Feeds

* Posts by Matt Bryant

8218 posts • joined 21 May 2007

Top Canadian court: Cops need warrant to get names from ISPs

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Paul Crawford Re: No sympathy.

"....The second point you appear to have overlooked is the court also ruled that in spite of this point, the evidence in this case stands....." Which avoid the fact the so-called 'civil liberties' groups were quite happy to chance Spencer going free, an outcome that was quite likely when they started supporting the case. It was only because the judge ruled the evidence could still stand that Spencer isn't out and enjoying himself courtesy of the handwringers.

0
15
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Stop

No sympathy.

Spencer had 441 still images and 112 videos on his Livewire shared folder. “What the images were portraying were disgusting, demeaning, depraved activities of child abuse of the worst order,” the Saskatchewan trial judge said in convicting Spencer. I find it very hard to sympathise with Spencer's worry that his 'right to privacy' had been violated, I have far more sympathy for the poor kids he was so happy to see having their childhood violated. That Canadian 'civil liberty' groups got involved in trying to help this paedo get his conviction overturned is truly worrying. They obviously just see setting such people free as the means justifying the end.

3
28

Microsoft poised to take Web server crown from Apache

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Dick Plinston John Sanders Richard Plinston Levent Zillyboy Chris Wareham

".....You are obviously unaware that different services are handled by different programs ....." Take a look at the URL you type into the browser to get to SWAT, probably something along the lines of http://www.dickthethick.com:901. You may note the bit at the start with 'http'? You do realise that all webservers, by default, listen on port 80 for http requests and then pass the request to any port you add on the end if the URL? Oh, you didn't? Please do point out the process you think is able to handle the http requests other than the process httpd? As a clue, it is not smbd. A socket connection is not the same as a webservice, if I turn off my webserver it doesn't matter what port you add on the end of the URL in a browser, you will not see any webpages, because there is nothing on port 80 to answer the request and push the connection to port 901.

".....port 21 is passed to the ftp server...." A good example - if you don't have the FTP server, the process ftpd, running, you will get SFA if you try connecting to port 21.

".....If you can't even understand this fundamental level of networking then you should not be posting at all....." You don't know how a webserver to handles port number requests on the end of an URL for a web service. It is different to ordinary TCP socket connections. You seem very confused and angry, TBH.

0
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Dick Plinston Re: Richard Plinston Levent Zillyboy Chris Wareham

Dear Little Dick,

Please see my previous post that blew a massive hole in your drivel. Enjoy!

Yours ROFLingly,

Matt.

PS: You probably should spend some time on the SAMBA.org site, amongst others, actually learning some web security.

1
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Dick Plinston Re: John Sanders Richard Plinston Levent Zillyboy Chris Wareham

".....Apache _never_ exposes port 901...." No, web requests via http are never handled by Apache.... DUH! If you go read the Linux (and many UNIX) pages on setting up SWAT you will often see a line 'add and entry for swat in /etc/services if it is not there already', as in added during SWAT installation. BTW, this was added as default in RH AS4, as you admitted were unable to prove otherwise. I'm also pretty sure it used to get added into /etc/services or /etc/xinetd on hp-ux by default (at least up to 11.0) and Solaris 10, though I can't recall what happens with AIX.

"......An actual link. Wonder of wonders!!......" You like that link? Bet you'll really like the line "...,The very first step that should be taken before attempting to configure a host system for SWAT operation is to check that it is installed. This may seem a trivial point to some, but several Linux distributions do not install SWAT by default...." (http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/SWAT.html#id2681073). Oh dear, do you now want to try and pretend that does not imply several Linux distros DO install it by default? Want to argue with the actual SAMBA official documentation? Because if you do then you're an even more stupid and blind Penguinista than I thought. Enjoy!

1
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: John Sanders Re: Not surprised

You really need to take the fantard blinkers off and go read a bit of history. Linux has definitely not been free of security issues. Since you have a hard-on for Apache, maybe you should go read up on the old apache-scalp.c crack, probably from long before you first used a keyboard.

1
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: John Sanders Re: Richard Plinston Levent Zillyboy Chris Wareham

".....I doubt you have much experience with Unix/Linux beyond looking after a couple of servers...." The fanboism is strong with this one! Your assumption would be fine if it weren't for the many, many websites detailing the problem with SWAT and SAMBA, the numerous sites explaining how to crack servers using SAMBA, and the fact that activating Apache exposes port 901 if you don't go tighten up the security. So, in short, your're talking male bovine manure almost as much as Dick Plinston.

".....At some point in time in the distant past SWAT used to be part of the Samba download, but it was never enabled by default, and certainly not without a password unless the user configured it manually that way....." Except RH AS4, maybe? Or are you going to admit you simply haven't a clue to anything predating last year's Ubuntu release because it is you that has an experience going back five minutes. Face facts - denying security holes does not make them disappear! I suggest you STFU and go read the samba.org security history page to LEARN SOMETHING (http://www.samba.org/samba/history/security.html).

0
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Richard Plinston Levent Zillyboy Chris Wareham

"....You appear to be unable to distinguish between your claim of "being installed and enabled by default" (which I said didn't happen) and being "in the distros"....." Nope. You asked for distros with it bundled. And it was both bundled and active by default in older versions, as I showed with RHEL AS4, which you were unable to disprove (on a client's box you admit you didn't even know the security profile of for a very well-known security issue - not reassuring as to your admin credentials). Yet you want to insist you have disproven the point? Male bovine manure.

