• Eric (unregistered)

    Its Achilles's, technically. Myers's is right too. You drop the s after the apostrophe only for plural possessives. And there's only one Achilles.

  • (cs)
    Lydia's Hair Update
    Reminds me of the time, not that long ago, an experienced 'Web Developer' wrote some POOPy (PHP Object Oriented Programing) code in a database class that scanned all inputs for "select", "insert", "drop", "delete", "update", "count" and a few other SQL commands, and if it found them, threw an exception. For awhile he quite couldn't figure out why the product description "Marble counter top" caused all sorts of grief.
  • Incen (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    Anders Widebrant:
    Anonymous Coward:
    s/achille's/Achilles'/
    Or "Achilles", or "Achilles's"

    Ummm . . . no. Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive, the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".

    Captcha: vulputate

    An apt observation, were "Achilles" a plural. Alas, it isn't, so "Achilles's" or "Achilles" the word ought be.

  • Wizard Stan (unregistered) in reply to Matt
    Matt:
    All right, I want to complain about the article itself. All that leadup, and not much payoff in the end. I keep re-reading the last two paragraphs, and I'm just not getting it. Are they saying the production server was kicking out the transactions as invalid, but the replication server was accepting them and then crashing and burning when it couldn't find a matching transaction in production?
    The main server got the SQL string (for example): INSERT INTO clients ("Lidia's Hair Update", "Address", "Phone number", "etc..."); This then got replicated over, which took the string, and parsed it as TWO SQL statements: INSERT INTO client ("Lidia's Hair and: Update", "Address", "Phone number", "etc..."); Obviously neither of these SQL statements are valid, and the whole thing dies. Hence why the replication server counted more transactions than the main server.
  • ultrapedant (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive, the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".
    It's not that simple. For singular nouns -- even those ending in "s", one adds "'s" -- Charles's bat, for example.

    As an exception, ancient names that end in -es or -is are exceptions. So in this case, Achilles' heel is proper.

    However, the preferred form for such things is to reframe the sentence ("the heel of Achilles"). I don't think that would be very clear in this context.

    All this according to The Elements of Style, 1818 edition

  • (cs) in reply to Incen
    Incen:
    Anonymous Coward:
    Anders Widebrant:
    Anonymous Coward:
    s/achille's/Achilles'/
    Or "Achilles", or "Achilles's"
    Ummm . . . no. Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive, the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".
    An apt observation, were "Achilles" a plural. Alas, it isn't, so "Achilles's" or "Achilles" the word ought be.
    I have to weigh in on this one. If we were speaking of Achilles, then it would be his heel, and therefore possessive. But we're not speaking of him. We're speaking of a data management system. I contend it should be "Achilles heel". The data management system had a heel. What kind of heel? One like the one on Achilles; therefore, an Achilles heel.
  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    (the heel that Achilles had). [...] Since it's possessive, the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".
    That's up for debate. It makes far more sense to spell it "Achilles's heel" than any of the other alternatives, because it follows a straightforward rule. Just because it ends in "-s" doesn't mean it follows the rule for plurals.

    And yes, that would be pronounced a-KIL-ez-iz HEE-l.

    But I would tend to agree with Code Dependent. It's properly "Achilles heel", because it's an analogy of the heel named for Achilles, and not actually possessive at all.

    (Just to niggle a bit more on your lack of linguistic awareness, "the heel that Achilles had"? What's wrong with "the heel of Achilles"?)

  • (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    Lydia the Tattooed Lady:
    Lydia, oh, Lydia, that apostro-i-dia, Oh, Lydia, the Queen of A.U. Her apostrophe was built just for you. She could inject a DROP TABLE statement, too. And when your server burns you will feel really blue, You can learn a lot from Lydia.

    La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la

    *standing ovation*

    Sorry, I don't recognize the tune. Even with the la-la-la's.

    (Or is it la-la-las'? Or la-la-las's?)

    Ed: never mind, thanks Wikipedia!

  • (cs) in reply to Eric
    Eric:
    Its Achilles's, technically. Myers's is right too. You drop the s after the apostrophe only for plural possessives. And there's only one Achilles.

