🚀 go-pugleaf

"Eliminator" <eliminator@eliminator.org> wrote in message 
news:p9CAe.1728$6e3.225197@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Tell you what, come back once you have graduated grade school.
>
>> One database yes, but it has a few elements you completely dismissied...
>
> For your information, there is no database which is absolutely static.

True. y point was it will be a dynamic database.

> Even
> a
> dictionary has to incorporate some change from time to time. Microsoft
> Access
> allows any tracking you can imagine.

Yes, Access is a very good for personal computing, on a single computer.

> Better Defender is right when he says that one personal computer is enough
> to
> keep the whole gun registry.

What on your computer, his computer, with your terafarms of redundant RAID 
5?
Sure, if you got the disk space, you can put any database on a PC.

Much like you can put any person in a car. Try and use your car to transport 
all the people who use TTC during rush hour.
Because running a computerized registry, that will be accessed by many, many 
concurrent users, from people all across the nation,
who don't have hours to wait with their requests queued up because a tiny 
little personal computer with no commercial horsepower is being used.

Now you are getting an idea of how a 2 Million dollar gun registry system 
can end up costing over $750 just in computer costs.
Because the government uses consultants very much like your and the worst 
Defender I have ever seen would approach the project.

No clue as to the requirements, the specifications, the design, nor the 
scale. When you side with the ignorant, it doesn't make a stronger case.
But it does demonstrate that the same ignorance exists in the professional 
arena, as it does with rank ametuers.


> Here is a simple calculation: a single record
> for a gun will not contain more than 1000 bytes. Generally, when someone
> buys
> a gun, he keeps it for the rest of his life. But we presume that gun 
> changes
> hands ten times. So, you will need 10,000 bytes to track one gun. At
> present, there are about 5 million guns in Canada. I make registry for 10
> million. Now 10 million guns X 10,000 bytes gives 100 Gigabytes.
> Contemporary
> micro-computer hard disk has 500 megabytes, so you can place 5 gun
> registries on one hard disk, and if it is not enough, you can install 
> second
> hard disk. Got it?

Well if it was just a matter of disk space, then I would call you a genius, 
and and throw you a party!
But if that is the premise for your argument, I suggest you take some basic 
fundamentals in infrastructure and system design.
You explaination isn't even a simplification. It demonstrates a complete 
lack of knowledge. And I am embarrassed for you.
To make such absurd statements publically is branding yourself in a very 
negative way.

>>but there is no legislation covering the government or protecting it.
>> It's buyer beware.
>
> And who makes the laws? Isn't it the Government? Presume that you are
> crooked politician and you want to steal several billion dollars. Now, how
> do you do it? Here is how. You sign a contract with a company and in this
> contract, you give them card blanche.

Carte Blanche. But you are a card! A real card!

> You agree to pay them regardless if
> they do job or not, they send you bills for hundreds of millions of 
> dollars
> without doing any job. You pay them and get half quietly returned into 
> your
> pocket. And when the whole thing is being exposed in the press, you hide
> behind ignorance of public servants. Isn't it what usually happens? Can 
> you
> imagine another scenario?

Yes, ineffective policy, gross mismanagement. And what do you expect from a 
system of representative democracy that levies no accountability to the 
consituency? I am sorry to burst your bubble, but very few politicans 
actually get away with ripping off public funds. It does happen, but it is 
an exception. You portray it as the norm. And you'd be suprized at how 
skilled at, and how far cicil servants will go to do things the way they 
think is right, and fuck who is in power this year.

And politicians may not do what you want, but they do what the party wants. 
And you are the party, if you pay your party dues and attend the meetings, 
and form the policies. And one of them could be accountability. People talk 
about the system not working. Well you have to use the system. And voting 
doesn't change anything, only changing policy changes things. But then you 
have little understanding of major computer systems, so no wonder you have 
no real understanding of how people participate in politics either. Gee, 
that's not a very assuring pattern Eliminated?


>
>>No, this is called incompetent mis-management, lack of controls over the
> spending of public funds, inadequate >procurement processes and oversight 
> by
> the Ministry of Justice

>
> Come on, you are not really that stupid. It was stealing. Nobody is that
> dumb to have an estimated cost of $2 million and sign a contract for $350
> million just for the software. I am sure in the original estimation, the
> price of necessary programming was given and it was certainly less than
> $1,000,000. Shouldn't a normal person ask a question: how come initial
> estimation was 1000 times less than what the contract estimates now?
> Shouldn't they ask the guy who did the original estimation whether he made
> 1000 times mistake?

Why? You make the same mistake. And if somebody trusted you, the'd be 
looking at 1,000 the orginal costs too!
Listen, some advice, don't question someone's stupidity, with statements 
that are truly stupid.
You Eliminator and Lesser Defender have made the same under-estimates, only 
far worse than the consultants.

The fact is I challenge you to find me one major government computerized 
system that isn't measured in the 100's of millions of dollars.
And if you actually think this is not a major system, then your premise is 
flawed from the start. But it's nice for one to think they could actually 
hit a ball thrown by a MLB pitcher....until they are up to bat!


Thanks for the laugh gents, you have been very amusing. Thick as bricks, but 
very funny.