• (cs) in reply to R
    R:
    The pic's down (with a nod to DailyWTF replacing it).

    Anyone gots the pix?

    Damn. I had to check TDWTF late today.

  • (cs) in reply to R
    R:
    The pic's down (with a nod to DailyWTF replacing it).

    Anyone gots the pix?

    Yes, pls snd teh pix. thx.

  • (cs)

    sndng u t3h pix right nao...

    Here it is!

    Dave, in all his uncensored glory. Get it while it's hot!

    Bonus points if you can figure out the removal code (hint: it's a reference to one of the most infamous WTFs posted).

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to CSBG

    Sorry, but it seems that I guessed the removal code (on my first try!). Looks like you'll have to repost the image.

  • ThingGuy McGuyThing (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Sorry, but it seems that I guessed the removal code (on my first try!). Looks like you'll have to repost the image.

    Was it "brillant"?

  • (cs) in reply to anonymous

    Ungh. I wanna see. Dave it pulled down again. Plz snd me teh pix, thx.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to ThingGuy McGuyThing
    ThingGuy McGuyThing:
    anonymous:
    Sorry, but it seems that I guessed the removal code (on my first try!). Looks like you'll have to repost the image.

    Was it "brillant"?

    Yes, it was!

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    put it back!

  • Peter (unregistered)

    I want to see what this is all about! :( Also, "brillant" is way too obvious.

    Also, alex, you need to make it more obvious that I needed to enter a name. It just sat there with a little red star next to "Your Name" that I didn't notice. I thought I had javascript still turned off or something until after the third try.

  • AC (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    put it back!

    Ant this time use teh non-guessable codez.

  • m0ffx (unregistered)

    I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.

  • Mr (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Sorry, but it seems that I guessed the removal code (on my first try!). Looks like you'll have to repost the image.

    You should do it yourself. The image is on your harddrive somewhere in the cache.

    I'm curious and would like to see the image, but thanks to you I'll never know.

  • New LIfe (unregistered) in reply to R

    Plz send me the picz, ok?

  • Vertigo (unregistered) in reply to Phill
    Phill:
    Seriously. I'd grow very quickly to hate any application that did something like that. That kind of thing doesn't show that you're "kooky" or fun or any of those things - they are just ridiculously annoying distractions for your users.
    youre the type of person who will ring a developer because the background-color of your interface is slightly too pale blue, or the whole interface needs to be moves top-right by "1cm", or that the delete icon is "too cheery" for day to day business. lighten up.
  • arc (unregistered)

    So now the real WTF is that Alex uploaded the pic with a blatantly obvious removal code?

  • schlumberjack (unregistered) in reply to R

    yeah. anyone got the pic on archive?

  • (cs)

    The removal code was too easy (I guess great minds think alike, AMIRITE?). I was bored and decided to type in the removal code "just for t3h lolz". Had I not pointed it out, the picture would probably still be up.

    Here it is again, in its uncensored glory: http://bayimg.com/FAjeFAAbP

    Removal code is now something I banged on my keyboard, so even I can't remove it now.

    And no, I'm not Alex. Nice try.

    Addendum (2008-07-21 20:21): Damn it, this comment system sucks. I didn't want to add an addenum!

  • Dave (unregistered)

    You're my wife now.

  • Jacob (unregistered)

    MF'er, where's the picture?

  • J (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    You're my wife now.

    Gentlemen, this thread just got won.

    /salute

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to CSBG

    Ugh... Now I kinda wish I hadn't seen that. That's really, really stupid looking :|

  • immibis (unregistered) in reply to James R. Twine
    James R. Twine:
    I believe that should have been:

    "No one User wrote me. I'm worth millions of their man-years!"

    Coming from someone that (sadly) can act out the disc fight sequences. Man, I wore holes in the tape watching that movie...

    CAPTCHA: dignissim <-- is that even English?

    dignissim is "missing id" backwards with the space removed. TRWTF is that CAPTCHA.

  • david (unregistered) in reply to Martin
    Martin:
    Yes, the goofy GNU C min and max operators are indeed deprecated by the current GCC team. In fact, I think they would prefer to get rid of most of the GNU extensions and are only being so slow to do so because of the amount of second-rate code by "all the world's an x86 Linux box" basement hackers that would break hideously if they did.

    A reminder of a gentler, kinder age, when 'C is portable' meant that there were lots of different C compilers. (david)

  • Amir (unregistered)

    2nd?

  • (cs)
  • (cs) in reply to Vertigo
    Vertigo:
    Phill:
    Seriously. I'd grow very quickly to hate any application that did something like that. That kind of thing doesn't show that you're "kooky" or fun or any of those things - they are just ridiculously annoying distractions for your users.
    youre the type of person who will ring a developer because the background-color of your interface is slightly too pale blue, or the whole interface needs to be moves top-right by "1cm", or that the delete icon is "too cheery" for day to day business. lighten up.

    No the background colour of an interface does not bother me - unless it's yellow with a white font or anything neon-related. There's a bit of a difference between this and a "hilarious" image that appears seemingly at random or when your mouse accidently strays over part of the screen. Your job is obviously so mind-numbingly boring and unsatisfying that this kind of crap helps you not pick up that revolver for just one more day.

  • Paul G (unregistered)

    I was once called in to 'fix' an application of the 1'st of April. The resident know-it-all who was responsible for it had dropped a April fools gag into the code. Every time the user pressed 'Proceed' on the main screen a little dancing skeleton popped up and a 'Deleting had drive' message was shown for 30 seconds. It app in question was used by call-centre operators who on average had to press the button once every time logging a incoming call. Seeing as they handled 2 calls every 5 minutes... He wasn't even allowed to touch the code, his contract was summarily canceled and he was escorted of the premises. 30 seconds to find and delete the offending code, 5 minutes to prove to management that it was fixed and 45 minutes to crash deploy it to 6 call-centers spread over the entire country.

