• Warren (unregistered)

    TRWTF is a Firefox browser with tabs about Lync, Skype and Live.com - if you love MS that much you may as well use IE

  • Zacrath (cs)

    The current version of NetSqlAzMan is 3.6.0.15. It probably cut off the last digit.

  • flabdablet (unregistered)
    Alastair:
    Apparently nobody in Australia has a job
    The Tories have been in power for a few months now, so that's pretty much right.
  • AnSc (unregistered)

    The real WTF is a computer mouse for £15,000 plus delivery

  • Steve The Cynic (cs)

    Rod H is strong strong...

  • Zacrath (cs) in reply to AnSc
    AnSc:
    The real WTF is a computer mouse for £15,000 plus delivery
    When I searched for it on amazon I couldn't find it. (Just a lot of anime girl stuff.) But I found it here.

    I wouldn't buy it though, theres a bunch of rocks where my hand rests. Not very comfortable.

  • Rod H (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Quango (cs) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    AnSc:
    The real WTF is a computer mouse for £15,000 plus delivery
    When I searched for it on amazon I couldn't find it. (Just a lot of anime girl stuff.) But I found it here.

    I wouldn't buy it though, theres a bunch of rocks where my hand rests. Not very comfortable.

    "...are made of 750% white gold..."

    About sums it up.. if you're a moron - buy it!

  • koni (unregistered)

    Many were born into the UNIX epoch. None when it started.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to flabdablet
    flabdablet:
    Alastair:
    Apparently nobody in Australia has a job
    The Tories have been in power for a few months now, so that's pretty much right.

    Only unemployed people need credit cards -- everyone else is should be perfectly content with allowing their remuneration to cover their expenses. And if your lifestyle is so undisciplined as to need to borrow money in order to finance it, then we have no place for you in our employment -- clear your desk and be off the premises within the next ten minutes.

  • Rodnas (unregistered)

    This comment has been existed. After reading the next one, read the previous one again.

  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered) in reply to Quango
    Comment held for moderation.
  • dpm (unregistered)

    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London. I'm assuming they were in a timezone west of GMT, and therefore the representation of "1970-01-01:00:00:00" goes negative when converted to time_t. (Yes, I know that type is supposed to be unsigned.)

  • Pista (unregistered) in reply to Quango
    Comment held for moderation.
  • dkf (cs) in reply to dpm
    dpm:
    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London.
    It's probably some sort of sentinel value, the possibility of someone actually being born on that day not having occurred to the application developers…

    Magical sentinels are definitely TRWTF.

  • Zacrath (cs) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    dpm:
    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London.
    It's probably some sort of sentinel value, the possibility of someone actually being born on that day not having occurred to the application developers…

    Magical sentinels are definitely TRWTF.

    Anyone who says they were born on the 1st of January is obviously lying to get attention.

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    dpm:
    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London.
    It's probably some sort of sentinel value, the possibility of someone actually being born on that day not having occurred to the application developers…

    Magical sentinels are definitely TRWTF.

    Probably because 50% of their users claimed to be born on Jan 1, so they just waved their hands and said fuck it, no one is born on Jan 1 now.

  • Rupee Everet (unregistered) in reply to Warren
    Warren:
    TRWTF is a Firefox browser with tabs about Lync, Skype and Live.com - if you love MS that much you may as well use IE

    Yeah maybe they like MS or maybe they work in ANY COMPANY EVER.

  • DrakeSmith (cs)

    Is that form really for Australia, or is the signup page for Obamacare?

  • Paula (unregistered) in reply to flabdablet
    flabdablet:
    The Tories have been in power for a few months now, so that's pretty much right.

    Your personal politics == shit chat.

  • cogo (unregistered)

    I think everyone around here needs to load their requested happy!

  • moz (unregistered) in reply to cogo
    cogo:
    I think everyone around here needs to load their requested happy!
    Can not be done, I'm afraid.
  • Pista (unregistered) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:
    dkf:
    dpm:
    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London.
    It's probably some sort of sentinel value, the possibility of someone actually being born on that day not having occurred to the application developers…

    Magical sentinels are definitely TRWTF.

    Probably because 50% of their users claimed to be born on Jan 1, so they just waved their hands and said fuck it, no one is born on Jan 1 now.

    The irony of which is that, like the other big names, Microsoft is making huge efforts to force people to sign up to their network - and now they just flip off 0.3% of the Earth's population.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    TRWTF with Foxit is that it now installs malware by default.

  • Walky_one (unregistered) in reply to Pista
    Pista:
    The irony of which is that, like the other big names, Microsoft is making huge efforts to force people to sign up to their network - and now they just flip off 0.3% of the Earth's population.

