Nan upload



  • Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

    QuickPost Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!



  • Oh thank god, I can 'quickpost' this image to my Myspace!



  • The preview of the picture is too scaled-down to read and has lost too much quality even when scaled up. When I click on the link, I get the ImageShack frame with no picture.

    Therefore, I find a WTF in one or more of the following places for this failure:
      1. The poster, bugmenot1
      2. The image host, ImageShack
      3. My ISP, which offers "ULTRA-HIGH-SPEED-SO-FAST-THAT-EVEN-YOUR-KIDS-CANT-KEEP-UP-WITH-IT-KIND-OF-SERVICE" (yes, that's their slogan. No, it's not my choice to use them) and drops about 25% of all Internet traffic

    I'm leaning to (3). Anyway, what exactly is in the image?



  • Probably you have JavaScript turned of, so imageshack.us doesn't work.
    I think I will stick with the old method of image posting: 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



  • @bugmenot1 said:

    Probably you have JavaScript turned of, so imageshack.us doesn't work.
    I think I will stick with the old method of image posting: R0lGODlhZwGEAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABnAYQAAAL/jI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7D4biSJbmiabqyrbuC8fyTNf2jef6zvf+DwwKh8Si8bgDKJHMpvN5UEqn0Kr1eptqqdiu9yvaiqXgsvn8GKuX6Lb7u44D3vQ6Uo636/c9vH/OFygI8otpvz3333n8Pfvjij09++eaDUgAAOw==

    <snip>

     

    Nice ascii art. Can't quite figure out what its supposed to be however :)



  • @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O O@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ O@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@: o@ o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ o@@O @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@o o @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@: o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@o :oo@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@oO@@OoO@@@@O:@o@@@@O@o@@o@OO:oo@@OO@@@@@@@@@@@:@ooOo:OooOooO@@o@OoooOo@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@o@ @@@@Oo@@o@ooo@o:@@oo@@:o@@o@o@@oo@o@oo@oo@@@o@o@o@@@o@o@o@@@:o@o@@o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@o@o@@@@@@@@@@@@o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@o@@@@O@ooO@@ @:@:oo@O@oo@@@@@@@@@@o:oO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O@@@O@@@@@@@@@@O@Ooo@@ooOooO@@@@@@O@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@o@o@@o@@o@@O:@oo@@Oo@o@oooooooo@o@@@@o@@o@@@ OO@o@:O@@O @ ooo@@@@@@o@o@oo@oooo@@o@o:@@o@o@oooo@oo@@oo@o@@@@@@o@o@@O@oO@o@@oo@oo@oo@@o@@oooOo@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O@o@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    <!-- Generated in 12 ms (varies on server-load) -->


  • @bugmenot1 said:

    I think I will stick with the old method of image posting

    That worked very nicely. Thank you.

    I find it quite odd that it gives a speed and a non-NaN percentage when the (obviously malformed) calculation arrived at NaN for downloaded size. It would be quite interesting (in a WTF kind of way) to see the original code that generated this.



  • It is from a rapidshare upload, so the script is here: http://rapidshare.com/progress.html



  • @AltSysrq said:

    @bugmenot1 said:

    I think I will stick with the old method of image posting

    That worked very nicely. Thank you.

    I find it quite odd that it gives a speed and a non-NaN percentage when the (obviously malformed) calculation arrived at NaN for downloaded size. It would be quite interesting (in a WTF kind of way) to see the original code that generated this.

    It massively bloated up the size of the image and embedded it in the HTML so it isn't cached and we can't even see it but it worked nicely?  You must be a desktop Linux user...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It massively bloated up the size of the image and embedded it in the HTML so it isn't cached and we can't even see it but it worked nicely?  You must be a desktop Linux user...


    Glad it wasn't just me that noticed a mound of incomprehensible crap :)



  • For those of us who don't feel like translating base64, here's the image moved to somewhere a bit more sane...

    Meh...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It massively bloated up the size of the image and embedded it in the HTML so it isn't cached and we can't even see it but it worked nicely? You must be a desktop Linux user...

    By "worked nicely" I mean that I managed to see the actual image within 15 seconds of seeing the post containing the code. I was not saying it was the optimal solution.

    @Mole said:

    Glad it wasn't just me that noticed a mound of incomprehensible crap :)

    You mean you can't just look at a GIF encoded in Base64 and visualize the picture in your head? Go back to elementary school.



