Error'd: forum edition



  • A few error messages I encountered

     

    An old one, I know. But at least we who to shoot this time. This happened when I tried to open a .doc file with OpenOffice 3.1 after downloading it with Firefox 3.1 on Ubuntu 8.10.

    Error, success

    An interesting news story

    NaN

    Nuts, I was hoping it was about the bank here http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Act-Fast!.aspx

    404

    While getting my computer to tri boot, I accidentlly damaged the boot sector for Vista. Fortunately, the recovery disk had a handy revovery tool

    Vista recovery

    Unfortunately, it just sat there doing nothing except spinning the bar for a very long time. No problem, I'll just hit the cancel button. Oh, wait...

    can't cancel

    Windows seems to have an interesting idea of incorrect passwords. Unfortunately, I just don't quite know how to correct it. I don't think I entetered a negative length password.

    password length at least 0 characters

     



  • 1. "error: success" is old news.

    2. "Evening news" is not very WTFy.  I'm still trying to work out why you might find that funny.

    3. Yes, Vista is funny.  So funny that we need reminders.

    4. Your screenshot has been compessed to unreadability.  Is that the real WTF?



  • @Qwerty said:

    1. "error: success" is old news.

    2. "Evening news" is not very WTFy.  I'm still trying to work out why you might find that funny.

    3. Yes, Vista is funny.  So funny that we need reminders.

    4. Your screenshot has been compessed to unreadability.  Is that the real WTF?

     

    1. Yes I know

    2. Notice the title and description of the current broadcast .

    3. That's why I don't use it very much.

    4. Perhaps this is better? reduced



  • 1. Yep

    2. Oh, I see

    3. OK

    4. Yes



  • @Qwerty said:

    1. "error: success" is old news.

    2. "Evening news" is not very WTFy.  I'm still trying to work out why you might find that funny.

    3. Yes, Vista is funny.  So funny that we need reminders.

    4. Your screenshot has been compessed to unreadability.  Is that the real WTF?

    Cool, thanks for the post. Keep them coming.

     

    FTFY



  • @itFinallyWorks said:

    @Qwerty said:

    2. "Evening news" is not very WTFy.  I'm still trying to work out why you might find that funny.

     

    2. Notice the title and description of the current broadcast .

    Oh riiight... you mean this bit, yeh?

    Actual size as seen in a browser

    Jeeze, yeh, how dumb must he be to have missed that?  What a maroon, eh?



  • @DaveK said:

    @itFinallyWorks said:

    @Qwerty said:

    2. "Evening news" is not very WTFy.  I'm still trying to work out why you might find that funny.

     

    2. Notice the title and description of the current broadcast .

    Oh riiight... you mean *this* bit, yeh?

    Actual size as seen in a browser

    Jeeze, yeh, how dumb must he be to have missed that?  What a maroon, eh?

    Yeah, I read that, got the joke.

    Compressed images are bad.



  • @KattMan said:

    @DaveK said:

    @itFinallyWorks said:

    @Qwerty said:

    2. "Evening news" is not very WTFy.  I'm still trying to work out why you might find that funny.

     

    2. Notice the title and description of the current broadcast .

    Oh riiight... you mean *this* bit, yeh?

    Actual size as seen in a browser

    Jeeze, yeh, how dumb must he be to have missed that?  What a maroon, eh?

    Yeah, I read that, got the joke.

    Compressed images are bad.

    Actually, I'm not part of the anti-JPEG-Jihad round here.  The original screenshot was absolutely fine and detailed.  The WTF was scaling it down using HTML size attributes and not making it a clickable link to the full version, making it completely not obvious unless someone should happen to right-click and choose to view the image on its own.  But how would you know there was more detail to be found in the first place?


  • @DaveK said:

    Actually, I'm not part of the anti-JPEG-Jihad round here.  The original screenshot was absolutely fine and detailed.  The WTF was scaling it down using HTML size attributes and not making it a clickable link to the full version, making it completely not obvious unless someone should happen to right-click and choose to view the image on its own.  But how would you know there was more detail to be found in the first place?

    Oh that wasn't the joke?  And who said anything about JPEG images?

    But yeah, if he wants us to focus in on a small piece of his screen capture, why not crop the image to show it easily?

    The real WTF is the OP.



  • @KattMan said:

    And who said anything about JPEG images?

    Nobody.  I was reading too much into your use of "compressed" over "resized" or "rescaled".



  • @KattMan said:

    @DaveK said:

    Actually, I'm not part of the anti-JPEG-Jihad round here.  The original screenshot was absolutely fine and detailed.  The WTF was scaling it down using HTML size attributes and not making it a clickable link to the full version, making it completely not obvious unless someone should happen to right-click and choose to view the image on its own.  But how would you know there was more detail to be found in the first place?

    Oh that wasn't the joke?  And who said anything about JPEG images?

    But yeah, if he wants us to focus in on a small piece of his screen capture, why not crop the image to show it easily?

    The real WTF is the OP.

     

    I considered cropping it, but then you lose context. I probably could have cropped it some. In retrospect, the size attributes may not have been such a good idea.  But without them, it seemed kind of big.  Decisions, decisions.

    About the click to enlarge, before today, I didn't know the HTML code for that. I've seen it, but never thought about how it was done. That seems to be one thing my Web Programming class forgot. For others who don't know, the code is <a href="path/picture.png"><img src="path/image.png" alt="description"/></a> .  Makes sense, really.

    Oh, by the way, all the pictures are .png, except the photos, which are .jpg since that is what my camera puts out (pointless to recompress a jpg to png since the artifacts will just show up in the png).

     

    Oh, and here's a cropped enlarged version of the news screen:



  • Notice how the password message doesn't say you have to enter the same password in both boxes.



