Heavy load



  • Not IT related but this one really made me go WTF!!! out loud.

    [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03e_1308153443[/url]



  • @coentje said:

    Not IT related but this one really made me go WTF!!! out loud.

    At a metaphorical level, I'm sure this has everything to do with IT.



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    @coentje said:

    Not IT related but this one really made me go WTF!!! out loud.

    At a metaphorical level, I'm sure this has everything to do with IT.

    It's how most IT projects would look if they where physical projects?



  • For posterity, or for those who don't want to see the video:




    I don't speak German, so I don't know if this is explained in the video, but how the heck did they put the car in there?



  • the police officer said they used a forklift (is that the correct word?)



  • @Daid said:

    @Hatshepsut said:

    @coentje said:

    Not IT related but this one really made me go WTF!!! out loud.

    At a metaphorical level, I'm sure this has everything to do with IT.

    It's how most IT projects would look if they where physical projects?

    More like most IT projects are handled like those guys handled the transportation of a car. Reminds me of an old jpeg relating IT projects to tire swings.

    If I were a teacher giving classes about programming, I'd show this setup to the kids as an example of wrapping.

    But the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that was, yo dogg...



  • [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]But the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that was, yo dogg...[/quote] 

    ... why didn't I think of this?



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    At a metaphorical level, I'm sure this has everything to do with IT.
     

    Or as a political cartoon:

     @shopped! said:

    [img]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9631/wtfxml.png[/img]




  • @Zecc said:

    I don't speak German, so I don't know if this is explained in the video, but how the heck did they put the car in there?

    Clearly, they stood the car on end and then slid the van down smoothly over it, before gently lowering the van to the horizontal position.



  • To me, this seems like an example of encapsulation; this object contains an instance of that object.

    From the outside it still looks like a Van, but within there is a passenger car.  You can't get in the doors of the passenger car without getting in the doors of the van.  From the outside you just see the wheels of the van, not the wheels of the car, etc.  The car is ecapsulated and it's properties hidden by the van.



  • @KattMan said:

    To me, this seems like an example of encapsulation


    KattMan has just definitely won this thread.



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    Clearly, they stood the car on end and then slid the van down smoothly over it, before gently lowering the van to the horizontal position.
     

    hot.



  • @Zecc said:

    how the heck did they put the car in there?
    You can get anything anywhere with enough lube.



  • @intertravel said:

    @Zecc said:
    how the heck did they put the car in there?
    You can get anything anywhere with enough lube.

    From personal experience?



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    @Zecc said:

    I don't speak German, so I don't know if this is explained in the video, but how the heck did they put the car in there?

    Clearly, they stood the car on end and then slid the van down smoothly over it, before gently lowering the van to the horizontal position.

    I keep hoping someone will do this with the TARDIS.  Leave it parked somewhere for at least an hour, then go back in time one hour and a few feet to the left.  Pick up the one you just arrived in and drag it inside the one that was already there, creating an infinite regress of police call boxes.

     



  • @da Doctah said:

    I keep hoping someone will do this with the TARDIS.  Leave it parked somewhere for at least an hour, then go back in time one hour and a few feet to the left.  Pick up the one you just arrived in and drag it inside the one that was already there, creating an infinite regress of police call boxes.

    Didn't the Fourth Doctor do something like that once? I distinctly remember the TARDIS being inside itself during a Fourth Doctor episode. Or maybe the Fifth? Was it in the Logopolis arch? I remember a short discussion about entropy, so ... maybe I think it was, but my memory of those days are pretty blurred.

    Additionally, the Rory accidentally did that with the Eleventh during the 2011 Red Nose Day special. It was pretty funny, check it out on YouTube (unless you are behind a corporate proxy like me which blocks access to it).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Xyro said:

    2011 Red Nose Day special
    Part 1, part 2



  • My memory is muddled, but not so far off: [url]http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Logopolis_(TV_story)[/url]
    @Part One said:

    To keep his mind off this, he decides to repair the TARDIS's chameleon circuit, which has frozen it into the shape of a police box. In order to do this, he intends to materialise the TARDIS around a real police box (thus disguising it), and then obtain its precise measurements in 27 dimensions. With these measurements, he will have the inhabitants of the planet Logopolis produce a mathematical calculation — a Block Transfer Computation — to reset the circuit. However, the "police box" he materialises around is actually the TARDIS of the Master, who has survived their encounter on the planet Traken. When the Doctor materialises around the Master's TARDIS, a recursive loop of TARDISes within TARDISes is formed.