  • @AltSysrq said:

    You mean you can't just look at a GIF encoded in Base64 and visualize the picture in your head? Go back to elementary school.
    Well, my brain doesn't have all that much call for it. Typically people post images in a format that my browser understands, so I only have to look at the picture, not assemble the thing first. 



  • Who needs images when you have base64?

     

    [edit]

    Nevermind the forum software doesn't dig "data:"



  •  WTF? WTF runs on IIS?!



  • @Mole said:

    WTF? WTF runs on IIS?!

    .aspx wasn't enough of a giveaway?



  • @Spectre said:

    .aspx wasn't enough of a giveaway?
    It could have been running on Linux/Apache/Mono (one of our clients actually does that).



  • @ender said:

    It could have been running on Linux/Apache/Mono (one of our clients actually does that).

    Except Alex has publicly stated he hates Linux, a few too many RTFMs scared him off.



  • @AltSysrq said:

    You mean you can't just look at a GIF encoded in Base64 and visualize the picture in your head?

     

    Blonde, brunette, redhead... I don't even see the code anymore.



  • @Mole said:

     WTF? WTF runs on IIS?!

    What's your point? It's a perfectly good web server (provided it's v6 or higher)



  • @Kyanar said:

    @Mole said:

     WTF? WTF runs on IIS?!

    What's your point? It's a perfectly good web server (provided it's v6 or higher)

     

    Altough it's a bit heavier on resources and can't even dream of apache's flexibility

    It's good for TDWTF though, altough I would rather spend my precious servers resources on something usefull rather than Windows bloated (for servers) stuff.



  • Windows is not bloated. It has features. It can actually run the applications you write in vb and any other languages. Linux is way to limiting when it comes to serious usage.



  •  @menta said:

    Windows is not bloated. It has features. It can actually run the applications you write in vb and any other languages. Linux is way to limiting when it comes to serious usage.

    Troll troll troll your line



  •  

    Huh?



  • @dtech said:

    @Kyanar said:

    @Mole said:

    WTF? WTF runs on IIS?!

    What's your point? It's a perfectly good web server (provided it's v6 or higher)

     

    Altough it's a bit heavier on resources and can't even dream of apache's flexibility

    It's good for TDWTF though, altough I would rather spend my precious servers resources on something usefull rather than Windows bloated (for servers) stuff.

    I don't know much about IIS, but I'm calling bullshit.  I doubt that IIS is significantly more bloated or slow than Apache.  And 300+ virtual hosts?  Why wouldn't IIS handle that?  Quite frankly, if you have 300+ virtual hosts on any web server, you are probably doing something horribly wrong.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Quite frankly, if you have 300+ virtual hosts on any web server, you are
    probably doing something horribly wrong.

    Or a free web host.



  •  @Spectre said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Quite frankly, if you have 300+ virtual hosts on any web server, you are
    probably doing something horribly wrong.

    Or a free web host.

    So yeah, something horribly wrong.



  • @Spectre said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Quite frankly, if you have 300+ virtual hosts on any web server, you are
    probably doing something horribly wrong.

    Or a free web host.

    Do you have a single fucking clue what you are talking about?  Why would you use separate virtual hosts for each single "free web account"?  Either use rewrite rules or virtual docroots.  If you aren't doing that, you are doing something wrong.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I don't know much about IIS, but I'm calling bullshit.  I doubt that IIS is significantly more bloated or slow than Apache.  And 300+ virtual hosts?  Why wouldn't IIS handle that?  Quite frankly, if you have 300+ virtual hosts on any web server, you are probably doing something horribly wrong.
     

    It's not that uncommon on cheap webhosts (but paid) hosting for low level websites (e.g. <100 hits per week websites).

    I must say I don't exactly now how IIS (or apache in comparison) would handle 300 virtual hosts. All I know is that on some minor tests I once ran a virtual debian (non-gui) machine with PHP and apache used 2-3 times less memory than a virtual windows 2003 machine with IIS.



  • @dtech said:

    It's not that uncommon on cheap webhosts (but paid) hosting for low level websites (e.g. <100 hits per week websites).

    Read what I posted directly above: if you are using separate virtual hosts for this, you are doing it wrong.

     

    @dtech said:

    I must say I don't exactly now how IIS (or apache in comparison) would handle 300 virtual hosts.

