• TheSi (unregistered)

    Collect your frist here!

  • Web Dude (unregistered)

    ...so you clicked the link and then what happened?

    (don't leave us in suspense!)

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    What is wrong with the "magic number" error message? Magic numbers are placed at the start of files and disk partitions to identify the type of file (system) to prevent trying to interpret a something that wasn't supposed to be used as input. This is the right thing to do and the error message clearly refers to this.

  • AGray (unregistered)

    That's the best #9 combo ever. I want one now.

    CAPTCHA: Ludus - not quite ludicrous!

  • Chris S. (unregistered)

    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an egg.

  • Abe (unregistered)
    Sat_Apr_14_10_58_03_2012
    WORST date format EVAR!!! Who do I have to shoot?
  • Jerry (unregistered)

    Once again we have a fundamental misunderstanding of (United States) contract law... Burger King offered a product at a price, you accepted, that's a binding contract. Sue them for failure to perform. You should be able to recover triple damages.

    (Hint: $0.00 * 3 = $0.00...)

  • Black Bart (unregistered) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    Once again we have a fundamental misunderstanding of (United States) contract law... Burger King offered a product at a price, you accepted, that's a binding contract. Sue them for failure to perform. You should be able to recover triple damages.

    (Hint: $0.00 * 3 = $0.00...)

    *Maximum legal savings: $4.39

  • Tim (unregistered) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    Once again we have a fundamental misunderstanding of (United States) contract law... Burger King offered a product at a price, you accepted, that's a binding contract. Sue them for failure to perform. You should be able to recover triple damages.

    (Hint: $0.00 * 3 = $0.00...)

    is this really true? in the UK the price display is an 'invitation to treat' and the contract is not made until they have accepted your offer (i.e. normally taken the cash). Even then, the contract can be considered invalid if you purchased online and the price was clearly a mistake in the web site

  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to Chris S.
    Chris S.:
    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an egg.
    That's why I always bring my own egg!
  • Unpatriot (unregistered)

    $0 for a sausage&cheese muffin sandwich meal? That's more than I'd have paid for it, if it's anything like the picture.

  • Jerry (unregistered) in reply to Tim
    Tim:
    Jerry:
    Once again we have a fundamental misunderstanding of (United States) contract law... Burger King offered a product at a price, you accepted, that's a binding contract. Sue them for failure to perform. You should be able to recover triple damages.

    (Hint: $0.00 * 3 = $0.00...)

    is this really true? in the UK the price display is an 'invitation to treat' and the contract is not made until they have accepted your offer (i.e. normally taken the cash). Even then, the contract can be considered invalid if you purchased online and the price was clearly a mistake in the web site
    U.S. companies (maybe yours too?) have learned to qualify every offer: Subject to availability, void where prohibited, at participating locations, not responsible for typos, etc. That way they can worm out of it. "Yes, I was offering them for $0, but we ran out." They essentially make all those conditions part of the (pending) contract. "I offer to sell you one meal for $0, but only at certain locations of which this is not one."

    But (from what we can see) the sign lacks all those disclaimers. Fine print FTW!

  • (cs) in reply to Web Dude
    Web Dude:
    ...so you clicked the link and then what happened?

    A popup appeared saying "Please do not click this link again".

  • Nagesh (unregistered) in reply to Vanders
    Vanders:
    Web Dude:
    ...so you clicked the link and then what happened?

    A popup appeared saying "Please do not click this link again".

    Ain't Ben who click link?

  • Double-Posting Guy (unregistered) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    Vanders:
    Web Dude:
    ...so you clicked the link and then what happened?

    A popup appeared saying "Please do not click this link again".

    Ain't Ben who click link?

    Stupid Indian. That link is obviously photoshopped.

    Also, get back to work!

  • Geico Spokeslizard (unregistered)

    I would guess that "Legal" on the State Farm thing was a placeholder for some legal disclaimer that never got set. But then, I am just a lizard with a british/australian/new zealand/south afriican accent.

  • (cs) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    Tim:
    Jerry:
    Once again we have a fundamental misunderstanding of (United States) contract law... Burger King offered a product at a price, you accepted, that's a binding contract. Sue them for failure to perform. You should be able to recover triple damages.

