• Cyberwizzard (unregistered)

    Am I the only one who would just let the site burn and perhaps even help it with a small push over the edge instead of just patching it?

    The last time some of the higher ups had these great ideas (and we have had those sigh) that helped to clarirify things ^^.

  • Little Dutch Boy (unregistered) in reply to Cyberwizzard
    Cyberwizzard:
    Am I the only one who would just let the site burn and perhaps even help it with a small push over the edge instead of just patching it?

    The last time some of the higher ups had these great ideas (and we have had those sigh) that helped to clarirify things ^^.

    That's got to be the worst attitude you could have. If the site burns, it could directly lead to the company burning. If the company burns, you burn. You should be doing everything in your power to prevent the site from burning.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Little Dutch Boy
    Little Dutch Boy:
    Cyberwizzard:
    Am I the only one who would just let the site burn and perhaps even help it with a small push over the edge instead of just patching it?

    The last time some of the higher ups had these great ideas (and we have had those sigh) that helped to clarirify things ^^.

    That's got to be the worst attitude you could have. If the site burns, it could directly lead to the company burning. If the company burns, you burn. You should be doing everything in your power to prevent the site from burning.

    Me, I'll warn the idiots in charge first, but if they persist in their stupidity, I have no qualms in letting them burn - I'll be updating my resume.

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    Or, better yet, find a vulnerability in the comment form which would do the injection, and ask the "programmer" to type in a specific comment.
    I like that. Let them break it themselves, before their own eyes.

    CAPTCHA: eros yay! Me likes :)

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to Mark
    Mark:
    Hans:
    Any company who values the opinion of some outsourced company over their own internal I.T. staff deserves to fail. That's all there is to it. I would have handed in my resignation then and there.

    Apparently you don't work with incompetent, internal IT staff...

    Spoken like true competent, external IT staff (just like myself). Bad news for my internal cow-orkers when I get downsized because of the economy: they will have to work again.

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to ChrisSamsDad
    ChrisSamsDad:
    Stan Rogers:
    Yes. We can agree on what the word "million" means, but to some the word "billion" means a thousand million and to others it means a million million.

    Actually, it always used to be that billion in the UK meant a 10^12, but to the French and Americans it's always meant 10^9, but now, to avoid confusion, the UK now officially (in the sense of the government) takes it to mean 10^9 too. Many older people (including myself, a mere lad of 45) were still taught that it meant 10^12) I think it's best to refer to the number of zeroes as I've done here to save confusion if you're intending to be accurate, and not just using it to mean a massive number.

    In Dutch (Belgium, Netherlands), we use ...iljoen (miljoen, biljoen, triljoen,...) for 10^6^n and ...iljard (miljard, biljard, triljard,...) for 10^9^2. That means that 1 triljoen (10^6^3) = 1 biljard (10^9^2) This also means that 1 English billion = 1 Dutch miljard and 1 Dutch biljoen = 1 English trillion. It's what we call "false friends" in linguistics.

    Imho, the Dutch rule for 10^6^n and 10^9^n is easy to understand. You don't need linguistics, you can just apply a simple algorithm.

  • Me (unregistered) in reply to ShatteredArm

    assert(commonSense);

    Assertion error! Halt!

  • Random832 (unregistered) in reply to IHasYerCheezburger
    IHasYerCheezburger:
    In Dutch (Belgium, Netherlands), we use ...iljoen (miljoen, biljoen, triljoen,...) for 10^6^n and ...iljard (miljard, biljard, triljard,...) for 10^9^2. That means that 1 triljoen (10^6^3) = 1 biljard (10^9^2) This also means that 1 English billion = 1 Dutch miljard and 1 Dutch biljoen = 1 English trillion. It's what we call "false friends" in linguistics.

    Imho, the Dutch rule for 10^6^n and 10^9^n is easy to understand. You don't need linguistics, you can just apply a simple algorithm.

    If this is really the rule (which I doubt), what is 10^15?

    I suspect that -iljard is 10^3*(10^6^n) just like in french. (making 10^15 "biljard")

    And some english-speaking countries used to use that rule. Just as french used to use the rule english does now. And I'm sure that in the early days there was probably some literature in any language you'd care to name (or, at least, any where there are people writing about large numbers) that used either of the two systems - these weren't really standardized until the 19th century, and... let's face it, absolutely nobody actually talks about numbers larger than 10^12

  • Retarded Cabbage Coding Company (unregistered) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    ..the promise of "support" backed by code that a retarded cabbage would be ashamed of.

    Do you mind? We're proud of all our products. Even Vista.

    Russell Sprout

  • Kempeth (unregistered)

    The only kind of Web such idiots should be allowed to develop are fishing nets in a Siberian detention camp...

  • int 0x80 (unregistered) in reply to Page
    Page:
    nyctonyc:
    You can code a beatiful site in Notepad

    Notepad is decadent. Real men use Vim.

    s/Vim/emacs

  • xtal256 (unregistered)

    "When he viewed the page's source code, he was surprised to see a mere 128 bytes of HTML."

    Sadly, today that is common practice. Even for simple web pages that should only need to be (mostly) static HTML/CSS.

Leave a comment on “Google Botched”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article