    Incorrect. To form the possessive of a noun ending with s, you simply add the apostrophe. If you're using Internet English or perhaps a bastardized form of American English, I suppose you can put the apostrophes in wherever you want but you would still be wrong.

    My real life name ends with an s; I am quite certain of how to conjugate my own name.

    one parent owns a book: parent's book two parents own a book: parents' book Achilles owns a book: Achilles' book two heroes own a book: heroes' book

    To differentiate between the singular possessive and the plural possessive when both end with an s, you have to watch for the plural form of the root word. In the case of two people named Achilles, the plural possessive is Achilles'

  • ShatteredArm (unregistered) in reply to ultrapedant
    ultrapedant:
    Anonymous Coward:
    Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive, the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".
    It's not that simple. For singular nouns -- even those ending in "s", one adds "'s" -- Charles's bat, for example.

    As an exception, ancient names that end in -es or -is are exceptions. So in this case, Achilles' heel is proper.

    However, the preferred form for such things is to reframe the sentence ("the heel of Achilles"). I don't think that would be very clear in this context.

    All this according to The Elements of Style, 1818 edition

    Keyword, 1818. LOL

    Seriously, though, I was tought in my high school English class that for singular possessives ending in 's', the extra 's' should only be included for single-syllable names. For example:

    Charles => Charles' James => James's

  • unshifted (unregistered)

    I don't know why you're all discussing grammar as though it's black-and-white thing. If you look in five different style guides, you'll find five different rules for this case. You're all right, but you're all wrong.

  • (cs) in reply to ShatteredArm

    This is why I go by "James" at work. Because it is just so much fun to correct everyone's grammar when they screw it up. I correct them, and they say, "Wow, James, thank you! Now my life is complete!" I get boxes of chocolates in my inbox, and people throw roses at my feet.

    People who correct grammar are so cool.

  • Mogri (unregistered) in reply to Eric
    Eric:
    Its Achilles's, technically. Myers's is right too. You drop the s after the apostrophe only for plural possessives [b]that end in s[/b. And there's only one Achilles.

    FTFY.

    TDWTF: arguing semantics, one comment at a time!

  • Mogri (unregistered) in reply to Mogri
    Mogri:
    Eric:
    Its Achilles's, technically. Myers's is right too. You drop the s after the apostrophe only for plural possessives that end in s. And there's only one Achilles.

    FTFY.

    TDWTF: arguing semantics, one comment at a time!

    of course I screw up while correcting him

  • (cs) in reply to StDoodle
    StDoodle:
    Well, let's get the pedantic stuff over early... there's a period missing after the fourth sentence of the sixth paragraph. It also has an extra article "...including a cosmic rays was a possibility With no detailed reports available..."

    As for the WTF... it makes me sorely tempted to start a business with a "Bobby Tables" name just to see how many companies have such problems.

    I wonder when some crazed xkcd fan will actually name their kid after Little Bobby Tables.

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Mark, how sure are you that you actually know what the word "prodigal" means?

    It's actually a reference to the Biblical parable of the "Prodigal Son", and a very apt reference. The Prodigal Son leaves the family, squanders his entire inheritance, and returns home and they put on a big party in his honor. Moral: the wasteful projects continue to get all the resources they want.

  • Zapp Brannigan (unregistered) in reply to Benanov
    Benanov:
    Lydia's Hair Update was good, but we need some more...

    DROP TABLE TRANSACTIONS A Casino Supply Company

    SHUTDOWN WITH NOWAIT Liquidation Service (This one's always fun on MS Sql Server)

    UPDATE TABLE Furniture Restoration

    SELECT TOP STAR Entertainment Agency

    I'm tired of bobby, but this made me smile.

  • Bobby Tables (unregistered)

    So I was thinking of trying to round up some business financing.

    Anybody in?

    /the ever-hated captcha - nobis, which is the kind of 'biz' I should be in...

  • Hot for Teacher (unregistered) in reply to unshifted
    unshifted:
    I don't know why you're all discussing grammar as though it's black-and-white thing. If you look in five different style guides, you'll find five different rules for this case. You're all right, but you're all wrong.
    It all depends on the teacher grading the paper.
  • (cs) in reply to Bobby Tables
    Bobby Tables:
    So I was thinking of trying to round up some business financing.

