And I should have added: We corrected the modeling mistakes. So now it's down to 50 MB/s at its peak, on test. Given the datamodel and the layout of the incoming data we don't expect it to get much higher even with bigger data loads.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If this represents a real business workload, I would be kind of curious to know what kind of a workload you'd have to present to a stripe set of SSDs to see the effects of this performance bug. The linked article shows some kind of performance graph hitting a low of 100 MB/sec sustained read. A raid 0 stripe would be close to 200 MB/sec sustained read at worst. Maybe you'd notice it, but it seems like a pretty unusual workload that would expose this.
I recently hit 600 MB/s disk throughput on our current test database (the interface limit). I was trying to do an incremental load of machine logs that have 16 datapoints per discrete item - and the machines process tens of millions of items per day. The datamodel wasnt as smart as it should have been, and the database had incorrect analytics, leading it to the conclusion that walking through the entire table (250GB data) row-by-row was a smart move...
But that was on a small sample of the data, so when we load two years of machinelogs, we're going to see if we run up against the limit again. We hope so - that should wipe the smile of the faces of those smug storage operators
It may also have something to do with the attempts by the conservative government to remove peoples rights (said law is a good example), including abortion rights. And their economic policy is a mix of insane boondoggles (transporting water from one part of the country to another) and attacks on trade unions.
That doesn't mean the economy shouldn't reform, but the current proposals are, IMO, pretty one-sided.
From experience, that's usually what happens on the way back
If you can see that poin coming, and plan ahead, you can start a company and move into a position where you can do whatever you want (scratch your itch), without having to go through external financing rounds or getting loans from the bank - the last thing has been fatal to a lot of startups recently, when the banks had to take back the loan due to new rules.
If you are a consultant and have some other consulting friends, and a good plan, you can just start out with founding a small consulting firm and then hiring a few other people as work picks up (assuming you're good at what you do). After a while you can spend more and more time on either product development, management or other activities, as you see fit.
This is the pattern I've seen for many small firms I work with. There's no reason it can't work for others.
Read the second amendment in its entirety and read up on the founding fathers' writings leading up to it.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is, the people. I.e., you and I.
"well-regulated militia" - the government already had the established right to maintain a standing army. This preserves the right of the people to form militias to protect against tyranny (such as the one we had just thrown out of the colonies around that time), and by "well regulated" they meant that they expected The People to be able to competently use those arms to kill tyrants.
I've always understood that in English, "well regulated" meant it had to be orderly and controlled, etc. - not just some folks who are separately doing their own thing. While I understand that that interpretation is unpopular, coming from the outside the founding fathers never struck me as anarchists. So I always considered it more of a "Swiss homeguard" type of militia they envisioned and less a "everyone for themselves" type of militia. Which isn't really a militia but a mob.
And while I understand the political interpretation, I would truly like to know how ambiguous "well regulated" would be in the context of the health service. Would any random association of people without oversight and control qualify as long as each member got a permit?
So if you live in Uganda and I out you as a homosexual, it's the culture that's to blame for what will happen next. Not me.
If you live in Afghanistan and the local cleric accuses you of burning a Quran, and the mob stones you, that's your fault for living in such a horrible culture. Not that of the cleric who knew full well what would happen.
Similarly, if you cry "Fire!" in a packed theater and the casualties are piled up on top of eachother, it's their fault for panicking.
I don't think I agree with that reasoning, and neither did the judge in this case.
The same way as if you bought stolen goods from a second hand store, the police can remove it.
Games that have been take off steam have never been removed from a users library when the license was fine when it was sold.
In my jurisdiction, stolen goods cannot be returned if the buyer purchased them in good faith. In that case, the original owner has to recover the item from the thief. So if I had bought the book, then Amazon suddenly removed it, it would have been they who'd be doing the stealing, where *I* live.
I always think that if a company treats people that way, the company or its management probably did something very bad and are afraid of the consequences. Because a company that treats its co-workers like normal people shouldn't have to act that way. Unless even basic security measures aren't in place. Both are reasons to leave for greener pastures while you can.
OR for fucks sake, while this is a tragic disaster, events like this are so incredibly rare, that we should be cautious to avoid 9/11 style psychosis.
We should have avoided that psychosis in the first place by not locking the cabin doors. If they had locked cabin doors on september 11, they would have opened them as per the then standing instructions on hijacks and even flight 93 would have ended inside a skyscraper or the Pentagon.
Even in 9/11 the cabin wasn't rushed with grenades and explosives, but with box knifes. Suppose it happens again? How long do the pilots hold out when the hijackers slaughter the passengers one by one outside their door, on their camera? And that assumes the passengers will happily play along - how many hijackings have occurred since 9/11 where the passengers sat idly by, waiting for their fate to be sealed? I bet it's a binary number.
And another thing: now the pilots are in control of all those people. Quite literally untouchable. If you have even the smallest inclination towards a Messiah complex, this will set it right off. Couple that with the enormous pressure on pilots who are in debt, with airlines in trouble and sacking pilots, and you have a recipe for disaster.
The cabin door lock was not meant to protect the passengers, it's meant to protect the skyscraper. I say we should get rid of it.
And the exception... Dutch judges are using international agreements to see if the laws are violating them. If they are, the plaintiffs will be released/compensated based on the international agreements as they are overriding national laws, especially when they are EU judicial guidelines.
So there is no constitution, but in the EU we are now getting a weird mix of Roman law and case law.
That depends on whether the law is based on case law and precedents, or statutes. If the laws are based on what parliament passes as law (which is used in most countries under Roman law but perhaps not in the UK) then it would be a matter of looking at the relevant laws. Several centuries of history would not matter one whit if there was a new law passed that allowed it.
True, but the reverse can happen as well.
My in-law's cousin was top of his class in a city about 150km from Shanghai. Scoring high on tests, he made it into Shanghai university where he also scored pretty high. This got him and his parents a Shanghai Hukou and a job as finance manager after graduation at the same time.
But yeah, if you're of average intelligence you are ordered to stay where you are. Only the very gifted will be mobile both up and sideways.
Totally different from the USA, where every poor kid attends Harvard, of course.