    (Hint: $0.00 * 3 = $0.00...)

    is this really true? in the UK the price display is an 'invitation to treat' and the contract is not made until they have accepted your offer (i.e. normally taken the cash). Even then, the contract can be considered invalid if you purchased online and the price was clearly a mistake in the web site
    U.S. companies (maybe yours too?) have learned to qualify every offer: Subject to availability, void where prohibited, at participating locations, not responsible for typos, etc. That way they can worm out of it. "Yes, I was offering them for $0, but we ran out." They essentially make all those conditions part of the (pending) contract. "I offer to sell you one meal for $0, but only at certain locations of which this is not one."

    But (from what we can see) the sign lacks all those disclaimers. Fine print FTW!

    That is true... However if you did have a claim, you could always sue them and request the judge enforce the contract (in other words, they failed to deliver your egg mcmeal, so the judge orders them to make you one, or however many you are sueing for). Just make sure your legal councel is willing to accept his 1/3rd in food.

  • mrfr0g (unregistered) in reply to Chris S.
    Chris S.:
    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an "egg".

    Fixed.

  • dogmatic (unregistered)

    The real WTF is eating at burger king. It shouldn't be legal to call that industrial waste food.

  • Jay (unregistered)

    There's an interesting psychological experiment here. I'm guessing that "Do not click here" got clicked more often than all the other choices combined.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Chris S.
    Chris S.:
    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an egg.

    At the risk of being serious: They're not charging you $1.99 for an egg. Maybe 10 cents of that is the cost of the egg. The other $1.89 is: (a) their labor to get the eggs, cook them for you, put them on the sandich, and deliver it to you; (b) the amortized cost of their ovens and other food storage and preparation equipment; (c) amortized cost of the dining area in which you can eat the egg; (d) cost to heat and cool the dining area. There are probably other costs in there I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

    From the buyer's point of view, you are paying for the convenience of having someone else cook your food for you. At an upscale restaurant you are also paying for the skill of the chef to produce a meal that is probably a higher quality than what you could prepare yourself.

    My hometown paper once ran an expose on how much local restaurants charged for their food, emphasizing how much more they charged than what it would cost to buy the "raw materials" at a grocery store.

    My thought was: Yeah, and your newspaper is a rip-off too: You charge way more for a copy of this newspaper than the cost of paper and ink.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Geico Spokeslizard
    Geico Spokeslizard:
    I would guess that "Legal" on the State Farm thing was a placeholder for some legal disclaimer that never got set.

    Well, duh.

  • Jay (unregistered)

    Note the operative words in the State Farm ad, "up to".

    A few years back I saw a number of ads from an insurance company saying you could save "up to $X" (I forget the exact number) by switching to them.

    I lived in Ohio at the time, and the state insurance board ran a web site where they showed the rates charged by all the insurance companies licensed in the state for a few "typical" customer scenarios. (Scenarios based on age, sex, accident record, etc.)

    I noticed that the savings mentioned in that ad were the difference between the most expensive insurance company in the state and the company doing the advertising, in the scenario that gave the greatest difference.

    So yes, you could save the amount mentioned in the ad -- but only in the most extreme possible case.

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Note the operative words in the State Farm ad, "up to".

    A few years back I saw a number of ads from an insurance company saying you could save "up to $X" (I forget the exact number) by switching to them.

    I lived in Ohio at the time, and the state insurance board ran a web site where they showed the rates charged by all the insurance companies licensed in the state for a few "typical" customer scenarios. (Scenarios based on age, sex, accident record, etc.)

    I noticed that the savings mentioned in that ad were the difference between the most expensive insurance company in the state and the company doing the advertising, in the scenario that gave the greatest difference.

    So yes, you could save the amount mentioned in the ad -- but only in the most extreme possible case.

    Yep, why would you expect it to be different? Saying "You can save up to $X" is exactly the same as saying "You can't save more than $X".

    It is the same problem of people complaining about "digital rights management". Yep, "rights management" imply that you'll have some rights denied. There is no other interpretation.