  • To ask a stupid question, are those guys actually doing anything illegal? Other than the van doors not being closed, and not having any red-flag attached... that looks legit to me.

    I mean, yeah, it's stupid as shit, but it's no reason to pull him over.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    To ask a stupid question, are those guys actually doing anything illegal? Other than the van doors not being closed, and not having any red-flag attached... that looks legit to me.

    I mean, yeah, it's stupid as shit, but it's no reason to pull him over.

    Maybe the cop explained, but as don't speak German, I'll speculate that you likely could pull them over for reckless driving or something like that. I can't imagine the van would handle very well, so the way the van was moving would probably be a big red flag.


  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    To ask a stupid question, are those guys actually doing anything illegal? Other than the van doors not being closed, and not having any red-flag attached... that looks legit to me.

    I mean, yeah, it's stupid as shit, but it's no reason to pull him over.

    Maybe the cop explained, but as don't speak German, I'll speculate that you likely could pull them over for reckless driving or something like that. I can't imagine the van would handle very well, so the way the van was moving would probably be a big red flag.

    Apparently it was for having an overloaded/dangerously loaded vehicle.



  • Is it me, or are the windshield wipers of the car on the inside of the car? WTF?



  • @intertravel said:

    Apparently it was for having an overloaded/dangerously loaded vehicle.

    But was it overloaded? A commercial van like that should be able to handle that amount of weight no problem, and if the engine's in the front I don't anticipate any handling problems either, because that would put the center of mass squarely in the center of the van. Here, I looked it up: assuming a Mercedes Benz Sprinter van, capacity 3000 lbs, and a Toyota Corolla, weight 2800 lbs, it's close to the capacity but it's not over the mark.

    I could see that applying if it wasn't secured with straps, but there's not enough video for us to tell that for sure.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But was it overloaded? A commercial van like that should be able to handle that amount of weight no problem, and if the engine's in the front I don't anticipate any handling problems either, because that would put the center of mass squarely in the center of the van.

    I could see the center of mass being too high to be safe, though. Also, that's a really narrow van.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I could see that applying if it wasn't secured with straps, but there's not enough video for us to tell that for sure.
     

    Sooo.. the car wasn't wearing its seatbelt?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    are those guys actually doing anything illegal? Other than the van doors not being closed, and not having any red-flag attached...
    In many places that will get you in trouble.  .@blakeyrat said:
    it's stupid as shit, but it's no reason to pull him over.
    I have a feeling that when the police see someone doing something really stupid they tend to get suspicious about what might be going on.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    But was it overloaded? A commercial van like that should be able to handle that amount of weight no problem, and if the engine's in the front I don't anticipate any handling problems either, because that would put the center of mass squarely in the center of the van.

    I could see the center of mass being too high to be safe, though. Also, that's a really narrow van.

    That's why I assumed it was a Sprinter. Those things have very weird, narrow, crazy proportions. Somehow they look ok in photos, but on the street you're like, "WTF?"



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    it's stupid as shit, but it's no reason to pull him over.
    I have a feeling that when the police see someone doing something really stupid they tend to get suspicious about what might be going on.
     

    Given all the gas, oil and other fluids in a car, and given that cars aren't meant to be kept on their site-- I suppose they could also be a charge of improperly transporting hazardous materials. 



  • @da Doctah said:

    @Hatshepsut said:

    @Zecc said:

    I don't speak German, so I don't know if this is explained in the video, but how the heck did they put the car in there?

    Clearly, they stood the car on end and then slid the van down smoothly over it, before gently lowering the van to the horizontal position.

    I keep hoping someone will do this with the TARDIS.  Leave it parked somewhere for at least an hour, then go back in time one hour and a few feet to the left.  Pick up the one you just arrived in and drag it inside the one that was already there, creating an infinite regress of police call boxes.
     

    Carrying a time machine inside another time machine was a plot point in the convoluted movie Primer.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @intertravel said:
    Apparently it was for having an overloaded/dangerously loaded vehicle.
    But was it overloaded? A commercial van like that should be able to handle that amount of weight no problem, and if the engine's in the front I don't anticipate any handling problems either, because that would put the center of mass squarely in the center of the van. Here, I looked it up: assuming a Mercedes Benz Sprinter van, capacity 3000 lbs, and a Toyota Corolla, weight 2800 lbs, it's close to the capacity but it's not over the mark.

    I could see that applying if it wasn't secured with straps, but there's not enough video for us to tell that for sure.

    You can stack 50 50lbs bags of sand 20' high, and you'd still be under the weight limit, but is it safe to drive with your load like that?  Probably not...

