HP Marketing Error



  •   HP have a grammar error on their UK site:

    HP Web site screenshot



  • Photoshoped...



  • Not quite photoshopped, go to http://welcome.hp.com/country/uk/en/welcome.html and press "Large Enterprise Business"



  • omgmug

    A single typo? 

    This would be better as a part of a "corporate advertising wtf" catch all thread or the random pictures WTF thread.



  • Oh I see, a missing r. This is indeed the biggest WTF in history.



  •  Wow, that's eally cazy! It's definitely The eal WTF.  Oh, by the way, enjoy you mug.



  • Holy crap, they misspelled "center", too!

     

    I agree that typos aren't really interesting WTFs, but when you consider that this is the largest text on the page it's pretty surprising this slipped through QA.  Especially when you consider how large organizations work, you know this page had to be approved by five levels of management before it went live. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I agree that typos aren't really interesting WTFs, but when you consider that this is the largest text on the page it's pretty surprising this slipped through QA.  Especially when you consider how large organizations work, you know this page had to be approved by five levels of management before it went live. 
     

    Actually, it's not that surprising for two simple reasons:

    1. Most people suck at grammar
    2. "You" is a word, so spell-checking reveals no problems 



  • Wow.. how.. yawn .. interesting.



  • The OP is correct. The message should actually read "Transform, you data centre!"



    Sloppy punctuation will get you every time.



  • @cconroy said:

    The message should actually read "Transform, you data centre!"

    Lemme guess. The neural thing on the orange wall represents what a HP-powered data center would be, eh? So, you have a self-aware, neural-network powered data center capable of destroying the world.



    Welcome our new data center overlords!



  • So Hewlett-Packard sells Autobots now? Cool, I want one.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    Holy crap, they misspelled "center", too!

     

    I agree that typos aren't really interesting WTFs, but when you consider that this is the largest text on the page it's pretty surprising this slipped through QA.  Especially when you consider how large organizations work, you know this page had to be approved by five levels of management before it went live. 

     No they didn't, in the UK and Canada it's spelled centre.



  • @Galbrezu said:

    No they didn't, in the UK and Canada it's spelled centre.

    Ooooh, really?



  • @Galbrezu said:

    No they didn't, in the UK and Canada it's spelled centre.
    Please fix your sarcasm detector.



  • @Galbrezu said:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Holy crap, they misspelled "center", too!

     

    I agree that typos aren't really interesting WTFs, but when you consider that this is the largest text on the page it's pretty surprising this slipped through QA.  Especially when you consider how large organizations work, you know this page had to be approved by five levels of management before it went live. 

     No they didn't, in the UK and Canada it's spelled centre.

    That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  They speak English in the UK and Canada.  It's probably spelled different in France, but I don't speak French so I don't know.  Next you'll be telling me that the number 5 is actually 7 in Canada! 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Galbrezu said:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Holy crap, they misspelled "center", too!

     

    I agree that typos aren't really interesting WTFs, but when you consider that this is the largest text on the page it's pretty surprising this slipped through QA.  Especially when you consider how large organizations work, you know this page had to be approved by five levels of management before it went live. 

     No they didn't, in the UK and Canada it's spelled centre.

    That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  They speak English in the UK and Canada.  It's probably spelled different in France, but I don't speak French so I don't know.  Next you'll be telling me that the number 5 is actually 7 in Canada!

    I don't want to alarm you, but some people in Canada actually misspell everything and insist they're writing in French.  How is that possible, they aren't in France!



  • @bstorer said:

    I don't want to alarm you, but some people in Canada actually misspell everything
     

    Right. Please see: http://www.thestupidestmanonearth.com for plenty of examples.

     

    :-) Shameless plugs - FTW!



  • @Program.X said:

     HP have a grammar error on their UK site
     

    Slightly offtopic: 

    I'm surprised nobody has flamed the OP (either seriously or sarcastically) for the UK English practice of referring to groups (companies, sports teams, etc.) as plural, and never singular (AFAIK). IMO, this is the #1 cause of grammar-related flamewars on the internet.

    Slashdot Poster #1: Microsoft sucks! [note the treatment of Microsoft as singular]

    Slashdot Poster #2: No,  Microsoft are okay! [note the treatment of Microsoft as plural]

    Slashdot Poster #1:  You fail at grammar.

    Slashdot Poster #2:  Not everyone uses American grammatical conventions.

    Slashdot Poster #1:  WHY DO YOU HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!

    To me the American (and Canadian) convention of "if it sounds singular, treat it as singular" leads to all kinds of absurdities. e.g. You see this kind of thing all the time when you hear or read about sports teams:

     e.g. "The Boston Celtics are a good NBA team.  Boston is currently in first place in the Eastern Conference."