    Apache can handle 300 virtual hosts just fine if you have enough hardware, but it's still almost certainly the wrong thing to do.

     

    @dtech said:

    All I know is that on some minor tests I once ran a virtual debian (non-gui) machine with PHP and apache used 2-3 times less memory than a virtual windows 2003 machine with IIS.

    Somehow I doubt you were comparing apples to apples.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Read what I posted directly above: if you are using separate virtual hosts for this, you are doing it wrong.
     

    It's the easiest thing to do if you want to provide domains.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Somehow I doubt you were comparing apples to apples

     I was comparing a standard install with the most used webserver on that platform with PHP installed and a simple web page on a single host on both. I don't know how I could compare more equivalently



  • @dtech said:

    It's the easiest thing to do if you want to provide domains.

    Easiest?  It involves rewriting the Apache config files and restarting the daemon.  That is not particularly easy to me. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Easiest?  It involves rewriting the Apache config files and restarting the daemon.  That is not particularly easy to me. 
     

    You can make a directory from with every file gets included (e.g.: one for every user, domain or virtual host). You can easily add/remove those with a  scripts. You also don't need to restart the deamon, you can reload (difference being that it doesn't stop serving for a short period of time during the restart).This can be done with one command.

    I do not know how it's done with IIS other, but I don't think this is particulary hard.I don't have alot of experience with IIS, but is there even a way to do this from automatically/from the command line.



  • @dtech said:

    You can make a directory from with every file gets included (e.g.: one for every user, domain or virtual host). You can easily add/remove those with a  scripts.

    No shit, that still requires rewriting config files and it creates hundreds of virtual host entries the daemon must deal with.  Virtual docroots or rewrite rules are the proper fucking way to do this.  You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and need to open your fucking ears and learn rather than argue with people who know more than you.

     

    @dtech said:

    You also don't need to restart the deamon, you can reload (difference being that it doesn't stop serving for a short period of time during the restart).This can be done with one command.

    There is no reload command, you're probably thinking of "graceful" which doesn't terminate open connections.  It's still a PITA and a complete fucking hack.  Anyone hosting hundreds of domains by using hundreds of vhosts and reloading the daemon is a fucktard who doesn't know what they are doing.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dtech said:

    You also don't need to restart the deamon, you can reload (difference being that it doesn't stop serving for a short period of time during the restart).This can be done with one command.

    There is no reload command, you're probably thinking of "graceful" which doesn't terminate open connections. 

     

    Well, with apachectl it's indeed gracefull. "/etc/init.d/apache2 reload" does the same thing, hence I mentioned it as a reload.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Virtual docroots or rewrite rules are the proper fucking way to do this.  You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and need to open your fucking ears and learn rather than argue with people who know more than you.


    Well maybe they are, as I said I'm no professional webhost with 300+ users, but would that also allow your users to change server-configurable variables? (e.g. PHP_INI_SYSTEM settings)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Virtual docroots or rewrite rules are the proper fucking way to do this.
     

    I was browsing the sourceforge documentation today. And I noticed the sourceforge people apperantly also don't have a fucking clue on how to provide (multiple) domains.

    Could be my fault, but it seems to me there are worse sources on how to do things than a website hosting a few thousand opensource projects.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    shit fucking fucking PITA fucking fucktard

    Protip: People tend to hold what you say in higher regard if you don't swear too much.



  • @m0ffx said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    shit fucking fucking PITA fucking fucktard

    Protip: People tend to hold what you say in higher regard if you don't swear too much.

    What kind of people, dipshits?  If swearing changes your opinion of the content you are a fucking moron and I would prefer that you not listen to me. 



  • @dtech said:

    Well, with apachectl it's indeed gracefull. "/etc/init.d/apache2 reload" does the same thing, hence I mentioned it as a reload.

    The init scripts are provided by your Linux distro, not part of Apache.

     

    @dtech said:

    Well maybe they are, as I said I'm no professional webhost with 300+ users, but would that also allow your users to change server-configurable variables? (e.g. PHP_INI_SYSTEM settings)

    Generally this is done with .htaccess files.



  • @dtech said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Virtual docroots or rewrite rules are the proper fucking way to do this.
     

    I was browsing the sourceforge documentation today. And I noticed the sourceforge people apperantly also don't have a fucking clue on how to provide (multiple) domains.

