"equal mix of selects and updates with a few inserts thrown in here and there. For example, 82 seconds for postgresql, 35 for MyISAM and 49 for InnoDB (not MySQL 4 however)"
Selects, updates and a few inserts are 89/35/49?
What are you running this on? A 486?
Are constraints enabled? Indexes? How big are the tables (rows AND columns). Why not test all selects, then all inserts, then all updates?
Spurious benchmarks like these aren't of much value unless some background is included.
Any gurus (or detractors) want to list the downsides?
- no subqueries yet. Ok. Not the end of the world - are multi-column primary keys still a performance dog? - how is stability? That's probably what you hear most about w/regards to MySQL - triggers and stored procs; back-end-logic==bad IMHO
I just ordered Mastering MySQL 4 to speed the jump between Oracle and MySQL. Anyone used that book?
I'd be really interested in hearing some frank and honest appraisals.
We use alot of stored procs and triggers on one of our Oracle databases, and I curse the consultants that did the development.
All that logic is now Oracle specific (all 12,000 lines worth). It breaks when a table is updated that one of the stored procs references. I love searching for invalid stored procedures.
The less logic in the database, the more portable and migratable (is that a word?) it is.
If you want to keep the business logic out of the client, then create Enterprise Java Beans using Resin. A session bean is an excellent replacement for a stored procedure. It's fast, portable, uses connection pooling, will throw an exception (rather than just quietly fail like it does on Oracle) if a table changes, etc, etc.
We have a team in India doing basic database monitoring and support (mostly to back me up, as I'm a finite resource).
They are cheap - about $1000 US a month for their services.
From their resumes and other clients, you would think that they are well trained and efficient.
Unfort, I don't find their work that valuable.
First, while their English is good, it's not good enough. The communication barrier has caused several problems, resulting in database downtime that need not have occurred.
Second, while they advertise themselves as DBAs, there is only one that I marginally trust. We have had to create detailed instructions for doing simple things. They take days to do what I can do in hours, and often fail at what I consider simple, bread-and-butter DBA tasks.
Third, we don't have much of a stick over their head. Should they walk off with our data, our schema, our code, or just trash our site, there is little if anything we could actually do.
An article (recently posted on Slashdot) mentioned that the larger the company, the more likely they were to move IT jobs overseas. In the long run, this is a counter-productive move. Firing a bunch of people will lower the demand for your goods and services; the unemployed don't have the money to spend. And you create a group of seriously pissed off people with time on their hands.
The Salon story mentioned a website called a site where people post these ridiculous jobs. Perhaps someone will come with a site that will list companies that have fired local workers to ship the jobs overseas.
The whole thing makes me wonder if it's time to start thinking about a new career. It's kind of scarey to wonder if tech jobs will become as scarce as those well paying manufacturing jobs of the 50's and 60's (you know, the ones that are now in China, Taiwan, and Mexico).
The Commodore 64 (or 66?) was definately a cool piece of hardware, but at age 12 (if I am accurately recalling my age; 14?) I had to suffer with a Tandy Color Computer 2 (or 3?).:)
"even sound support, when there's no sound card; the system should have determined that"
Where did I say "kernel" in there?
I didn't.
It installed sound-apps that would initialize with the OS, and every time I started, I got a message box indicating that a sound card couldn't be found.
Please, read posts more carefully before you respond.
"designed to be modular and configurable, so you just don't build, install, or load the stuff you don't need for your particular application."
That's the thing - I don't want to build a kernal for my home machine. Most people don't want to even know the option exists. They want to configure their desktop, but not their sound-drivers. Maybe someone will come up with a nice GUI interface for tweaking your kernal, and doing an automagic rebuild. Stick it in some system-panel, and let the advanced users play with it.
I would like to build a kernal for my server, to make it as small and fast as possible. I want to choose which file system I use, which scheduler, etc.
There are four classes of users: home users who know nothing, and should be given only a few options; home users who know alot, and should have the ability to tweak; administrators who know nothing and should be fired; administrators who know what they are doing and want to tweak.
Two distros satisfy all these users. To date, no one existing distro has.
I'll agree to disagree. I think everything but the kitchen sink is installed with Linux (even sound support, when there's no sound card; the system should have determined that).
Yes, I missed that in my email - a desktop and server version should cross-pollinate. Personally, everyone should be using a certain features. But not the umpteen thousand packages that seem to be crammed into every distro.