    So are the Celtics singular or plural?


     



  • @CodeSimian said:

    I'm surprised nobody has flamed the OP (either seriously or sarcastically) for the UK English practice of referring to groups (companies, sports teams, etc.) as plural, and never singular (AFAIK).

     

    Not only that, but they use "maths" instead of "math."  That's just crazy! 



  • @bstorer said:

    Not only that, but they use "maths" instead of "math." 
     

    HAHAH What a bunch of terrorist retards! Check them for WMDs!



  • @bstorer said:

    Not only that, but they use "maths" instead of "math."  That's just crazy! 
     

    Reminds me of this real-world example from a pcworld.com article written in American English: 

    Another user, simply dubbed "Russieb," seconded the motion. "No one
    seems to be addressing the 'problem' drivers, specifically SigmaTel. As
    Fatalah mentioned any SigmaTel 'driver updates are solely in the hands
    of OEM's now.' [In my case] Sony
    don't [sic]
    want to know, neither do [sic] Microsoft! This is stopping
    a large number of users from installing SP1. Can anyone help?"

     

    I can imagine what was going on in the article editor's mind: "Those intarweb kids just don't know how to write proper English anymore!"  The Internet really doesn't help people learn tolerance for those little regional differences amongst all of us.

     (edit: I'm referring to the fact that the writer/editor felt the need to insert (sic) a couple of times in what would be a perfectly grammatical sentence in UK English, if not American English.)

    2nd most popular regional-difference-related flamewar on the Net:

    "OMG YOU WROTE THE DATE DD/MM/YY, ARE YOU RETARDED IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MM/DD/YY"

    "Not everyone lives in the U.S." 

    "Whatever, everyone knows YYYY-MM-DD is the most logical date format, anyway."



  • @CodeSimian said:

    "Whatever, everyone knows YYYY-MM-DD is the most logical date format, anyway."

    That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    "Whatever, everyone knows YYYY-MM-DD is the most logical date format, anyway."
     

    So wrong.  Dates should be formated as Unix timestamps. 



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @CodeSimian said:
    "Whatever, everyone knows YYYY-MM-DD is the most logical date format, anyway."

    That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.

     

    In all seriousness. it is the most logical date format, because if you use it in filenames, they will sort as expected (in chronological order). 



  • @bstorer said:

    So wrong.  Dates should be formated as Unix timestamps. 
     

    Why would you need timestamps when everything is stored in c:\search\inmail.txt? 



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @bstorer said:

    So wrong.  Dates should be formated as Unix timestamps. 
     

    Why would you need timestamps when everything is stored in c:\search\inmail.txt? 

     

    Did I say Unix timestamps?  I meant the timestamps from video of a leaf in the wind.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    In all seriousness.

    I was being serious. I use that format for all sorts of stuff. So far no one has said anything to me or given me an odd look.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @CodeSimian said:
    In all seriousness.

    I was being serious. I use that format for all sorts of stuff. So far no one has said anything to me or given me an odd look.

    1. I frequently write things in YYYYMMDDHHmm format, where the hours are in 24-hour format. 
    2. People look at me funny all the time.
    I hope the two are related.



  • @bstorer said:

    1. I frequently write things in YYYYMMDDHHmm format, where the hours are in 24-hour format. 
    2. People look at me funny all the time.
    I hope the two are related.

    LOL. I use that format in log files (also with seconds, of course).



  • @CodeSimian said:

    To me the American (and Canadian) convention of "if it sounds singular, treat it as singular" leads to all kinds of absurdities. e.g. You see this kind of thing all the time when you hear or read about sports teams:

     e.g. "The Boston Celtics are a good NBA team.  Boston is currently in first place in the Eastern Conference."

    So are the Celtics singular or plural?

    To me, the American way makes more sense.  Organizations are generally referred to in the singular because they are considered to have an existence outside of the members themselves.  Sports teams are always referred to in the plural, though.  Take for example the Utah Jazz: Google returns 515 results for "utah jazz is" and 10,400 results for "utah jazz are".  Don't know why sports teams get special treatment, but that's the way it is.  Oh, and the Celtics are singular, though -- singularly awesome, that is!  Actually, I hate sports and don't know a damn thing about them but part of living in the greater Boston area is taking an absurd amount of pride in the physical accomplishments of a handful of individuals who aren't even originally from the area.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @bstorer said:

    1. I frequently write things in YYYYMMDDHHmm format, where the hours are in 24-hour format. 
    2. People look at me funny all the time.

    I hope the two are related.

