I just read your comment and checked the PostgreSQL DB I am working with, it's only 1.7GB at this point, but growing, and the most rows in a table is 12,6 million. This DB is heavily used by a number of background processes, which select, insert, update and delete large volumes of data and by 14 people at this point, who run about 400 various reports per day each as well updating some data. The average time that a single user has to wait is 6 seconds per report. Those reports are optimized of-course, but they normally span between 1 day to one month worth of sales data, average being 1 week, while in a day there are on average 5000 sales (the DB grows by that number of sales a day, plus various other product data, client data etc.) (the db is on a single quad-core 5504 Intel, 12GB of RAM, RAID 1 on Intel's 160GB X25 SSD (2 of them) and it's a Gigabit network. This DB is used by the app server, which is a 2 x 4quad core 5405 Intels, 16GB RAM, Java 6 and Tomcat 6 for the front end, with a number of back end systems also talking to the DB from the App server.
My point is that for this given setup, PostgreSQL is showing good performance, however I am sure there are differences in the data model setup that really can kill or make the DB work.
He came out strong against single payer when he said: scrapping the system we have and introducing single payer will be not practical, nor realistic.... his words then: I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company's bureaucrats more control over health care in america. (clearly making a republican point for them).
That is strong against.
He came out strong against 'public option', when he did not support Reid putting it into the plan. That is strong against.
There is nothing that he is doing that shows he wants health care reform. He single-handedly KILLED the bill that had majority support from Reps and Dems for importing cheap drugs from Canada. He killed the bill personally because he is in bed with the drug manufacturers.
You are asking me what my reasoning is for saying that Obama's motivations are not to help people but are for his personal gain? His motivations are just like every other politician's motivations: you do what the corporations tell you to do, you get out and get paid.
That's not the point. The point is that 99%, almost all of your former senators, congressman, advisers, etc., when they 'leave' politics, they become lobbyists. Their close family is on board of directors at corporations they are supposedly regulating. This is a scam, same as Madoff, just much bigger. The lobbyists that are former politicians are making hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars. THAT IS THE MOTIVATION. 1000,000s of dollars, that's very very powerful motivation to screw you over. Those who play ball, become lobbyists and make that money. That is that.
anti-business? Is that what they call it nowadays in the US, stealing money - business?
well, let's see now. Clearly displayed motivations.
Ok.
From Obama, in reverse order
* Military trials for 9/11 suspects instead of civil trials. * Obama at the press conference (remember, surrounded by the white jackets?) says: people cannot afford their insurance, insurance rations care, that's 'status quo'. He says dems and reps 'agree' that this is a problem - BS. Then says 'what do we do about it'? Says: scrapping the system we have and introducing single payer will be not practical, nor realistic.... his words then: I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company's bureaucrats more control over health care in america. (clearly making a republican point for them). Obama is AGAINST the single payer. * Bill Haulter, populist (leutenant gov't of AR) declared he'll run in AR against Blanch Lincoln, who made deals with banks, insurance companies etc. Obama immediately came out supporting Blanch Lincoln. * NYT article came out on how every congressman and senator says Obama is a very intellectual, policy driven, thoughtful man. Of-course they don't see any pressure from Obama, that's what the article is asking: is he too soft? Yes. He is too soft and never forces anyone to do what you believe he is supposedly about. He never gives them a choice: vote with me, or there will be consequences. * Reid came out in February, said: let's do public option, people are pushing for it. If senators want it, if Obama wants it, we'll put it in. Obama's Whitehouse was asked by reporters: they say, sure if Reid puts it in there, we'll be on board. Reid released the plan, public option was not in it. Obviously Obama didn't want it. In the press release Gibbs said: "Obama really 'wanted' to put it in there. Obama is willing to put it in there, if senators are not against it." So what was the problem? Problem is, Obama is AGAINST the public option. Obama cut deals with insurance companies, he cut deals with hospitals, with drug manufacturers. * In the early February Obama was interviewed by Bloomberg (reaching out to business people). He was meeting with CEOs at the white house. He was doing it because just before that the Wall street was going to give more money to the reps than to dems. Obama was meeting CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. His quote: "I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system" Then he produced this brilliant piece of garbage: "Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well" As if the baseball players took down the economy and got bailed out by the government.