Linux will improve faster than competitors, but maybe part of that is because it has farther to go?
Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP Professional, etc. Microsoft took the reliability of NTFS and NT and killed Win98/Me.
Installing Linux has never been easier, but there are still alot of options, plus multiple CDs.
By splitting Linux into a desktop and server version, the focus can be on meeting the needs of the platform.
Average users want a GUI. Pick one, and have it turned off only be some switch in some advanced-install-panel that only the knowledgable (and curious) will find. Add Open Office and maybe Gimp, plus drivers for common printers, scanners, etc.
People installing for servers don't want a kernal full of unused drivers, and they want ReiserFS, not ext3. They probably want Java, and Apache.
Split the two up, focus on features for targeted users, simplify dependencies, and cut down the size of the distributions.
The most common complaint I hear about Linux is that it can't replace Win2k on the desktop.
Now we hear complaints that it can't replace Sun on the back end.
Which one is it? A desktop OS, or a server OS? Granted, it does both well, but I think it's not the best in either category (no, not trying to troll).
It doesn't have the games and apps on the desktop (though it's getting better all the time), and it's not as reliable on the back end. We have a bunch of app/web servers in our middle tier; some are Sun servers running the lastest OS from Sun, and some are Intel PCs running Linux. The Linux machines crash far more often. Granted, hardware could be at least part of the problem.
On the other hand, we our database (Oracle) running on Win2k with dual P3 933 clones. One of our databases, with an average Oracle load of 10%, did not crash for over 300 days. That's pretty damned good. Our other machine (with a much higher load) crashes ever month or two (or at least needs a database-restart).
Perhaps it's time for Linux to split into two seperate camps. A version for Linux for servers, and a version for the desktop.
I read comments that people stopped at the Longhorn section; there was lots of interesting stuff past that point.
"anyone who actually believes Microsoft would shoot themselves in the foot by making their next version of Windows be incapable of running old Windows software is clearly in fantasy land."
I don't know - Intel did it with their Itanium chips. And Microsoft is starting to run thin on excuses as to why you should upgrade past Win2k/XP and Microsoft Office 2000/XP. Planned obsolecence might be Microsoft's new strategy.
Slam any new product because it doesn't fit with the way a/. reader think things should be done.
Classify anyone with an opinion as a moron because they have the nerve to express it. Especially if it has to do with Microsoft.
I thought there was some interesting insights in the article. The larger the corporation, the more likely they are to outsource jobs to India, Poland, etc. Palladium is really a Digital Rights Management initiative (we all knew that), but primarily for Microsoft software and content. The Microsoft stock-dividend was designed to draw attention away from lower growth, and designed to allow funds that buy only dividend stocks to buy Microsoft, hopefully raising share price.
Anyone who stopped reading because they saw something they disagreed with missed some very interesting points.
As has been mentioned, it fails the ACI portion of ACID (it's not Atomic - all or nothing, not Consistent - data is left in a consistent state, doesn't provide Isolation - you appear to be the only transaction running; other processes don't affect your data in mid-transaction). Passes Durable, I suppose.
I've read a few posts that say that the performance claims (vs a relational database) are not true. I think this will be much faster than a database. This is an in-memory cache. It will be very fast. Our Oracle databases have a cache-hit ratio of 98 and 99+ percent, but will be slower. Why?
First, databases (especially Oracle) do alot of stuff behind the scenes, logging all sorts of stuff from a user connecting to the SQL being run.
Second, this sort of thing offers nearly direct access to the data. SQL usually needs to be parsed before it is executed. The database needs to come up with the optimal query plan before it actually executes the statement. A database offers different ways of joining data, and accessing data. Find me all managers that make more than $50,000 per year and have a last name that start with K. You will have to decide the best way to get the data yourself. A database will do all the work for you.
This is a great, idea, though for a middle-tier cache. Say you want to do some fast searching on a small amount of data. You can use this in the middle tier to save yourself the trip to the database.
A good object oriented database that has not been mentioned yet is Matisse
Remember, there wasn't much sci fi or fantasy out while TNG was on the air.
When later Star Trek series came out, they all managed to eclipsed it (Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise). The plots were better, the characters more interesting, and while I'm not against romance, the sappy cheese that TNG liked to serve up was ridiculous. And every time I watched an episode where Data went crazy and endangered the ship, I would cringe. Picard kicked ass, tho.
And then Hollywood realized that geeks were a marketable demographic, and they started making good sci fi.
