• Kef Schecter (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    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.

    Can somebody explain to me why this "embedded programming" meme is funny? It would be a lot funnier if it had its origins in a really poor excuse for bad programming and not, y'know, an actual reasonable practice on embedded systems.

  • Lee K-T (unregistered) in reply to Cbuttius
    Cbuttius:
    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.

    Yes, time tends to be kind of a Wibbly-Wobbly Timey-Wimey...

  • Jochem (unregistered)

    You do realize that when you select the decoded XML, you can still see the full info, right...

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Kef Schecter
    Kef Schecter:
    frits:
    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.

    Can somebody explain to me why this "embedded programming" meme is funny? It would be a lot funnier if it had its origins in a really poor excuse for bad programming and not, y'know, an actual reasonable practice on embedded systems.

    Because it's an opportunity for us to remind Alex and co. about the time they posted a WTF that really wasn't a WTF at all. Keeps 'em honest.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Sutherlands
    Sutherlands:
    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.

    Yeah, says a lot about what Alex thinks of his commenters. They always have to time to delete people's comments, but never time to feature them.

    Fully expecting this one to be deleted!

  • (cs) in reply to Kef Schecter
    Kef Schecter:
    frits:
    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.

    Can somebody explain to me why this "embedded programming" meme is funny? It would be a lot funnier if it had its origins in a really poor excuse for bad programming and not, y'know, an actual reasonable practice on embedded systems.

    I wasn't actually referencing the meme because having a bunch of "reserved" fields in a data structure is literally a popular "pattern" in embedded systems. Plus, no mention of files systems. The typical embedded systems meme consists of mentioning embedded systems and file systems in relation to something that has little to do with either- you know like a wooden chair.

  • (cs) in reply to Alex Papadimoulis
    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.

    That method is so yesterday. These days all the cool people send their data structures to the illuminati via fiber optic cable where it is kept in an amorphous key-value store in "the cloud"—at least until your subscription runs out.

  • Gnome 2 (unregistered) in reply to Alex Papadimoulis
    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.

    Alex, did no one ever sit you down and explain to you: 1) Explaining the joke makes it unfunny. 2) Self-promotion makes you look like a turd. Do yourself a favor and delete your own comment.
  • Bert Glanstron (unregistered)

    Dear Alex,

    In case you can’t tell, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on promoting your own comment clearly shows that you’re too young and too stupid to be posting to this forum.

    Go away and find some real wtfs.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

  • boog (unregistered)

    Where's my damn article?

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    The REAL WTF here is that on my Mac using Safari, if I select the text I can clearly read the SS # :(

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    The REAL WTF here is that on my Mac using Safari, if I select the text I can clearly read the SS # :(
    STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!! STFU!!!!!
  • pedant (unregistered) in reply to Alex Papadimoulis
    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.

    I think somebody needs to read their dictionary again...

    Literally:

    1. In a literal manner or sense; exactly
    2. Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true

    How ironic!

  • SCB (unregistered) in reply to pedant
    pedant:
    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.

    I think somebody needs to read their dictionary again...

    Literally:

    1. In a literal manner or sense; exactly
    2. Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true

    How ironic!

    Your dictionary has recursive definitions?

  • Marc (unregistered)

    What are the black bars for? I hope that's a joke ;)

    <?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>
  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to pedant
    pedant:

    How ironic!

    Oh, don't start with "ironic". Can't we just retire that word at this point? And no, it's not ironic that you misused the word, either.

  • Yow (unregistered)

    Obviously, the real WTF is that anyone can decode the base64 string and revealing what has been censored in this article...

  • similis (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    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

    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 ...

  • similis (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    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 ...

    What makes you think that more than 15 dentists were asked?

  • pedant (unregistered) in reply to wtf
    wtf:
    pedant:

    How ironic!

    Oh, don't start with "ironic". Can't we just retire that word at this point? And no, it's not ironic that you misused the word, either.

    The use of a word expressing something other than its literal intention. So in the second usage of "literally", it is actually irony.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    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 ...
    Read the small print:

    Out of 150 participants surveyed

    Assuming the US, that makes 150 out of 310,614,000. But of those 150, 9 out of 10 totally recommended our toothpaste!

    Note that participants may have come from our own office but we anonymise the results in such a way that nobody will ever know! Welcome to the colorful world of statistics! Now stop reading the fine print else our whole ruse is going to be shot to hell!

  • pedant (unregistered) in reply to similis
    similis:
    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!

    Perhaps a website was quoted for the benefit for the majority of people complaining about the "misuse" of these words who obviously don't possess a dictionary to check the actual meaning and usage...

