Looks like Arabic to me too. It's an ad for a contest LG is running to win travel to "anywhere you want" for 80 days. It is a very slow site... in English here
jasmine2501
@jasmine2501
Best posts made by jasmine2501
-
RE: Advertising fail
-
RE: Optimize code with StringBuilders
@Lorne Kates said:
BUT... how many times are you going to be concat'ing 10000 strings? As it stands, I had to do more than 600 strings just to get the concat loop to take longer than a millisecond.
How many 0.001% performance hits does it take to bring a system crashing to a halt when you deploy it to production and suddenly there's 10K users hammering it? Every performance improvement that doesn't increase maintenance should be done, and it doesn't really matter if it's just a marginal improvement, because you multiply that by how many places you implement the improvement, and how many users hit those lines of code.
Latest posts made by jasmine2501
-
RE: EU court ruling WTF
What about the "1st Amendment" right to free press, don't we have something like that in the EU also? Google is part of the free press, and it can't be asked to censor itself.
-
RE: Representative line: int gender
@morbiuswilters said:
Yes, let's expend precious healthcare IT resources so the guy who mutilated his dick doesn't have to question the wisdom of that decision.
Since this kind of ignorance is prevalent and can only be fixed by waiting for the idiots to die, I think yes, it would be cheaper to fix the software.
-
RE: Representative line: int gender
@Cat said:
We have a number of genders available by default (medical software). Male, Female, Unknown, Other, and Refused to Specify. There are actually good reasons (for us) to do a similar (yet less WTF-y) "not-male" check. Any gender except male shows warnings about requiring pregnancy tests before certain procedures, for example.
Could you please fix that shit?! It is really annoying to be constantly reminded of the fact that I can't get pregnant. I think it's time for the software to recognize the "Sex=male + gender=female" situation (and the other way around).
-
RE: ASPeers, can we agree to stop this shit?
@this_code_sucks said:
I guess your users are not government hahaha
Hope everyone's okay! How bad is the damage?No they are lawyers, I don't know if that's worse or better. My car is totaled, but nobody was hurt. It's really amazing how safe today's cars are - in the 70s, people would have died in a crash like this. I had full coverage so I'll be getting a check for $2400, which should be a good start on a new car. I was getting ready to buy a new car anyway, but I didn't need this kind of motivation! Driving my mom's truck sucks :)
-
RE: ASPeers, can we agree to stop this shit?
@joe.edwards said:
@this_code_sucks said:
Maybe a numbered list?
OK, not using self-closing syntax on controls pales in comparison to the following WTFs:
- Label elements semantically label form fields. Nothing else. If you use them for random text output, you are doing it wrong. Consider asp:Literal
- In this case, the text of the label is statically "|", so no i18n argument is even valid here. How do you translate "|"? There is no reason to use a server control here whatsoever.
- While your argument that links fail to hold session state without cookies enabled may have some validity, however, I'd recommend avoiding session state if at all possible (and I've never run into a case where it wasn't possible in over a decade of professional web development) because:
- It violates the general statelessness of the web, usually leading to sites that cannot be browsed in multiple tabs at once
- The default session state in ASP.NET is InProc, which bloats server memory and cannot be shared in a server farm/load balanced/cloud environment. And if you're writing code like this, you wouldn't have changed it to use a state server or SQL Server.
- Session state is often abused as a bucket o' global variables shared by the site and generally promotes bad coding style on the server-side.
- These controls actually contribute to ViewState (unless you go out of your way to disable that), which if not kept carefully in check leads to a big 1MB+ blob of base64 in a hidden form field on your page. This slows down the server, hurts SEO, and increases load time.
- Inline styles are being used which will make a site redesign take a couple orders of magnitude more effort, and generally bloat and pollute the markup.
- The URL of CMS.aspx?id=6 yields zero information to either user or search engine. Look at that URL in your browser history and tell me where it goes. Why does the user need to know it's .aspx, or for that matter the ID of the page? It's an implementation detail. What if the platform changes, will all the bookmarked links and inbound links break (hint: yes)?