    Anybody in?

    /the ever-hated captcha - nobis, which is the kind of 'biz' I should be in...

    *sings* There's no-oo-o-bis like sho-oo-o-w business like any nobis I kno-oo-o-w ...
  • Uhh... (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    Because it is just so much fun to correct everyone's grammar when they screw it up.
    Do I detect a sentence fragment?
  • jimicus (unregistered) in reply to Benanov
    Benanov:
    Lydia's Hair Update was good, but we need some more...

    DROP TABLE TRANSACTIONS A Casino Supply Company

    SHUTDOWN WITH NOWAIT Liquidation Service (This one's always fun on MS Sql Server)

    UPDATE TABLE Furniture Restoration

    SELECT TOP STAR Entertainment Agency

    You'd want quotation marks immediately before anything that could be interpreted as an SQL statement for best effect.

  • Lego (unregistered) in reply to Marc B
    Marc B:
    Mark Bowytz:
    Good work gang! Some to most typos are now fixed. But you all forgot that I misspelled bonuses as "bonues"

    Uh, isn't the plural of 'bonus' 'boni'?

    Boners.

  • Dennis C. (unregistered) in reply to valerion

    Not everyone who visits the Daily WTF is a database programmer. Some of us are real programmers.

  • (cs) in reply to Mel
    Mel:
    Anonymous Coward:
    Anders Widebrant:
    Anonymous Coward:
    s/achille's/Achilles'/
    Or "Achilles", or "Achilles's"

    Ummm . . . no. Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive and already ends in 's', the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".

    Captcha: vulputate

    FTFY
    you both fail. You DO put the 's' after the apostrophe on proper nouns even if they end in an 's'.

    Seriously people, if you are going to correct grammar, at least don't fuck it up yourself.

  • Dr. Evil (unregistered) in reply to J
    J:

    Unless the answer is always yes, you are very wrong today.

  • (cs) in reply to Marc B
    Marc B:
    Mark Bowytz:
    Good work gang! Some to most typos are now fixed. But you all forgot that I misspelled bonuses as "bonues"
    Uh, isn't the plural of 'bonus' 'boni'?
    Only in some weird languages such as Latin, or German.
  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to tster
    tster:
    Mel:
    Anonymous Coward:
    Anders Widebrant:
    Anonymous Coward:
    s/achille's/Achilles'/
    Or "Achilles", or "Achilles's"

    Ummm . . . no. Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive and already ends in 's', the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".

    Captcha: vulputate

    FTFY
    you both fail. You DO put the 's' after the apostrophe on proper nouns even if they end in an 's'.

    Seriously people, if you are going to correct grammar, at least don't fuck it up yourself.

    Tell that to Word's spell check.

  • justsomedude (unregistered) in reply to Elvis
    Elvis:
    @command1

    @ShakesFistAtDomino!

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to tster
    tster:
    Mel:
    Anonymous Coward:
    Anders Widebrant:
    Anonymous Coward:
    s/achille's/Achilles'/
    Or "Achilles", or "Achilles's"

    Ummm . . . no. Because it's referring to Achilles' heel (the heel that Achilles had). It was Achilles' heel that was his problem. Since it's possessive and already ends in 's', the apostrophe goes at the end with no "s".

    Captcha: vulputate

    FTFY
    you both fail. You DO put the 's' after the apostrophe on proper nouns even if they end in an 's'.

    Seriously people, if you are going to correct grammar, at least don't fuck it up yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles%27_heel http://www.uhv.edu/ac/grammar/apostrophes.asp (see "Continuous S") http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm (Possessives of plurals and irregular plurals)

    Seriously, if you are going to correct grammar, at least don't fuck it up yourself.

  • Charles (unregistered)

    Nice graphic. Little Bobby Table's mother is a hottie.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt
    Matt:
    All right, I want to complain about the article itself. All that leadup, and not much payoff in the end. I keep re-reading the last two paragraphs, and I'm just not getting it.

    Um, Matt? This may not be the site for you. This site is for people who actually know at least a little bit about computers and programming.

    Perhaps http://www.disney.com would be a better place to hang out after school for you?