    LOL. I use that format in log files (also with seconds, of course).

    YYYYMMDD is super awesome.  I separate them with periods if I use and delimiter at all.  It just makes sense because you are starting with the largest unit and moving down, just like with regular numbers.  I guess you could favor little-endian dates, though, with SSmmHHDDMMYYYY, but I have never seen that.  Right now I'm working with log files that some dumbass decided to name in YYYYDDMM format.  This angers me to no end. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Sports teams are always referred to in the plural, though.
     

    No, my example where plural and singular forms were mixed for a single sport team was typical of sports writing (sometimes they are mixed in the same sentence).  It depends whether you use the team name (Celtics == plural) or the city name (Boston == singular), and whether the name is "ambiguously" plural (Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, etc.).  To me that proves the American system is more confusing and inconsistent than the British system.

     Example:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=280330002 

     

    The Heat were slapped with their 60th loss on Sunday, the third time in
    franchise history they've hit that mark. With nine games remaining for
    Miami, its all-time record of futility could be eclipsed.


    Notice how when the team is referred to as "Heat", "they" are treated as plural.  When the team is referred to as "Miami", "it" is treated as singular.  Yet it is still the same team, whether you call it "Miami" or "Heat" or "Miami Heat".

    OTOH, British writers/announcers would just use plural every time (listen to soccer/football announcers, for example).

     



  • @CodeSimian said:

    that proves the American system is more confusing and inconsistent than the British system.
    And therefore better!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It just makes sense because you are starting with the largest unit and moving down, just like with regular numbers. 

    Of course, we read numbers right-to-left (depending on your POV), whereas we read everything else from left-to-right (in the West).  (I realize there is a perfectly reasonable history behind all of this, just pointing out the inconsistency.)



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Of course, we read numbers right-to-left (depending on your POV), whereas we read everything else from left-to-right (in the West).  (I realize there is a perfectly reasonable history behind all of this, just pointing out the inconsistency.)

    Yeah, I read numbers left-to-right, I didn't know there was any other way.

     

    Also, to reply to your other post, the teams are always plural but when the city name is used as a stand-in for the team, it's singular (because cities always are).  Maybe it's more of an American thing because people in the U.S. view the rivalry as more than just team vs. team, but instead as city vs. city (Red Sox vs. Yankees).  To me that makes perfect sense because the writer is starting with a very specific statement (about the team) and then generalizing to the entire primary fanbase (the city).  It actually seems like a very powerful rhetorical trick because it draws you into the story.  Do people see it differently in the rest of the world?

     

    Edit:  If you want to get really philosophical, I would hypothesize that the incongruity stems from the importance Americans place on unity.  That's probably why the idiom of starting a story with individuals and moving to a unified group is so common in American English.  It is part of our history, after all (E pluribus unum and all that).



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, to reply to your other post, the teams are always plural but when the city name is used as a stand-in for the team, it's singular (because cities always are).  Maybe it's more of an American thing because people in the U.S. view the rivalry as more than just team vs. team, but instead as city vs. city (Red Sox vs. Yankees).  To me that makes perfect sense because the writer is starting with a very specific statement (about the team) and then generalizing to the entire primary fanbase (the city).  It actually seems like a very powerful rhetorical trick because it draws you into the story.  Do people see it differently in the rest of the world?

     

     

    I live in Canada and most people use the convention as Americans.  But sometimes, Canadian sports broadcasters use the "always plural" convention, especially when discussing soccer/football.  OTOH, Canadians mimic a lot of Americanisms that are offical "frowned upon".  (e.g. when pronouncing "lieutenant", "serious news broadcasters" always say "lef-tenant", whereas most regular people say "loo-tenent").  Newscasters always pronounce "route" as rhymes-with-boot, whereas most people pronounce it rhymes-with-bout.  (I have heard some Americans pronounce the latter way, though).

     I blame it all on American television.

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Yeah, I read numbers left-to-right, I didn't know there was any other way.

    Sorry, I misspoke (mistyped).  We parse numbers right-to-left (right digit is most significant), whereas sentences are parsed left-to-right.  (Yeah, I know it's not really the same kind of parsing in each case.)  This wiki explains it better:

    The numerals are arranged with their lowest value digit to the right,
    with higher value positions added to the left. This arrangement was
    adopted identically into the numerals as used in Europe. The Latin
    alphabet running from left to right, unlike the Arabic alphabet, this
    resulted in an inverse arrangement of the place-values relative to the
    direction of reading
    .

     That's the inconsistency I was referring to.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Edit:  If you want to get really philosophical, I would hypothesize that the incongruity stems from the importance Americans place on unity.  That's probably why the idiom of starting a story with individuals and moving to a unified group is so common in American English.  It is part of our history, after all (E pluribus unum and all that).

