• xix (unregistered)

    The captcha is clearly "A Suffusion of pink"

  • Hit (unregistered)

    Hey, that's one way to beat spammers. Make the CAPCHA impossible for anything, living or otherwise, to use!

  • woogs (unregistered)

    Who else felt something in their brain snap when reading that BizTalk wall of text?

    I mean really, who thought that would be O.K. for an end user to read?

  • FreetimeDev (unregistered) in reply to woogs

    Really, who thought that would be OK for anyone to see?

  • (cs)

    That last one reads like a formula for the molecular distribution of ionized elements in a dense magenetic field, charged with negative particles that all went to the Pub for lunch!

  • (cs)

    The cake is a lie.

  • (cs)

    The CAPTCHA is easy:

    <hint alphabet="morse code"> .-- - ..-. </hint>
  • (cs)

    Wow. My lawyer is writing dialog boxes now.

  • Anonymous Fil (unregistered) in reply to woogs

    I'll bite. I read the first sentence three times, couldn't understand what in the hell it was saying, then went through the rest. My brain still hurts.

  • Ron (unregistered) in reply to PerdidoPunk
    PerdidoPunk:

    The CAPTCHA is easy:

    <hint alphabet="morse code"> .-- - ..-. </hint>
    I actually checked to see if the captcha was actually that. That would have been awesome!
  • John Doe (unregistered)

    The dialog box text seems to come from the XML schema spec. That's what makes XML so enterprisey: all standards are written in legalese.

  • Robster (unregistered)

    So if the person who wrote the help page in the second item met the lawyer who wrote the BizTalk error... would they combine to produce readable English?

  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered)

    Apparently CAPTCHA stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Clairvoyants and Humdrums Apart.

  • Chris (unregistered)

    Biztalk message: This is clearly describing non-locality in quantum mechanics. But the button should be labeled "Ok and not Ok" since it is not determinate until clicked.

  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to xix
    xix:
    The captcha is clearly "A Suffusion of pink"

    Nonsense! Can't you read? It's obviously "A Number of Streptococci on Light Rose Colored Substrate".

  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to Chris
    Chris:
    Biztalk message: This is clearly describing non-locality in quantum mechanics. But the button should be labeled "Ok and not Ok" since it is not determinate until clicked.
    Are you saying that we can't understand the message because it's in an unresolved state of multiple potential meanings?
  • Marvin (unregistered) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    Are you saying that we can't understand the message because it's in an unresolved state of multiple potential meanings?
    Well, yes and no.
  • (cs) in reply to Marvin
    Marvin:
    Sgt. Preston:
    Are you saying that we can't understand the message because it's in an unresolved state of multiple potential meanings?
    Well, yes and no.
    Rofl.
  • w00t (unregistered)

    That XSD error simply means the following:

    In your XSD you used a ComplexType, and the XSD standard likes ComplexType descriptions to be complete, so they should mention everything that fits in there.

    Now, you specified that some element "senderDocumentRef" from the namespace "http://...etc." fits in there, but it has a minOccurs="0", so it could also not be in there at all.

    However, the next thing in your XSD is an unbounded "xsd:any" definition; that's useful so you can extend the schema later, and put future extensions there that should be skipped for now.

    This means though, that if the parser encounters a "senderDocumentRef" element in the complexType, it can't be determined if it's one to be skipped for now. It matches xsd:any -- maybe you decided in a later version to have 2 senderDocumentRefs, and the second one should be skipped in the current version. But, the first one is optional, so you can't identify which one is "the first one" and which is "the second one", because they're both optional in this schema.

    this thread explains it well.

    XSD kinda sucks.

  • (cs)

    Gotta admire the BizTalk sentence structure, though. Like abstract art, it's beauty for its own sake, and let the reader form his own conclusions as to its meaning.

