This conversation follows a
programming question Huxton posted on StackOverflow for which we kindly answered in manners we best saw fit for it.
Basically, we were wondering if we needed to save a full user list for requests or if we could just save the users that were requestiong. Then I came with my solution which only saves users requested in memory.
Then this happened:
[email protected]: So unless Huxton has more questions
[email protected]: and like I said, don't really wanna save full userlist AS WELL as a Queue object for each one ┐(￣ー￣)┌
[email protected]: I like to work on a "use what you need" principle ┐(￣ー￣)┌
[email protected]: ^
[email protected]: and "save only what you need" principle ┐(￣ー￣)┌
[email protected]: Otherwise I could just keep a list of all the nicks on Rizon servers "just in case"
[email protected]: Whose principle applies to everythin EXCEPT TV and movies and anime
[email protected]: Visit ALL the channels
[email protected]: lol
[email protected]: Record ALL the nicks
[email protected]: etc.
[email protected]: Oh, and use MYSQL to store the users and their request in
[email protected]: for additional overkill
meneldal: and each request would take 2s
[email protected]: better yet, instead of storing them in MySQL which is slow, store them in Microsoft Access table xD
[email protected]: Why?
[email protected]: Textfiles!
[email protected]: *dateabase
[email protected]: database*
meneldal: RAM disk of textfiles
[email protected]: No, that's too slow meneldal (hint: read as fast)
[email protected]: Paper!
[email protected]: Print and scan/read on every bot loading
meneldal: yeah but you have non volatility
[email protected]: A better method would be to store it directly on a free sector on the harddrive and not in some files or etc.
[email protected]: That way we don't need to go through all that filesystem hoops and just write directly on the harddrives sector
[email protected]: hahahaha
[email protected]: Huxton wins this round xD
meneldal: make monkeys process it
[email protected]: Paper FTW
[email protected]: meneldal: wouldn't it be easier just to memorize them myself?
[email protected]: No, Scanning is "faster" :<
[email protected]: *:<
meneldal: but monkeys can do the job for you
[email protected]: **:>
[email protected]: Have robot arms
[email protected]: >:>
[email protected]: robot arms to move the paper from printer to scanner
[email protected]: no wait, better, instead of robot arms
[email protected]: Get slaves to move paper.
[email protected]: have a slow moving robot take paper from printer, turn around, move very slowly in robotic manner across the room and put in the scanner
[email protected]: Train mice to do the job.
[email protected]: Mice are too fast
[email protected]: train ants to do the job
meneldal: but why use printer when you can make your robot write and read?
meneldal: snails are better
[email protected]: meh, snails would destroy the paper
[email protected]: Agreed
[email protected]: I don't want i/O errors
meneldal: and ants wouldn't?
[email protected]: we should use water-durable paper, print it and make it fall directly on a fish tank and train the fish to move the paper to scanners
meneldal: much better than all this cloud storage isn't it?
[email protected]: Why not use fans?
[email protected]: Perfectly calibrated fans, in a sterile room
meneldal: fans are noisy
[email protected]: Would make sure the sheet would fly straight onto the scanner
meneldal: and paper could get into the fan
[email protected]: meneldal: not necessarily
[email protected]: Look up Dyson fans
meneldal: but it's not really a fan
[email protected]: Fan is too mainstream
meneldal: but i know what you mean
[email protected]: But not a bladeless fan!
[email protected]: have perfectly calibrated wind holes powered by natural wined
[email protected]: *wind
[email protected]: ^@Thingu
meneldal: and dyson's are too expensive
[email protected]: And since when do we care about the cost?
[email protected]: ^
Ferr-y: I thought Dyson made things that only suck.
[email protected]: But like I said
meneldal: a vaccuum would be better then
[email protected]: wind holes and use natural win
[email protected]: *wind
meneldal: natural win i like that
[email protected]: ofcourse, you would have to wait until the wind blows for the paper to be processed
[email protected]: so request can take anywhere between 2 minutes to 2 days
meneldal: so you can tell people the order couldn't be processed because of the weather?
[email protected]: Talk about lag
[email protected]: Depending on wheather
[email protected]: Yes meneldal
[email protected]: "Sorry, pal, gotta wait. No wind 'till Thurssday"
[email protected]: Thursday*
[email protected]: And also have the bot answer: Due to stormy night, your request was lost in the wind (literally)
meneldal: nice one
meneldal: we should try REAL cloud storage
meneldal: with the wind
[email protected]: ^lol
meneldal: your paper is transported by the winds in the clouds
[email protected]: lol
meneldal: and you can get it back when the wind is blowing correctly
[email protected]: This conversation is just pure win xD
meneldal: not win wind
[email protected]: We win(d) this conversation
