Posts by Matt Bryant

Re: Crazy Operations Guy

"....straight-deck carriers...." Angled decks came into being with the advent of fast jet catapult launches, when the biggest launch danger was falling into the sea and being then run over by your own carrier. They add considerably to the weight of the ship. Since the new carriers were never intended to launch conventional fast jets the removal of an angled deck was both practical, logical and a big cost-saving.

Buying existing US carrier designs would have been a smart option except for the fact they don't provide any UK jobs and therefore don't buy votes - sorry, I meant to say "not preserve essential UK skills". The non-nuke-powering does have two rarely mentioned advantages - firstly, it means the carriers can use normal docks in the UK; secondly, it means we are welcome at some harbours in the rest of the World (such as in New Zealand) that will not allow the nuke-powered USN carriers to dock.

Re: Danny 14

"....and should have been nuclear...." Yeah, but the design contract started under Labour, and they have far too many CND luvvies in their ranks to allow a nuke design.

"....Pity that BAE (sic) couldn't do that....." BAe Systems not only bought the Vickers subsidiary that made the nuke Vanguard class Trident subs, they have managed all the work on their Rolls-Royce PWR2 reactors, and are involved in the PWR3 design for the next-gen class that will replace the Vanguards. So I'd say the new carriers not being nuke-powered has nothing to do with BAe's capabilities.

/Yeeaaarrrggggghh, obviously.

Re: IMG Re: @James 51

".....I guess you're just jealous that you don't have any F-22s....." LOL! The one time RAF Typhoons were allowed to mock dogfight Raptors at China Lake, they not only trounced the F-22s* but also got radar locks on them at ranges the USAF said the stealth F-22s should have been "invisible". This upset the Yanks so much they banned further fights and scrapped the planned Typhoon vs F-22 long-range radar tests!

There the story might have ended, but the USAF then went to war games in Alaska and it was the turn of the German Typhoons to give the Raptors a kicking. Whilst the USAF made some excuses about the Typhoon pilots having helmet-mounted sights, what is all the more worrying (for USAF pilots) is that the Eurofighter Typhoon is claimed to be able to get a lock with the PIRATE long-range IRST system, making the F-22's radar stealth largely irrellevant. Whilst the US has been heavily committed to radar stealth development, the Russians have been developing long-range IR detectors for many years** and their developments are thought to be at least competitive (if not ahead) of PIRATE. The later Typhoon was designed with IR stealth in mind, making it less vulnerable to the new Russian jets, but the F-22 was not....

And, seeing as the Eurofighter Typhoon is a lot cheaper than the Raptor, and there's already a nasalised version which was proposed for India, maybe your USAF (and your taxpayers) are the real jealous ones?

*Embarrassingly for the USAF, their "super jet" has a history of being beaten by fighters the USAF claim the F-22 should own - there's a two-seat "Growler" (USMC EW version of the F/A-18) flying around with an F-22 "kill" painted on its nose after one such mock dogfight, much to the delight of the Marines.

**The Soviets started looking at IRST for tracking cruise missiles flying below the levels that look-down radar could detect them. Their development got added impetus after the CIA allegedly got access to the latest Russian radar designs from Adolf Tolkachev in the '80s, leaving the Ruskis seriously worried that their latest fighters would be "blind" against US stealth designs specifically tailored to beat their radar. Their use of advanced IR detectors brings into question the whole value proposition of radar stealth and whether it is giving US pilots a false sense of security.

Re: AC Re: AC Brexit will never actually happen

".....I'm talking about choosing where you want to work and live....." LOL, so no-one ever worked abroad before the EU? Shall we look at a little history? The right to freedom to work anywhere in the EEC countries was solidified in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, at which time I had already been living and working both on the Continent and outside the EU, and I was most definitely not the exception. The actual right to pick where you live irrespective of where or even if you worked, in the European Economic Area, wasn't granted until 2004. So you are clearly wrong.

".....typical of a Brexiter...." It would seem you are the one labouring under some misconceptions of those that voted for Brexit, some glaring holes in your knowledge of history, and a complete lack of knowledge of the EU which you seem to unquestioningly hold in such hold in such high esteem. You're not doing a very good job of convincing anyone that Remainers are somehow the more educated on the subject.