I can go on, but what is the point? It is clear as day, he is completely owned by corporations, he does not care, he cares not, there is no care, care is not in his mind for the people of the US. He is a politician, do you understand what I am saying, how can I spell it out more than that?
Sorry, didn't finish my point on the implied bribes. Chris Dodd has quit, why do you think? Just like 99% of the rest of them - he is now going to be a lobbyist or a 'consultant' lobbyist getting paid by the people he was supposed to regulate. What do you think, they'd hire him and pay him millions if he had done something while in government that went against their interests? I cannot even begin to understand how people do not see this.
Obama's motivation is not different from motivations of his friends, people like Joe Lieberman. It is the implied bribe - you do what the huge business needs, it will take care of you. Look at Chris Dodd, he proposed all those great regulatory bills, that looked great at the beginning, but look at what happened there, by the time voting arrives, it has none of the original intent, it's all corporate welfare.
It is all, all of it, it's a charade. Obama's motivations? I cannot believe it! I am gasping here.
You are saying that the current bill will be something to build upon? Can you build on the moving sand? What is happening here is that your politicians have completely screwed you over, they are working for the large corporations and that's it. That's the motivation. There is no other motivation.
If you want to see other motivations, the kind you are interested in, look at Ron Paul, Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich. Looks like those are three of the most honest people out of your entire government, everything else is a complete lie.
You have your analysis backwards. The USSR was having massive economic problems, that lead to the situation, that was impossible to hide. The elephant in the room was that the USSR was failing economically, this could not be concealed, 'glasnost' (openness sort of) and 'perestroyka' (reconstruction/rebuilding) was resulting from the economic problems, not the other way around.
The implementation of changes in the former USSR republics was flawed, but nobody knew how to deal with such things. Do you know how to change a huge country's political and economical systems and yet have stable economy in the process? I don't think anyone really can say they do. Besides, even if you do know it, what are your chances of implementing all of that in such an environment?
China has done one thing right: keep the political system as is, but allow small and then medium and even large business to take over economy, (while of-course controlling stakes in those businesses). It's probably for the best for them. However it does not look like the Party is right when at this point when it comes to openness, human rights and such. The Party now is finding itself in a situation, where the economy can really move itself, the role of the Party is diminishing. That's why they want to keep control of the information - to keep control of power. They don't care about some ideas of overall stability, they just want stability for their own positions of power.
Obama is trying to help the American people? ORLY?
Health care reform: he is against single payer and against public option. He is against people buying into Medicare from any age at cost (at cost of providing Medicare as insurance). He is against importation of cheaper drugs from other countries, like Canada. He allows insurance companies to raise premiums all they want, as long as they give him these ephemeral 90billion over 10 years, which they have already reclaimed through rising cost.
Financial reform: he is against installing regulations against derivative markets. He is against reform of the Fed and even will not support audit of the fed. He holds position that there are 'too big to fail' financial institutions that need to be saved at all costs. He listens to Rahm Emanuel, which is evil in itself, the Obama's Dick Cheney.
Gitmo: did he close it? Did he stop the Patriot Act? Did he return Americans their lost amendment rights? Habeas corpus, what ever happen to that? Will the 9/11 attackers be tried on the ground where the committed the attack, as the US law prescribes?
You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.
Data must be cleanly separated from executable code, thus the Von Neumann architecture used today is not up to the task. Harvard architecture is much more secure by default by not mixing instructions and data. Sure, some processors today implement some simple version of this through a bit, that is set when this space is for data only and cannot be executed (NX or DX bit in some processors, for example in Intel Xeon lines starting with Harpertown), it is a good start, but I think there should be a more clean separation of instructions and data on higher levels as well, like the compiled executables.
You know, the one where you managed to conclusivly demonstrated that you are both a jackass, and a complete idiot, at the same time. It's cute how you still don't get how you messed up right there.
- that is all in your head, it's small and shriveled now, after tasting that soup.
'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture -- it wants to control everything.'"
