Author Topic: What annoys you to no end? (Read 370291 times)

lanux128 · « **Reply #325 on:** July 07, 2009, 09:20 PM »

1. people who are intolerant of others
2. the Dutch
-Sundog29 (July 07, 2009, 05:13 PM)

i believe he is quoting from the movie, "Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)".

the full quote is like this, as spoken by Dr. Evil:

There are two types of people I hate in this world
1) People who are intolerant of others' cultures, and
2) The Dutch!

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295178/

J-Mac · « **Reply #326 on:** July 07, 2009, 10:25 PM »

This one will probably get objections and numerous reasons why it is necessary, but I really, really hate it anyway:

Developers - particularly those with a catalog of exactly ONE application - who insist on having their program listed under a company name in Program Files. So as not to get personal, a "pretend" application named "Percolator" is in a Program Files folder named "JehosephatABCSoftware". Or something equally inane. Just so that when you need to find their app's folder either in Program Files or in the Docs and Settings User folder's Application Data and can't remember their stupid company's name, you can spin around like an idiot looking for it - alternating between AnyUser and your own User folder, plus the Local Settings folder. That's when you realize it is NOT in a folder named "Percolator" and you start all over again.

Grrr...

Jim

Shades · « **Reply #327 on:** July 07, 2009, 10:33 PM »

Ooops, I can blame my lack of knowledge about movie quotes. Sorry about that.

Normally I steer away from any movie where I have to look at Mike Meyers. Jim Carrey is in that same corner...so a movie with those two would annoy me to no end!

SKesselman · « **Reply #328 on:** July 07, 2009, 10:57 PM »

This one will probably get objections and numerous reasons why it is necessary, but I really, really hate it anyway:

Developers - particularly those with a catalog of exactly ONE application - who insist on having their program listed under a company name in Program Files.

Jim
-J-Mac (July 07, 2009, 10:25 PM)

This really bothers me, too. It is mostly for this reason I forget I even have the program (unless I use it all the time).
Equally annoying is that when I install a program, setup asks which folder in Program Files I wish to install it in : I remove the company name so that it reads:

Program files\software name

and it creates its 'company name' folder and installs it there, anyway.
Why is there even an option, if it's just going to go wherever it's going to go, anyway?

Is Program Files not really the kind of folder they're talking about or something?
Windows does have some peculiar inconsistencies, so this wouldn't surprise me if this were the case.

And what is this: no file version, no date, no nothing in the details of the installation file. I keep all of my downloaded installation files (sometimes other users want versions of software no longer available & no one has a copy). It's a pain to have to make folders with dates or versions for each setup file.

lanux128 · « **Reply #329 on:** July 08, 2009, 12:59 AM »

Normally I steer away from any movie where I have to look at Mike Meyers. Jim Carrey is in that same corner...so a movie with those two would annoy me to no end!
-Shades (July 07, 2009, 10:33 PM)

yes Jim Carrey gets a bit of a stick for his roles but i really liked The Truman Show..

J-Mac · « **Reply #330 on:** July 08, 2009, 02:25 AM »

And what is this: no file version, no date, no nothing in the details of the installation file. I keep all of my downloaded installation files (sometimes other users want versions of software no longer available & no one has a copy). It's a pain to have to make folders with dates or versions for each setup file.
-SKesselman (July 07, 2009, 10:57 PM)

Oh, I agree strongly with this. Basically it is simply laziness - they want to just use the same installer package with as little change as possible. I always add the version number. Unless I forgot what it is - then I add the date instead.

Jim

Josh · « **Reply #331 on:** July 08, 2009, 06:06 AM »

Shades...It is a quote from Austin Powers Goldmember

40hz · « **Reply #332 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:29 AM »

My latest peeve - EXE-type installers that are hard coded to require a specific version of .NET Framework.

I have V2.0-SP2; V3.0-SP2; and V3.5-SP1 currently installed.

Now, something I need to install is insisting that V1.1-SP1 also be present.

