|
You mean you've never done that? 
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Frustration: Having ultimate power and never being able to exercise it for ones own entertainment.
Who says you can't exercise it? 
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: Who says you can't exercise it
The doctor. Apparently Chris sprained it.
|
|
|
|
|
When I tried to post a reply to this message, the textbox would just be emptied (i.e., it would stay on the message composition page). Looks like there might have been a postback. I tried a few times and it only worked once. I was just able to post in the Lounge too. And if this message goes through, then I guess that means I can post new messages but not replies to that message.
|
|
|
|
|
+1
This happened to me yesterday (starting sometime after noon central time), and then again this morning. I though it was our wonky firewall/network, but now I'm not so sure.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
After I wrote this message and clicked "Post Message", I got a blank page. The message did not post and I had to post it again (luckily, I always copy the text before I post long messages).
Then again, when I tried to post this message, I got the blank page and had to post again. But this time, I viewed the source and was able to copy the HTML for it, which was this:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY></BODY></HTML>
Pretty empty. Seems like taking a long time to post a message causes this. Perhaps there's something timing out. Maybe I should get a message that informs me something timed out. It would also be nice if it saved my message for me so I could copy it and paste it into a new message.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the person I was replying to was having the same blank page issue. Read about that here.
|
|
|
|
|
"Immortality kills web site"
Read all about it in tomorrow's Insider...
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I can't seem to reply to your message. Let me try again...
|
|
|
|
|
So, I could reply with that message, but not with some other messages I tried. I wonder if perhaps the I couldn't reply based on something in the message. Let me try that again...
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Immortality kills web site
There can be only one. 
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, I was able to reply with that message... that was the message that wouldn't quite take when I tried to reply with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever you're on, I suggest you reduce the dose.
|
|
|
|
|
You post just a few messages about a higher dimensional immortal black hole super being, and people think you're on something. And yet nobody says anything when somebody mentions the concept of God. 
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, there are simpler explanations for the thread you composed almost single-handedly.
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds like a network issue, not a code issue. If the page times out then we show a message saying something clever, witty, and helpful like "The command timed out".
You obviously know there's database timeouts, execution timeouts, and then network timeouts. If the network timed out then the browser may simply just present a big fat nothing.
I've checked the error logs and there's not a single record of any timeouts (page or data) ocurring.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I'm not really sure what it could be. I wouldn't think it is just a random network issue, as there was completely valid HTML returned. Only, that HTML didn't contain any visible content. Would seem strange for that to be a network issue, especially considering another member experienced the exact same issue and I myself experienced it twice and only with messages which took me a long time to compose.
Oh well, perhaps I'll try to reproduce it tomorrow and send you some steps to reproduce.
|
|
|
|
|
I was able to reproduce it.
I picked one of my old messages in the lounge. I clicked reply, waited 30 minutes, then posted the reply. This posted just fine.
I then replied to that reply, waited over an hour, then posted the reply. This FAILED to post (got the blank page). I then modified the message and posted it without delay here.
So it looks like the trick is to spend an hour composing a message. Losing such a message would be a tragedy. Thankfully, I haven't been so unlucky (always copy before posting).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what it is, but it sure is getting frakking annoying to copy a post before posting it.
I have had it happen several times today and yesterday.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Just tested it. Looks like you need to wait about an hour (over 30 minutes for sure) for a message to be lost to the white screen of death.
|
|
|
|
|
I just had it happen again today. The time was somewhere between 2 to 3 minutes. 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Next time it happens, can you view the source of the blank page and copy the HTML, then paste it here to compare to mine?
|
|
|
|
|
I clicked a link in the weekly Newsletter and got the error:
This job is not available in your area. Sorry!
I'm curious as to why this filter is in place? What if I'm not looking for jobs in my area, but in other areas? I'm constantly looking for a reason to move to somewhere else, software development in particular makes this possible.
Unless there are legal reasons you can't display something, I would prefer if you not filter me in anyway, it is just annoying, and never relevant.
Ken Foster
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100%
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be more impressed if you agreed something like 38% - it would be much more entertaining.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