  • (cs) in reply to 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.
    So ... you correctly identified that he was (mis)using "literally" as an intensifier, ... but then you suggested "figuratively" in its place?

    Perhaps correcting other people's language errors is not your strong suit.

  • FTFY (unregistered) in reply to VRAndy
    VRAndy:
    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.
    So ... you correctly identified that he was (mis)using "literally" as an intensifier, ... but then you suggested "figuratively" in its place?

    Perhaps correcting other people's language errors is not the internet's strong suit.

    FTFUA (fix'd that for us all)

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

    You seem to be one of those people Mr. Stephen Fry is talking about in this video.

    And it seems I have to write some more text to make Akismet think "not spam" about this post.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Assuming the US, that makes 150 out of 310,614,000. But of those 150, 9 out of 10 totally recommended our toothpaste!

    Wait? Everybody in the US is a dentist? How odd.

  • danmoran (unregistered)

    No, not literally carved in stone.

  • Joe (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>

    Using "background-color: black" obviously doesn't do the trick. A WTF in itself?

  • hachu (unregistered) in reply to Alex Papadimoulis
    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.

    OH! So it really IS a structure! I knew my prof was hiding something big from us...

  • TRWTF (unregistered)

    Did anyone else notice you can read the SSN if you highlight it with your mouse? It's ironic that I'm literally the first person to notice this. You'd think it would be carved in stone, somewhere: Anonymize what you put on the Internet!

    CAPTCHA: facilisis - A desirable condition, one would imagine.

  • anonomouse (unregistered)

    XML with Base64 encoded XML values inside? Empower, is that you? I worked on a loan origination system that did exactly this kind of asshatery several years ago. We would export every bit of code, setup data, and other artefacts from the system into this lame format and then check it into Clear Case. I dare you to do a diff on different versions!

  • Coder (unregistered)

    XML does data description, not data definition.

    That is a fundamental characteristic of XML.

    That's why HL7 is orthoganal to XML.

    That is to say, flexible data definition was NOT one of the reasons XML was invented.

    I would have thought that at a programmers site, more people would have noticed the conceptual error, but it looks like everyone has been focusing on the syntax "error".

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to erlando
    erlando:

    You seem to be one of those people Mr. Stephen Fry is talking about in this video.

    Are you seriously claiming that ignorance and apathy about the use of language elevate one to the status of Shakespeare, Wilde, or Fry? Fry's rant is extremely well made, and I'm glad I listened to it, but he's simply wrong to suppose that failure to care is somehow equivalent to lingustic genius. Fry has a genius for putting words together, but you'll notice that the reason you love listening to him speak is precisely because he does care about the words that he uses, about their sound and their sense, and he uses them creatively and well. There is nothing creative about confusing "literally" with "figuratively" or some other qualifier. It's laziness. Occasional laziness is normal. Laziness as a habit is indistinguishable from stupidity.

    The funny thing is, I actually don't mind the usage so much. Literally, figuratively - it'll all be okay. The incessant clamor to defend apathy and ignorance - that bothers me more than a little.

  • Allister (unregistered)
    One of the inherent challenges that comes with data is that, once its structure has been defined, it can never be changed. Ever. 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.
    Huh. Interesting. Mount Doom doesn't figure when we regularly add to the data structures.

    You're not serious about that are you? Dealing with change is what IT is all about.

  • erlando (unregistered) in reply to wtf
    wtf:
    erlando:

    You seem to be one of those people Mr. Stephen Fry is talking about in this video.

    Are you seriously claiming that ignorance and apathy about the use of language elevate one to the status of Shakespeare, Wilde, or Fry? Fry's rant is extremely well made, and I'm glad I listened to it, but he's simply wrong to suppose that failure to care is somehow equivalent to lingustic genius. Fry has a genius for putting words together, but you'll notice that the reason you love listening to him speak is precisely because he does care about the words that he uses, about their sound and their sense, and he uses them creatively and well. There is nothing creative about confusing "literally" with "figuratively" or some other qualifier. It's laziness. Occasional laziness is normal. Laziness as a habit is indistinguishable from stupidity.

    The funny thing is, I actually don't mind the usage so much. Literally, figuratively - it'll all be okay. The incessant clamor to defend apathy and ignorance - that bothers me more than a little.

    His main point isn't that laziness is good. His main point is that those clinging on to dictionaries for word definitions are being blind to the way language evolves.

    Language is not static. Language evolves and the use of 'literally' as discussed in this thread is a perfect example.

    The meaning of words is not set in stone. Words mean what the majority of those using the words seem to think the words mean.