Drives me nuts!

wraith808 · « **Reply #333 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:43 PM »

My latest peeve - EXE-type installers that are hard coded to require a specific version of .NET Framework.

I have V2.0-SP2; V3.0-SP2; and V3.5-SP1 currently installed.

Now, something I need to install is insisting that V1.1-SP1 also be present.
-40hz (July 09, 2009, 11:29 AM)

Doesn't really have anything to do with the installer- it depends on the framework the exe was compiled under. A .NET 1.1 app cannot run under .net 2.0 and vice versa- it really depends on what the application needs.

40hz · « **Reply #334 on:** July 09, 2009, 03:02 PM »

A .NET 1.1 app cannot run under .net 2.0 and vice versa
-wraith808 (July 09, 2009, 12:43 PM)

And all this time I thought they were at least backwardly compatible. Live and learn. Thx!

Oh well... if I can't slag the installer, I can still slag the authors of the app since they're responsible for both.

.NET V1.1 goes back to 2003.
V3.0 has been around since 2006.
V3.5 came out in late 2007.

It's now 2009. C'mon guys!

4wd · « **Reply #335 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:10 PM »

I was reminded of a pet annoyance of mine yesterday when I had to journey out in the car.

Automatic transmissions - the surest way to turn drivers into inconsiderate morons.

Why? You can bet that the person trundling along at 40kph in a 60kph+ zone with a line of cars behind has an automatic transmission.
They simply have no idea that a high percentage, (here in Australia anyway), of people use manual transmissions and so are behind these idiots stuck in 4th, 3rd or even 2nd gear, (assuming a 5 speed box).

They should ban automatics in anything smaller than a bus, (excepting those people who require one for real disability reasons - not including the lack of eye-hand-foot coordination required for a manual).

J-Mac · « **Reply #336 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:10 PM »

I was reminded of a pet annoyance of mine yesterday when I had to journey out in the car.

Automatic transmissions - the surest way to turn drivers into inconsiderate morons.

Why? You can bet that the person trundling along at 40kph in a 60kph+ zone with a line of cars behind has an automatic transmission.
They simply have no idea that a high percentage, (here in Australia anyway), of people use manual transmissions and so are behind these idiots stuck in 4th, 3rd or even 2nd gear, (assuming a 5 speed box).

They should ban automatics in anything smaller than a bus, (excepting those people who require one for real disability reasons - not including the lack of eye-hand-foot coordination required for a manual).
-4wd (July 09, 2009, 08:10 PM)

OK, I can see being annoyed at people driving too slow, but to make a generalization that all slow drivers must be using automatic transmissions? A little presumptuous, methinks!

Jim

4wd · « **Reply #337 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:49 PM »

OK, I can see being annoyed at people driving too slow, but to make a generalization that all slow drivers must be using automatic transmissions? A little presumptuous, methinks!
-J-Mac (July 09, 2009, 11:10 PM)

Not really, I can't see anyone willingly driving along in 2nd or 3rd at 40kph - the engine would either be revving rather loudly or the whole car kangarooing because the engine is not in it's optimum load range.

We are talking about a main road here, clearly signposted speed limits 20-30kph above what they are doing - not some back street where they might conceivably be looking for an address.
I'm not referring to those high speed sections of road either, just the normal 60/70 kph zones we get here in Australia. If they're doing 70/80 in a 100 kph zone, no problem because then I'm not constantly changing gears.

If you want to try, jump in a car with a manual transmission and then drive along at 40kph in 2nd/3rd and see how long you last before you get annoyed - it's even worse when I'm driving behind them in my Landcruiser because it's a diesel and at 40kph I'm right on the 2nd/3rd gear change point.

I won't even get into the people who go, "Oh no! There's a bend in the road hit the brakes!" (A bend, not a corner, a bend where you can see the road continuing clearly for the next 300 metres....sheesh!)

Oh.....I think I just did

SKesselman · « **Reply #338 on:** July 10, 2009, 12:18 AM »

Here in the U.S., when manual transmissions were more prevalent, it was mostly old people who drove automatics.
And, it is often old people who drive too slow.
So...maybe they're just old?

