Comment On Calculatorating in Las Vegas

Crash Magnet:

16 PB! Well just start by uninstalling Visual Studio (et. al.); that should get you more than half way there.

But I think you have a bigger problem. At 1Mb/second, your download will take over 1.87 million years.

T $:

"CVS is requiring you to answer yes or no"

Yes or no.

matt:

Actually, 0.45833333 is exactly 11 hours (11/24), for whatever that is worth.

lolpande:

Mmmmmmm! 16 PB hard disk! Droooooooooooool....
I want! I want!!!

Tei:

The oversized calculator may mean that the real screen is like 320x200 pixeles wide.

So the real WTF is a screen so big with soo low resolution.

blatant ripoff:

lolpande:

Mmmmmmm! 16 PB hard disk! Droooooooooooool....
I want! I want!!!

No one will ever need 16 PB's of memory...

jpers36:

Ok, my first "Not a WTF" message!

The WinCVS message is not a WTF. WinCVS provides a command line pane (the "console") with which you can interact with cvs, in addition to an explorer-ish GUI pane. When the console throws up a Yes/No question, that triggers the GUI to put up the prompt above. I most often see it when rolling back edits that haven't been checked in. The actual question is completely visible in the console pane.

Someone You Know:

matt:

Actually, 0.45833333 is exactly 11 hours (11/24), for whatever that is worth.

Then this almost makes sense, if the checkout time is 11 AM.

RobDofDE:

Someone You Know:

matt:

Actually, 0.45833333 is exactly 11 hours (11/24), for whatever that is worth.

Then this almost makes sense, if the checkout time is 11 AM.

That's assuming 24 hours of night, and night beginning at 12AM.

We have to figure out the start (or perhaps, end) of night and the length of night before we can define what time 0.458333333 of night is.

jpers36:

The WinCVS message is not a WTF.

themagni:

jpers36:

Ok, my first "Not a WTF" message!

The WinCVS message is not a WTF. WinCVS provides a command line pane (the "console") with which you can interact with cvs, in addition to an explorer-ish GUI pane. When the console throws up a Yes/No question, that triggers the GUI to put up the prompt above. I most often see it when rolling back edits that haven't been checked in. The actual question is completely visible in the console pane.

Yeah, I'm a little frightened that:

a) Someone thought this was a WTF.
b) They didn't ask anyone else at their company "WTF is this?"
c) They think WinCVS is the actual CVS interface, instead of a GUI layer.
d) It made it onto the Error'd front page with a really snarky tagline.
e) Several other comments think it's a hilarious WTF message.

If you think it's an error, you're a bad programmer because you don't understand your CMS intimately and worse, you think your monitor is the computer. That's a level of misunderstanding that you may never recover from.

matt:

Actually, 0.45833333 is exactly 11 hours (11/24), for whatever that is worth.

jpers36:

Ok, my first "Not a WTF" message!

The WinCVS message is not a WTF. WinCVS provides a command line pane (the "console") with which you can interact with cvs, in addition to an explorer-ish GUI pane. When the console throws up a Yes/No question, that triggers the GUI to put up the prompt above. I most often see it when rolling back edits that haven't been checked in. The actual question is completely visible in the console pane.

Would it be nice for WinCVS to put the console question into the message prompt? Yeah. But that could introduce real WTFs -- such as incomplete questions in the prompt -- since WinCVS is meant to work with multiple flavors of cvs. I mean, I don't think cvs even has a standards specification.

themagni:

Yeah, I'm a little frightened that:

a) Someone thought this was a WTF.
b) They didn't ask anyone else at their company "WTF is this?"
c) They think WinCVS is the actual CVS interface, instead of a GUI layer.
d) It made it onto the Error'd front page with a really snarky tagline.
e) Several other comments think it's a hilarious WTF message.

If you think it's an error, you're a bad programmer because you don't understand your CMS intimately and worse, you think your monitor is the computer. That's a level of misunderstanding that you may never recover from.

blatant ripoff:

lolpande:

Mmmmmmm! 16 PB hard disk! Droooooooooooool....
I want! I want!!!

No one will ever need 16 PB's of memory...

blatant ripoff:

lolpande:

Mmmmmmm! 16 PB hard disk! Droooooooooooool....
I want! I want!!!