To sum up, TNG didn't get worse, the competition got better, and TNG just couldn't hack it.
These are old...
on
Potato Bazookas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My semi-literate, tv-watching Playstation-playing lazy step-brother (who is no releation to me) has had one of these for years.
He liked to fire it around the neighbourhood. He used PVC pipes. Bright kid.
I wouldn't be overly concerned, unless they get into an SS uniform and say they are Panzerfaust.
1) Most people change careers a few times. Not sure if this is true, due to the amount of knowledge/education that most tech workers have/need (especially after reading some of those ridiculous job requirements on Monster, requiring experience in every technology under the sun).
2) Demographics. An aging population means that in 10 years, lots of people will be retiring. Canada and the US bring in alot of immigrants to help balance that. Unless employers start to go to India to get their tech-needs filled (which has lots of downsides), demographics should mean lots of work for Gen-X.
I didn't say the Voodoo 6000 caused 3dfx's demise; I said it was the last card they made before they went under.
I suspect Tom's was not making a comparison on looks; I think they were implying that nVidia is making the same mistakes that 3dfx made. Fill rate isn't everything; raw speed isn't everything. I don't know if it's a valid comparison, as the GeForce FX has some pretty nifty features, but it isn't a great card; definately not as worthy as some previous cards.
"So far, it is indeed better overall than the 9700Pro, but not enough for it's price."
What?
Anandtech said of the FX, "A card that is several months late, that is able to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro by 10% at best but in most cases manages to fall behind by a factor much greater than that."
And I like Tom's hardware comparing the card to the Voodoo 6000. True, he was referring to the snazzy looks of the card, but I suspect there was a bit of a dig in there as well. After all, that was one of the last cards 3dfx made before they went under...
... and you're charged every time you buy a blank CD, audio cassette or mini-disc.
21 cents per blank cd, 29 cents per audio cassette, and 77 cents per minidisc.
And the Recording industry wants it increased (a 181% increase for CDs), and wants it added to additional media (flash memory cards and DVDs) as well as to MP3 players.
Ironically, none of the money has been paid out to any artists.
1) It's legal to have an mp3 if you've paid for the music 2) CDs are used for things other than music 3) Flash memory cards are used in dozens of things; I have a digital camera that uses them.
The last time the levy was raised (Jan, 2001 I believe) I wrote letters to various Members of Parliment hoping to get it shut down.
This time, even the retailers are getting involved.
The music industry is a dinosaur. I believe artists should be paid for their work, but the cost of a CD is ridiculous; that money is disappearing into music executives pockets; the artist gets next to nothing. I would pay 30 cents per MP3 to download. No shipping, no retail costs, no packaging. That should be fair.
It's the world that wants to give aid to Iraq, including some in the US.
And it's not a lack of aid that prevents it from getting there, it's a calculated embargo created and enforced by America.
"For all the 500,000 dead baby shit we hear about no one seems to care that Iraqis do a fine job of offing one another over there."
"dead baby shit", eh? I wonder: your attitude makes me think that if you'd been born in the Muslim world, you'd be cheering as each plane hit the World Trade Center. Please, don't have kids. The world needs no more people like you.
"But you've gone and upped it to 12,000,000 which is interesting."
Six million Jews, give or take a million (the number is not firm). Another 6 million non-Jews were also killed.
From http://www.holocaust-history.org/
"Most statistical breakdowns I have seen list the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The estimates vary from around 4.1 to 6.0 million, with more recent research supporting an even higher figure... It is estimated that another 5-6 million non-Jews (Gypsies, homosexuals, prisoners of war - especially Russians - were killed during the Holocaust period."
I have no idea where you were on 9/11, nor do I care. I do know that US-foreign policy towards Iraq (the prevents even humanitarian aid) has contributed to the deaths of over 500,000 children. It's not spectacular, you won't see it on TV (unlike the World Trade Center), but it's still happening, in a slow and calculated way (which strikes me as evil). If 9/11 pisses you off, how do you feel about that?
Slashdot Mirror
"equal mix of selects and updates with a few inserts thrown in here and there. For example, 82 seconds for postgresql, 35 for MyISAM and 49 for InnoDB (not MySQL 4 however)"
Selects, updates and a few inserts are 89/35/49?
What are you running this on? A 486?
Are constraints enabled? Indexes? How big are the tables (rows AND columns). Why not test all selects, then all inserts, then all updates?
