Author Topic: What annoys you to no end? (Read 493,911 times)

40hz · « **Reply #400 on:** December 09, 2009, 01:10 AM »

Quote from: superboyac on December 08, 2009, 10:32 PM

What doesn't annoy me?

How about the picture of that 'girl with the basket' I posted in response to your leather messenger bag question?

superboyac · « **Reply #401 on:** December 09, 2009, 02:49 AM »

Quote from: 40hz on December 09, 2009, 01:10 AM

Quote from: superboyac on December 08, 2009, 10:32 PM
What doesn't annoy me?

How about the picture of that 'girl with the basket' I posted in response to your leather messenger bag question?

He he...yeah, you got me there.

Edvard · « **Reply #402 on:** December 09, 2009, 04:14 PM »

Stupid hacks when decent coding would do far better.
Imagemagick, for example.
I was trying to resize some things and I needed them resized proportionately.
I couldn't find out anywhere in the documentation where I might find out how to give the 'convert' or 'mogrify' command only one dimension in either direction and have it keep the aspect ratio.
Google gave me the answer, but not one I was expecting...

Quote

Some years ago, I upgraded ImageMagick, only to find that all my server-side code-- which automatically generated thumbnails from uploaded images-- had started spewing all over itself, chewing up CPU, and creating some of the most hideously deformed thumbnail images ever. See, I was used to using the following command:

# mogrify -geometry 60x999 blah.s.jpg

...to scale the thumbnail proportionally to 60 pixels wide, with the height being whatever is consistent with the same aspect ratio and 60 pixels wide. A 600x400 picture would become a 60x40 thumbnail. The "999" was a special key number, you see-- it told ImageMagick to scale proportionally. Apparently they'd never bothered to code a proper option for only specifying one dimension, so this hack was the best they could do.

So I upgraded, and found that my thumnails were now... 60 pixels wide, and 999 pixels tall. They'd removed the special handling.

Now I use "9999" for that command. It's still an awful hack, but at least it isn't chewing up my CPU as it tries to blow everything up to a thousand vertical pixels every time someone uploads something. At least, until they change something else and I have to make it "99999".

$:-\$

40hz · « **Reply #403 on:** December 09, 2009, 05:10 PM »

AT&T's ongoing refusal to support Thunderbird as a mail client.

About once or twice a month, T-Bird's outbound mail starts throwing all kinds of connection or authentication errors when attempting to use AT&T's SMTP servers. This has been going on ever since AT&T teamed up with Yahoo and forced its customers to switch over to the servers at att.yahoo.com. Their old servers (smtp.snet.net, smtp.sbcglobal.net, etc.) used to work just fine. How's that for progress?

Calls to tech support result in nothing other than a suggestion to use Outlook or Outlook Express since "we're sorry, but AT&T does not support Mozilla Thunderbird at this time..." yadda-yadda-yadda.

Oddly enough, AT&T's SMTP usually starts working again without without the need to change anything in Thunderbird after a day or two of refusals to connect.

Drives me absolutely nuts.

Deozaan · « **Reply #404 on:** December 09, 2009, 08:50 PM »

Quote from: cranioscopical on December 05, 2009, 03:04 PM

Christmas... when it starts in October!

And along with that, Valentine's Day (always) but especially when it starts January 2nd.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #405 on:** December 09, 2009, 10:08 PM »

Quote from: Deozaan on December 09, 2009, 08:50 PM

Valentine's Day

You heartless devil!

wraith808 · « **Reply #406 on:** December 09, 2009, 10:17 PM »

People in a cube farm that insist on using the speakerphone on calls.

(posted as I sit here distracted from my coding by someone that shares my cube on the speakerphone with one(!) person... not even a conference call!)

JavaJones · « **Reply #407 on:** December 09, 2009, 10:30 PM »

Employees who make things harder than they have to be.

No, I didn't ask you to do overtime and I'm not going to feel bad that you took it upon yourself to work extra hours because you "thought it was necessary and "had too much work to do".

No you can't choose which duties you'll handle and which are "not IT" - do they job we ask you to do and pay you for, or don't and we'll find someone else.

Sheesh!

- Oshyan

Innuendo · « **Reply #408 on:** December 09, 2009, 11:41 PM »

Quote from: CleverCat on December 07, 2009, 06:34 AM

It's taking time out! And we are going to be charged 35% more each year for the next 3 years....

Oh? Are they telling you it is only going to be three years? I bet as they get close to the end of year 3 something will happen and the deadline will either be extended or they'll just make that the permanent price.

Josh · « **Reply #409 on:** December 09, 2009, 11:49 PM »

People on forums who feel they need to reply to every single post in every single thread. Or in a similar instance, people who reply to every post in a post they initiate even when their input is not required.

40hz · « **Reply #410 on:** December 10, 2009, 12:04 AM »

Quote from: Josh on December 09, 2009, 11:49 PM

People on forums who feel they need to reply to every single post in every single thread. Or in a similar instance, people who reply to every post in a post they initiate even when their input is not required.

+1 with Josh!!!

(Sorry. I couldn't resist.

)

J-Mac · « **Reply #411 on:** December 10, 2009, 03:23 AM »

Quote from: Josh on December 09, 2009, 11:49 PM

People on forums who feel they need to reply to every single post in every single thread. Or in a similar instance, people who reply to every post in a post they initiate even when their input is not required.

