• (cs)

    I always knew McGuinty thought of us as slaves.

  • packrat (unregistered)

    Sounds like the Missouri Department of Transportation (MDOT)

  • (cs)

    I don't know, this one is pretty weak to me. It certainly seems like it's just a typo. You could make a case for input validation, but as a WTF, it isn't really interesting, or funny. At least not to me.

  • (cs)

    Relax. It'll only be a moderate impact.

  • (cs) in reply to Lastchance
    Lastchance:
    I don't know, this one is pretty weak to me. It certainly seems like it's just a typo. You could make a case for input validation, but as a WTF, it isn't really interesting, or funny. At least not to me.

    Uhmm... yes, that's the point. It's a typo. And the typo is amusing. The real WTF here is that you think these all need to be earth shatteringly amazing.

  • Le Poete (unregistered) in reply to strictnein
    strictnein:
    Lastchance:
    I don't know, this one is pretty weak to me. It certainly seems like it's just a typo. You could make a case for input validation, but as a WTF, it isn't really interesting, or funny. At least not to me.

    Uhmm... yes, that's the point. It's a typo. And the typo is amusing. The real WTF here is that you think these all need to be earth shatteringly amazing.

    Even funnier is the fact that it's been there since July last year, and nobody corrected the thing.

  • Harrow (unregistered)

    "ENTERED 2006-07-13 08:15"

    Never trust any data entered before 10:00 or after 16:30, or during a coffee pot outage.

    -Harrow.

  • Botzinger Gulm (unregistered) in reply to strictnein
    strictnein:
    Uhmm... yes, that's the point. It's a typo. And the typo is amusing. The real WTF here is that you think these all need to be earth shatteringly amazing.

    I think they should be at least moderately funny, like the traffic impact.

  • jtl (unregistered)

    Does that mean 3000 years of funding?

  • (cs)

    Maybe they ran out of 2's, and they were trying to do a backwards 5 like on gas-station signs.

  • Daniel Rutter (unregistered)

    Given that it seems very unlikely that the Great Pyramid was constructed over a period of more than a few decades (it may have only taken ten years), the timescale available for this work also implies that even with technology no better than that available to the Egyptians, we can expect to see a pyramid at least 100 times the volume of the Great Pyramid.

    That'd make the thing some 680 metres high.

    With modern construction techniques, I'm sure we could manage at least a kilometre!

  • Top Cod3r (unregistered)

    Eleventh Post!

  • Will (unregistered)

    This is obviously why it takes so long to get across the damn Peace Bridge in the morning. Blame Canada!

  • Kinglink (unregistered) in reply to Lastchance

    Agreed. It's humorous every once in a while when we see a odd weather forecast and then the nerds in us discuss the 3 times the boiling point of water or when a computer malfunctions and tells you that you saved a millions dollars and so on, but come on. This is hardly note worthy, it's a weak data input error.

    Captcha: Gotcha Odd because I don't get this.

  • nobody (unregistered)

    I guess the companies that did Boston's Big Dig have a new project, but they're doing better at estimating how long it will take.

    Or maybe they get a bonus for being done early. "We'll do it for free unless we're done about 2995 years early; then we get a $million for each year."

  • Deron Meranda (unregistered)

    At least they're using ISO 8601 date formats. But I have to wonder if there is a Y10K bug in there; they might be the first ones to find out should a larger construction project get started.

  • (cs) in reply to Deron Meranda

    Oh dear. Two weak WTFs in a row...this site is getting worse - and was so before the name change.

  • freelancer (unregistered) in reply to Le Poete
    Le Poete:
    strictnein:
    Lastchance:
    I don't know, this one is pretty weak to me. It certainly seems like it's just a typo. You could make a case for input validation, but as a WTF, it isn't really interesting, or funny. At least not to me.

    Uhmm... yes, that's the point. It's a typo. And the typo is amusing. The real WTF here is that you think these all need to be earth shatteringly amazing.

    Even funnier is the fact that it's been there since July last year, and nobody corrected the thing.

    What do you mean? They're not finished yet, still have 2999 years to go! :D

  • (cs)

    Had I discovered this in the wilds of the internet, I would have just said, oh, just a minor typo. Obviously they meant 2006. It would have lasted about 2 seconds in my head and I would never think about it again. Move along, nothing to see here.

    To me the WTF is that someone thought this was WTF'y enough to send in, and that the editor also thought it was good enough to post.

    C'mon guys!!! It's Friday, I need something good!!

  • An apprentice (unregistered) in reply to Deron Meranda
    Deron Meranda:
    At least they're using ISO 8601 date formats. But I have to wonder if there is a Y10K bug in there; they might be the first ones to find out should a larger construction project get started.
    Are you implying they meant 15006?
  • dnm (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx

    Then stfu, and stop coming here and reading it. Nobody's making you come here with a gun to your head.

    Geezus the whiners are out in full force today.

  • chuck (unregistered)

    Yawn. So now "curious perversions in information technology" includes typos made by data entry personnel?

    Great captcha BTW: "ewww"

  • Guruman (unregistered) in reply to packrat
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Quakeman (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Quakeman (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • (cs)

    Hm... maybe the second level expressway they're building here isn't that slow after all...

