SORRY, YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH



  • My wife has always wanted to go on TLC's What Not To Wear (hey, they give you a $5000 wardrobe, so I'm not complaining).  I Googled "what not to wear" and had to jump through several hoops but eventually found what looked to be the entry page.  It asked me for my date of birth, so I entered it.  Apparently, 24 isn't old enough to submit an application:

    [NOT OLD ENOUGH]

    The best part is, once you fail the check one time, it sets a cookie called "UnderAge".  I guess this is an attempt to stop the smart kids from just coming back and saying they're legal the second time around.

     There are some WTFs in the JavaScript backing this thing as well, but fortunately the IP address of the real server for the application is right there as well, so I was able to submit an application.
     



  • Secondary WTF: on the application itself, there's the usual disclaimer about taxes.  At the bottom, it says "Thank you?".  That's right; they're not sure if they should thank you or not.  I guess that's because you might be too young?

    [Thank you?] 



  • I like how this script has parameters which let you choose between Julian calendar age verification and Gregorian calendar age verification! And yet it still flunks the leap year test.

    Apparently, the javascript function getYear() returns the year as the number of years since 1900, e.g. "107" for 2007.  That's a pretty good WTF in of itself.  The author of the script accounted for this by creating the y2k() function, but forgot to actually use it.  Nevermind the getFullYear() function which would return 2007.

    This code belongs on the main page, no question.

    http://www.bbcnyc.com/scripts/age8.js

    Did age scripts 1 through 7 not work?



  • My guess?  They only tested in Internet Exploder Exploiter Explorer, which behaves completely differently to every other modern browser for getYear().  Of course, that is a WTF in itself.



  • Edit: Oops. Originally I wrote here that it had been fixed.  No, it hadn't.  They just renamed the script.  The y2k() function is used elsewhere in it, but not in the function that actually checks the age. ::headdesk::



  • Yeah - I vote for this on the front page - but how would you pick the most WTF bit?

    It's good enough to win the OMGWTF comp at the moment!



  • Interestingly, it works in Internet Explorer.
     



  • Yeah, Date.getYear in mozilla returns 107, but 2007 in IE.  That's your real WTF.  (That and the fact that the script has a y2k function that isn't actually used...)



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    Yeah, Date.getYear in mozilla returns 107, but 2007 in IE.  That's your real WTF.  (That and the fact that the script has a y2k function that isn't actually used...)

     

    To be picky, the y2k function is used. The function that calls it is not used though :P.

     

    Edit: Actually, nevermind. IsDate is used as well.
     



  • @vtbassmatt said:

    [NOT OLD ENOUGH]

     CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL



  • @codeman38 said:

    My guess?  They only tested in Internet Exploder Exploiter Explorer, which behaves completely differently to every other modern browser for getYear().  Of course, that is a WTF in itself.

    Javascript != JScript. Unlike every other modern browser, IE does not contain an implementation of Javascript, because Microsoft didn't invent it (which is the real WTF).



  • @vtbassmatt said:

    [Thank you?] 

    The grammar in this disclaimer is quite impressively whacked, too. 



  • @codeman38 said:

    My guess?  They only tested in Internet Exploder Exploiter Explorer, which behaves completely differently to every other modern browser for getYear().  Of course, that is a WTF in itself.

    Actually, getYear() is deprecated, and they should have been using getFullYear(), which works as expected across browsers. I'd actually say IE's returning 2007 is the least WTFy about the whole situation, because even returning 07 would be better than 107. That's just plain baffling.



  • @asuffield said:

    The grammar in this disclaimer is quite impressively whacked, too. 

    It is quite interesting how the participant agrees that the guy who wrote the site can receive awards from the show. The rambling (run-on?) sentences are a different story.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.