    TRWTF is people not caring to listen what others are saying to them, and then claiming they were mislead.

  • Jamal (unregistered) in reply to Double-Posting Guy
    Double-Posting Guy:
    Nagesh:
    Vanders:
    Web Dude:
    ...so you clicked the link and then what happened?

    A popup appeared saying "Please do not click this link again".

    Ain't Ben who click link?

    Stupid Indian. That link is obviously photoshopped.

    Also, get back to work!

    I am not undestanding why you have clicked the message two times? At least Indians are more efficcient.

  • Tom (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    There's an interesting psychological experiment here. I'm guessing that "Do not click here" got clicked more often than all the other choices combined.
    I know I clicked it. Didn't you?

    (Do not read this post.)

    (And if you do, by all means don't reply to it.)

  • Lone Marauder (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Note the operative words in the State Farm ad, "up to".

    A few years back I saw a number of ads from an insurance company saying you could save "up to $X" (I forget the exact number) by switching to them.

    I lived in Ohio at the time, and the state insurance board ran a web site where they showed the rates charged by all the insurance companies licensed in the state for a few "typical" customer scenarios. (Scenarios based on age, sex, accident record, etc.)

    I noticed that the savings mentioned in that ad were the difference between the most expensive insurance company in the state and the company doing the advertising, in the scenario that gave the greatest difference.

    So yes, you could save the amount mentioned in the ad -- but only in the most extreme possible case.

    That's why when I see "up to X" in an advertisement, I mentally substitute "less than X". Surprising how often that makes a "good deal" seem decidedly less so.

  • Legalese (unregistered) in reply to Tom

    This post is valid for up to one reply

  • RRDY (unregistered) in reply to Lone Marauder
    Lone Marauder:
    Jay:
    Note the operative words in the State Farm ad, "up to".

    A few years back I saw a number of ads from an insurance company saying you could save "up to $X" (I forget the exact number) by switching to them.

    I lived in Ohio at the time, and the state insurance board ran a web site where they showed the rates charged by all the insurance companies licensed in the state for a few "typical" customer scenarios. (Scenarios based on age, sex, accident record, etc.)

    I noticed that the savings mentioned in that ad were the difference between the most expensive insurance company in the state and the company doing the advertising, in the scenario that gave the greatest difference.

    So yes, you could save the amount mentioned in the ad -- but only in the most extreme possible case.

    That's why when I see "up to X" in an advertisement, I mentally substitute "less than X". Surprising how often that makes a "good deal" seem decidedly less so.

    And then you set stores that advertise things like "Save up to 50% or more!" How much more? Could it be 100%?

    Captcha: luctus: I feel my luctus running out if I submit this post.

  • (cs)

    I clicked the "Do not click here link" and got a sausage and cheese muffin meal without egg. Who'da thunk it?

    The $0 price was obviously supposed to suggest that they didn't have the item available at that location (further suggesting that the sandwiches are put together somewhere else and reheated at the point of sale, which is another level of WTF). This is the wrong approach because, as suggested, people will try to order it expecting to get it for free. A pizza place near here used to list individual prices for additional toppings in each size they sold, with anchovies priced at $99.99 for all three sizes. Everybody understood the meaning: "we don't sell anchovies here".

  • Friedrice the Great (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Chris S.:
    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an egg.

    At the risk of being serious: They're not charging you $1.99 for an egg. Maybe 10 cents of that is the cost of the egg. The other $1.89 is: (a) their labor to get the eggs, cook them for you, put them on the sandich, and deliver it to you; (b) the amortized cost of their ovens and other food storage and preparation equipment; (c) amortized cost of the dining area in which you can eat the egg; (d) cost to heat and cool the dining area. There are probably other costs in there I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

    Don't forget funding the CEO's large bonus and golden parachute package. Remember, all you need for corporate success is a well-funded CEO!

  • (cs) in reply to Legalese
    Legalese:
    This post is valid for up to one reply
    Oops... I just wasted it... sorry all.
  • Meep (unregistered) in reply to Friedrice the Great
    Friedrice the Great:
    Jay:
    Chris S.:
    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an egg.

