Free Kodak Photo Paper * LOOK *

[ishutteratthethought]

Found this a while back on craigslist and thought I would share. Some real nice looking kodak photo paper. She opend the box and confirmed there were approximatley 20 sheets of photo paper. As you can see by the photo there were...... hee.. heee
Steve
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Mr.Helberg^^]

omg...stupidity kills good photo paper every day D:

 

[jim appleyard]

omg...stupidity kills good photo paper every day D:[/QUOTE

That's not all it kills! A bit OT here, but check out the Darwin Awards for some real stupidity. At least this woman only messed up some photo paper.
http://www.darwinawards.com/

 

[Mr.Helberg^^]

yes the darwin adwards is a prime example of how stupid a human being can be----

 

[perkeleellinen]

I've seen auctions where the seller has opened a can of bulk film to show the contents and also where rolls of HIE were photographed outside of their canisters.

 

[mgb74]

I think we should be a bit fair here. I don't know the particulars of the photo paper example but if your only point of reference was ink jet photo paper, opening the package would not be as stupid as it might appear to us.

So maybe not quite up to the level of the Darwin awards or even the bulk film example. Though still good for a chuckle.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think we should be a bit fair here. I don't know the particulars of the photo paper example but if your only point of reference was ink jet photo paper, opening the package would not be as stupid as it might appear to us.

So maybe not quite up to the level of the Darwin awards or even the bulk film example. Though still good for a chuckle.

Yes we do! F type paper IS photographic paper!

Steve

 

[ishutteratthethought]

yes this was just for a chuckle, obviously she didn't know any better.
Steve

 

[mgb74]

Yes we do! F type paper IS photographic paper!

Steve

Yes, it is. You, me, and 99.999% (just an estimate) of APUG forum members know that.

But some people may never have been exposed (no pun intended) to photo paper that was not ink jet. So they have no experience with photo paper that is light sensitive.

My point is that most of us are experts in some things, knowledgeable in many things, and frankly ignorant of some things. Ignorance and stupidity are not necessarily the same.

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

Well, I knew better as a five year old, who hardly ever took a picture, let alone knew much to do with photography. Yes, it is obviously traditional photographic paper. We need to quit giving stupidity breaks, as it only perpetuates the cycle of idiocy.

Ignorance is when you hand a Bible to an Aztec and say it is the word of God, and then that person holds it up to their ear...that is cute. Stupidity is completely different...

 

[tim_walls]

Yes, it is. You, me, and 99.999% (just an estimate) of APUG forum members know that.

But some people may never have been exposed (no pun intended) to photo paper that was not ink jet. So they have no experience with photo paper that is light sensitive.

My point is that most of us are experts in some things, knowledgeable in many things, and frankly ignorant of some things. Ignorance and stupidity are not necessarily the same.

Quite.


Tell you what - anyone who can't tell me immediately why the following bit of code written by some fule is hysterically funny, I officially declare to be an idiot worthy of the Darwin Awards:

private static final String[] HEX_STRING_VALUES = {"0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F"};

[...]

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for ( int h = 0; h < 6; h++ ) {
int randomHex = randomGen.nextInt(HEX_STRING_VALUES.length);
sb.append( HEX_STRING_VALUES[randomHex] );
}
//for some crazy reason, sometimes the loop above creates 7 chars.
//that is why the below usees substring to get exactly 6 Hex chars.
defaultVisualStyle.setColor( "0x" + sb.substring( 0, 6 ) );​

And no, you're not allowed to go and look it up from TheDailyWTF (from whence it is borrowed.)

 

[bsdunek]

Sorta reminds me of the old joke about the guy that always tested all of his flashbulbs after he bought them.

 

[pesphoto]

Ive seen this done on ebay several times.....

 

[JBrunner]

Y...
But some people may never have been exposed (no pun intended) to photo paper that was not ink jet....

I have never been able to get any exposure out of that ink jet photo paper. Seems really really slow, so slow I guess light doesn't bother it.

 

[trexx]

//for some crazy reason, sometimes the loop above creates 7 chars.
//that is why the below usees substring to get exactly 6 Hex chars.

LOL They knew there was a problem and could not see it. OMG.

 

[telkwa]

Quite.


Tell you what - anyone who can't tell me immediately why the following bit of code written by some fule is hysterically funny, I officially declare to be an idiot worthy of the Darwin Awards:

private static final String[] HEX_STRING_VALUES = {"0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F"};

[...]

And no, you're not allowed to go and look it up from TheDailyWTF (from whence it is borrowed.)​

It took me a long time to figure that out. I knew something looked wrong with the string values, but after about 5 minutes I clued in.​

 

[tim_walls]

LOL They knew there was a problem and could not see it. OMG.

Indeed .