Re: AC Re: Brexit will never actually happen

".... I bet the younger generations will start to feel cramped in the UK, when they used to have unfettered access to a whole continent...." Yes, because - obviously! - no-one from the UK travelled anywhere outside the UK before the EU came into existence! Er, not!

Even if full-on visa requirements for travel to the EU were put in place tomorrow it would be no more daunting than the requirements that currently exist for travel to places like Thailand. Last time I checked, plenty of UK yoof getting out to Phuket, Koh Samet, Patong or Haad Rin (and they're far more fun than anywhere in the EU).

/Paris - for Phuket, obviously.

Re: AC Re: keithpeter Assumptions, assumptions...

"....UK and EU law to tell us about Article 50." Well, that's where it gets interesting!

The current economic uncertainty affects all the EU, which is why Junker and Hollande are screaming that the UK must enact Article 50 (the "leaving" mechanism in the Treaty On European Union, aka TEU) at once and get negotiations going. There is nothing in the TEU that allows the EU to force the UK to submit an Article 50 request, so they are just sprouting hot air and should really shut up and read their own treaty (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html). The UK is set for a period of uncertainty regardless, so drawing out the period before submitting the Article 50 request is probably in the UK's interest as it turns the screws on Junker and co. The referendum puts the onus on the UK to make an Article 50 declaration, but the timetable for that is the UK's to pick and choose, not the rest of the EU. If we wanted, we could go another fifty years before making our Article 50 request and all the EU could do is whine.

At worst, the rest of the EU could try to eject the UK through Article 7 of the TEU, which allows for suspension of a member state. Article 7 is intended to be used against countries subverting common democratic principles, so the idea of trying to suspend a country for following a democratic referendum and an EU treaty Article would be a hard one to get through even the biased EU system!

Until the UK does submit the Article 50 request it is a fully-paid up member of the EU, which means the way that it has been excluded from EU meetings in the last week is actually against the EU's own rules. Not until the Article 50 notice is made can the UK be excluded from the EU Council or any other EU decision.

Even after the Article 50 notice goes in, the UK has a period of maximum two years to negotiate the unbinding of EU laws and treaties unless the negotiating country and the EU Council agree an extension to negotiations. Going back to the uncertainty, it is again in the UK's interest to turn the screws by dragging out the negotiations for as long as possible to get the best deal for the UK. In the meantime, EU laws still apply and trade is unaffected.

So, the UK is quite entitled to take its time and do things carefully, especially as two years will be a very short period to push through the number of new laws that will have to be enacted to replace some existing EU ones (many can simply be replaced with old laws still on the books, but some, such as tech laws, have evolved a long way since we joined the EU). But the important one is that the UK Parliament has to repeal the European Communities Act, something which cannot be done just by Prime Ministerial decree. - the minute that is repealed, existing English (and Scottish) laws come into force, so it is unlikely to be implemented until negotiations have concluded. Until then, EU laws apply, including all the trade, travel and employment bits.

So, I suspect it will be much closer to two-and-a-half years before the European Communities Act is repealed (six months of Tory leader selection, followed by the Article 50 notice and then two years of negotiations), unless the EUers swallow their pride and come to the table with a good offer right after the Article 50 announcement.

Re: Allan George Dyer Re: I suppose it really doesn't matter what killed him

".....who take revenge......" You obviously know nothing about US law, I suggest you go,do a lot more reading. The killer had refused to negotiate, refused to surrender, and stated he wanted to kill cops. The DoJ policy on lethal force states the following: ".....law enforcement officer ....may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person....." The cops didn't know exactly what the killer had in his bolthole, but they knew he was armed with functioning firearms, claimed to have a bomb, and had shown every intent on killing. As such the cops were under no obligation to risk their own lives by going in and seeing exactly what weapons he had, and definitely legally obliged to minimise the risk to others the killer presented should he escape. Legally they had to try and kill him with minimal threat to the public and themselves, which a controlled explosion did. Killing him was completely legal.