    At the risk of being serious: They're not charging you $1.99 for an egg. Maybe 10 cents of that is the cost of the egg. The other $1.89 is: (a) their labor to get the eggs, cook them for you, put them on the sandich, and deliver it to you; (b) the amortized cost of their ovens and other food storage and preparation equipment; (c) amortized cost of the dining area in which you can eat the egg; (d) cost to heat and cool the dining area. There are probably other costs in there I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

    Don't forget funding the CEO's large bonus and golden parachute package. Remember, all you need for corporate success is a well-funded CEO!

    Haha, don't be stupid. Everyone knows that CEOs and managers are completely worthless, which is why employee-owned and other alternative models are so successful.

  • Meep (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Chris S.:
    TRWTF is charging an extra $1.99 for an egg.

    At the risk of being serious: They're not charging you $1.99 for an egg. Maybe 10 cents of that is the cost of the egg.

    No, you've found something people here know less about than coding: microeconomics. It's sad, really.

  • squeem (unregistered) in reply to dogmatic
    dogmatic:
    The real WTF is eating at burger king. It shouldn't be legal to call that industrial waste food.

    I don't understand why you can still taste their burgers 3 days after eating one. Sure are tasty the first time, though.

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)

    So how much for the Spam Spam Spam Sausage Cheese and Spam? (It's not got much egg in it!)

  • Disgruntled Bob (unregistered) in reply to Tom
    Tom:
    Jay:
    There's an interesting psychological experiment here. I'm guessing that "Do not click here" got clicked more often than all the other choices combined.
    I know I clicked it. Didn't you?

    (Do not read this post.)

    (And if you do, by all means don't reply to it.)

    look ... if you're going to ask people not to read/reply your post please have the decency to do so as your first sentence

  • Doctor_of_Ineptitude (unregistered)

    The DO NOT CLICK HERE link is obviously a check to see if a keyboard is present AND inquisitiveness of the viewer. It basically checks for the following condition:

    if (isViewerOfPageInquisitive && isKeyBoardPresent){ // Person tabs to the link and presses enter } else { // The do not click page is not opened }

    Unless anyone else can point out a better way to test these unique user dependent conditions, this is ruddey brilliant.

    OTOH, what they would do with this information, I have no idea.

  • pants (unregistered)

    In the U.S., the posted price there would indeed be treated as an invitation to offer the exchange, and would define the price of the item should the offer be accepted, but even were it sufficiently specific as to constitute an offer, and even were that offer accepted, you still wouldn't have a contract. The reason? A contract requires an exchange of consideration. It doesn't have to be a good deal, or even a sane deal. In fact, you could form a contract to sell a $50B company for one penny. You could sell a skyscraper for a song - literally. But each side has to give up something in order for there to be a contract. $0 does not form a contract.

  • Ellison (unregistered) in reply to Doctor_of_Ineptitude
    Doctor_of_Ineptitude:
    The DO NOT CLICK HERE link is obviously a check to see if a keyboard is present AND inquisitiveness of the viewer. It basically checks for the following condition:

    if (isViewerOfPageInquisitive && isKeyBoardPresent){ // Person tabs to the link and presses enter } else { // The do not click page is not opened }

    Unless anyone else can point out a better way to test these unique user dependent conditions, this is ruddey brilliant.

    OTOH, what they would do with this information, I have no idea.

    But that one's easy! Keyboard users are much smarter than mouse users. The top secret "How to become a CEO and get stinking rich overnight" materials are only marketed to keyboard users, lest everybody get rich and ruin the fun.

    (P.S. NO mouse movements were used in the making of this post. MouselessBrowsing FTW!)

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Note the operative words in the State Farm ad, "up to".

    A few years back I saw a number of ads from an insurance company saying you could save "up to $X" (I forget the exact number) by switching to them.

    I lived in Ohio at the time, and the state insurance board ran a web site where they showed the rates charged by all the insurance companies licensed in the state for a few "typical" customer scenarios. (Scenarios based on age, sex, accident record, etc.)