  • Bosshog (unregistered) in reply to HAL9000
    HAL9000:
    I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
    Oh yeah?
  • Rhialto (unregistered) in reply to CSBG
    CSBG:
    Here it is again, in its uncensored glory: http://bayimg.com/FAjeFAAbP
    Why does that image site require javascript to display a static page with an image? Now that is a WTF!
  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to Martin
    Martin:
    Yes, the goofy GNU C min and max operators are indeed deprecated by the current GCC team. In fact, I think they would prefer to get rid of most of the GNU extensions and are only being so slow to do so because of the amount of second-rate code by "all the world's an x86 Linux box" basement hackers that would break hideously if they did.

    It's not like other implementations were much better, right? Include windows.h in VS.NET 2005 and you can't use Standard C++'s std::min and std::max any more without using #undef.

    And the STL headers don't even compile when you disable the VC++ language extensions. Not because they would actually require some fancy compiler magic, but mostly only because someone was too lazy rsp. ignorant to use typename whereever it is required by the standard.

    The mind boggles.

  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to R

    Maybe Dave reads The Daily WTF?

  • FAILbot 2000 (unregistered) in reply to R

    Daily WTFAIL!

  • Tim P (unregistered) in reply to R

    Nope, but here's a clue as to what the mysterious Chiblingo is: http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=chrismason&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3achrismasonPost%3a5a0b47de-608d-45ae-980d-77266b668ede

  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to Paul G
    Paul G:
    I was once called in to 'fix' an application of the 1'st of April.

    on the 1st of April

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Non-standard_English_use

    Paul G:
    It app in question

    What?

    Paul G:
    He wasn't even allowed to touch the code, his contract was summarily canceled and he was escorted of the premises.

    off the premises

    Sincerely, Your resident know-it-all

  • Bryan (unregistered)

    Yeah, no pics. Now I am really curious to know what the image was.

  • DHager (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    === is the equivalent, I believe, to equals()/Equals() in Java/C#

    Not quite.

    One of the big uses of === in PHP is when you have a function that returns an integer normally, and FALSE on error. === Lets you distinguish between whether you truly got an error or just a number that (if automatically casted) becomes false.

    By comparison, Java has comparatively strong types. That kind of situation doesn't arise nearly as much, and when it does you're doing your own manual type conversions.

    In Java (bearing in mind it's been a while in PHP land for me), when it comes to objects, == tests the object as an item in memory--whether or not it is the exact same object instance.

    This is actually more rigorous than equals(), which can do things like check that two different object instances in memory are essentially the same based on their state.

    (new BooleanHolder(true)) != (new BooleanHolder(true)) (new BooleanHolder(true)).equals((new BooleanHolder(true)))

  • DHager (unregistered)

    P.S.:

    This causes problems for some Java developers, especially if they don't know about the "String pool" magic.

    Which is why there's such an emphasis on the equals() interface for object comparison.

    IMO the .equals() stuff i a fairly reasonable approach to an ambiguity which will exist in any programming language. If you don't think it exists in your language, it's because it's doing behind-the-scenes magic and you ought to know what that magic is :D

  • (cs) in reply to DHager
    DHager:
    If you don't think it exists in your language, it's because it's doing behind-the-scenes magic and you ought to know what that magic is :D

    Indeed. C# has some magic for operator overloading, but provides both Object.Equals and Object.ReferenceEquals as a way to unambiguously state which type of comparison you want.

    For example, System.String behaves like it does because of this:

    public sealed class System.String {
    // other code

    public static bool operator==(string a, string b) {
        if (object.ReferenceEquals(a, null))
            return object.ReferenceEquals(b, null);

        return object.ReferenceEquals(a, b) || a.equals(b);
    }
}

    Or something logically equivalent.

    It should be noted that operator overloading is strictly a compile-time process.

  • (cs) in reply to Dirk Diggler
    Dirk Diggler:
    Strangely enough, === is actually a valid javascript operator. Which just shows what an enormous WTF javascript is in general.

    I suppose you have never worked with a weak-type language. If you assign "" to one variable, FALSE to another, 0 to still another and NULL to the fourth, then how do you know that their values are not actually equal?

    Simple, you use the strict-type comparison operator, ===.

  • skyboy (unregistered)

    There's another WTF in that code: The offsetWidth/Height of images includes more than the actual width/height, so the language icons on the sidebar grow by 2px every time that code affects them, 1px border on each side. If you're bored you can make them 100x their original size for entertainment; Or race them to see which slides under the .ArticleBody first.

  • I'm not Dave (unregistered)

    bayimg.com's gone, so the image is once more gone. Anyone still have it laying around?

  • Corion (unregistered)

    The image is archived: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.chron.com/apps/emdjcs/Chiblingo_john_st_germain_17070a.jpg

    Here it is, 3 days before this article went live: [image]

    CAPTCHA: jugis As in "Ju gis gotta see dis!"

  • Stuart Longland (unregistered) in reply to R

    The WayBack machine has it:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080408013153/http://www.chron.com/apps/emdjcs/Chiblingo_john_st_germain_17070a.jpg

    And if they take it down from there, I've saved a copy for prosperity.

    http://www.longlandclan.yi.org/~stuartl/images_tmp/Chiblingo_john_st_germain_17070a.jpg

Leave a comment on “I'm Dave, Oh Yeah!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article