The ironic bit is the killer would have known exactly the legality of the situation. As a reservist he had been deployed to Afghanistan and would have been told the legality of when and when not to kill as part of the rules of engagement. He knew that, when he rebuffed efforts to negotiate, he was committing suicide by cop, he probably just hoped he could go out shooting and take a few more cops with him. IMHO, I'm quite happy the bomb robbed him of the chance of further killing.

Re: Fink-Nottle

"....surely these bots could be easily equipped with some sort of incapacitating knock-out gas...." WTF? So, the cops have him cornered, they have the chance to finish the confrontation with lethal force (which, after the suspect has used lethal force against the public, let alone officers, and still is a lethal threat, by law they are justified to do), and you want them to sit around on their hands, possibly giving the killer the chance to escape, and also ignoring that the officers were needed in the search for any accomplices, all on the off-chance someone would just happen along with a remotely-triggered canister of some super knockout gas?!?!? Seriously, get a clue. The cops used what they had at hand to safely end the threat to not just them but the public as well.

Re: AC Re: @YetAnotherLocksmith ... It makes sense, but...

".....gas....." He claimed to have a bomb. Despite what you've seen in the movies, magic "knockout gas" that instantly disables people does not exist, and there was a good chance he could have activated any device before gas affected him (and no guarantee someone who came prepared with body armour might not also have packed a gas mask).

Re: AC Re: @YetAnotherLocksmith ... It makes sense, but...

".....As a result police shoots first, asks questions later, especially in black and poor neighbourhoods. From there on, not expecting someone to snap and return fire is a bid disingenuous....." Bullshit. The biggest killer of black male youths in the US is another black male youth, has been for years. Over the same weekend that Philando Castile was shot, there were 65 people shot (10 fatally) in Chicago alone, predominantly in poor and black neighbourhoods. Of the deaths, so far as I can discern from news reports, all were the result of black-on-black gang violence. Pretending that the cops are the trigger for violence in such neighbourhoods is simply blinkered and naive.

If you want to try looking at it from another angle, between 2003 and 2013, FBI figures showed that black criminals killed cops in the US in equal numbers with white criminals, despite being only 12% of the US population compared to about 44% whites. That means that during that period, every time an officer of any colour encountered a black suspect during the course of their duties, there was potentially three times more likelihood that they would be shot by that black suspect than any other ethnic group.

Re: Ledswinger

"....or the Germans accepting that they'll have to pay off a good chunk of southern Europe's debts...." Oh, that's already happening, as shown by the Greek bailout. The EU and IMF give money to Greece, a large chunk of it from German taxpayers. The Greeks are then forced to give it to the non-Greek banks to meet the repayments on their debts, the majority of that (IIRC) being with German banks*, which means the majority of the bailout money promptly goes back to Germany! The German politicians won't upset the German banks by writing off the debt so they are stuck with having to pay the interest payments by the circuitous route of EU bailouts. I suspect that is why the IMF does not want to be involved in any further Greek bailouts, because the rest of the World (especially the Yanks) are sick and tired of paying off the German banks. Imagine the fun Angel Merkel will have explaining to the voters at the next German elections that they will probably be stuck with paying more taxes to fund the German banks via Greek debt relief!

*IIRC, in 2012 the largest single chunk of debt was actually with a Greek bank, Alpha Bank AE, but they hold only about 2.2% in total.

Re: BoldMan

"So is this supposed to be a "Look how awful the EU is, we are better off out of it" type of article?...." IMHO, no. This is more of an arms-business-as-usual-but-now-with-additional-EU-"peace"-funding article. All the World's industrial nations have been doing these kind of grants for decades in attempts to either shore up their regime/dictator of choice or to push their arms products. Wanting to believe the EU is any different is naïve.

From a purely technical aspect, the interesting bit is how more and more Third World nations are latching on to UCAVs for their internal "policing" rather than hideously expensive ego-trips like the Ethiopian Su-27s mentioned in the article. Wouldn't you rather they spent a tenth of the cash on UCAVs that they would rather have spent on jets like the F-35? It leaves more loot for their corrupt officials to syphon off (allegedly like the 15bn USD simply "gone missing" from the Zimbabwean diamond business - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35720912). At least the dictators of today will be getting their genocides sorted in a more cost-effective manner, with the help of the EU taxpayer.

And who thought they'd ever see the words "EU funding" and "cost-effective" in the same article!