  • @lolwtf said:

    Notice how the password message doesn't say you have to enter the same password in both boxes.
     

    Just one that meets the requirements. I never noticed that. That makes it even more helpful than it already was. Of course telling people to enter the same password in both boxes must be the job of some other error box - separation of privileges and all that. This one's job it to tell people nothing helpful.



  • @itFinallyWorks said:

    About the click to enlarge, before today, I didn't know the HTML code for that. I've seen it, but never thought about how it was done. That seems to be one thing my Web Programming class forgot. For others who don't know, the code is <a href="path/picture.png"><img src="path/image.png" alt="description"/></a> .  Makes sense, really.

    I just use the HTML-mode editor when posting.  It has nice clicky buttons to insert pics and make links.

     



  • @DaveK said:

    It has nice clicky buttons to insert pics and make links.
     

    Also doesn't afraid of anything.



  • @itFinallyWorks said:

    About the click to enlarge, before today, I didn't know the HTML code for that. I've seen it, but never thought about how it was done. That seems to be one thing my Web Programming class forgot. For others who don't know, the code is [bleh].  Makes sense, really.
     

    Are you being sarcastic or did you actually take a Web Programming class without knowing any HTML?



  • @dhromed said:

    @DaveK said:

    It has nice clicky buttons to insert pics and make links.
     

    Also doesn't afraid of anything.

    But has been known to accidentally the whole post. 



  • @dhromed said:

    @itFinallyWorks said:

    About the click to enlarge, before today, I didn't know the HTML code for that. I've seen it, but never thought about how it was done. That seems to be one thing my Web Programming class forgot. For others who don't know, the code is [bleh].  Makes sense, really.
     

    Are you being sarcastic or did you actually take a Web Programming class without knowing any HTML?

     

    Yes, that is why I took the class in the first place. My particular school doesn't have any other class just for HTML. For design yes, but for writing no. The CS department at this school has significant failings. They seem to concentrate on game programming, .NET, and Java and very little on basics like C, C++, revision control, makefiles, etc. I know C and C++ are somewhat out of fashion, but they do force you to think about how the computer does things - an important thing for CS people. The rest of what isn't emphasized is really just sad - and I'm not even a CS major.

    Among many other things, this web programming class was supposed to teach HTML.  This class tried to teach HTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP, PERL, RoR, MySQL, ASP.NET, JSP, and AJAX all in 1 semester.  Needless to say, it didn't spend very long on any of them. It was an interesting overview, but had little detail.



  • @itFinallyWorks said:

    Among many other things, this web programming class was supposed to teach HTML.  This class tried to teach HTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP, PERL, RoR, MySQL, ASP.NET, JSP, and AJAX all in 1 semester.  Needless to say, it didn't spend very long on any of them. It was an interesting overview, but had little detail.
     

    That's seriously too bad.

    My HTML course in school did teach me tables, though. They're quite a conundrum to understand if the concept's something completely new to you. All the rest I learnt from a website. Actual practical programming I learnt from my first internship at a webdev company.

    Makes you wonder whether such an education is worth its money. OTOH, it does expose you to a whole range of things in a controlled environment, which is never a bad thing, and there are some projects I did that I'm still proud of.



  • @DaveK said:

    Jeeze, yeh, how dumb must he be to have missed that?  What a maroon, eh?

     

    That's pretty racist, isn't it? Maroon



  • @bullestock said:

    @DaveK said:

    Jeeze, yeh, how dumb must he be to have missed that?  What a maroon, eh?

     

    That's pretty racist, isn't it? Maroon

    That really Bugs me



  • Huh... I always thought it was a facetious mispronunciation of moron.



  • @SenTree said:

    @bullestock said:

    @DaveK said:

    Jeeze, yeh, how dumb must he be to have missed that?  What a maroon, eh?

     

    That's pretty racist, isn't it? Maroon

    That really Bugs me

    There's no need to go all red in the face about it!


  • @Anon Ymous said:

    Huh... I always thought it was a facetious mispronunciation of moron.

    That's spelled with three o's.

    No, dumbass, it's "moroon", not "marooon". I swear, developers are so freakin' literal.



  • @CDarklock said:

    @Anon Ymous said:

    Huh... I always thought it was a facetious mispronunciation of moron.

    That's spelled with three o's.

    Oh no it isn't.   That's blatantly an 'a'.

    @CDarklock said:

    No, dumbass, it's "moroon", not "marooon". I swear, developers are so freakin' literal.

    Looks like you anticipated the wrong objection there!


  • @DaveK said:

    That's blatantly an 'a'.

    I can show you all kinds of anecdotal evidence that there's a "d" in "refrigerator", too, but it would still be wrong.

    @DaveK said:

    Looks like you anticipated the wrong objection there!

    Looks more like you deliberately didn't make that objection because I already stomped on it!



  • @CDarklock said:

    @DaveK said:

    That's blatantly an 'a'.

    I can show you all kinds of anecdotal evidence that there's a "d" in "refrigerator", too, but it would still be wrong.

    Now that's just silly!  Of course it's wrong, it's supposed to be wrong; it's Bugs' mispronunciation of "moron" that we're talking about here, so by your own argument, you're just wrong too: there's two "o"s in "moron", and "moroon" doesn't even come into the discussion. 

    @U. Wascal Wabbit said:

    Nyeeeahh heh heh heh, he pulled the rug out from under his own feet!  Whatta ignoranimus, whatta maroon!



  • @DaveK said:

    Of course it's wrong, it's supposed to be wrong; it's Bugs' mispronunciation of "moron" that we're talking about here

    Yes, he mispronounced it as "moroon". Which has three o's, and is not a racial slur.


Log in to reply
 

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