• Abby (unregistered)

    Frist Friday!

  • Stephen (unregistered) in reply to Abby

    Hilarious comment. Well done.

  • Brain (unregistered)

    Apart from the obvious crash on the screen, I don't get "luggage that arrives before than the flight" - if the flight arrives at 23:51 (and the previous at 23:28) and all the bags will be in "Carousel 04" before 0:31 (that is 40 min later). The only WTF is the bags take 40 min or almost 60 min (FR4097) to be delivered...

  • mistaryte (unregistered)

    Real WTF: Installing Adobe Reader. Foxit PDF Reader says hi.

  • hansi (unregistered) in reply to mistaryte
    mistaryte:
    Real WTF: Installing Adobe Reader. Foxit PDF Reader says hi.
    And when it tried to Chrome on my system, it said goodbye again. Firefox says hi.
  • giddle (unregistered) in reply to mistaryte

    Why would you use bloated Foxit PDF Reader? SumatraPDF says hi.

  • (cs) in reply to giddle

    Why would you download any PDF reader? Google Drive says hi.

  • Jim the Tool (unregistered)

    So Adobe recognises that some people still have shit Internet connections? Cool bananas!

    Sometimes I feel like my connection is dial up. It's still really easy to buy dial up connections where I live. Etc.

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    Why would you use insecure Google Drive? NSA says hi.

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to Jim the Tool

    I think you can still get dialup anywhere. I can list four families off the top of my head who can't get DSL or cable. One of them lives on a numbered state route 5 miles from a decent sized town.

  • Pock Suppet (unregistered)

    Why would you use untrustworthy, obvious-distraction NSA? <redacted> says hi.

  • anonymous (unregistered)

    Do huge software companies still think a lot of people use a 56K modem? And come on! All those time estimations must go. Even the real-time calculated Windows file copy dialog get everything wrong, how would a piece of static text be any more accurate than that?

  • modem user (unregistered)

    Did you ever download a 135MB file via a 56k modem in 5 minutes?

    56kbit = theoretical 7KB/second 135MB = 138240 KB

    equals to 20000 seconds thus near 6 hours

    CAPTCA: appellatio - fellatio with an apple?

  • Dabbith (unregistered)

    The problem with the file estimate isn't that 56k is included, it's that it says it'll take 5 min 48 seconds to download 135MB when it would really take 6 hours 2 minutes and 3 seconds.

  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to Brain
    Brain:
    Apart from the obvious crash on the screen, I don't get "luggage that arrives before than the flight" - if the flight arrives at 23:51 (and the previous at 23:28) and all the bags will be in "Carousel 04" before 0:31 (that is 40 min later). The only WTF is the bags take 40 min or almost 60 min (FR4097) to be delivered...

    They still do this:

    1. Unload from cargo by hand onto cart. Make (x) trips.
    2. Drive cart up to conveyor belt into un/loading room
    3. People in room take item from conveyor belt to luggage round-a-bout belts by hand.

    With bags being in the 100+ count and carts only holding 10-15 bags, yeah, it takes 40 mins.

  • (cs) in reply to Dabbith
    Dabbith:
    The problem with the file estimate isn't that 56k is included, it's that it says it'll take 5 min 48 seconds to download 135MB when it would really take 6 hours 2 minutes and 3 seconds.

    They did the math with 53k (FCC Limit), not the theoretical 56K limit.

    At 53K, it takes 5 hours, 48 minutes - same numbers, just different units.

    Of course, 6 hours might be more realistic with TCP/IP overhead.

  • (cs)

    Wikipedia corrected the curly right single quote to a standard single quote. This was likely a copy and paste search from Word (or Wordpress with Smart Quotes extension).

  • Nobody Important (unregistered) in reply to Dabbith
    Dabbith:
    The problem with the file estimate isn't that 56k is included, it's that it says it'll take 5 min 48 seconds to download 135MB when it would really take 6 hours 2 minutes and 3 seconds.
    Both you and "modem user" are mixing baud and bit rate. At 8N1, it's more like 7 hours, 1 minutes, and 18 seconds.
  • (cs) in reply to Valued Service
    Valued Service:
    Brain:
    The only WTF is the bags take 40 min or almost 60 min (FR4097) to be delivered...
    They still do this: 1. Unload from cargo by hand onto cart. Make (x) trips. 2. Drive cart up to conveyor belt into un/loading room 3. People in room take item from conveyor belt to luggage round-a-bout belts by hand.