- look who is talking. A guy, whose entire success (his and the wife's) is based on pretty much a monopoly set up in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet block by Microsoft.
pfffft, markets behave irrationally, but this case makes all the sense in the world. When one person has a stake at a huge company that goes up by 35%, look for answer in consolidation of customer base that happens if for example some competitors go out of business. Also note that in case of Gates for example, has he not spent 30-40 billion dollars on charity in the last 10 years, he would have been the richest person hands down. He may be a criminal for other reasons, related to the business practices of MS, but personally he looks like a very charitable guy with good intentions.
Asserting that it doesn't work because "someone who knows this by heart" examined it is meaningless.
- well, I did get someone who knows by heart. A person of this list: openBSD commercial support, Russel.
Now, "asserting that it doesn't work because... it doesn't work" - because it doesn't. I said something does not work, but it looks correct, logs are not showing problems, the configuration looks correct yet ftp cannot be reached from inside the network. Does it work? No. Did I say "openBSD doesn't work"? No. I said it's not working, whatever the cause is and it looks correct.
well, shit, as I said, I paid for help, not from someone off the street. http://openbsd.org/support.html#Canada - search for the name Russel. He is listed at OpenBSD site. In his words he could not see anything wrong with the configuration and I configured it before he looked. So am I trolling? Obviously something is not right, but if someone off bsd official commercial support list couldn't help, well then, what can I say, something is broken but it does not look broken. You want to fix it?
I love this moderation: "I am having a problem, configured everything as found at open bsd web site, logs don't show any errors, a person with much more experience than I have in OpenBSD firewall configurations couldn't help either"./. moderator: "That's a flamebait, you can't be having a problem like that, that's impossible, you are starting a flamewar."
Oh, sure, that's an apt analogy, because as we all know, the problem with 9 chicks trying to make a baby in one month is exactly that: crazy communication.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read your comment and checked the PostgreSQL DB I am working with, it's only 1.7GB at this point, but growing, and the most rows in a table is 12,6 million. This DB is heavily used by a number of background processes, which select, insert, update and delete large volumes of data and by 14 people at this point, who run about 400 various reports per day each as well updating some data. The average time that a single user has to wait is 6 seconds per report. Those reports are optimized of-course, but they normally span between 1 day to one month worth of sales data, average being 1 week, while in a day there are on average 5000 sales (the DB grows by that number of sales a day, plus various other product data, client data etc.) (the db is on a single quad-core 5504 Intel, 12GB of RAM, RAID 1 on Intel's 160GB X25 SSD (2 of them) and it's a Gigabit network. This DB is used by the app server, which is a 2 x 4quad core 5405 Intels, 16GB RAM, Java 6 and Tomcat 6 for the front end, with a number of back end systems also talking to the DB from the App server.
My point is that for this given setup, PostgreSQL is showing good performance, however I am sure there are differences in the data model setup that really can kill or make the DB work.
He came out strong against single payer when he said: scrapping the system we have and introducing single payer will be not practical, nor realistic. ... his words then: I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company's bureaucrats more control over health care in america. (clearly making a republican point for them).
That is strong against.
He came out strong against 'public option', when he did not support Reid putting it into the plan. That is strong against.
There is nothing that he is doing that shows he wants health care reform. He single-handedly KILLED the bill that had majority support from Reps and Dems for importing cheap drugs from Canada. He killed the bill personally because he is in bed with the drug manufacturers.
You are asking me what my reasoning is for saying that Obama's motivations are not to help people but are for his personal gain? His motivations are just like every other politician's motivations: you do what the corporations tell you to do, you get out and get paid.
Linux on Carrot Top.
That's not the point. The point is that 99%, almost all of your former senators, congressman, advisers, etc., when they 'leave' politics, they become lobbyists. Their close family is on board of directors at corporations they are supposedly regulating. This is a scam, same as Madoff, just much bigger. The lobbyists that are former politicians are making hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars. THAT IS THE MOTIVATION. 1000,000s of dollars, that's very very powerful motivation to screw you over. Those who play ball, become lobbyists and make that money. That is that.
anti-business? Is that what they call it nowadays in the US, stealing money - business?
well, let's see now. Clearly displayed motivations.
Ok.
From Obama, in reverse order
* Military trials for 9/11 suspects instead of civil trials. ... his words then: I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company's bureaucrats more control over health care in america. (clearly making a republican point for them). Obama is AGAINST the single payer.