In short, this coding style is awful. The rendered output is large, semantically incorrect, search-engine hostile, there's no separation of presentation from document structure, it increases both bandwidth and server load unnecessarily, and if session state is being used then separate tabs can interact in strange ways. This is almost as bad as using postbacks (asp:Buttons and asp:LinkButtons) for navigation - just don't do it.
Agreed. And really, I don't care about the users who disable cookies - they are having a weird web experience everywhere.
Sorry I couldn't respond to this, I got in a car accident about an hour after I posted it!
-
ASPeers, can we agree to stop this shit?
<asp:HyperLink Text="Legal" runat="server" CssClass="lbl" NavigateUrl="~/CMS.aspx?id=11"></asp:HyperLink>
<asp:Label Text="|" runat="server" ></asp:Label>
<asp:HyperLink ID="HyperLink1" Text="Privacy" runat="server" CssClass="lbl" NavigateUrl="~/CMS.aspx?id=6"></asp:HyperLink>
<asp:Label ID="Label1" Text="|" runat="server"></asp:Label>
<asp:Label Text="© 2012 My Damn Company, LLC. All rights reserved." runat="server" Style="padding-right: 28px; color: #7B7B7B;"></asp:Label>Learn some fucking HTML, bitch.
What is wrong with this?
<a href="~/CMS.aspx?id=11" class="lbl">Legal</a> | <a href="~/CMS.aspx?id=6" class="lbl">Privacy</a> | © 2013 My Damn Company, LLC. All rights reserved.
Seriously, who is teaching that first style? I see it way too much.
-
RE: Interfaces
@SirHegel77 said:
In my humble opinion defining interfaces like this may help to keep sub-project dependencies straight and clean, which in turn makes it easier to maintain proper build order and to prevent chicken/egg problems. Instead of all sub-projects referencing each other in a single, huge solution, one can create smaller, independent and more manageable solutions, which can refer to the .dll defining the interfaces. The interfaces are build on the build server as the first solution, obviously.
I used that design pattern for many years and frankly, I never really saw the value of it. It did make it possible to build small components of the application independently without needing up-to-date DLLs, but it also made the code wicked hard to understand and made debugging tricky because you had to dig through empty interfaces all the time. The only purpose of this design pattern was so the company could hire 200 bad developers and have them work on super-small modules. The end result was nobody knew how the application worked, but almost anybody could step in almost anywhere and attempt a bug fix. That obviously lead to some quality issues, and source control issues, and in general a lot of issues having to do with the fact that the application couldn't be viewed as an atomic thing, and nobody knew how to install all the components and get the whole thing up and running all at once - installations usually took a week, if you could get the right group of people. Oh and the real beauty of it all? The application as whole couldn't be built.
-
RE: IDoNothing
This is the Interface Orgy design pattern. I am convinced there is a guy over in India teaching that this design pattern solves all problems if you make it deep enough. If I ever meet that guy I'm going to slit his throat right in front of his family.
Or yeah, they're markers :)
-
RE: Heading4, Repeatable Content Block, Insert Image Here
LOL... loving this because it's true... people under 25 don't know the meaning of mail. This is true even of people who work at the phucking post office! I don't remember what talk show I saw this on, but they had a lady there who was "representing" the US Postal Service, and they basically asked her "why should anybody use mail anymore when we have fax machines, email, Facebook, etc....?"
Guess what her answer was... SECURITY. I blame her age - she was a young lady obviously designed to look good on TV... possibly it's a corporate line or something. I was just stunned though... mail is not secure (not when compared with email and fax machines), and she completely missed the fact that email and fax machines don't send a physical object. She missed the critical difference between the two things, AND the thing she said was incorrect.
-
RE: Database Design Party
I have seen this before, and it was "to support some ORM thing" so their explanation is familiar, however it does not make sense. "DB keys must be unique across the whole universe" is not an easy requirement to work with. It works great in testing, but when you have any amount of concurrent users, the whole thing breaks down, unless you create an "ID server" as a singleton, or something like that... which puts a major bottleneck in the system. I've seen this work successfully but it leads to a bunch of problems down the road. It's just another symptom of not having good DB developers. I currently make a lot of money cleaning up after that mess, and have done so for many years... so it gives me great pleasure to know that the stupid is still out there :)