    Could be my fault, but it seems to me there are worse sources on how to do things than a website hosting a few thousand opensource projects.

    Sourceforge may have special needs that I'm not aware of.  However, I still wouldn't consider them a very good source.  Regardless, you are still wrong and using separate vhost entries to host hundreds of sites is almost always the wrong way.  Please stop arguing and revealing your ignorance and let this die. 



  •  Alternatively, "Listen up! I know I'm right and your wrong. I don't care what you say, I'm right, your wrong. Now drop it before I throw my toys out." 



  • @Mole said:

    Alternatively, "Listen up! I know I'm right and your wrong. I don't care what you say, I'm right, your wrong. Now drop it before I throw my toys out."

    Do you have anything useful to contribute?  Do you even know what is being argued and why it is so absurd? 



  • Restarting Apache to add a new VirtualHost ? What kind of bad sysadmin are you ?

    Learn to use the right tools and complain after please.

    Here a little hint ...

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If swearing changes your opinion of the content you are a fucking moron and I
    would prefer that you not listen to me.

    Swearing tends to build an impression that you are using it to "strengthen" your argument; naturally, this raises concern over the quality of said argument. Swearing also indicates that you are taking the disagreement too personally and are probably emotionally attached to your position, which also lessens your credibility. At least that's how I perceive it.

    Regarding the current argument: I would like to clarify my post which sparked it. I was saying that for a free web host it's not unusual to have several hundreds of names served by one server, which I referred to as virtual hosts. I didn't specify, however, a specific mechanism to do that. I did not imply that this should be accomplished by editing the configuration file and restarting the server each time another host is added. That, indeed, is rather suboptimal.

    However, you appear to have restricted your definition of a virtual host to the [url=http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#virtualhost]<font face="Courier New"><VirtualHost></font>[/url] Apache directive. For example, you appear to recommend the [url=http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_vhost_alias.html#virtualdocumentroot]<font face="Courier New">VirtualDocumentRoot</font>[/url] directive as a more sensible alternative to virtual hosts, despite that the documentation actually describes it in terms of virtual hosts.

    So let's synchronize definitions before calling each other retards, okay?



  • @spamcourt said:

    Restarting Apache to add a new VirtualHost ? What kind of bad sysadmin are you ?

    Learn to use the right tools and complain after please.

    Here a little hint ... 

    Hey, shit-for-brains, that's precisely what I suggested.  Why don't you try reading the motherfucking thread before opening your goddamn mouth? 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Mole said:

    Alternatively, "Listen up! I know I'm right and your wrong. I don't care what you say, I'm right, your wrong. Now drop it before I throw my toys out."

    Do you have anything useful to contribute?  Do you even know what is being argued and why it is so absurd? 

    Yes, I do know what it being argued, but that is how you are coming across to people.

    It's fine to say "I would do it like this instead", but you are taking it far too personally. If someone wants to do it the "wrong way", then let them. If it creates administrative hassle for them, they'll soon find out the "right way". There's no reason to throw verbal abuse at them. Just let them make there own mistakes.I think people learn faster that way than forcing your way down there throats (unless of course your paying them $500/hour, in which case they do it your way or quit, but that isn't happening here).



  • @Mole said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Mole said:

    Alternatively, "Listen up! I know I'm right and your wrong. I don't care what you say, I'm right, your wrong. Now drop it before I throw my toys out."

    Do you have anything useful to contribute?  Do you even know what is being argued and why it is so absurd? 

    Yes, I do know what it being argued, but that is how you are coming across to people.

    It's fine to say "I would do it like this instead", but you are taking it far too personally. If someone wants to do it the "wrong way", then let them. If it creates administrative hassle for them, they'll soon find out the "right way". There's no reason to throw verbal abuse at them. Just let them make there own mistakes.I think people learn faster that way than forcing your way down there throats (unless of course your paying them $500/hour, in which case they do it your way or quit, but that isn't happening here).

    The problem is that he is spouting FUD about IIS and backing it up with incorrect information.  I don't want anyone else to adopt retarded habits just because he doesn't know what he is doing. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I don't want anyone else to adopt retarded habits just because he doesn't know what he is doing. 
     

    Nobody is contesting this. Do continue.

    It's your fucking foulmouthed overthetop bitchery, see, because you're such a cunt. ;)


Log in to reply
 

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