    I think it's just another regional idiosyncracy, like the date formats. Funnily enough, everyone thinks their own idiosyncratic convention is privileged. I once heard someone say, without a shred of irony: "British people have funny accepts.  But you know what's the weird thing?  They think we have funny accents, too!"



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Newscasters always pronounce "route" as rhymes-with-boot, whereas most people pronounce it rhymes-with-bout.  (I have heard some Americans pronounce the latter way, though).
     

    Not that it's important, but I meant to say I've heard Americans pronounce "route" like it rhymes with "boot" (i.e. The "official" UK/Canadian pronunciation.)



  • @CodeSimian said:

    I think it's just another regional idiosyncracy, like the date formats. Funnily enough, everyone thinks their own idiosyncratic convention is privileged. I once heard someone say, without a shred of irony: "British people have funny accepts.  But you know what's the weird thing?  They think we have funny accents, too!"

    I didn't mean to imply the American way was superior, more that it was likely a direct result of the differing social and political influences between the U.S. and Britain.  People who are blind to this are amusing, I'll grant you that.  Personally, I find the differences between cultures to be very interesting.  I do feel strongly that the Western system of values is generally a force for good, though.

     

    Also, I pronounce route as if it rhymed with out.  This may be because of my network engineering background, though, because saying "rooter" is just silly.  Please tell me the Britsh don't pronounce it that way. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I didn't mean to imply the American way was superior, more that it was likely a direct result of the differing social and political influences between the U.S. and Britain.
     

    I didn't mean to imply that you implied that....

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, I pronounce route as if it rhymed with out.  This may be because of my network engineering background, though, because saying "rooter" is just silly.

    That is the same reason most of my (Canadian) colleagues pronounce route as rhymes-with-out.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Please tell me the Britsh don't pronounce it that way. 

    My British colleague (at the same company as aforementioned Canadians) pronounced it that way.  He was the only one, though.  

    I feel that rhymes-with-boot is the correct "Canadian" pronunciation, but when say "router" that way (at work), I get funny looks.  I guess the British guy got a free pass.

    Anyway, Merriam-Webster lists both pronunciations:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/route

     

    Main Entry:
    1route Listen to the pronunciation of 1route Listen to the pronunciation of 1route
    Pronunciation:

    <span class="unicode">ˈrüt, ˈrat</span>
    Function:
    noun
     
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/router (click on the second definition in the list)

    Main Entry:
    2rout·er Listen to the pronunciation of 2router
    Pronunciation:
    \ˈrü-tər, ˈra-\
    Function:
    noun
    Date:
    1903
    : one that routes; especially : a device that mediates the transmission routes of data packets over an electronic communications network (as the Internet)
     
     
    Of course, router as in "router saw" only has one correct pronunciation (rhymes-with-out).
     
     

     



  • @CodeSimian said:

    My British colleague (at the same company as aforementioned Canadians) pronounced it that way.  He was the only one, though.  

    Hmm.. perhaps we need to invade Britain next.  They have made a mockery of our language for too long!  (Over a thousand years at last count.)  Also, remember that U.S.-ians (and I would assume to a lesser degree, Candians) give a free pass to the British on almost everything.  I think the consensus is that their customs are cute and antiquated and they should be treated in the same manner as a retarded step-child.  No offense to Brits, that's what I have observed.

     



  • OP: I think you ae tying too had. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

      Oh, and the Celtics are singular, though -- singularly awesome, that is!  Actually, I hate sports and don't know a damn thing about them but part of living in the greater Boston area is taking an absurd amount of pride in the physical accomplishments of a handful of individuals who aren't even originally from the area.

     

    That, and we have roving bands of Souties who roam the land, forcibly removing anyone without fanatical (and usually unbased) devotion to Boston/New England teams.



  • Well we say 'Maths' and not 'Math' because we study Mathematics and not 'Mathematic'. Only time we would say 'Math' is when we are refering to a singular formula or Mathematical Method.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, I pronounce route as if it rhymed with out.  This may be because of my network engineering background, though, because saying "rooter" is just silly.

    That is the same reason most of my (Canadian) colleagues pronounce route as rhymes-with-out.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Please tell me the Britsh don't pronounce it that way. 

    My British colleague (at the same company as aforementioned Canadians) pronounced it that way.  He was the only one, though.  

    I feel that rhymes-with-boot is the correct "Canadian" pronunciation, but when say "router" that way (at work), I get funny looks.  I guess the British guy got a free pass.