  • different anon (unregistered) in reply to AdT
    AdT:
    Nonsense! Can't you read? It's obviously "A Number of Streptococci on Light Rose Colored Substrate".
    When was the last time you were in the lab? It's quite clearly a freshly diluted sample of E. coli grown in LB as seen through a light microscope.
  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Gotta admire the BizTalk sentence structure, though. Like abstract art, it's beauty for its own sake, and let the reader form his own conclusions as to its meaning.
    Indeed. It's so carefully nested that I wonder whether the writer's first language was German.
  • (cs)

    That BizTalk error is obviously a product of SCIgen.

  • Not a Captcha (unregistered)

    Acutally, that's a CAPMRTTRPCA - "Completely Automated Public Mind Reading Test to Tell Regular People and Clairvoyants Apart"

    Captcha of this comment: -'`="-

  • Matt (unregistered)

    The real WTF is the input box above the CAPTCHA image! It asks for "Email/HTTP" - does that mean valid input would be "[email protected]" or "GET /index.htm HTTP/1.1"

  • (cs) in reply to Marvin
    Marvin:
    Sgt. Preston:
    Are you saying that we can't understand the message because it's in an unresolved state of multiple potential meanings?
    Well, yes and no.

    those doors still bring you down eh ?

  • Kinglink (unregistered) in reply to Hit

    IF you put ANYTHING in for that Captcha, you fail!

  • CoyneT (unregistered) in reply to w00t
    w00t:
    That XSD error simply means the following:

    In your XSD you used a ComplexType, and the XSD standard likes ComplexType descriptions to be complete, so they should mention everything that fits in there.

    Now, you specified that some element "senderDocumentRef" from the namespace "http://...etc." fits in there, but it has a minOccurs="0", so it could also not be in there at all.

    However, the next thing in your XSD is an unbounded "xsd:any" definition; that's useful so you can extend the schema later, and put future extensions there that should be skipped for now.

    This means though, that if the parser encounters a "senderDocumentRef" element in the complexType, it can't be determined if it's one to be skipped for now. It matches xsd:any -- maybe you decided in a later version to have 2 senderDocumentRefs, and the second one should be skipped in the current version. But, the first one is optional, so you can't identify which one is "the first one" and which is "the second one", because they're both optional in this schema.

    this thread explains it well.

    XSD kinda sucks.

    Legalese is for those who cannot translate to human. I understood your version, even though I'm no XSL expert.

    This would be ideal for a manual or even for the standard, because it can be understood. But it isn't suitable for the alert, which should say specifically what is wrong rather than leaving you to interpret the rules vis-a-vis your current definition.

    For example, a suitable message might be:

    Because the next item in this definition is xsd:any, the complex element [...]senderDocumentRef cannot be "minOccurs=0".
    This is akin to:
    Your car will not start because the gear shift is not in "Park".
    The problem with the other messages is that they're more like this:
    The car will only start when the following is true: There is gasoline of grade xx with a minimum octane of 89, in the tank; there is no water or other contaminates in the tank; the fuel in the fuel line has not frozen; the [blah, blah, blah ...]

    I could spend a year going through the conditions to figure out what I did wrong. Tell me what I did wrong!

  • (cs) in reply to CoyneT
    CoyneT:
    I could spend a year going through the conditions to figure out what I did wrong. Tell me what I did wrong!
    If that's what you really want, get married.
  • (cs) in reply to w00t
    w00t:
    That XSD error simply means the following:...

    You have officially crossed over into the realm of being impossible to promote. If you have any management aspirations, you may as well give them up.

  • gygax (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    CoyneT:
    I could spend a year going through the conditions to figure out what I did wrong. Tell me what I did wrong!
    If that's what you really want, get married.
    /snicker. In all seriousness though, you can try out the shareware version of marrige as well, I think its girlfriend. Works fine to get the right feel there after a few months.
  • (cs)

    You know what's worse than "Information to be included in a future release"? Something I call un-documentation:

    Initial Pool Size This is the size of the initial pool.