Don't get me wrong - I thought the OP was funny too, it's just when it gets to calling people stupid or Darwin Award candidates that I think it crosses the line to hurtful and nasty. Maybe if the person making the cockup is an alleged professional you can take that attitude, but if it's just an ignorant - in the non pejorative sense - person the correct response is to laugh about it and educate them, not deride them.

 

[mgb74]

I have never been able to get any exposure out of that ink jet photo paper. Seems really really slow, so slow I guess light doesn't bother it.

Did you expose the correct side of the ink jet paper?

In fairness, the OP never used the term "stupid".

 

[Sirius Glass]

In fairness, the OP never used the term "stupid".

And in fairness, the box is clearly marked "Open in total darkness".

[sigh]
Steve

 

[sun of sand]

correct response is to laugh about it and educate them

 

[wogster]

Quite.


Tell you what - anyone who can't tell me immediately why the following bit of code written by some fule is hysterically funny, I officially declare to be an idiot worthy of the Darwin Awards:

private static final String[] HEX_STRING_VALUES = {"0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F"};

[...]

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for ( int h = 0; h < 6; h++ ) {
int randomHex = randomGen.nextInt(HEX_STRING_VALUES.length);
sb.append( HEX_STRING_VALUES[randomHex] );
}
//for some crazy reason, sometimes the loop above creates 7 chars.
//that is why the below usees substring to get exactly 6 Hex chars.
defaultVisualStyle.setColor( "0x" + sb.substring( 0, 6 ) );​

And no, you're not allowed to go and look it up from TheDailyWTF (from whence it is borrowed.)

That one is sad, took me about 2 seconds to figure it out, and I haven't written code in about 3 years. The loop is right, but they are not making sure that sb is an empty string, not sure how StringBuilder works in this particular instance, but

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(""); // passes an empty char string

would probably work, or adding the line:

sb = ""; // set sb to be equal to an empty char string, the overload of = should let this work

should also work, this is pretty basic stuff, although it is a very common bug.

 

[kevs]

Indeed .

Don't get me wrong - I thought the OP was funny too, it's just when it gets to calling people stupid or Darwin Award candidates that I think it crosses the line to hurtful and nasty. Maybe if the person making the cockup is an alleged professional you can take that attitude, but if it's just an ignorant - in the non pejorative sense - person the correct response is to laugh about it and educate them, not deride them.

I agree with Tim. Until a few months ago, I didn't know how to drive. I wouldn't have known the clutch from the accelerator. And I should have learnt twenty years ago. I was ignorant in this area. Does this make me stupid?

However, the young woman was texting on her mobile telephone whilst driving was not only heading for a Darwin, she killed another young woman and is now in prison. And it wasn't just one text, it was twenty. Now *that's* real stupidity.

The OP's example is funny, but she didn't know any different.

(Maybe this thread should be moved to the Lounge. I dunno.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

In line with the thread but off topic:

In Southern California we have passenger train engineers who text teenagers while operating the train straight into a freight train, killing 25 people. If he was bent on offing himself, he should not have taken the rest of the people with him.

Steve

 

[tim_walls]

That one is sad, took me about 2 seconds to figure it out, and I haven't written code in about 3 years. The loop is right, but they are not making sure that sb is an empty string, not sure how StringBuilder works in this particular instance, but

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(""); // passes an empty char string

would probably work, or adding the line:

sb = ""; // set sb to be equal to an empty char string, the overload of = should let this work

should also work, this is pretty basic stuff, although it is a very common bug.

As Roy Walker used to say on Catchphrase - it's good, but it's not right.

Hint: new StringBuilder() "Constructs a string builder with no characters in it and an initial capacity of 16 characters," according to the Java spec - and I'd imagine the C#.net spec is much the same. Requiring an empty string to be passed in would actually be rather inefficient, requiring a new String instance to be instantiated (or referenced from the literal pool) just to be thrown away again immediately.


This problem is rather more fundamental, and isn't dependent on any understanding of particular API peculiarities. You should be able to spot this problem without any knowledge at all of the language it's written in.

 

[MattKing]

Folks, the code writing references are entertaining, but probably unintentionally illustrative of how "innocent" the person who posted the original eBay listing is.

My only code writing experience is 30+ years old (remember Algol-W?) but I have some idea of what you are talking about.

The nature of the problem in the example code is "unintelligible" to anyone not familiar the syntax of that particular language. I expect, however, that if one was to become familiar with that syntax, it might very well be easily evident what the problem is.

I also expect that the notation on the outside of a box of photographic paper that says "Open only in complete darkness" will only be meaningful to someone who has some understanding of what is in the box, and therefore knows enough to notice the warning in the first place. In other words, if you don't understand the syntax (closely related to the context) you probably won't notice the warning, and may not appreciate it even if you do.)

Matt