    With bags being in the 100+ count and carts only holding 10-15 bags, yeah, it takes 40 mins.

    On the other hand, they don't normally use one cart per plane. (There are also larger carts about, which can hold rather more than 15 bags.) Taking 40 minutes still feels like TRWTF.

    Of course, the worst I've seen was 2 hours, but that was because the cargo hold door had frozen shut during the flight.

  • boB (unregistered) in reply to anonymous

    It's not about "a lot of people use a 56K modem", it about those that do are the ones that are going to be the most interested in accurate information here. If it takes 30 seconds to download the occasional huge file via broadband, who cares, and who needs a time estimate. But for those few unfortunates on dialup (maybe they literally don't have access to affordable broadband in their area), having an semi-accurate estimate is, I'm sure, welcome if not essential. Of course, being led to believe a 5-7 hour download will take 5 minutes is not even close to semi-accurate.

    Don't put your broadband speed expectations on everyone.

    CAPTCHA: incassum - In cassum you don't have time to download the file now, you can try later when you do.

  • Sociopath (unregistered)
    Lightspeed is Too Slow for MY Luggage
    :squeaks: Prepare luggage...

    Prepare luggage for ludicrous speed! Fasten all seatbelts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the three ring circus, secure all animals in the zoo!

  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to Dabbith
    Dabbith:
    The problem with the file estimate isn't that 56k is included, it's that it says it'll take 5 min 48 seconds to download 135MB when it would really take 6 hours 2 minutes and 3 seconds.
    Didn't you mean to say 6 hours 2 minutes and 3.573264 seconds, Mr. Data?
  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to Pock Suppet

    Why would you use <redacted>? Snowden says hi.

  • its-the-braces (unregistered)

    I think the mistake might have been a bit like this:

    135e6/56e3/8 = 301.3 s = about 5 minutes 135e6/(56e3/8) = 19285.71 s = about 5.5 hours

  • salamandra (unregistered)

    Why would you use PDF? SVG says hi.

  • (cs)

    If I had an extra Saturday, I'd stay in San Diego.

  • <redacted> (unregistered)

    Why would <redacted> use <redacted>? <redacted> says <redacted>!

  • RFoxmich (unregistered) in reply to Brain
    Brain:
    Apart from the obvious crash on the screen, I don't get "luggage that arrives before than the flight" - if the flight arrives at 23:51 (and the previous at 23:28) and all the bags will be in "Carousel 04" before 0:31 (that is 40 min later). The only WTF is the bags take 40 min or almost 60 min (FR4097) to be delivered...

    And then from Riga to Manchester there are time zone boundaries in the middle in the middle as well? Due to the date line if I fly from Japan to my nearest international airport I almost always arrive before I left. Nothing interesting here...move along.

  • RFoxmich (unregistered) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    Valued Service:
    Brain:
    The only WTF is the bags take 40 min or almost 60 min (FR4097) to be delivered...
    They still do this: 1. Unload from cargo by hand onto cart. Make (x) trips. 2. Drive cart up to conveyor belt into un/loading room 3. People in room take item from conveyor belt to luggage round-a-bout belts by hand.

    With bags being in the 100+ count and carts only holding 10-15 bags, yeah, it takes 40 mins.

    On the other hand, they don't normally use one cart per plane. (There are also larger carts about, which can hold rather more than 15 bags.) Taking 40 minutes still feels like TRWTF.

    Of course, the worst I've seen was 2 hours, but that was because the cargo hold door had frozen shut during the flight.

    You left out steps 2.5 and 2.6

    2.5 - take a 20-30min break. 2.6 - take a random set of bags and put them on an unrelated flight after getting the 400kg gorilla to jump up and down on them.

  • Josh (unregistered) in reply to anonymous

    A lot of people DO still use 56k modems, and most of them not by choice. I'm just speaking for the US here, but it's a huge, wide open space for the most part (you should try leaving the city sometime, it's nice). It's not economical to provide broadband to tiny population centers, or single houses (of course).