    Maximum Pool Size This is the size of the maximum pool.

    Referenced Pool Size This is the size of the referenced pool.

    etc.

  • (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    The cake is a lie.
    I don't hate you.
  • (cs) in reply to Hit
    Hit:
    Hey, that's one way to beat spammers. Make the CAPCHA impossible for anything, living or otherwise, to use!
    I love the ones that have letters and numbers in the BACKGROUND!
  • Steve (unregistered)

    In defense of the dialog error message, it is apparently from a "BizTalk Editor" so the application was just staying true to form.

  • (cs)

    I had to rub my screen on that CAPTCHA to tell the actual CAPTCHA apart from the dust.

  • (cs) in reply to VGR
    VGR:
    You know what's worse than "Information to be included in a future release"? Something I call un-documentation:

    Initial Pool Size This is the size of the initial pool.

    Maximum Pool Size This is the size of the maximum pool.

    Referenced Pool Size This is the size of the referenced pool.

    etc.

    I recently ran across:

    int somefunc(int idFoo, UIElement elemConfig, UIElement fooElem) Documentation was: // idFoo = id of Foo // elemConfig = Configuration Element // fooElem = Foo in the Master Collection

    The fooElem was the only one that provided addtional info... AND IT WAS WRONG!

    I also love the consistent naming scheme.

  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to different anon
    different anon:
    When was the last time you were in the lab? It's quite clearly a freshly diluted sample of E. coli grown in LB as seen through a light microscope.

    You forgot to mention that they are gram-stained for better contrast. Captcha failed.

  • (cs)

    Sounds like biz talk to me.

  • Zygo (unregistered) in reply to Heron
    Heron:
    Marvin:
    Sgt. Preston:
    Are you saying that we can't understand the message because it's in an unresolved state of multiple potential meanings?
    Well, yes and no.
    Rofl.

    Well, that and not rofl.

  • (cs) in reply to ComputerForumUser
    ComputerForumUser:
    Zylon:
    The cake is a lie.
    I don't hate you.
    Most importantly, don't---

    (I had to bite...such a great/short game)

  • (cs)

    With a name like BizTalk Editor, I'm assuming the function of that last one is to generate random corporate buzzword speech. If so, that's probably not an error message...

  • DanStory (unregistered) in reply to boolean
    boolean:
    ComputerForumUser:
    Zylon:
    The cake is a lie.
    I don't hate you.
    Most importantly, don't---

    (I had to bite...such a great/short game)

    WATCH OUT THE COMPANION CUBE HAS A KNIFE!

  • dkf (unregistered) in reply to Hit
    Hit:
    Hey, that's one way to beat spammers. Make the CAPCHA impossible for anything, living or otherwise, to use!
    No, I'm sure if I was a chicken I'd be able to read those scratchings.
  • Greg (unregistered)

    The BizTalk message isn't that difficult to understand, and if you understand XML well enough to actually be developing a BizTalk solution you should realise what it's getting at without even reading the whole message. The Real WTF is that people who don't understand that message are trying to develop BizTalk solutions.

  • ha (unregistered)

    The CAPTCHA is the sequence of spaces. You must only guess the number of spaces...

  • Marcel (unregistered)

    The real answer to the captcha is of course "_---__" duh.

  • Matthew (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Fil
    Anonymous Fil:
    I'll bite. I read the first sentence three times, couldn't understand what in the hell it was saying, then went through the rest. My brain still hurts.

    Wait, you mean that was more than one sentence?

  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to Greg
    Greg:
    The BizTalk message isn't that difficult to understand

    Sure, it's only about 5 times more complicated than woot's explanation, and for no good reason, so it's ok. If that's your approach to quality control, I hope I never have to work with you.

  • nano (unregistered)

    Don't try to answer the CAPTCHA. Instead, try to realise that there is no CAPTCHA.

Leave a comment on “Protection From Robots, By Robots”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article