    That statement is definitely wrong. This would only be true if it's EVERY 1th of January (which it probably isn't). So either it's only 1th of January 1970. In which case it's a lot less than 0.3% Or it's 1th of January 1970 and everything earlier. In which case it would be a LOT more than 0.3%

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Comment held for moderation.
  • tharpa (cs) in reply to Walky_one
    Walky_one:
    That statement is definitely wrong. This would only be true if it's EVERY 1th of January (which it probably isn't). So either it's only 1th of January 1970. In which case it's a lot less than 0.3% Or it's 1th of January 1970 and everything earlier. In which case it would be a LOT more than 0.3%
    While it is true that those born earlier than January 2, 1970 are more than 0.3% of the population, they generally are not willing to admit it, so the point is moot.
  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to Walky_one
    Walky_one:
    That statement is definitely wrong. This would only be true if it's EVERY 1th of January (which it probably isn't). So either it's only 1th of January 1970. In which case it's a lot less than 0.3% Or it's 1th of January 1970 and everything earlier. In which case it would be a LOT more than 0.3%
    Most likely, the web page is doing a date calculation to convert the value the user has put in into an epoch time (for example the Unix epoch which started at approximately the date in question), dividing that by 86400 (approximately the number of epoch-ticks per day) and getting confused when that conversion returns FILE_NOT_FOUND (0) instead of a proper number. Or throws a DIVIDE_BY_ZERO exception or something.

    A stupid idea, and a dumb way to test for date validation, but less of a WTF than has been seen here lately.

  • operagost (cs) in reply to Walky_one
    Walky_one:
    Pista:
    The irony of which is that, like the other big names, Microsoft is making huge efforts to force people to sign up to their network - and now they just flip off 0.3% of the Earth's population.

    That statement is definitely wrong. This would only be true if it's EVERY 1th of January (which it probably isn't). So either it's only 1th of January 1970. In which case it's a lot less than 0.3% Or it's 1th of January 1970 and everything earlier. In which case it would be a LOT more than 0.3%

    OK... you explained the firth. But what about the fist of January? Or fourd?

  • Xagyg (unregistered) in reply to Rod H

    I do love the camelcamelcamel data, though:

    3rd Party New Low : £41.73 (Feb 01, 2014) High: £20,095,960.32 (Aug 02, 2013)

  • Steven J (unregistered) in reply to Quango
    Comment held for moderation.
  • DCRoss (cs) in reply to Jeff Grigg
    Jeff Grigg:
    Quango:
    "...are made of 750% white gold..."

    About sums it up.. if you're a moron - buy it!

    And it's not even the world's most expensive generally available retail computer mouse!!!

    Top 10 most expensive Computer Mice in the world

    Perhaps, but have any of those mice been the subject of UN sanctions?

    That's how you really know something is good.

  • chubertdev (cs)

    Congrats, Chris, on having an epoch birthday.

  • Some Damn Yank (cs) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    Walky_one:
    That statement is definitely wrong. This would only be true if it's EVERY 1th of January (which it probably isn't). So either it's only 1th of January 1970. In which case it's a lot less than 0.3% Or it's 1th of January 1970 and everything earlier. In which case it would be a LOT more than 0.3%
    Most likely, the web page is doing a date calculation to convert the value the user has put in into an epoch time (for example the Unix epoch which started at approximately the date in question), dividing that by 86400 (approximately the number of epoch-ticks per day) and getting confused when that conversion returns FILE_NOT_FOUND (0) instead of a proper number. Or throws a DIVIDE_BY_ZERO exception or something.

    A stupid idea, and a dumb way to test for date validation, but less of a WTF than has been seen here lately.

    Since a Roman came up with our current calendar, clearly the only proper way to do date calculations is with Roman Numerals. That's why there's no Year Zero, you know.

    We need to track birth and other dates and we store dates as four two-digit fields: Century, Year, Month, and Day. We totally ignore native date schemes and do it ourselves. That way our code works properly no matter what system hosts it or what language codes it. I know, I know, it will fail in the year 10000, but we'll worry about that in the year 9999.

  • chubertdev (cs)

    "has been existed"

    You know you're an experienced programmer when you can tell when something has been written by an Indian.

  • Gurth (cs)

    NetSqlAzMan’s version number clearly counts down to 0.0.0, at which point it will have reached … Perfection? Liftoff? End of the internet? Bankruptcy? The time when your pizza is ready?

  • Loren Pechtel (cs) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    dpm:
    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London.
    It's probably some sort of sentinel value, the possibility of someone actually being born on that day not having occurred to the application developers…

    Magical sentinels are definitely TRWTF.

    I wouldn't even assume a sentinel. I ran into a problem like this, a website that wouldn't accept that I'm 6' 0" tall. Since the error was client side I could figure out what was happening--it was treating the 0 as a value not entered. I suspect the website is refusing to accept the default value as a legitimate value.

