this is like the dreaded html error 200. either that or the programmers forgot to put "in" in front of valid

Posted by: Thunder_gryphoN at January 28, 2006 12:58 AM

I guess it's designed to prevent people from creating valid SQL statements.

Posted by: Fuzzy at January 28, 2006 09:22 AM

this sounds kind of like my work files. On my home computer when I try to open them it says, "error, you have the application needed to run work files"

Posted by: Riblet15 at January 28, 2006 09:42 AM

Just like the good old 98 error that i used to get all the time. The header read, error and the message was, an error has occoured with an ok box. I wonder if vista will be like this or will microshaft actually pull it together this time.

Posted by: GileX at January 28, 2006 10:57 AM

I've seen worse. I've seen an app (implemented in Oracle) that would periodically pop up a dialogue box just like that one, but which read, "Please acknowledge".

The thing it wanted acknowledged was the text printed in the status line at the bottom of the parent window, but it took me three years of working for the company that has this app before I realised that.

I'd share more details, but I would be risking my job.

Posted by: Glenn Lasher at January 28, 2006 01:33 PM

This comment is valid

Posted by: john russell at January 28, 2006 03:59 PM

We're sorry, the statement is valid and cannot be used. Please input an invalid statement to continue. This application will self destruct in ten seconds.

Posted by: Conrad at January 28, 2006 09:53 PM

No... THIS STATEMENT is valid!!

Posted by: levykid at January 29, 2006 01:08 PM

But you're not SUPPOSED to get it right the first time!

Posted by: Eric at January 29, 2006 03:23 PM

Error Bot /--------\ Warning, you messed up.

..............| O V O ||/Will now blow you up.

..............|_______|| 3...2...1...............

..............\________/..........................

.........................||.......................

............______L|______........................

........../| OH_CRAP 9000 |\......................

..........| |______________| |.....................

..........| |______________| |.....................

..........| |______________| |.....................

Man that took me forever to draw.

Posted by: Eric at January 31, 2006 03:58 PM

Ahh...well in this case i'm sticking with MySQL even though its interface is command line based. (Unless you have the GUI administrator, of course)

Posted by: Trent Chernecki at February 1, 2006 11:41 PM

This is simply a "You look like you are about to get your way" error, and computers don't like that.

If you're married it's kind of the same thing.

Posted by: jt at February 2, 2006 10:47 AM

I think the eror is because it's MICROSOFT SQL Server 2000. It's kind of like Internet Explorer:

--Error--

You have attempted to open a page. Continuing to load it will take three hours and the page will look bad UNLESS it isn't written with standards-compliant code.

Posted by: The Pondermatic at February 3, 2006 09:21 AM

It's an undocumented feature of MS SQL2k.

If you wanted useful error messages, you'll need to upgrade to the latest service pack and all hotfixes.

Posted by: Laughing Outloud at February 7, 2006 03:58 AM

I once worked with governmental systems, and occasionally you'd get an error message, critical icon, title "???????", message was the app title.

Then there's the myriad error boxes saying "The operation was sucessful".

Finally, there's this comment system, which claims that 'root@localhost' is not a valid email address (I happily receive logwatch to this address from several machines :-)

Posted by: comment system still broken at February 11, 2006 10:09 PM

If you could actually see the code behind some of these apps, you would run away screaming; and it is not unique to Micro$oft.

I recently left a project where the lead developer did not believe in descriptive error messages. Instead he used return codes (error numbers). This would not have been so bad except for the fact that the meaning of the code was never translated into an actual error message, so the user (or developer) would get a message to the effect of "Error: 324" with an Ok? button and nothing else.

To top it off, there was no soft or hard copy of the actual meaning of the code. These were evidently stored in the "lead" developers grey matter. This was his idea of "Job Security" and he often said so proudly. His last day was the same day I pointed out this "feature" to the CTO of the company.

Remember, to a contractor, it is never a bug, but a feature! That way bug fixes are actually enhancements and therefore billable!

Posted by: Contract Soft-where? Developer at February 16, 2006 11:46 PM