* Obama at the press conference (remember, surrounded by the white jackets?) says: people cannot afford their insurance, insurance rations care, that's 'status quo'. He says dems and reps 'agree' that this is a problem - BS. Then says 'what do we do about it'? Says: scrapping the system we have and introducing single payer will be not practical, nor realistic.
* Bill Haulter, populist (leutenant gov't of AR) declared he'll run in AR against Blanch Lincoln, who made deals with banks, insurance companies etc. Obama immediately came out supporting Blanch Lincoln.
* NYT article came out on how every congressman and senator says Obama is a very intellectual, policy driven, thoughtful man. Of-course they don't see any pressure from Obama, that's what the article is asking: is he too soft? Yes. He is too soft and never forces anyone to do what you believe he is supposedly about. He never gives them a choice: vote with me, or there will be consequences.
* Reid came out in February, said: let's do public option, people are pushing for it. If senators want it, if Obama wants it, we'll put it in. Obama's Whitehouse was asked by reporters: they say, sure if Reid puts it in there, we'll be on board. Reid released the plan, public option was not in it. Obviously Obama didn't want it. In the press release Gibbs said: "Obama really 'wanted' to put it in there. Obama is willing to put it in there, if senators are not against it." So what was the problem? Problem is, Obama is AGAINST the public option. Obama cut deals with insurance companies, he cut deals with hospitals, with drug manufacturers.
* In the early February Obama was interviewed by Bloomberg (reaching out to business people). He was meeting with CEOs at the white house. He was doing it because just before that the Wall street was going to give more money to the reps than to dems. Obama was meeting CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. His quote: "I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people
success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system" Then he produced this brilliant piece of garbage: "Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that
who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well" As if the baseball players took down the economy and got bailed out by the government.
I can go on, but what is the point? It is clear as day, he is completely owned by corporations, he does not care, he cares not, there is no care, care is not in his mind for the people of the US. He is a politician, do you understand what I am saying, how can I spell it out more than that?
Sorry, didn't finish my point on the implied bribes. Chris Dodd has quit, why do you think? Just like 99% of the rest of them - he is now going to be a lobbyist or a 'consultant' lobbyist getting paid by the people he was supposed to regulate. What do you think, they'd hire him and pay him millions if he had done something while in government that went against their interests? I cannot even begin to understand how people do not see this.
Jesus, you are for real then?
Obama's motivation is not different from motivations of his friends, people like Joe Lieberman. It is the implied bribe - you do what the huge business needs, it will take care of you. Look at Chris Dodd, he proposed all those great regulatory bills, that looked great at the beginning, but look at what happened there, by the time voting arrives, it has none of the original intent, it's all corporate welfare.
It is all, all of it, it's a charade. Obama's motivations? I cannot believe it! I am gasping here.
You are saying that the current bill will be something to build upon? Can you build on the moving sand? What is happening here is that your politicians have completely screwed you over, they are working for the large corporations and that's it. That's the motivation. There is no other motivation.
If you want to see other motivations, the kind you are interested in, look at Ron Paul, Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich. Looks like those are three of the most honest people out of your entire government, everything else is a complete lie.
You have your analysis backwards. The USSR was having massive economic problems, that lead to the situation, that was impossible to hide. The elephant in the room was that the USSR was failing economically, this could not be concealed, 'glasnost' (openness sort of) and 'perestroyka' (reconstruction/rebuilding) was resulting from the economic problems, not the other way around.
The implementation of changes in the former USSR republics was flawed, but nobody knew how to deal with such things. Do you know how to change a huge country's political and economical systems and yet have stable economy in the process? I don't think anyone really can say they do. Besides, even if you do know it, what are your chances of implementing all of that in such an environment?
China has done one thing right: keep the political system as is, but allow small and then medium and even large business to take over economy, (while of-course controlling stakes in those businesses). It's probably for the best for them. However it does not look like the Party is right when at this point when it comes to openness, human rights and such. The Party now is finding itself in a situation, where the economy can really move itself, the role of the Party is diminishing. That's why they want to keep control of the information - to keep control of power. They don't care about some ideas of overall stability, they just want stability for their own positions of power.