Re: FuzzyTheBear Re: Trust ?

"....can the Israeils with their agencies be any more trusted than the Chinese ?...." You can if you insist on your security experts checking the source code, as is done in military contracts. Not so easy for your average corporation, though some might see that as a good reason to switch to NFV (network function virtualization) based on open source modules, such as OPNFV and off-the-shelf servers.

Re: J. R. Hartley Re: BDS

"People should be boycotting....." I'd counter that people should be boycotting the technology companies of pre-dominantly Muslim states surrounding Israel that stil refuse to sign a peace treaty with Israel, but they seem to be rather light on technology companies!

Now, I wonder why there are so many successful companies coming out of Israel, and, by comparison, so few coming out of the surrounding states? All that oil money and SFA to show for it! Maybe it's an approach to education? After all, Jews do seem to be just a lot, lot better at science, as shown in a comparison of Nobel Prize winners - http://www.jewishmag.com/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm

Indeed, if you really are determined to boycott anything "from the Eeeeevvviiiiiill Zionist state", then you had better turn off your computer, disconnect your Internet and phone lines, stop using the majority of modern medicine, and pretty much go back to living in a mud hut.

Enjoy!

Re: Roo Re: AC Although the burden of proof lies with Love

".... If the NCA were to behave in a lawful manner they would be doing everything they could to ensure Love was rehabilitated and returned to society...." The NCA do not have that directive at all, it is simply their job to gather evidence to arrest criminals in line with English law. It is up to the politicians and the Crown Prosecution Service as to who gets prosecuted in a court of law, and then the judge gets to decide the sentence. Rehabilitation can only come after sentencing, something Love's parents should have known seeing as they both work in a prison. Of course, you could also say they don't seem to have done much whilst Love spent how many years hacking away from their basement?

Re: Wayland Re: Flocke Kroes AC Although the burden of proof....

"You could be framed by someone sending you encrypted emails...." Bit of a stretch. Ignoring the fact you would need my email address first, let's say someone sends me an encrypted email that manages to get past my spam filters. There are two things that need to happen for your scheme to succeed and for myself to be charged by the coppers - firstly, I have to read the email and leave evidence I did so; secondly, the coppers have to be pointed in my direction.

In your scenario, the first thing that happens is I see an email from an unknown and probably unverifiable source - instant deletion, unread. Email server records that I deleted the email without having read the contents. At which point the coppers can only say I received an email, I can prove I never read nor stored its contents. There are no traces of any further communication between myself and the source of the encrypted email. Further investigation will show no social links between yourself and I, so there is no grounds for continued investigation, and I walk.

Now consider how are you going to send the coppers my way? Well, the best way to do that would be to commit a crime, make sure that crime comes to the attention of the authorities, and somehow link it to the email address or system you sent the encrypted email from. At this point, you are already linked to the crime, not me, so if I can show I have not read nor stored the encrypted message the spotlight is back on you! Better be careful how you play that game, the prisons are full of hackers that thought they'd never get caught.

Re: John Brown (no body) Re: convoluted

"....These days whenever there is an "incident" it appears that everyone with the slightest link to it is immediately arrested and interviewed "under caution"...." The reason for that is the Police have learned that evidence of e-crimes is very quickly wiped if they don't move to secure all possible sources of evidence as quickly as possible. Old advice here would seem to be the best - if you don't want fleas (or an arrest record), don't lie down with dogs.

Re: Filippo Re: AC Although the burden of proof lies with Love

"..... Wanted to hide some pr0n from mum back when streaming wasn't a thing? Hope you remember the password to that dust-covered drive in the back of the closet, or you're screwed. Wanted to test an encryption tool, so encrypted some random crap with a random password and then forgot about it? You're screwed....." Wow, scaremonger more, could you? First there has to be a reason the Police would have any suspicions that you are hiding evidence of criminal activity, they don't just going knocking on your door at random. So, yes, if you are a scumbag involved in illegal activities, and you have some old encrypted junk, then you might be screwed if you come to the Police's attention and they decide to search your property and find it.