    (For the record: Any linguistic, grammatical or other errors in my typing may be due to the fact that English is not my native language)

  • MurphyQJames (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that most of you have never heard of Jennifer Garner. She literally puts Irish Girl to shame.
    Ummm, no. Her transvestite donkey witch face is rivaled only by Sarah-Jessica-Parker.
  • Dave Minter (unregistered)

    The real WTF here is that the blanking out of the identifying information in the second XML snippet has been done incompetently. The details can still be read.

  • I'm Smart (unregistered)

    I bet nobody's even mentioned the fact you can literally see the redacted text if you select it. That Jennifer Garner woman is going to be really mad and she's an actress too, so lots of money to sue your asses.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Aaron
    Aaron:
    First of all, I have not seen anybody, anywhere, ever, using the word literally to mean extremely or very. As others have stated, it is sometimes used in place of figuratively, metaphorically or virtually.

    Sorry, I was trying to be concise. When someone says, "The rules are literally chiseled in stone", he surely does not intend "literally" to mean "figuratively". The metaphor was figurative before the addition of that word. He is using the word "literally" for emphasis. He means something like, "The rules are so hard to change that it's really really like they are chiseled in stone." So yes, you could not substitute the word "extremely" for "literally" and have the sentence make sense, but I don't know any single word that you could so substitute.

    Similarly, the usage of literally to mean its exact opposite is a literary device - specifically sarcasm or hyperbole, most commonly used in satire or other humour. Idiomatic definitions of words or phrases are not a new or particularly interesting phenomenon ...

    I thought idioms were a very interesting phenomenon, but I guess that's another story. Of course I don't deny the existence or validity of sarcasm. Maybe there's some context where using the word "literally" would be effective sarcasm. But in practice, I'm hard pressed to think of an example. At best it's extremely lazy language.

    An example of sarcasm would be saying, "Oh, Paula sure is brilliant". But if someone said, "I'm not being sarcastic when I say that Paula sure is brilliant", I would understand that to mean that they are trying to clarify that they are not using sarcasm, that, contrary to popular opinion, this person really does think that Paula is brilliant. If this was intended as a double sarcasm, I would consider it confusing and ineffective. Likewise, if someone says, "Paula is literally brilliant", maybe the intent is to intensify the sarcasm. But in fact they have just made their statement confusing.

    Captcha: odio: State south of midigan

  • That Guy (unregistered)

    Or you could access your data through a data access layer that takes care fo this for you so that you don't have to change your application, but hey that would involve planning and testing... which we all know is worthless.

  • BazQux (unregistered) in reply to FuBar

    The data belongs to the enterprise, not to the application.

    The datum belongs to the enterprise. The data belong to the enterprise.

    Language is the ozone layer of the soul, and we thin it at our peril.

  • Ouch! (unregistered) in reply to BazQux
    BazQux:
    > Data belongs to the Enterprise.

    The datum belongs to the enterprise. The data belong to the enterprise.

    Language is the ozone layer of the soul, and we thin it at our peril.

    FTFH

  • Overand (unregistered)

    Wait - people were concerned about the data presented, the "Jennifer G____" - which uh. Happens to me the name of the main character from the spy-esque television program "Alias?"

    ...

  • (cs)

    Should have used the name Sydney Bristow instead, to ensure everyone knew that it's an Alias.

    Literally.

  • oheso (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    simpler that adding random garbage, don't you think?

    Then where will future articles come from?

  • JH (unregistered) in reply to davedavenotdavemaybedave

    But what if your password is literally* the string "******"?

    • yes, I mean "literally".
  • JH (unregistered) in reply to java.lang.Chris;
    java.lang.Chris;:
    I hope you will not object if I offer you my most enthusiastic contrafribblarities.

    Blackadder FTW!!

    captcha: augue: when you "drill down" into an argument (GET IT?!!?!?)

  • (cs) in reply to JH
    JH:
    But what if your password is literally* the string "******"?
    • yes, I mean "literally".
    There's a webcomic I saw somewhere once and have never been able to find again where some (l)user is demonstrating to his admin that he can successfully copy and paste his password out of a protected-password entry box that just returns asterisks when you copy from it because he's set his password to eight asterisks, "... and now you don't know whether I'm a genius or an idiot" he finishes.

    More-or-less, I may not have remembered it right. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

  • Myrmidon (unregistered) in reply to Rob

    Note from Alex: Some might call it trolling... but I always find redacting anonymized data to be funny ;-)

    Hence the reason they call Alex 'The Ole Terri(ble)-dactyl' around the office...

  • Samuele (unregistered)

    Sorry, probably you already know it, but I hope the data is invented since by highlighting the black boxes I can see the actual data....

Leave a comment on “Extensible XML”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article