|
I have registered to a site. Finally it asked me to check my mail. My mail got a activation link like this
"Welcome To .....
To activate your account click the below link http:\\www.xxxxxxx.com\activate\id\2356 . When I try using nearest random numbers for the id, it still works.
I think I came across lot of sites like this in the internet world
|
|
|
|
|
Some developers have way too much trust in the people of the web
Shame on you for trying to use another number!
Illogical thoughts make me ill
|
|
|
|
|
I've actually never seen this; I guess I'm lucky to avoid such crappy sites
Have seen an admin panel that only check if the user existed though... (and not if it's an admin, or even the password is correct) >_>
|
|
|
|
|
AlbinAbel wrote: www.xxxxxxx.com
I think I tried the variants of that at some point and found that domains existed up to about a hundred X's.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: I think I tried the variants of that at some point and found that domains existed up to about a hundred X's.
I think you need to get a girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a few. I'm quite happy entertaining myself for the time being.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you left room for interpretation on purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: I think you need to get a girlfriend who doesn't ask for your credit card number.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
|
|
|
|
|
If Not IsNothing(dt) Then
Else
' Code here
End If
Reminds me of Ian Dury...
... and it ain't not having one thing nor another
neither, either is it anything, whatever ...
|
|
|
|
|
That is a lovely bit of logic.
I suppose it may actually accomplish what the original programmer intended, but even if it does, it is a really ugly way to do it.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
it is strange how all the idiots use VB
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: all the idiots use VB
Oh, how I wish that was true...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe VB is such a well designed language that stupid mistakes are really obvious, and thus are more frequently ofund and posted
*snicker*
|
|
|
|
|
Some people just never heard of the negation operation, never knew boolean logics. And the most terrifying thing for them is the de Morgan's laws. They're too complicated, you know... And I've seen such stuff several times.
|
|
|
|
|
I just found this on a page created from one of my colleagues. The message says:
You cannot upload files with Internet Explorer 7. Please use a newer browser like IE6, IE8 or Firefox.
And not only this. The message appears even when you are using the mentioned Browsers. LOOL
|
|
|
|
|
Besir Kasami wrote: Please use a newer browser like IE6
Ooooo you really need to show the code used to display and determine this message.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
|
|
|
|
|
There are many things in this case that make me laugh and cry at the same time;
a) IE6 is older not newer
b) There should be no problems uploading file with IE7, I have implemented FileUpload Control in many pages and there were never problems with IE7
c) There is no code that handles the browser info. The message is static and is allways visible (Big Red Font) no matter what browser you use.
|
|
|
|
|
Besir Kasami wrote: a) IE6 is older not newer
This one really goes without saying.
Besir Kasami wrote: b) There should be no problems uploading file with IE7, I have implemented FileUpload Control in many pages and there were never problems with IE7
I've used the FileUpload control with IE6 and it was never a problem.
Besir Kasami wrote: c) There is no code that handles the browser info. The message is static and is allways visible (Big Red Font) no matter what browser you use.
OK then, this is where you need to keep a cricket or baseball bat handy (depending on what country you're in) so that you can apply it repeatedly to the head of the individual in question.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
modified on Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I like your ability to internationally adapt in the need for violence
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about! Hitting people over the head with a cricket bat is a proven development methodology here in Australia and India. Surely they use baseball bats in the states... don't they?
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Croll wrote: Surely they use baseball bats in the states... don't they?
But they're only used for hitting balls. (Below the belt, usually)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
It's always a good idea to be adaptable.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
|
|
|
|
|
All he wanted to say was IE9 (he kind of got the 9 upside down).
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
My latest tip/trick
|
|
|
|
|
I know how to fix it. Instead of the message:
"You cannot upload files with Internet Explorer 7. Please use a newer browser like IE6, IE8 or Firefox"
Show this one:
"You cannot upload files with your current browser. Try another one."
Hey, you will never be able to upload files, but at least your message is not cheating.
|
|
|
|
|
Not a programming question.
I've been sniffing around the Shell namespace new in .NET 4.0, which is part of PresentationFramework assembly.
Well. A so-called "shell" is a part of OS which evolve quite quickly. What if a new feature is added, which will happen sooner or later? Will it be shipped with .NET 5.0 or in a java-like update or in another System.Core2 thing...
Adding wrappers for OS-specific shell features to the framework ain't a good idea -- just my 2 penses. Any thoughts about this?
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|