Having said that, since a large element of the regular posters on these forums seem the uninformed wannabe-gansta types, it would probably not be surprising that (a) they might have some illegal material lying about, downloaded "for the lulz", which they have probably also bragged about to their wannabe-gangsta online "friends", and (b) they would be dumb and disorganized enough to leave encrypted junk lying around rather than clearing out old rubbish/data or keeping it safely hidden like a real pro hacker, so all that leaves is the actual interest from the Police. But then, seeing as the majority seem to be just windbags, interest from the Police is unlikely, which should leave them safe (except for their egos).

Re: streaky Re: Although the burden of proof lies with Love

"....the police don't want this tested in court...." WTF "tested in court"??? Wishful thinking! Under RIPA Section 53, the Police get a court order saying you have to supply the keys or you get a maximum two-year sentence. It's already been used against animal rights activists and thoroughly "tested", as reported here on the Reg - short memory or just a selective one?

Re: Boo radley Re: Extensive delay in return of computers is SOP by PC Plod....

"....I was in prison 600 miles away...." Gosh, you mean they locked you up for delivering Christmas gifts to the children at the orphanage? Or could it be because you were convicted of a crime in a court of law? And it would seem a serious crime if you got porridge rather than a suspended sentence, or was it not your first offence? Yes, I find you such a reliable and trustworthy source for opinion on the MO of the coppers - not!

".....received a check for $158, despite losing tens of thousands of VAX gear." LOL! Unless this happened in the '80s I suspect you were overcompensated!

Re: Flocke Kroes Re: AC Although the burden of proof lies with Love

"....When the police tell you to decrypt that or else, what are you going to do?" Your little fantasy misses the reality that the coppers are not going to ask me to decrypt anything because (a) I don't use the email address mbryant@example.com, so there will nothing to link me to it, and (b) as they have no grounds to suspect me of any crime, despite your fervent wishes, so they will not be searching my kit and finding any amateurish commands like that buried on it. It's called "law-abiding" - get an adult to help you look it up.

Re: AC Re: Although the burden of proof lies with Love

"..... you're supposed to prove that you do NOT remember something, which is impossible...." Yeah, LOL, those whacky coppers, eh? Expecting criminals to remember the passwords they encrypted their most important information with! Next you'll be saying it's unfair to prosecute rapists if they claim they don't remember raping the victim, despite forensic evidence to the contrary.

Love was caught and he's now wheeling out a big sob story, accompanied by the usual "Assbergers made me do it" schpiel, to avoid facing trial in the States where the sentence is likely to be high, because he would rather get the slap on the wrist the UK courts give out. That is why the NCA chose not to prosecute when he didn't supply his encryption keys, because to do so would hold up his extradition, and they would rather send him off to the States.

The fun bit is, should Love manage to avoid extradition, then I expect the refusal to decrypt will be brought out again. If the decryption provides new evidence then a new extradition case can be raised, and if he doesn't then he can go to jail here in the UK, rinse and repeat. Hopefully the scroat will be kept clear of anything more technical than a toaster for the rest of his days.

Re: John Crisp Re: Leave...

".....Just makes the UK more isolated and easier prey to the global whirlwind...." <Yawn> Sorry, I must have missed the (expected) blip in the Sterling price. Indeed, all the anticipated "furour" in the markets has ended and prices are trading back higher than pre-Brexit. Sterling on the NYSE is currently higher than it has been for the majority of the year to date. The EU leaders might wish the pound to drop seeing as it has been trending up against the Euro for five years (http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/international-markets/rates/chart/gbpeur.html), but the disaster wished upon the UK by so many "caring, sharing" lEUsers simply hasn't happened. Any price hikes have nothing to do with the Brexit, despite the willful melodramatics of El Reg's Molehill-to-Mountains Department, nor the wishful thinking of bitter lEUsers acting like jilted teens; "Wah, wah, the UK won't go to the prom with me!"

Re: AC Re: Who is NRA and what authority?

"....Rookie mistake!...." I suspect it was nothing "rookie" about the process, only cheaper. By complying with the request the service provider pushed the legal cost of fighting onto the site owner. A lot of service providers seem to have taken this route to avoid legal costs, simply adding a line to their Ts & Cs stating that "unacceptable behavior" will lead to termination. As the majority of customers will (usually) not be an issue, the loss of one small customer will be offset be the savings on legal fees and the increased business through more competitive, cheaper hosting fees. Whilst you may decry their approach as immoral, it makes perfect business sense. If you feel that strongly about it you should find a hoster that offers to legally fight for you, but you'll probably end up paying more for the sense of moral superiority.