    If I were a cop driving behind them, I'd pull their asses off the road and let them settle it out in court.  I wouldn't want to be driving on the other side of the road when suddenly I see a car sliding at me on it's side at a combined speed of 100mph.



  • @Someone You Know said:

    @da Doctah said:

     I keep hoping someone will do this with the TARDIS.  Leave it parked somewhere for at least an hour, then go back in time one hour and a few feet to the left.  Pick up the one you just arrived in and drag it inside the one that was already there, creating an infinite regress of police call boxes.

     

    Carrying a time machine inside another time machine was a plot point in the convoluted movie Primer.

     

    Yabbut I want to see someone carry a time machine inside itself.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    given that cars aren't meant to be kept on their site

    Here's a few sites that are meant to have cars kept on them:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=car+dealership&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @intertravel said:
    Apparently it was for having an overloaded/dangerously loaded vehicle.

    But was it overloaded? A commercial van like that should be able to handle that amount of weight no problem, and if the engine's in the front I don't anticipate any handling problems either, because that would put the center of mass squarely in the center of the van. Here, I looked it up: assuming a Mercedes Benz Sprinter van, capacity 3000 lbs, and a Toyota Corolla, weight 2800 lbs, it's close to the capacity but it's not over the mark.

    I could see that applying if it wasn't secured with straps, but there's not enough video for us to tell that for sure.

    It's either close to, or over the weight limit, depending on which particular model it was. Definitely not a safe load in any case, because it's not properly secured.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    To ask a stupid question, are those guys actually doing anything illegal? Other than the van doors not being closed, and not having any red-flag attached... that looks legit to me.

    I mean, yeah, it's stupid as shit, but it's no reason to pull him over.

    Seriously?

    To recap what the policeman said:

    1. The car on the passenger seat severely impaired the driver's view.
    2. A second person was sitting behind the driver's seat. Without a seatbelt.
    3. The car could have hurt both occupants because it was not properly secured.


  • @da Doctah said:

    @Someone You Know said:

    @da Doctah said:

     I keep hoping someone will do this with the TARDIS.  Leave it parked somewhere for at least an hour, then go back in time one hour and a few feet to the left.  Pick up the one you just arrived in and drag it inside the one that was already there, creating an infinite regress of police call boxes.

     

    Carrying a time machine inside another time machine was a plot point in the convoluted movie Primer.

     

    Yabbut I want to see someone carry a time machine inside itself.

     

    Fuck, I still need to see that movie.

    The infinite regress was also done  in MSPA's Problem Sleuth, using teleportation/wormhole-ish windows, where one end was turned and slid into the other. It got stuck, obviously. Then a very large force was applied ot it, and it windowsploded.

    god I loved PS.

     



  • @KattMan said:

    To me, this seems like an example of encapsulation; this object contains an instance of that object.

    From the outside it still looks like a Van, but within there is a passenger car.  You can't get in the doors of the passenger car without getting in the doors of the van.  From the outside you just see the wheels of the van, not the wheels of the car, etc.  The car is ecapsulated and it's properties hidden by the van.

    And, of course:

    - a half-baked interface of the encapsulated object is hanging directly out the arse of the encapsulating object (and is sideways), preventing the encapsulating object from exposing a clean interface.
    - the encapsulated object is obstructing the passenger-side interface of the encapsulating object.
    - the encapsulating object itself can't even properly access the encapsluated object's interfaces, since there's no space to open the doors. 
    - since the encapsulated object clashes with some of the encapsulating object's normal functionality (viz. carrying a passenger), that functionality is jerry-rigged behind the driver's seat.
    - etc etc keep stretching... 



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    - etc etc keep stretching... 

    The encapsulated object was originally designed to solve the problems that the encapsulating object is hoping to provide. However, the original design sucked, and now the object is broken, but still contains all the bloated heavyweight garbage features that needs to be carried around. Yet because these original features were so tightly coupled to the encapsulated object, an entirely new bloated heavyweight implementation is required to work around the deficiency. It's so bad that the encapsulated object really ought to just be thrown out and completely reimplemented with the encapsulating object, but that would hurt the feelings of the original developer, and we don't want to deal with the politics, so we just work around it in the worst possible way. AARRRG



  • @dhromed said:

    Primer.
     

    @dhromed said:

    Fuck, I still need to see that movie.

    Just (finally) saw it a couple weeks ago. Highly reccomended.  It's only ~70ish minutes, but give yourself twice that to watch it a second time (optionally, with the director commentary on-- it explains a couple points, and has some interesting film making info in it).