Spurious benchmarks like these aren't of much value unless some background is included.
to possibly replace some Oracle databases.
Any gurus (or detractors) want to list the downsides?
- no subqueries yet. Ok. Not the end of the world
- are multi-column primary keys still a performance dog?
- how is stability? That's probably what you hear most about w/regards to MySQL
- triggers and stored procs; back-end-logic==bad IMHO
I just ordered Mastering MySQL 4 to speed the jump between Oracle and MySQL. Anyone used that book?
I'd be really interested in hearing some frank and honest appraisals.
We use alot of stored procs and triggers on one of our Oracle databases, and I curse the consultants that did the development.
All that logic is now Oracle specific (all 12,000 lines worth). It breaks when a table is updated that one of the stored procs references. I love searching for invalid stored procedures.
The less logic in the database, the more portable and migratable (is that a word?) it is.
If you want to keep the business logic out of the client, then create Enterprise Java Beans using Resin. A session bean is an excellent replacement for a stored procedure. It's fast, portable, uses connection pooling, will throw an exception (rather than just quietly fail like it does on Oracle) if a table changes, etc, etc.
We have a team in India doing basic database monitoring and support (mostly to back me up, as I'm a finite resource).
They are cheap - about $1000 US a month for their services.
From their resumes and other clients, you would think that they are well trained and efficient.
Unfort, I don't find their work that valuable.
First, while their English is good, it's not good enough. The communication barrier has caused several problems, resulting in database downtime that need not have occurred.
Second, while they advertise themselves as DBAs, there is only one that I marginally trust. We have had to create detailed instructions for doing simple things. They take days to do what I can do in hours, and often fail at what I consider simple, bread-and-butter DBA tasks.
Third, we don't have much of a stick over their head. Should they walk off with our data, our schema, our code, or just trash our site, there is little if anything we could actually do.
An article (recently posted on Slashdot) mentioned that the larger the company, the more likely they were to move IT jobs overseas. In the long run, this is a counter-productive move. Firing a bunch of people will lower the demand for your goods and services; the unemployed don't have the money to spend. And you create a group of seriously pissed off people with time on their hands.
The Salon story mentioned a website called a site where people post these ridiculous jobs. Perhaps someone will come with a site that will list companies that have fired local workers to ship the jobs overseas.
The whole thing makes me wonder if it's time to start thinking about a new career. It's kind of scarey to wonder if tech jobs will become as scarce as those well paying manufacturing jobs of the 50's and 60's (you know, the ones that are now in China, Taiwan, and Mexico).
You have several good points (4, or 6?) in there.
:)
Someone, mod this up to 3 (or 5?).
The Commodore 64 (or 66?) was definately a cool piece of hardware, but at age 12 (if I am accurately recalling my age; 14?) I had to suffer with a Tandy Color Computer 2 (or 3?).
"even sound support, when there's no sound card; the system should have determined that"
Where did I say "kernel" in there?
I didn't.
It installed sound-apps that would initialize with the OS, and every time I started, I got a message box indicating that a sound card couldn't be found.
Please, read posts more carefully before you respond.
Ok - I see the confusion.
I am thinking more of two different types of distros. With developers at each type focusing on different issues.
"designed to be modular and configurable, so you just don't build, install, or load the stuff you don't need for your particular application."
That's the thing - I don't want to build a kernal for my home machine. Most people don't want to even know the option exists. They want to configure their desktop, but not their sound-drivers. Maybe someone will come up with a nice GUI interface for tweaking your kernal, and doing an automagic rebuild. Stick it in some system-panel, and let the advanced users play with it.
I would like to build a kernal for my server, to make it as small and fast as possible. I want to choose which file system I use, which scheduler, etc.
There are four classes of users: home users who know nothing, and should be given only a few options; home users who know alot, and should have the ability to tweak; administrators who know nothing and should be fired; administrators who know what they are doing and want to tweak.
Two distros satisfy all these users. To date, no one existing distro has.
I'll agree to disagree. I think everything but the kitchen sink is installed with Linux (even sound support, when there's no sound card; the system should have determined that).
Yes, I missed that in my email - a desktop and server version should cross-pollinate. Personally, everyone should be using a certain features. But not the umpteen thousand packages that seem to be crammed into every distro.
Linux will improve faster than competitors, but maybe part of that is because it has farther to go?
Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP Professional, etc. Microsoft took the reliability of NTFS and NT and killed Win98/Me.