    Disclosure, I have pretty decent broadband through my cable provider.

  • Schmitter (unregistered) in reply to Sociopath
    Sociopath:
    Lightspeed is Too Slow for MY Luggage
    :squeaks: Prepare luggage...

    Prepare luggage for ludicrous speed! Fasten all seatbelts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the three ring circus, secure all animals in the zoo!

    I once flew to Florida, with a stop in DC. In while in DC my luggage was placed on an earlier flight than I was, and arrived in Florida before I did, simulating light speed travel.

  • Hannes (unregistered) in reply to mistaryte
    mistaryte:
    Real WTF: Installing Adobe Reader. Foxit PDF Reader says hi.

    I tried printing a document with Foxit Reader once. Took 10 minutes to just sent 10 pages (out of ~1000) to the printer. After that experience I went back to Adobe Reader again.

  • Jay911 (unregistered) in reply to Brain

    And here I thought that "No Origin" was TRWTF, until I looked at the screen again. (From out of nowhere into Latvia?)

  • (cs) in reply to Schmitter
    Schmitter:
    I once flew to Florida, with a stop in DC. In while in DC my luggage was placed on an earlier flight than I was, and arrived in Florida before I did, simulating light speed travel.

    heh

  • anon (unregistered)

    The wikipedia image is because of smart quotes...

  • (cs)

    The real WTF is the MediaWiki search function. It's recommended, if you maintain a MediaWiki-based app yourself, that you create your own search tool, perhaps as e.g. a google extension.

  • I forgot how to tdwtf (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    The real WTF is the MediaWiki search function. It's recommended, if you maintain a MediaWiki-based app yourself, that you create your own search tool, perhaps as e.g. a google extension.
    Nice trick, Google employee!
  • (cs) in reply to I forgot how to tdwtf
    I forgot how to tdwtf:
    Matt Westwood:
    The real WTF is the MediaWiki search function. It's recommended, if you maintain a MediaWiki-based app yourself, that you create your own search tool, perhaps as e.g. a google extension.
    Nice trick, Google employee!

    That last comment brought to you by the school of: face, I don't like you, bye bye nose, (chop) that'll serve you right, face.

  • Ryan V (unregistered)

    The silly thing about the division by zero error is that every programmer should make a mental check EVERY time they type a "/" to ensure that the number they're dividing by will never be zero...or that if it might be, they write a logical test or some kind of handling to catch it before-hand. I never understand how people get to the point where their code is actually causing this sort of error.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood

    Well, “Pickett's” is clearly different from “Pickett’s”, isn‘'’t it?

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Ryan V
    Ryan V:
    The silly thing about the division by zero error is that every programmer should make a mental check EVERY time they type a "/" to ensure that the number they're dividing by will never be zero...or that if it might be, they write a logical test or some kind of handling to catch it before-hand.
    Once upon a time I was using an Intel processor for the first time, programming it in an Intel language. On reading the list of possible exceptions a program could produce, I wondered how they would handle (-32768)/(-1). I made a mental check that the number I was dividing by would never be zero. Nonetheless Intel excepted me for dividing by zero.

    Then there's US tax law. Longer ago than that Intel processor, instructions for Form 1116 line 1 said that "foreign" income in a category was the lesser of non-US income in that category or all income in that category. My capital loss from US sources exceeded my capital gain from Canadian sources so the lesser number was the total. Line 1 was negative. Another line on that form required taking that negative number and dividing it by zero. Instructions for line 1 were changed in later years, but that doesn't excuse my action. Where I'm supposed to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that my return is true and correct, I said that it wasn't. It turns out my declaration was illegal. US taxpayers are required to sign the standard declaration even when they know it's not true. If you're a dual citizen and you tell the truth on a US tax form, you might get away with it for a while, but some day you'll get penalized for it. See pages 14 and 17 of this: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irs_tas_arc2011_exec_summary.pdf Well dividing by zero isn't the worst of it, and it's no longer required, but still if your personality tends towards honesty you're going to regret it.

  • Frequent flyer (unregistered)

    TRWTF is Ryanair.

