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:
TheThing@work: So unless Huxton has more questions
TheThing@work: and like I said, don't really wanna save full userlist AS WELL as a Queue object for each one ┐(￣ー￣)┌
TheThing@work: I like to work on a "use what you need" principle ┐(￣ー￣)┌
HuxtonFael@Work: ^
TheThing@work: and "save only what you need" principle ┐(￣ー￣)┌
HuxtonFael@Work: Otherwise I could just keep a list of all the nicks on Rizon servers "just in case"
TheThing@work: Whose principle applies to everythin EXCEPT TV and movies and anime
HuxtonFael@Work: Visit ALL the channels
TheThing@work: lol
HuxtonFael@Work: Record ALL the nicks
HuxtonFael@Work: etc.
TheThing@work: Oh, and use MYSQL to store the users and their request in
TheThing@work: for additional overkill
meneldal: and each request would take 2s
TheThing@work: better yet, instead of storing them in MySQL which is slow, store them in Microsoft Access table xD
HuxtonFael@Work: Why?
HuxtonFael@Work: Textfiles!
TheThing@work: *dateabase
HuxtonFael@Work: database*
meneldal: RAM disk of textfiles
TheThing@work: No, that's too slow meneldal (hint: read as fast)
HuxtonFael@Work: Paper!
HuxtonFael@Work: Print and scan/read on every bot loading
meneldal: yeah but you have non volatility
TheThing@work: A better method would be to store it directly on a free sector on the harddrive and not in some files or etc.
TheThing@work: That way we don't need to go through all that filesystem hoops and just write directly on the harddrives sector
TheThing@work: hahahaha
TheThing@work: Huxton wins this round xD
meneldal: make monkeys process it
TheThing@work: Paper FTW
HuxtonFael@Work: meneldal: wouldn't it be easier just to memorize them myself?
TheThing@work: No, Scanning is "faster" :<
TheThing@work: *:<
meneldal: but monkeys can do the job for you
TheThing@work: **:>
TheThing@work: Have robot arms
HuxtonFael@Work: >:>
TheThing@work: robot arms to move the paper from printer to scanner
TheThing@work: no wait, better, instead of robot arms
HuxtonFael@Work: Get slaves to move paper.
TheThing@work: 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
HuxtonFael@Work: Train mice to do the job.
TheThing@work: Mice are too fast
TheThing@work: train ants to do the job
meneldal: but why use printer when you can make your robot write and read?
meneldal: snails are better
HuxtonFael@Work: meh, snails would destroy the paper
TheThing@work: Agreed
HuxtonFael@Work: I don't want i/O errors
meneldal: and ants wouldn't?
TheThing@work: 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?
HuxtonFael@Work: Why not use fans?
HuxtonFael@Work: Perfectly calibrated fans, in a sterile room
meneldal: fans are noisy
HuxtonFael@Work: Would make sure the sheet would fly straight onto the scanner
meneldal: and paper could get into the fan
HuxtonFael@Work: meneldal: not necessarily
HuxtonFael@Work: Look up Dyson fans
meneldal: but it's not really a fan
TheThing@work: Fan is too mainstream
meneldal: but i know what you mean
HuxtonFael@Work: But not a bladeless fan!
TheThing@work: have perfectly calibrated wind holes powered by natural wined
TheThing@work: *wind
HuxtonFael@Work: ^@Thingu
meneldal: and dyson's are too expensive
HuxtonFael@Work: And since when do we care about the cost?
TheThing@work: ^
Ferr-y: I thought Dyson made things that only suck.
TheThing@work: But like I said
meneldal: a vaccuum would be better then
TheThing@work: wind holes and use natural win
TheThing@work: *wind
meneldal: natural win i like that
TheThing@work: ofcourse, you would have to wait until the wind blows for the paper to be processed
TheThing@work: 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?
HuxtonFael@Work: Talk about lag
TheThing@work: Depending on wheather
TheThing@work: Yes meneldal
HuxtonFael@Work: "Sorry, pal, gotta wait. No wind 'till Thurssday"
HuxtonFael@Work: Thursday*
TheThing@work: 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
HuxtonFael@Work: ^lol
meneldal: your paper is transported by the winds in the clouds
TheThing@work: lol
meneldal: and you can get it back when the wind is blowing correctly
TheThing@work: This conversation is just pure win xD
meneldal: not win wind
HuxtonFael@Work: We win(d) this conversation