Installing Linux has never been easier, but there are still alot of options, plus multiple CDs.
By splitting Linux into a desktop and server version, the focus can be on meeting the needs of the platform.
Average users want a GUI. Pick one, and have it turned off only be some switch in some advanced-install-panel that only the knowledgable (and curious) will find. Add Open Office and maybe Gimp, plus drivers for common printers, scanners, etc.
People installing for servers don't want a kernal full of unused drivers, and they want ReiserFS, not ext3. They probably want Java, and Apache.
Split the two up, focus on features for targeted users, simplify dependencies, and cut down the size of the distributions.
The most common complaint I hear about Linux is that it can't replace Win2k on the desktop.
Now we hear complaints that it can't replace Sun on the back end.
Which one is it? A desktop OS, or a server OS? Granted, it does both well, but I think it's not the best in either category (no, not trying to troll).
It doesn't have the games and apps on the desktop (though it's getting better all the time), and it's not as reliable on the back end. We have a bunch of app/web servers in our middle tier; some are Sun servers running the lastest OS from Sun, and some are Intel PCs running Linux. The Linux machines crash far more often. Granted, hardware could be at least part of the problem.
On the other hand, we our database (Oracle) running on Win2k with dual P3 933 clones. One of our databases, with an average Oracle load of 10%, did not crash for over 300 days. That's pretty damned good. Our other machine (with a much higher load) crashes ever month or two (or at least needs a database-restart).
Perhaps it's time for Linux to split into two seperate camps. A version for Linux for servers, and a version for the desktop.
I read comments that people stopped at the Longhorn section; there was lots of interesting stuff past that point.
"anyone who actually believes Microsoft would shoot themselves in the foot by making their next version of Windows be incapable of running old Windows software is clearly in fantasy land."
I don't know - Intel did it with their Itanium chips. And Microsoft is starting to run thin on excuses as to why you should upgrade past Win2k/XP and Microsoft Office 2000/XP. Planned obsolecence might be Microsoft's new strategy.
Slam any new product because it doesn't fit with the way a /. reader think things should be done.
Classify anyone with an opinion as a moron because they have the nerve to express it. Especially if it has to do with Microsoft.
I thought there was some interesting insights in the article. The larger the corporation, the more likely they are to outsource jobs to India, Poland, etc. Palladium is really a Digital Rights Management initiative (we all knew that), but primarily for Microsoft software and content. The Microsoft stock-dividend was designed to draw attention away from lower growth, and designed to allow funds that buy only dividend stocks to buy Microsoft, hopefully raising share price.
Anyone who stopped reading because they saw something they disagreed with missed some very interesting points.
As has been mentioned, it fails the ACI portion of ACID (it's not Atomic - all or nothing, not Consistent - data is left in a consistent state, doesn't provide Isolation - you appear to be the only transaction running; other processes don't affect your data in mid-transaction). Passes Durable, I suppose.
I've read a few posts that say that the performance claims (vs a relational database) are not true. I think this will be much faster than a database. This is an in-memory cache. It will be very fast. Our Oracle databases have a cache-hit ratio of 98 and 99+ percent, but will be slower. Why?
First, databases (especially Oracle) do alot of stuff behind the scenes, logging all sorts of stuff from a user connecting to the SQL being run.
Second, this sort of thing offers nearly direct access to the data. SQL usually needs to be parsed before it is executed. The database needs to come up with the optimal query plan before it actually executes the statement. A database offers different ways of joining data, and accessing data. Find me all managers that make more than $50,000 per year and have a last name that start with K. You will have to decide the best way to get the data yourself. A database will do all the work for you.
This is a great, idea, though for a middle-tier cache. Say you want to do some fast searching on a small amount of data. You can use this in the middle tier to save yourself the trip to the database.
A good object oriented database that has not been mentioned yet is Matisse
that was popular about the same time. I must have been about 10 years old. Boney M - Rivers of Babylon. I swore it went,
"By the river of Babylon, where we discovered Cylon..."
I thought, cool, Battlestar Galactica in this song... It didn't make much sense, but not much did at age 10.
definately could be out of David Lynch's Eraserhead.... does that help?
because I really like it.
My wife has to drag me away from the computer most nights.
What about those of us in the tech industry who do it because we really like it, and the money and perks are just a side benefit?
It sounds like everyone in the high tech industry is doing something they hate for a few extra bucks.