    Anyway, Merriam-Webster lists both pronunciations:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/route

     

    My system:

    Route as a verb, rhymes with "out."  Route as a noun, rhymes with "boot."  Thus, router rhymes with "outer."

    Hey, I didn't say it was a good system.



  • @Eternal Density said:

    OP: I think you ae tying too had. 

     

    Luckily, I think you are making up for that in the opposite direction.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    No, my example where plural and singular forms were mixed for a single sport team was typical of sports writing (sometimes they are mixed in the same sentence).  It depends whether you use the team name (Celtics == plural) or the city name (Boston == singular), and whether the name is "ambiguously" plural (Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, etc.).  To me that proves the American system is more confusing and inconsistent than the British system.

    No, I'm afraid you're missing it.

    Plural is used when referring to the team, as it refers to a group of individuals. Therefore, "Celtics" or "Heat" are plural.

    Singular is used when referring to the location, as it refers to the city (physical location), and not the group of citizens that make up that city. Therefore, "Boston" and "Miami" are singular, as there are only single locations referenced. (There is only one "Boston" that has a professional basketball team called "Celtics".)

    @CodeSimian said:

    The Heat were slapped with their 60th loss on Sunday, the third time in
    franchise history they've hit that mark. With nine games remaining for
    Miami, its all-time record of futility could be eclipsed.

    Notice how when the team is referred to as "Heat", "they" are treated as plural.  When the team is referred to as "Miami", "it" is treated as singular.  Yet it is still the same team, whether you call it "Miami" or "Heat" or "Miami Heat".

    As mentioned above, this makes perfect sense, if you consider "The Heat" to be a collection of people, and "Miami" to be a single geographic location where that collection of people are located.




  • @Feek said:

    That, and we have roving bands of Souties who roam the land, forcibly removing anyone without fanatical (and usually unbased) devotion to Boston/New England teams.
     

    And I was watching morbius's posts, too. If he hadn't gotten the Celtics praise into this thread that mentioned them, I would have reported him to those Souties - I have friends in Boston.

    Lucky for him, though, he did his duty. 



  • @KenW said:

    Plural is used when referring to the team, as it refers to a group of individuals. Therefore, "Celtics" or "Heat" are plural.

    Singular is used when referring to the location, as it refers to the city (physical location), and not the group of citizens that make up that city. Therefore, "Boston" and "Miami" are singular, as there are only single locations referenced. (There is only one "Boston" that has a professional basketball team called "Celtics".)

     

    Yes, that makes perfect sense, except some writers get confused when team names are not clearly plural (i.e. Magic, Heat):

    http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22orlando+magic+is%22

    http://www.nba.com/magic/career_opportunities/career_opps_000310.html

    The Orlando Magic is an NBA franchise...

     

    http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22miami+heat+is%22

    The Miami Heat is our hometown team. 

    This lends credence to my theory that if "it sounds singular", treat it as singular, otherwise treat it as plural.  The name of the city, in isolation, always sounds singular. 

     @KenW said:

    As mentioned above, this makes perfect sense, if you consider "The Heat" to be a collection of people, and "Miami" to be a single geographic location where that collection of people are located.

    Yes, it makes perfect sense.  Except the British don't see it that way:

    Middlesbrough welcome back Brazilian midfielder Fabio Rochemback back from a ban for Manchester United's visit.

    In American English, that would've read "Middlesbrough welcomes..." 

    Also, I think the "geographic location" argument is a bit of a red herring.  "Boston" and "Boston Celtics" are not synonymous.  When I say, "Toronto won the Atlantic Division title last season", I am talking about the Toronto Raptors NBA organization, not the City of Toronto.  

     

    Anyway, I don't really want to argue too much about this and bore everyone further.  It is obvious to me that the British use a system where groups are always (AFAIK) plural, and Americans don't.  The exact rules for American English are open to debate.  I am not trying to argue the relative merits of each system, just pointing differences which are sometimes misunderstood.

    My original point was very simple: what seems wrong for one group is perfectly acceptable for another.  Which is why I found it funny when an American online news publication inserted severals "sics" in a UK English comment, as if the guy's comment was riddled with errors.



  • @bstorer said:

    My system:

    Route as a verb, rhymes with "out."  Route as a noun, rhymes with "boot."  Thus, router rhymes with "outer."

    Hey, I didn't say it was a good system.

     

    Yeah, but depending on where you live, route as a verb can also rhyme with "boot", which is why router can rhyme with "booter". 

    Also the verb route as in "routing traffic" and the noun route as in "freeway/highway route" come from the same Latin root, so it makes sense that they could be pronounced the same way.


Log in to reply
 

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