    (And in my case to add to the WTFness--I used their contact form to tell them about the problem--boom. At least the error screen gave me an address to report the error to. I told them what had happened and included my original which included exactly how to fix their calculator. No reply so far.)

  • chubertdev (cs) in reply to Loren Pechtel
    Loren Pechtel:
    dkf:
    dpm:
    The "birth date" might have been accepted if the user were in London.
    It's probably some sort of sentinel value, the possibility of someone actually being born on that day not having occurred to the application developers…

    Magical sentinels are definitely TRWTF.

    I wouldn't even assume a sentinel. I ran into a problem like this, a website that wouldn't accept that I'm 6' 0" tall. Since the error was client side I could figure out what was happening--it was treating the 0 as a value not entered. I suspect the website is refusing to accept the default value as a legitimate value.

    (And in my case to add to the WTFness--I used their contact form to tell them about the problem--boom. At least the error screen gave me an address to report the error to. I told them what had happened and included my original which included exactly how to fix their calculator. No reply so far.)

    You're obviously 5' 12"

  • Dave. Not that Dave. (unregistered)
    what the heck Foxit Reader's Updater is trying to say
    If you read every third letter starting backwards from the end, it says "Don't use Foxit Reader."
  • Your Name (unregistered) in reply to Some Damn Yank
    Some Damn Yank:
    We totally ignore native date schemes and do it ourselves. That way our code works properly no matter what system hosts it or what language codes it.

    I rather doubt that, actually.

  • Mathman (unregistered) in reply to Dave. Not that Dave.
    Dave. Not that Dave.:
    what the heck Foxit Reader's Updater is trying to say
    If you read every third letter starting backwards from the end, it says "Don't use Foxit Reader."

    I got "eifoaaned t a auokhee ei es psnr T".

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Mathman
    Mathman:
    Dave. Not that Dave.:
    what the heck Foxit Reader's Updater is trying to say
    If you read every third letter starting backwards from the end, it says "Don't use Foxit Reader."

    I got "eifoaaned t a auokhee ei es psnr T".

    Now run that thru yesterday's translator, and it should come back as "Don't use Foxit Reader." Or it might be in French. Or it might be FILE_NOT_FOUND. You can never really be sure....
  • Some Damn Yank (cs) in reply to Your Name
    Your Name:
    Some Damn Yank:
    We totally ignore native date schemes and do it ourselves. That way our code works properly no matter what system hosts it or what language codes it.

    I rather doubt that, actually.

    I understand the skepticism, but we're an FDA certified medical device. We take great pains to get it right. I should know, I do testing on it. Remember, we don't have to go back to before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, so it's not as complicated as some date functions need to be.

  • Zemm (cs) in reply to Loren Pechtel
    Loren Pechtel:
    I ran into a problem like this, a website that wouldn't accept that I'm 6' 0" tall. Since the error was client side I could figure out what was happening--it was treating the 0 as a value not entered. I suspect the website is refusing to accept the default value as a legitimate value.

    I found a site like that too. It also let you use "metric" where there were boxes for metres and centimetres. I'm 200 cm tall and it wouldn't let me enter 2+0. It also didn't allow >=100 to be entered into the centimetres box either.

  • tin (cs) in reply to Jeff Grigg
    Jeff Grigg:
    And it's not even the world's most expensive generally available retail computer mouse!!! Top 10 most expensive Computer Mice in the world

    I'm in the wrong job. Starting first thing Monday morning, I'm going into the Gluing Shiny Things To Electronic Devices trade. We've already got hot-glue and new-in-box mouses at work, so maybe we can transform the entire business!

  • dkf (cs) in reply to Some Damn Yank
    Some Damn Yank:
    we're an FDA certified medical device
    Is that painful? Can you get a cream for it, or do you need to take it to ER?
  • Jkoby (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    "has been existed"

    You know you're an experienced programmer when you can tell when something has been written by an Indian.

    And the similar "do you really want to exist?"

  • SD123 (cs) in reply to dpm

    Thank the lord harry someone figured it out!

    I do suspect though, that it's more simple. time_t for that date is zero so I suspect that's where the problem lies.

  • Malik (unregistered) in reply to Xagyg
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Loren Pechtel (cs) in reply to Zemm
    Zemm:
    Loren Pechtel:
    I ran into a problem like this, a website that wouldn't accept that I'm 6' 0" tall. Since the error was client side I could figure out what was happening--it was treating the 0 as a value not entered. I suspect the website is refusing to accept the default value as a legitimate value.

    I found a site like that too. It also let you use "metric" where there were boxes for metres and centimetres. I'm 200 cm tall and it wouldn't let me enter 2+0. It also didn't allow >=100 to be entered into the centimetres box either.

    At least mine didn't do that much validation, it was happy with 5' 12".

Leave a comment on “Not All Birthdays are Created Equal”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article