Remember, there wasn't much sci fi or fantasy out while TNG was on the air.
When later Star Trek series came out, they all managed to eclipsed it (Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise). The plots were better, the characters more interesting, and while I'm not against romance, the sappy cheese that TNG liked to serve up was ridiculous. And every time I watched an episode where Data went crazy and endangered the ship, I would cringe. Picard kicked ass, tho.
And then Hollywood realized that geeks were a marketable demographic, and they started making good sci fi.
To sum up, TNG didn't get worse, the competition got better, and TNG just couldn't hack it.
My semi-literate, tv-watching Playstation-playing lazy step-brother (who is no releation to me) has had one of these for years.
He liked to fire it around the neighbourhood. He used PVC pipes. Bright kid.
I wouldn't be overly concerned, unless they get into an SS uniform and say they are Panzerfaust.
1) Most people change careers a few times. Not sure if this is true, due to the amount of knowledge/education that most tech workers have/need (especially after reading some of those ridiculous job requirements on Monster, requiring experience in every technology under the sun).
2) Demographics. An aging population means that in 10 years, lots of people will be retiring. Canada and the US bring in alot of immigrants to help balance that. Unless employers start to go to India to get their tech-needs filled (which has lots of downsides), demographics should mean lots of work for Gen-X.
I didn't say the Voodoo 6000 caused 3dfx's demise; I said it was the last card they made before they went under.
I suspect Tom's was not making a comparison on looks; I think they were implying that nVidia is making the same mistakes that 3dfx made. Fill rate isn't everything; raw speed isn't everything. I don't know if it's a valid comparison, as the GeForce FX has some pretty nifty features, but it isn't a great card; definately not as worthy as some previous cards.
"So far, it is indeed better overall than the 9700Pro, but not enough for it's price."
What?
Anandtech said of the FX, "A card that is several months late, that is able to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro by 10% at best but in most cases manages to fall behind by a factor much greater than that."
And I like Tom's hardware comparing the card to the Voodoo 6000. True, he was referring to the snazzy looks of the card, but I suspect there was a bit of a dig in there as well. After all, that was one of the last cards 3dfx made before they went under...
... and you're charged every time you buy a blank CD, audio cassette or mini-disc.
21 cents per blank cd, 29 cents per audio cassette, and 77 cents per minidisc.
And the Recording industry wants it increased (a 181% increase for CDs), and wants it added to additional media (flash memory cards and DVDs) as well as to MP3 players.
Ironically, none of the money has been paid out to any artists.
1) It's legal to have an mp3 if you've paid for the music
2) CDs are used for things other than music
3) Flash memory cards are used in dozens of things; I have a digital camera that uses them.
The last time the levy was raised (Jan, 2001 I believe) I wrote letters to various Members of Parliment hoping to get it shut down.
This time, even the retailers are getting involved.
The music industry is a dinosaur. I believe artists should be paid for their work, but the cost of a CD is ridiculous; that money is disappearing into music executives pockets; the artist gets next to nothing. I would pay 30 cents per MP3 to download. No shipping, no retail costs, no packaging. That should be fair.
It's the world that wants to give aid to Iraq, including some in the US.
And it's not a lack of aid that prevents it from getting there, it's a calculated embargo created and enforced by America.
"For all the 500,000 dead baby shit we hear about no one seems to care that Iraqis do a fine job of offing one another over there."
"dead baby shit", eh? I wonder: your attitude makes me think that if you'd been born in the Muslim world, you'd be cheering as each plane hit the World Trade Center. Please, don't have kids. The world needs no more people like you.
"But you've gone and upped it to 12,000,000 which is interesting."
Six million Jews, give or take a million (the number is not firm). Another 6 million non-Jews were also killed.
From http://www.holocaust-history.org/
"Most statistical breakdowns I have seen list the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The estimates vary from around 4.1 to 6.0 million, with more recent research supporting an even higher figure... It is estimated that another 5-6 million non-Jews (Gypsies, homosexuals, prisoners of war - especially Russians - were killed during the Holocaust period."
I have no idea where you were on 9/11, nor do I care. I do know that US-foreign policy towards Iraq (the prevents even humanitarian aid) has contributed to the deaths of over 500,000 children. It's not spectacular, you won't see it on TV (unlike the World Trade Center), but it's still happening, in a slow and calculated way (which strikes me as evil). If 9/11 pisses you off, how do you feel about that?