of the time.

Oh, COME ON! You're doing it on purpose!

...and, and...

Fuck me running, it worked.

Jay:
Just to join the spelling nazis, I think you mean that the article is a PARODY and that Alex makes a MOOT point.

A "mute point" would be when someone who cannot speak uses his fingers to indicate a direction.

gilleain:
Moot point? (I've always liked Joey from Friend's alternative of a 'moo point' - "it's like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter..." :)

TrololololololololoooooOOOOOOOO!

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

The Daily WTF Comments: Curious Abundance of English Academic Disputes

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

aliquam:
Lmao: "And missed the queue of idiots clamoring the same thing."

You do know that once there are two pages of comments, it is literally illegal, impossible, and immoral to read past the first three comments before posting one's own witty observations, don't you?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Some Guy:
aliquam:
Lmao: "And missed the queue of idiots clamoring the same thing."
You do know that once there are two pages of comments, it is literally illegal, impossible, and immoral to read past the first three comments before posting one's own witty observations, when you're a moron.

FTFY

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

is that from real person ? i can see Jennifer Garner private info just fine after selecting with a mouse

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

oopa, little late on that. never been to this site before

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

The Article:
Fortunately, the [s]crack[/s] engineers on crack at Dave Watson's developed a solution around this problem. Instead of using XML to define specific data structures, they’d use it to define generic data structures. This way, they could use XML to define anything!

FTFY Alex

davedavenotdavemaybedave · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Data structures are literally chiseled in stone, and the only way to use something different is to rewrite your application from scratch and throw the old application (and any server it touched) in the fires of Mount Doom.

I am deeply confused by all the arguments over 'literally'. The implication would be that only the use of 'literally' was wrong, and in fact the only way to change things blah blah Mount Doom etc. part is actually literally true.

Bloody numpties.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Let's just be glad it was Alex writing this article. If it was Remy Martin, he would have not only left a real SSN out there in plain text and Base64 encoded, he would also have made it so that if you clicked on the SSN, gay unicorns and rainbows would pop up.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
Data structures are literally chiseled in stone, and the only way to use something different is to rewrite your application from scratch and throw the old application (and any server it touched) in the fires of Mount Doom.

I am literally confused by all the arguments over 'literally'. The implication literally would be that only the use of 'literally' was wrong, and in fact literally the only way to change things blah blah Mount Doom etc. part is actually literally true.

Literally bloody numpties.

FTFY

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€ž:
Let's just be glad it was Alex writing this article. If it was Remy Martin, he would have not only left a real SSN out there in plain text and Base64 encoded, he would also have made it so that if you clicked on the SSN, gay unicorns and rainbows would pop up.

Is you're username base-64-encoded?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Oh, COME ON! Your doing it on porpoise!

FTFY.

Alex Papadimoulis · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

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.

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.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
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.

pwtest: h0wdoesal3xtaste?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Ben:
Remember, kids, every time you use XML, God puts a bunny in a blender.

Yeah, but will it blend? I want that episode!!

Sutherlands · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Alex Papadimoulis:
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.

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.

I like that Alex blue-ed his own comment.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

This is almost* the worst thread ever. It's discouraging to know that these "joke" things that Alex slips into the articles completely mystify your average coder.

*The worst: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/Java-Destruction.aspx

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

The Über Model sounds suspiciously similar to the USTRANSCOM's Master Model.

It's a fun little beast that is supposed to contain the data definition of all information used by all DOD Transportation systems.

New systems were supposed to check the Master Model and use its definitions if their data was already described.

Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to browse through the Master Model, and there is a process for having your own data model added, so now everything you could possibly want is in the Master Model in 3-5 different unusable formats.

davedavenotdavemaybedave · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

lorgayd:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
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.

pwtest: ****************

Happy?

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

This is an inflexible approach. The outer XML file should have been base64-encoded, then gzipped, then base64-encoded again, then videotaped on a wooden table, the animated gif image of which should be stored as a base64-encoded blob inside another XML file.

DaveK · 2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Arancaytar:
This is an inflexible approach. The outer XML file should have been base64-encoded, then gzipped, then base64-encoded again, then videotaped on a wooden table, the animated gif image of which should be stored as a base64-encoded blob inside another XML file.

Oh noes! You have just designed SSDS 2.0!

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

BentFranklin:
But is there any way to program without actually defining your data structure at all?

Sure, most programming in Perl is just like that.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

Best punchline in quite a while.

2010-11-01 Reply Admin

I take it no one has informed you yet of the fate of "Begging the Question"?

Right, you'll want to sit down for this.

2010-11-02 Reply Admin

You are a funny man, sir. I literally laughed, not figuratively lol'd.

Scarlet Manuka · 2010-11-02 Reply Admin

Jay:
I am a little puzzled, though, at how it is possible that according to the web site of one toothpaste manufacturer, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend their brand, while a competing toothpaste maker says that 9 out of 10 recommend THEIR brand ...

I've seen this in toothbrushes more than in toothpaste, actually.

In addition to the already-posted solution that in fact it's just tooth{paste|brushes} in general, there's another possibility; the data could have been collected in a process which allows each dentist to recommend several brands of tooth{paste|brush}. This would actually have some value, if the results were publicised - a brand recommended by 90% of dentists would probably be better than one recommended by only 40% of dentists.

In any case, since it's used for marketing, the surveys were probably along the lines of "Which of the following would you recommend most highly for brushing your teeth: Brand X toothpaste, or sulfuric acid mixed with sugar?"

2010-11-02 Reply Admin

<?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>

Was this supposed to be confidential?

2010-11-02 Reply Admin

_numPeopleNotReadingComments++;

(this is NOT! spam)

2010-11-02 Reply Admin

erm, whats the point in cencering the output in the article, but showing the input and saying how to decode it ?

Heres to hoping Jennifer Garner is fictious for the article.

2010-11-02 Reply Admin

Ben:
My knee-jerk hatred of XML is TRWTF.

There. Fixed it.

2010-11-02 Reply Admin

Anon:
JamesQMurphy:
Anon:
... Also, I'm pretty sure the OED was written by Jesus himself.

I thought it was Samuel Johnson.

No, he failed when he left out sausage.

And aardvark

Cbuttius · 2010-11-02 Reply Admin

boog:
I hope you're article is meant as a joke and trollbait, but I'll bite anyway.
Any well-written data structure is backwards-compatible. XML is no guarantee of backwards compatibility, as it is perfectly acceptable to change the name of a tag or any of its feachures.

This "human-readable" BS really gets on my nerves. It's no more readable or editable than properties files (much less so). See almost everything done in Linux for a point of reference.

There is nothing implicitly special about using XML for client-server requests, except in these days of the WWW, where sending things over HTTP bypasses the firewall.

XML is good for handling hierarchical data, and that's it. It's possibly the most-abused and misunderstood technology that exists right now.

Human-readable can be very useful for debugging as you can read a blob directly without having to put it through some binary dumper. The slowness issues can easily be addressed by throwing more hardware at it but developer time is far more precious.

There are many different IPC protocols. I have never really been a fan of using XML for this purpose but can see its advantages if you have the hardware to handle it and if runtime performance is not the primary issue. You might reduce the bandwidth by compressing it if the XML blob is big enough, and you might use SSL encryption to get past security issues.

Extensible XML

Leave a comment on “Extensible XML”