Obama is trying to help the American people? ORLY?
Health care reform: he is against single payer and against public option. He is against people buying into Medicare from any age at cost (at cost of providing Medicare as insurance). He is against importation of cheaper drugs from other countries, like Canada. He allows insurance companies to raise premiums all they want, as long as they give him these ephemeral 90billion over 10 years, which they have already reclaimed through rising cost.
Financial reform: he is against installing regulations against derivative markets. He is against reform of the Fed and even will not support audit of the fed. He holds position that there are 'too big to fail' financial institutions that need to be saved at all costs. He listens to Rahm Emanuel, which is evil in itself, the Obama's Dick Cheney.
Gitmo: did he close it? Did he stop the Patriot Act? Did he return Americans their lost amendment rights? Habeas corpus, what ever happen to that? Will the 9/11 attackers be tried on the ground where the committed the attack, as the US law prescribes?
You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.
Data must be cleanly separated from executable code, thus the Von Neumann architecture used today is not up to the task. Harvard architecture is much more secure by default by not mixing instructions and data. Sure, some processors today implement some simple version of this through a bit, that is set when this space is for data only and cannot be executed (NX or DX bit in some processors, for example in Intel Xeon lines starting with Harpertown), it is a good start, but I think there should be a more clean separation of instructions and data on higher levels as well, like the compiled executables.
if only you knew how much the stores charge you on top of what they pay for the products you buy....
Example: go to any clothing store, do you see a leather jacket for 250-350? That store paid 12-18 dollars. Tops.
No, it just means you have a spy pocket you could sell to sucker for 20 bucks.
What are you, a knight in the shining armor, fighting for the fella /.ers? Must be the cat shit in your brains.
who said it was THE ONLY ONE, biatch?
I'll give you a hint
bitch.
You know, the one where you managed to conclusivly demonstrated that you are both a jackass, and a complete idiot, at the same time. It's cute how you still don't get how you messed up right there.
- that is all in your head, it's small and shriveled now, after tasting that soup.
'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture -- it wants to control everything.'"
- look who is talking. A guy, whose entire success (his and the wife's) is based on pretty much a monopoly set up in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet block by Microsoft.
Pffft, that was weak. Didn't have to, it talks, told me all about how you ate the soup and liked it.
pfffft, markets behave irrationally, but this case makes all the sense in the world. When one person has a stake at a huge company that goes up by 35%, look for answer in consolidation of customer base that happens if for example some competitors go out of business. Also note that in case of Gates for example, has he not spent 30-40 billion dollars on charity in the last 10 years, he would have been the richest person hands down. He may be a criminal for other reasons, related to the business practices of MS, but personally he looks like a very charitable guy with good intentions.
Asserting that it doesn't work because "someone who knows this by heart" examined it is meaningless.
- well, I did get someone who knows by heart. A person of this list: openBSD commercial support, Russel.
Now, "asserting that it doesn't work because ... it doesn't work" - because it doesn't. I said something does not work, but it looks correct, logs are not showing problems, the configuration looks correct yet ftp cannot be reached from inside the network. Does it work? No. Did I say "openBSD doesn't work"? No. I said it's not working, whatever the cause is and it looks correct.
well, shit, as I said, I paid for help, not from someone off the street. http://openbsd.org/support.html#Canada - search for the name Russel. He is listed at OpenBSD site. In his words he could not see anything wrong with the configuration and I configured it before he looked. So am I trolling? Obviously something is not right, but if someone off bsd official commercial support list couldn't help, well then, what can I say, something is broken but it does not look broken. You want to fix it?
couldn't be the cat, it was busy shitting in your soup bowl.
Gates spent 30-40 billions on charity, if he didn't, still would've been #1.
I love this moderation: "I am having a problem, configured everything as found at open bsd web site, logs don't show any errors, a person with much more experience than I have in OpenBSD firewall configurations couldn't help either". /. moderator: "That's a flamebait, you can't be having a problem like that, that's impossible, you are starting a flamewar."
Love /.
Oh, sure, that's an apt analogy, because as we all know, the problem with 9 chicks trying to make a baby in one month is exactly that: crazy communication.