  • (cs) in reply to Charles
    Charles:
    Nice graphic. Little Bobby Tables' mother is a hottie.
    FTFY
  • (cs) in reply to ShatteredArm
    ShatteredArm:
    Keyword, 1818. LOL

    Seriously, though, I was tought in my high school English class that for singular possessives ending in 's', the extra 's' should only be included for single-syllable names. For example:

    Charles => Charles' James => James's

    LOL ZOMG

    Seriously, though, in my high school biology class I was told that there are 29.4 inches in a meter.

  • ckoppelman (unregistered) in reply to J
    J:
    http://www.isxkcdworthreadingtoday.com/ actually updates
  • Mark (unregistered)

    This sounds...dreadfully familiar. Like, seriously I worked there three months ago. And...Oh God it's got to be...

  • Chelloveck (unregistered) in reply to ShatteredArm
    ShatteredArm:
    Keyword, 1818. LOL

    Seriously, though, I was tought in my high school English class that for singular possessives ending in 's', the extra 's' should only be included for single-syllable names. For example:

    Charles => Charles' James => James's

    The book was first published in 1918, not 1818. The 3rd edition (1979) still contains that same rule, including the exception for ancient proper names. Insofar as any book can be considered authoritative on the English Language, this is the one.

    Seriously, though, my high school teachers were wrong about a lot of stuff, too.

    (And FWIW, "Charles" is a single syllable name.)

  • (cs)

    Is there an obfuscated sql injection anecdote contest going on, or what?

    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah UPDATE blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah xkcd.

  • Uhh... (unregistered) in reply to ckoppelman
    ckoppelman:
    J:
    http://www.isxkcdworthreadingtoday.com/ actually updates
    It's a week behind.
  • (cs)
    Due to the sheer level of data,

    FTFY

  • holli (unregistered)

    this company moved many gobs so they decided to let do the jobs rewriting replication to a foreign corporation a vendor they learned, that fobs

    with the vendor out of play the new inhouse support went okay then bugs bit progressive what made the devils aggressive and management cry in dismay

    after improving the log so lightening the fog they found it's their shame and not lydia to blame nested dml made them slog

  • Ethan (unregistered) in reply to Chelloveck

    And FWIW, "Charles" is a single syllable name.

    Uhhh... no, it isn't. "Char" is a syllable. "uls" is a syllable". "Char-uls" is two syllables.

  • (cs) in reply to Ethan
    Ethan:
    And FWIW, "Charles" is a single syllable name.

    Uhhh... no, it isn't. "Char" is a syllable. "uls" is a syllable". "Char-uls" is two syllables.

    If you went by my sister's pronunciation, "Fred" is also two syllables: "fray-ud". But then she says "laigs" for legs and "yay-uh" for yeah.

  • (cs) in reply to holli
    holli:
    *limericks snipped*
    There once was a SQL injection Which wanted to avoid detection So it hid in a label About little Bobby Tables And made good its DB connection.
  • (cs)

    Good work, misspelling identifying folks. :)

  • Bob (unregistered)

    'DELETE * FROM Comments WHERE INSTR(Comment_Text, 'Achille'); --

    (I apologise in advance if this actually works)

  • duckInferno (unregistered) in reply to rmz
    rmz:
    Spelling Gestapo:
    Sheer. Not shear.ludu
    As soon as I saw that typo in the article, I tried to guess how many comments it would take before someone mentioned it. Thanks for topping my expectations!
    I sheared your anticipation.
  • gregory (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    My real life name ends with an s; I am quite certain of how to conjugate my own name.
    Your name is a verb? Interesting.
  • (cs) in reply to J
    J:
    Mandatory Fun Day getting a bit jealous there, right?
  • filthyPierre (unregistered) in reply to Spelling Gestapo
    Spelling Gestapo:
    Sheer. Not shear.ludu

    An Aussie is driving through the New Zealand countryside when he sees a field full of sheep. In the middle of the field a New Zealander is rogering one of the sheep. He gets out of the car and goes up to the Kiwi. "Hey mate, where I come from, we shear them!" "Year, wull ovuh heer theers' plinty to go 'round. Go git your own".

    Boom tish (Apologies to Kiwis, but I just couldn't let that one go by) :-)

Leave a comment on “Hairdress Replication”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article