    There's a plot point about a cell phone, and a time-clone cell phone ringing at the same time. The director commented that he phoned up cell phone companies, asking what would happen, and couldn't get a straight answer. I want to know which "weird tech support stories" site that one ended up on.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    he phoned up cell phone companies, asking what would happen

    Hmm.... what DOES happen if two phones with identical SIMs connect? You can't choose one over the other because they look that same, can't kick both because that'd open up a potential DOS exploit and I doubt the network infrastructure is designed to accomodate streaming the call to two devices at once and retrieving them. It'd be seriously, seriously cool if it worked like house phones, but I'd say that's unlikely. Might it even think they are the same phone?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @nexekho said:

    Hmm.... what DOES happen if two phones with identical SIMs connect? You can't choose one over the other because they look that same, can't kick both because that'd open up a potential DOS exploit
    That's exactly what happens - at least with ICE in Norway. (Well there's more to the credentials on that network than just the 'sim' which reduces the chances of a DOS.)



  • @nexekho said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    he phoned up cell phone companies, asking what would happen

    Hmm.... what DOES happen if two phones with identical SIMs connect? You can't choose one over the other because they look that same, can't kick both because that'd open up a potential DOS exploit and I doubt the network infrastructure is designed to accomodate streaming the call to two devices at once and retrieving them. It'd be seriously, seriously cool if it worked like house phones, but I'd say that's unlikely. Might it even think they are the same phone?

     

    (paraphrasing from memory) that one network told the director it was on a first-come-first-serve basis. So it depended on which phone connected to which tower in which order.

    Of course, the film was made in 2004, so I'm sure the cell tech's a bit different.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Just (finally) saw it a couple weeks ago. Highly reccomended.
     

    I think it's my favorite time travel movie. Spoiler: From almost the very beginning of the movie you're seeing the effects of causes that haven't happened yet. Unlike most time travel movies, at no point are you ever looking at a timeline that has not been manipulated by time travelers (though this is not apparent for a while). I have yet to encounter another movie that does this.



  • @dhromed said:

    Fuck, I still need to see that movie.

    Don't get too encourage; the Printer time travel "rules" prevent infinite regress. It's impossible to go back to a point before the time machine was first built.



  • @Someone You Know said:

    I think it's my favorite time travel movie. Spoiler: From almost the very beginning of the movie you're seeing the effects of causes that haven't happened yet. Unlike most time travel movies, at no point are you ever looking at a timeline that has not been manipulated by time travelers (though this is not apparent for a while). I have yet to encounter another movie that does this.

    Another huge spoiler: Primer's Timeline. There's NO WAY you could POSSIBLY get this on a first viewing; plan to watch the movie at least twice. (Note the yellow boxes are events shown in the movie itself; the blue lines are implied events.) Might want scratch paper, too, if you really want to figure it out-- plan it like you're watching the most difficult murder mystery you've ever seen.

    But Someone You Know is wrong; he's discounting the relatively long amount of time spent creating the time machine in the first place. The timeline only gets convoluted after the time machine is invented, before that point it's a perfectly normal movie about some guys trying to start a tech company in their garage.

    Personally, I think they took it too far. They wanted to make a time travel movie, then came up with creative and original "rules" for how the time travel works, but then they went way overboard coming up with a complex plotline-- to the point where it dampens the emotional impact of the movie. Hell, in the first playthrough, you'll be lucky if you can even figure out what the last 2/3rds of the movie are *about*. Frankly, watching the 4 guys struggling to start a business in their garage is much more interesting to me than the time machine stuff that goes on later.

    As a time travel plot, it's a great film. As a movie? It's so-so.

    Plus the time machine prop is awful. Even for a no-budget movie, it's simply not believable. (As the crew admit in the commentary track.)



  • I just saw Primer last night on account of this thread. I'll need to ... think about it for a while ... before deciding what I thought of it. ... Not totally sure what all I just saw.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Frankly, watching the 4 guys struggling to start a business in their garage is much more interesting to me than the time machine stuff that goes on later.

    I love complex plots and I love time travel, but I'm leaning towards this opinion, actually. If for no other reason than all the technical banter sounded pretty accurate. Reminded me of my college days as an engineering major. Good times.



  • @Xyro said:

    I just saw Primer last night on account of this thread. I'll need to ... think about it for a while ... before deciding what I thought of it. ... Not totally sure what all I just saw.
    This helped me somewhat. (just saved you from clicking the first google result for "primer explained", ain't that nice)

    But I still need to re-read it again to catch a few details. I think the film, while having a good plot, is needlessly cryptic; a bit more exposition would have helped.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.