No one will ever need 16 PB's of memory...

lucus:

memory expands to fit demand, not vice versa. the issue is that demand keeps rising as we relies what can *almost* be done with the current hardware. 2d games were great when they first came out, they were a novelty. then the novelty wore off, and we wanted more. better graphics came next, more detail. then came 3d. then came realistic physics. then came near photo realism. then came destructible environments (some of these are a little out of order, since some of the ideas were developed in parallel with the others) we keep pushing for more "realism," that is, the desire for our dreams and fantasy to more accurately reflect what we are able to experience: the real world. as photos and pictures of the real world approach resolutions that surpass our ability to perceive them (even at magnified zoom levels) desire to have storage space for them will fall. same is true for holligrafic renderings. ditto for 3d polygon recreations. in a fully simulated environment. that is 100% destructible. and rebuild-able. so as we reach the capacity to handle that kind of info, the need for storage for that kind of info will taper off. we don't need atom by atom coordinates for everything, we just need a resolution that makes us believe its real at the scale were looking/feeling it. ergo storage demand is not infinite. its probably just really big.


but what about fantasy worlds created with that kind of resolution? what if i want to recreate the star wars universe for a game (yes, the whole damned universe, with the plaster on the wall modeled in polygons (not textured) so that when i use the inch high cheat the world seems every bit as believable on that scale as it did on the larger one, and its all free roaming with no load times, and it has to be volumetrically modeled, so that when i _reach through the wall to strangle an evil guard i can feel the coarseness of the brick all the way though_ and is 100% destructible, mine-able/exploitable/reclaimable/rebuild-able with a physics engine that can be modified to fit my whim)? now you need that kind of data set for two universes (the real one and this one). and what about those other game developers who want to develop their own games? how many universes will we need to have storage space for? i hereby, and for the sole benefit of that poor lost sole who actually read to the end of this, propose lucus' law: human imagination is infinite, therefore storage needs are (dun dun dunnnnnn) infinite. period.

Someone You Know:

matt:

Actually, 0.45833333 is exactly 11 hours (11/24), for whatever that is worth.

Then this almost makes sense, if the checkout time is 11 AM.

dpm:

16,777,216 GB = 16,384.00 TB = 16.00 PB

(Alex would have been 14.4 petabytes short)

T $:

"CVS is requiring you to answer yes or no"

Yes or no.

Someone You Know:

matt:

Actually, 0.45833333 is exactly 11 hours (11/24), for whatever that is worth.

Then this almost makes sense, if the checkout time is 11 AM.

lolpande:

Oh, think of all the pr0n you could fit in that! Hehe...

lucus:

blatant ripoff:

lolpande:

Mmmmmmm! 16 PB hard disk! Droooooooooooool....
I want! I want!!!

No one will ever need 16 PB's of memory...

WOOO! someone finally gave me a chance to bring up one of my old comments! now the world will get to see the genius that i am!

lucus:

memory expands to fit demand, not vice versa. the issue is that demand keeps rising as we relies what can *almost* be done with the current hardware. 2d games were great when they first came out, they were a novelty. then the novelty wore off, and we wanted more. better graphics came next, more detail. then came 3d. then came realistic physics. then came near photo realism. then came destructible environments (some of these are a little out of order, since some of the ideas were developed in parallel with the others) we keep pushing for more "realism," that is, the desire for our dreams and fantasy to more accurately reflect what we are able to experience: the real world. as photos and pictures of the real world approach resolutions that surpass our ability to perceive them (even at magnified zoom levels) desire to have storage space for them will fall. same is true for holligrafic renderings. ditto for 3d polygon recreations. in a fully simulated environment. that is 100% destructible. and rebuild-able. so as we reach the capacity to handle that kind of info, the need for storage for that kind of info will taper off. we don't need atom by atom coordinates for everything, we just need a resolution that makes us believe its real at the scale were looking/feeling it. ergo storage demand is not infinite. its probably just really big.


but what about fantasy worlds created with that kind of resolution? what if i want to recreate the star wars universe for a game (yes, the whole damned universe, with the plaster on the wall modeled in polygons (not textured) so that when i use the inch high cheat the world seems every bit as believable on that scale as it did on the larger one, and its all free roaming with no load times, and it has to be volumetrically modeled, so that when i _reach through the wall to strangle an evil guard i can feel the coarseness of the brick all the way though_ and is 100% destructible, mine-able/exploitable/reclaimable/rebuild-able with a physics engine that can be modified to fit my whim)? now you need that kind of data set for two universes (the real one and this one). and what about those other game developers who want to develop their own games? how many universes will we need to have storage space for? i hereby, and for the sole benefit of that poor lost sole who actually read to the end of this, propose lucus' law: human imagination is infinite, therefore storage needs are (dun dun dunnnnnn) infinite. period.

the full thread can be found here for context: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/Just_In_Case_It_0x27_s_Needed.aspx

lucus:

WOOO! someone finally gave me a chance to bring up one of my old comments! now the world will get to see the genius that i am!