I don't feel the need to post in every thread, but most of the time I will reply to posts if I initiated the thread. I usually ask for advice or assistance, and if someone gives it, I feel I should thank them - whether Josh is annoyed by that or not!!

Jim

CleverCat · « **Reply #412 on:** December 10, 2009, 07:20 AM »

Quote from: Innuendo on December 09, 2009, 11:41 PM

Quote from: CleverCat on December 07, 2009, 06:34 AM
It's taking time out! And we are going to be charged 35% more each year for the next 3 years....

Oh? Are they telling you it is only going to be three years? I bet as they get close to the end of year 3 something will happen and the deadline will either be extended or they'll just make that the permanent price.

Actually they told us we have cheap electricity! So it's a way of pushing up the cost and there will still be tariff increases after that..

We are always be told the conserve energy - then they light up all the major cities with Xmas lights! Cheek...

Josh · « **Reply #413 on:** December 10, 2009, 10:28 PM »

Quote from: J-Mac on December 10, 2009, 03:23 AM

Quote from: Josh on December 09, 2009, 11:49 PM
People on forums who feel they need to reply to every single post in every single thread. Or in a similar instance, people who reply to every post in a post they initiate even when their input is not required.

I don't feel the need to post in every thread, but most of the time I will reply to posts if I initiated the thread. I usually ask for advice or assistance, and if someone gives it, I feel I should thank them - whether Josh is annoyed by that or not!!

Jim

Nope, I am annoyed at the people who feel they must reply to each and every post made in a thread they start, even if other people are having a conversation about something unrelated to the original topic.

J-Mac · « **Reply #414 on:** December 10, 2009, 11:12 PM »

OK, you sound much too somber in that last post, Josh. I tried to include enough smileys to make it clear I was just..... joshin' with you!

(Pun intended!)

Jim

Josh · « **Reply #415 on:** December 10, 2009, 11:50 PM »

And I did that to inspire you to post again to ANNOY ME! ;-)

Josh · « **Reply #416 on:** January 04, 2010, 08:07 PM »

Install programs that DO NOT put an uninstall link in the start menu!

f0dder · « **Reply #417 on:** January 04, 2010, 08:09 PM »

Quote from: Josh on January 04, 2010, 08:07 PM

Install programs that DO NOT put an uninstall link in the start menu!

Amen to that - or, well, I can live without uninstall links in the start menu as long as the program appears under add/remove programs. Samarost is an example of something that did neither... of course you only have to delete it's files to uninstall since it's flash based, but when it comes with an installer and not just a zip... this feels wrong.

Innuendo · « **Reply #418 on:** January 04, 2010, 09:31 PM »

I thought since the addition of Add/Remove Programs (now called Programs and Features) to Windows Microsoft has discouraged the placement of an uninstall link in the Start Menu stating that it would be better placed in Add/Remove Programs.

Regardless, I'd much rather deal with programs that added links to Add/Remove Programs and not to the Start Menu than the other way around. Daemon Tools is like this. It adds an uninstall link to the Start Menu, but nothing is to be found in Add/Remove Programs.

Sometimes I uninstall a bunch of programs en masse & having everything in one menu is handy rather than having to dig through the Start Menu for each program.

Josh · « **Reply #419 on:** January 04, 2010, 10:21 PM »

The version of daemon tools I just installed adds an entry in programs and features in Win7 x64 and x86.

4wd · « **Reply #420 on:** January 05, 2010, 10:32 AM »

Quote from: Josh on January 04, 2010, 10:21 PM

The version of daemon tools I just installed adds an entry in programs and features in Win7 x64 and x86.

I think Daemon Tools try to avoid putting to easily recognisable files/links on the computer to try and avoid the continual blacklisting efforts of SecuROM and SafeDisc.

The latest version of Pro Advanced didn't put anything into Programs and Features on W7HP here.

Josh · « **Reply #421 on:** January 17, 2010, 06:20 AM »

people who type without any sense of grammar, punctuation, proper capitalization, etc. I realize the internet has made people lazy, as has auto-correcting word processors, but that is no excuse for not adhereing to certain basic standards such as capitalizing the letter of a sentence or using apostrophes correctly, etc. I dont consider myself a grammar nazi but I do expect that people show some sort of intelligence when writing papers, posting to a forum, etc.

Quote from: "Side Note"

I realize i omitted most of that in my post, it was done ironically.

Innuendo · « **Reply #422 on:** January 17, 2010, 05:12 PM »

How about 17 page long threads filled with nothing but people griping?

Darwin · « **Reply #423 on:** January 17, 2010, 05:50 PM »

Quote from: Innuendo on January 17, 2010, 05:12 PM

How about 17 page long threads filled with nothing but people griping?

SKesselman · « **Reply #424 on:** January 17, 2010, 11:44 PM »

Quote from: Josh on January 17, 2010, 06:20 AM

...but I do expect that people show some sort of intelligence...

Well, you may as well lower your expectations. Most people are lazy.
Standards for writing seemed to have dropped considerably over the past few years.
Even CNN & MSNBC are guilty of this, but no one seems to care.

As long as it's not being pointed out to writers, it will just become more and more accepted.
I think Carol has described this before as, 'entropy'.

Personally, grammar & punctuation errors only bother me if I sense that a post is inconsiderate to the reader, in general.
Infrequent errors are inevitable, but lack of structure, rambling, etc., are signs of thoughtlessness IMO.
It's the writer's job - not the reader's - to make a post or article understandable.