    I noticed that the savings mentioned in that ad were the difference between the most expensive insurance company in the state and the company doing the advertising, in the scenario that gave the greatest difference.

    So yes, you could save the amount mentioned in the ad -- but only in the most extreme possible case.

    Well, yeah. They also use the "people that switched..." phrase, which means that they're only including people that switched companies. People who don't get a lower rate probably won't switch companies, and we have no idea how many of those exist.

    The Mayhem commercials, while entertaining, also annoy me, because every single scenario I've seen in those commercials WOULD be covered by any reasonable insurance policy. In other words, they're spreading FUD about certain non-traditional insurance providers. (I use a traditional insurance company that doesn't advertise much, and I think we pay reasonably good rates considering our situation. I just hate being lied to.)

  • Rodnas (unregistered) in reply to Vanders
    Vanders:
    Web Dude:
    ...so you clicked the link and then what happened?

    A popup appeared saying "Please do not click this link again".

    Damn you beat me, sir! thanks for the fish

  • (cs) in reply to Geico Spokeslizard
    Geico Spokeslizard:
    I would guess that "Legal" on the State Farm thing was a placeholder for some legal disclaimer that never got set. But then, I am just a lizard with a british/australian/new zealand/south afriican accent.
    Can it be "save up to $480 in legal costs" ?
  • foo (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    What is wrong with the "magic number" error message? Magic numbers are placed at the start of files and disk partitions to identify the type of file (system) to prevent trying to interpret a something that wasn't supposed to be used as input. This is the right thing to do and the error message clearly refers to this.
    Yeah, he was probably confusing magic number and hard-coded number.

    This would only be a WTF if it was a web application for showing an internal server error to the user instead of sending it to the developers.

  • Homer Simpson (unregistered) in reply to Tom
    Tom:
    Jay:
    There's an interesting psychological experiment here. I'm guessing that "Do not click here" got clicked more often than all the other choices combined.
    I know I clicked it. Didn't you?

    (Do not read this post.)

    (And if you do, by all means don't reply to it.)

    OK

  • foo (unregistered)

    WRT the ticket gate: I got a similar once at the Dubai metro (forgot to take a photo). But that was after it had eaten my money and before ejecting the ticket, and the stupid employees refused to refund my money or give me another ticket, though the "payment received" message was clearly readable on the screen below the error box.

  • foo (unregistered) in reply to Mcoder
    Mcoder:
    It is the same problem of people complaining about "digital rights management". Yep, "rights management" imply that you'll have some rights denied.
    How is manage = deny?
    There is no other interpretation.
    Sure there is. I would expect it to actually manage my rights, including the right of fair use, which typical DRM systems don't.

    What they do is only to manage some rights, namely those of the copyright owner, plus some rights they don't legally have, but just take for themselves.

  • some shmoe (unregistered) in reply to Jay

    Your comment about newspapers: not quite true. I used to work for a large newspaper concern, at their web arm.

    The face price of a paper doesn't even cover newsprint or ink - they only break even (if lucky) on adverts. Serious. Without ads, the face price of a daily paper would be 2-3 times what you pay now, if not more.

    Web-based news outlets face a similar dilemma, even though hosting is cheaper than newsprint/ink - unfortunately the salesfolk in that arena are slow to change, and still believe CPM is all-important.

  • Some Guy (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    What is wrong with the "magic number" error message? Magic numbers are placed at the start of files and disk partitions to identify the type of file (system) to prevent trying to interpret a something that wasn't supposed to be used as input. This is the right thing to do and the error message clearly refers to this.
    Exactly what I thought too....of course the error message could perhaps be tailored to be more useful in that case (Invalid or corrupt input file....), but yeah, I agree, a bad message foes not a WTF make....
  • Jelly (unregistered) in reply to Tom
    Tom:
    Jay:
    There's an interesting psychological experiment here. I'm guessing that "Do not click here" got clicked more often than all the other choices combined.
    I know I clicked it. Didn't you?

    (Do not read this post.)

    (And if you do, by all means don't reply to it.)

    Roger that.

Leave a comment on “Sponsor Appreciation, Bad Magic Numbers, and More Error'd”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article