In any case, automatics could be spotted way in advance.
Maybe you could make it a point move as soon as you see one?

4wd · « **Reply #339 on:** July 10, 2009, 12:31 AM »

So...maybe they're just old?
-SKesselman (July 10, 2009, 12:18 AM)

That's generally the case but it still doesn't stop them from actually pulling over to the side of the road to let the 6+ cars crawling along behind them pass.

That's what automatics have exacerbated, it's seems they no longer bother to pull over because their car isn't telling them to, ie. they no longer have to change gear to account for road conditions - the brain no longer needs to be in gear.

BTW, I really liked the "Slow Driver must pull over" Federal Law in the USA - I just wish they had the same here.

J-Mac · « **Reply #340 on:** July 10, 2009, 01:32 AM »

Oh, I have had a few cars in the past that drove at similar speeds while in the highest gear. Two in particular were early Volkswagons: one a 1963 from Germany, and the other, believe it or not, was much older!! Not sure how much older. The '63 had an engine held in place with only 4 bolts, and thick rubber washers were all that served as "motor mounts"! Neither had fuel gauges but the '63 had a reserve tank for when the engine started sputtering from lack of fuel. It was controlled by a valve handle under the front seat.

They could both get well over 40 km/hr but would have strained terribly at 40 in any lower gear. I would think that any seriously underpowered engine would do similarly. Again, I am not excusing overly cautious drivers. Just not ready to assume what type of transmission their cars must have.

Jim

Curt · « **Reply #341 on:** August 12, 2009, 12:54 PM »

I live in Denmark, so I really don't have anything to annoy me (unless I travel on the Internet... - as CleverCat said: >google for "FREE software" and get anything but free!<), but when I read Deozaan's post I nevertheless felt a need to respond:

Gay marriage: People like me who don't believe gay marriage should be legally allowed are often called homophobic, and hateful. I have my reasons for thinking this is a bad idea, but these sorts of topics are kind of off limits to the forum. I just want to say that I'm not homophobic or hateful toward homosexuals. I have friends who are gay, have met gay people in the workplace and school, and I enjoy their friendship.
-Deozaan (February 28, 2008, 12:55 PM)

It really annoys me (though not "to no end") when a pleasant and joyous feeling like being gay is interpreted as, being a homosexual!

To explain a little better I have uploaded an innocent but yet NSFW image
(remember to also read the pic's integrated two texts):

gay rainbow stockings

click thumbnail for large view, so you can read the two texts:

What annoys you to no end?

Some Americans may not get it, but I am gay because I am not not a gay.

---

What can annoy me "to no end" is when I see someone being bullied to do what is wrong,
- then "to no end" really means T R O U B L E S !

SKesselman · « **Reply #342 on:** August 12, 2009, 01:28 PM »

It really annoys me (though not "to no end") when a pleasant and joyous feeling like being gay is interpreted as, being a homosexual!
-Curt (August 12, 2009, 12:54 PM)

Unfortunately Curt, that is all 'gay' means, anymore, in the US, at least in modern usage. There is no more, 'he was happy and gay today'!

J-Mac · « **Reply #343 on:** August 12, 2009, 01:48 PM »

It really annoys me (though not "to no end") when a pleasant and joyous feeling like being gay is interpreted as, being a homosexual!
-Curt (August 12, 2009, 12:54 PM)

Unfortunately Curt, that is all 'gay' means, anymore, in the US, at least in modern usage. There is no more, 'he was happy and gay today'!
-SKesselman (August 12, 2009, 01:28 PM)

How true! There's an annoyance right there: Losing common words to specific appropriated meanings. I can understand people not preferring the word "homosexual" as it has picked up bad connotations to the point of being a slur in some cases. In that respect I can certainly understand the desire to avoid that word, and I guess that the only apparent solution is to appropriate another, less offensive sounding word to replace it with. However it then becomes just as uncomfortable for most folks to use such words in their original meaning and context. E.g., most people don't use the word "gay" anymore in any other sense than as it refers to sexual preference.