  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered)

    The Wikipedia search is a common problem, easily reproduced. The problem is that some people don't know the difference between Pickett’s Charge and Pickett's Charge

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pickett%E2%80%99s+Charge

    Wikipedia can't find the first, but can find the second. The problem is that the first uses the UNICODE apostrophe instead of the ASCII apostrophe. This usually happens when you copy-paste from Word, after it does it's "auto-correct." Same thing happens with quotes, em-dashes, and some other characters.

    UNICODE: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/02BC/index.htm

    ASCII: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/27/index.htm

  • Kads Latviets (unregistered) in reply to Brain
    Brain:
    Apart from the obvious crash on the screen, I don't get "luggage that arrives before than the flight" - if the flight arrives at 23:51 (and the previous at 23:28) and all the bags will be in "Carousel 04" before 0:31 (that is 40 min later). The only WTF is the bags take 40 min or almost 60 min (FR4097) to be delivered...
    without a date the time could be before or after.....

    Indecently, the first thing that occured to me was that the overlap of the day is what's probably breaking some calculation they've got.

  • Kads Latviets (unregistered) in reply to Frequent flyer
    Frequent flyer:
    TRWTF is Ryanair.
    Indeed http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/11/ryanair-standing-up-against-seat-belts-with-new-seating-proposal/ (old idea)
  • (cs) in reply to Jeff Grigg
  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered) in reply to random_garbage
    random_garbage:
    Surely a close quote would be http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2019/ rather than the modifier character http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/02BC/ Right?
    Yes, but irrelevant.

    For the given text in ASCII, "Pickett's Charge", an apostrophe would be more appropriate than a "single close quote."

  • Brain (unregistered) in reply to Kads Latviets

    Why would you need a date to pick your luggage up? This is a "conveyer belt" message. Flight arrived at eleven something in the evening, all luggage will be there at until midnight something...

    This looks more like a script kiddie that thought he saw what was not there and gave it a bombastic title... Or somebody that is not familiar with 24 hour formats...

  • (cs) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    Ryan V:
    The silly thing about the division by zero error is that every programmer should make a mental check EVERY time they type a "/" to ensure that the number they're dividing by will never be zero...or that if it might be, they write a logical test or some kind of handling to catch it before-hand.
    Once upon a time I was using an Intel processor for the first time, programming it in an Intel language. On reading the list of possible exceptions a program could produce, I wondered how they would handle (-32768)/(-1). I made a mental check that the number I was dividing by would never be zero. Nonetheless Intel excepted me for dividing by zero.

    Then there's US tax law. Longer ago than that Intel processor, instructions for Form 1116 line 1 said that "foreign" income in a category was the lesser of non-US income in that category or all income in that category. My capital loss from US sources exceeded my capital gain from Canadian sources so the lesser number was the total. Line 1 was negative. Another line on that form required taking that negative number and dividing it by zero. Instructions for line 1 were changed in later years, but that doesn't excuse my action. Where I'm supposed to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that my return is true and correct, I said that it wasn't. It turns out my declaration was illegal. US taxpayers are required to sign the standard declaration even when they know it's not true. If you're a dual citizen and you tell the truth on a US tax form, you might get away with it for a while, but some day you'll get penalized for it. See pages 14 and 17 of this: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irs_tas_arc2011_exec_summary.pdf Well dividing by zero isn't the worst of it, and it's no longer required, but still if your personality tends towards honesty you're going to regret it.

    why would (-32768)/(-1) produce that exception? you leave that out of your story. the code is right, if it's just dividing by negative one. if the compiler throws a divide by zero exception when it's not dividing by zero, you did your job correctly, it's the compiler that's fugged.

    also, when it comes to things like tax law, where it's a perversion against mathematics, you're not dividing by zero in the mathematical sense, so you'd have a separate check:

    if(divisor == 0) {
   quotient = constants.something_the_government_made_up_because_they_think_that_math_is_not_real;
} else {
   quotient = dividend / divisor;
}
  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    why would (-32768)/(-1) produce that exception?
    Norman misremembered. On Intel x86, signed division of the 32-bit integer -32,768 by the 16-bit integer -1 will result in a "Divide overflow" exception, because the result does not fit in a 16-bit integer (-32,768 to 32,767).
    [image]

Leave a comment on “Lightspeed is Too Slow for MY Luggage”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article