    Still, I wonder if bad adverts count as Error'ds?? I got a goood one ... I didn't know Mexico City was in the USA... hehehe

  • Alyosha` (unregistered)

    So now data entry typos are now considered Worse Than Failure.

    Bunch of perfectionists, you are.

  • Aaron (unregistered)

    If you guys think that it was a typo, and that it won't actually take that long to finish construction in Ontario, then you've obviously never been to Ontario.

    It's a WTF because it's probably accurate.

  • (cs) in reply to Lastchance
    Lastchance:
    I don't know, this one is pretty weak to me. It certainly seems like it's just a typo. You could make a case for input validation, but as a WTF, it isn't really interesting, or funny. At least not to me.

    Yeah, its just a fat-finger WTF today. I don't see any reason to fail validation if the user enters a valid date in the future, however.

    It would be brilliant if somebody wrote a framework for finding anomalies like this in any set of data, and then generalized it so that it could be integrated into any application. E.g. when you see a date that is 100 standard deviations above the median completion data, ask the user if he's sure he wants to enter such a strange value.

  • (cs) in reply to dnm
    dnm:
    Nobody's making you come here with a gun to your head.
    Tell that to the guys near my forehead *they say hi*
  • S|i(3_x (unregistered)

    At that rate, I'd assume it was the Pharoah's slave.

    Captcha: xevious?

  • (cs) in reply to savar
    savar:
    E.g. when you see a date that is 100 standard deviations above the median completion data, ask the user if he's sure he wants to enter such a strange value.
    Some call it a brain and soon most people will have one ^_^
  • JohnB (unregistered)

    Some random comments

    "QEW" is the abbreviation for the Queen Elizabeth Way. CBers used to call it the "Quick and Easy". Perhaps no longer.

    The date mixup ... take your choice: it's just one of the DST follies or it's the fact that Canada uses metric dates.

    To those who were kvetching and whinging ... it's Friday. Chill.

  • iMalc (unregistered)

    Here's hoping that in the next 100 generations or so, nobody decides to cancel the plan, and they better make damn sure that stay on schedule and don't miss that all important 15:00 end time.

  • freelancer (unregistered)

    What the hell are metric dates?!

  • D-ug (unregistered) in reply to Botzinger Gulm
    Botzinger Gulm:
    strictnein:
    Uhmm... yes, that's the point. It's a typo. And the typo is amusing. The real WTF here is that you think these all need to be earth shatteringly amazing.

    I think they should be at least moderately funny, like the traffic impact.

    I was moderately impacted by this article

  • (cs) in reply to freelancer
    freelancer:
    What the hell are metric dates?!

    Hm.. maybe dates from the Mayan Calendar??

  • Trerro (unregistered)

    People are reading waaaaay too much into this, and looking for waaaaay more than is supposed to be in here. The whole point of the pop-up potpourri/error'd section is to show some funny screenshots or pictures that result in absurd announcements or displays. That's it. If you want serious programming fuck ups, stick to the main section of the site. :)

    Yes, it's quite obvious that the entire explanation of this entry is 'some data entry clerk was a bit off with his finger and hit the 5 which is just above the 2.'

    Yes, anyone can look at this and know it's a simple typo, and because it's an absurd year, it's obvious what the correct date is.

    Nonetheless, it's still an amusing announcement of 3000 years of road construction. That's it. It's a silly thing to chuckle at and move on... that's the point of error'd.

  • JohnB (unregistered) in reply to freelancer
    freelancer:
    What the hell are metric dates?!
    My weak attempt at humour. Cut me some slack, please -- it's been a long week. (At least I didn't write about my captcha. Or submit a pic of the printed output from my wooden desktop. Or mention file-not-found.)
  • Jake Cohen (unregistered)

    I would bid on the project at a bargain rate of only $100 per day, paid up front.

  • HatTrick (unregistered) in reply to Guruman
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to freelancer
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered)

    Outside of the semitropical Vancouver Lower Mainland, we have four distinct seasons in Canada: Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, and Road Work.

  • (cs) in reply to Trerro
    Trerro:
    Nonetheless, it's still an amusing announcement of 3000 years of road construction. That's it. It's a silly thing to chuckle at and move on... that's the point of error'd.

    Perhaps the real point of this is the fact that we can no longer easily tell when something is a CSOD or an ERRORED entry. Everything blends in to each other on the front page and it looks like your normal everyday posting.

    So maybe Alex should take note of this as not a mistake on the users part but rather a UI change that made things more difficult for the user.

  • (cs) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    Oh dear. Two weak WTFs in a row...this site is getting worse - and was so before the name change.

    Two words for you and others that think this site is reaching the bottom of the barrel on its content...

    Shark Bait

  • bramster (unregistered) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    Outside of the semitropical Vancouver Lower Mainland, we have four distinct seasons in Canada: Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, and Road Work.

    Best one so far!

  • bramster (unregistered) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    Outside of the semitropical Vancouver Lower Mainland, we have four distinct seasons in Canada: Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, and Road Work.

    Best one so far!

  • bramster (unregistered) in reply to bramster

    Oops -- at least it isn't 5 times

  • CrabsForLunch (unregistered)

    First!

  • Jerk (unregistered) in reply to packrat
    packrat:
    Sounds like the Missouri Department of Transportation (MDOT)
    Shouldn't that be MODOT?

Leave a comment on “Moderate Traffic Impact”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article