Unfortunately you will have a very difficult time finding high school students who will take the part of Maria in "West Side Story" if they have to sing "I'm So Pretty"! Actually I just discovered that the original words for the stage version, "I'm so pretty and witty and gay" were changed to "I'm so pretty and witty and bright" in the movie version, and most modern presentations of the musical play now use the "bright" version in an attempt to be "PC"... Yikes!

Jim

SKesselman · « **Reply #344 on:** August 12, 2009, 02:36 PM »

Actually I just discovered that the original words for the stage version, "I'm so pretty and witty and gay" were changed to "I'm so pretty and witty and bright" in the movie version, and most modern presentations of the musical play now use the "bright" version in an attempt to be "PC"... Yikes!
-J-Mac (August 12, 2009, 01:48 PM)

Nice. Who's next, Shakespeare?
Tiptoeing around a word commonly used in the period of time a screenplay is depicting isn't PC.
The whole point of being 'PC' is to not offend the party being considered. Who on earth could that have possibly offended?
If they weren't gay, it's vain and cowardly move that compromises a significant contribution to the arts.
If they were, they're certainly the minority of their community.

Grrrr...

mwb1100 · « **Reply #345 on:** August 12, 2009, 09:32 PM »

BTW, I really liked the "Slow Driver must pull over" Federal Law in the USA
-4wd (July 10, 2009, 12:31 AM)

Hey - what law us that? I might have to start writin' some tickets!

4wd · « **Reply #346 on:** August 12, 2009, 10:22 PM »

BTW, I really liked the "Slow Driver must pull over" Federal Law in the USA
-4wd (July 10, 2009, 12:31 AM)

Hey - what law us that? I might have to start writin' some tickets!
-mwb1100 (August 12, 2009, 09:32 PM)

The last time I was in the US of A, (2003), traveling up the west coast and down through the inner-western states, there were road signs on any section of road that had a reasonable incline stating:

"It is a Federal Law that slow traffic allow other traffic to pass."

Or, along those lines.

They weren't old signs, (having been left from a bygone era, etc), and there were enough of them not to assume an isolated incidence.

This might be what I'm thinking of: Slow Vehicles Use Turnouts

I'm positive that the ones I saw stated "Federal Law" in them.

J-Mac · « **Reply #347 on:** August 12, 2009, 10:28 PM »

BTW, I really liked the "Slow Driver must pull over" Federal Law in the USA
-4wd (July 10, 2009, 12:31 AM)

Hey - what law us that? I might have to start writin' some tickets!
-mwb1100 (August 12, 2009, 09:32 PM)

Probably referring to the Uniform Vehicle Code and/or "Keep Right" laws of most states. Here's a link showing all states' Keep Right laws: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Jim

SKesselman · « **Reply #348 on:** August 12, 2009, 11:04 PM »

People who seem to think that by turning on my blinker I am telling them to "Speed up"

ARGH!!!!!!!!!
-Josh (July 06, 2009, 04:31 PM)

Oops, I forgot to mention to Josh - if anyone's trying to switch lanes, it's a violation to keep them from doing so.
At least in California.

J-Mac · « **Reply #349 on:** August 13, 2009, 12:21 AM »

People who seem to think that by turning on my blinker I am telling them to "Speed up"

ARGH!!!!!!!!!
-Josh (July 06, 2009, 04:31 PM)

Oops, I forgot to mention to Josh - if anyone's trying to switch lanes, it's a violation to keep them from doing so.
At least in California.
-SKesselman (August 12, 2009, 11:04 PM)

SO many people do this that I believe it is actually unintentional with some folks. It's as if when some people realize that someone else is passing them, they think, "Oh, I must have slowed down too much... let me pick up the pace." It just happens with far too many people to be spiteful. Or maybe I am giving too much credit where it ain't due?

Jim