Re: jason 7 You know a better way to stop home invasions...

".....If I arrest and lock up everyone shopping at a busy shopping street on Saturday it's pretty much guaranteed that I will have prevented a shoplifter in the process......Your approach is used to justify global mass surveillance....' LOL, you guys are so funny when you try and think of an analogy which matches up to your paranoia/baaaaahliefs! Did I ever say lock up all Internet users? Please do show a post where I stated that?

Try and think for a second - the police in every country in the World have the authority to observe you driving on the road and stop you if you are suspected of infringing the local driving laws. Your analogy would require that the police simply lock up every driver the minute they got in their cars, which is obviously male bovine manure of the lowest quality. The police may monitor and patrol the roads, but they do not simply arrest everyone that is driving. The GCHQ and NSA (and any other number of agencies) are simply observing the behavior of a tiny fraction of Internet users, in effect they are monitoring and patrolling, they are not saying lock up all Internet users. Fail!

"....WTF do we have law enforcement for if people have to keep guns themselves for protection...." Because criminals prey on the weak, they don't usually wait for a copper to appear before committing a crime. I may be a hard concept for you to follow, but many criminals don't actually want to get caught (or shot)! The police cannot be everywhere, so citizens need to take what measures they can to defend themselves and their property. I don't see you moaning about houses having locks on their doors to deter thieves - "oh, WTF do we have law enforcement for if people have to use locks on their doors" - yeah, sounds really, really stupid, doesn't it? More fail!

Your level of "argument" is so amusingly obtuse, it is hard to think of one its equal. The only one I can think of would be to compare US gun-deaths to those suffered due to medical negligence (you best get an adult to help you with this). Even including suicides in the gun-death figures, three times as many people die every year in the US as a result of medical negligence. A common factor in all those cases is medical staff - do you want to ban all doctors? Go on, if all you care about is the number of people dying then your logic insists that is the correct action. Yeah, you fail again!

Well, at least your failure is consistent!

Re: jason 7 Re: jason 7 You know a better way to stop home invasions...

"...That fact a society requires or enables that situation in the first place is in effect...a big FAIL...." I assume that was the usual incompetent attempt to denigrate the right to carry arms in the US? Consider for a moment - the guy arrested for the shooting was illegally carrying a weapon, he had no license, making him a criminal. The citizen that shot him was a law-abiding person. Banning guns by laws only results in the law-abiding handing in (or having taken away) their guns, as shown in the UK, where gun-crime went up after the ban on handguns, and places like Chicago, where bans on concealed carry for years only left the criminals shooting people with frightening regularity. By definition, criminals do not follow the law, so, in this case, removing guns from law-abiding citizens would have meant that the criminal would still have had his illegal gun and would still have started shooting, you would have just removed the legally-owned gun from the guy that actually stopped him before someone got fatally wounded. No doubt, if there had been fatalities, you would use those fatalities in an attempt to justify your irrational hatred for gun-owners, the denial is simply so strong in you. It is a big fail on your part that you cannot see that.

Re: jason 7 Re: You know a better way to stop home invasions...

".....In moments of stress/fear most people cant shoot for shit....." Oh dear, you probably really won't like the news that a citizen, who (luckily) happened to be a licensed concealed carrier, stopped a mass shooting outside a South Carolina nightclub, by shooting the shooter - http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160627/articles/160629757. No, you go on insisting that guns never prevent crime, never saved a life, whatever.

What was that you said about a big fail?

Re: AC Re: Misleading

"DMCA abused by powerful lobby/company to illegally suppress commentary and criticism. Haven't seen that before." For it to be judged illegal it would have to be judged in a court of law. I see you are following the same script as the spokesdrone for surge.sh who claimed they hadn't been warned when they had been repeatedly - lie, claim "illegal suppression", probably cap it off with some unsubstantiated whining about "free speech"..... Yup, haven't seen that before - not!