".....probably a click and pray Windows admin...." More Penguinista denial - so how do you define a 'Linux admin'? If they have even used Windows once are they somehow disqualified? I suggest you get over your prejudices before you try posting again.

".....even to the point of mixing up Apache and SWAT......" I pointed out SAMBA and SWAT was the hole, it's just that many Linux admins don't know that activating Apache exposes such holes. As you admitted, you had to go check a server you set up for a client as you didn't know if the proper security for SWAT had been set - not exactly a ringing endorsement. And you're still trying to deny (a) it is an extensively documented issue, and (b) turning on Apache without checking DOES leave port 901 open for an attack if the right SWAT security steps have not been taken.

".....SWAT is _not_ part of Apache...." I never said it was, I said it was common for admins to leave the Apache web service running without realising the possible security holes, including the SWAT/SAMBA issue. You are just trying to state something I did not say to avoid admitting you wre wrong. In short, you are a liar.

"....The Red Mist is blocking your reading skills...." The penguin feathers are blocking yours. Wise up - no OS is free of security issues, not even Linux. Blind denial only helps those trying to crack your systems.

".....SWAT is related to Apache (not true, but you continue to claim it)...." Stop lying just because you lost the argument. I never said that at all, if you want to claim I did then please point to my post where I did or just admit you were (a) wrong, and (b) lying.

"....* SWAT is installed _and_enabled_ by default (not true)...." You couldn't even prove this for RH AS4, let alone all the other even older distros, but you want to claim you have proven otherwise? Again, you're just lying, you have disproven nothing. All you proved was you didn't even know the security policy for a client's server, which means you admitted YOU ARE NOT A GOOD SECUITY ADMIN as well as a liar. Quit wasting your time lying and go get some training instead.

"....* SWAT, by default, requires no logging in (not true)...." Another lie, please post to where I said that. It mos certainly did not in many older distros and even on commercial UNIX versions. Once again, blind denial is not proof, no matter how many lies you make up.

"......SWAT, by default, can be accessed from other machines (not true)...." Not what I said, not even close. What I said was an insecure configuration of SWAT would allow any system with LAN access to the target server to go to the SWAT web page on port 901 and edit the SAMBA config. You're just making stuff up. And you even failed to show that wasn't the case for RH AS4 yet want to claim you did! What kind of fantasy world are you living in, where only Windows admins screw up Linux security and well-known issues magically don't matter just because you don't want the too? People like you just give Linux a bad name.

0
1
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Richard Plinston Levent Zillyboy Chris Wareham

"....Many distros have Samba and SWAT in their repos...." So first you admit SWAT and SAMBA are in the distros, even though you said they never were....

".... For example for Ubuntu Server is tells you that to get Samba and SWAT...." For which version? The latest? As I stated, I have come across Ubuntu servers in the wild with this security hole wide open, so either they came with it by default OR their admins were not as skilled as you the Linux community likes to think they are, and left their systems with incorrect and insecure configurations, which is easily possible because too many distros are NOT integrated stacks but bundles of disparate software modules, whereas IIS is built to integrate with the security in the MS stack. If you want to pretend the hole never occurs then please go back and look at the large number of websites with pages detailing how to avoid leaving the SAMBA/SWAT hole wide open - they are there for a reason.

"....I have a client that still runs a RHEL4 box or two that I can access from my desk. They do not use Samba or SWAT but it is installed. Whether this was 'by default' or was selected from the installation list I can't say but it definitely is _not_ active.....Your uninformed claims are completely bogus....." So you can't say if it was bundled and enabled by default, but then you can say xinetd.conf hasn't been configured since install (how?) - more than a little denial going on, it seems. Either way, as I stated I remembered, and you cannot disprove, RHEL AS4 had it bundled. You enjoy your denial, you're just adding to my argument that (a) the Apache webserver exposes security holes many Linux admins don't even know about (you yourself don't even know if your RHEL4 client was so configured, you had to go check - not good security practice), and (b) far to many Linux users are far too fast to think "it's Linux, it must be better than COTS software".

"....You may also note, if you read anything about the product, that logging in as anything other than root will limit the facilities and _prevent_ updating the Samba configuration...." I'd argue maybe on a modern release, definitely NOT true on older versions. I suggest YOU go do some Web reading on SAMBA security holes and how SAMBA is viewed as a "gift" by the hackers even with modern releases of SAMBA. Being an ostrich is not a good security policy.

0
2

Blame WWI, not Bin Laden, for NSA's post-9/11 intel suck

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Tom 38 "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

And still no arguments or counters! Once again, Tom upholds the sheeple's perfect failure record. I'll make it easy for you, Tommy, just supply some evidence to backup your fellow sheeple's assertion that the Fed was the cause of all Germany's ills post-WW1. Either that or go waste bandwidth elsewhere.

1
6
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Tom 38 Re: "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

"You can tell when Matt is really frothy, he forgets about paragraphs." You can tell when Tom (and the rest of the sheeple) can't argue the facts presented when they start bleating about paragraphs and name-calling.

0
4
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Mephhead Re: Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

"....The French weren't the only ones fighting Germany, don't you know?...." Your ignorance is so total it's like you manage to suck up the bare minimum of facts and then, somehow, totally ignore the rest because it does not fit with your socio-political outlook. The French were the senior ally in the Great War, they had by far the largest number of forces involved in the first few years. Britain's initial Expeditionary Force was tiny by comparison, and even later in the War only matched the sheer number of French troops fighting, but the French took roughly 3 dead soldiers for each 2 Tommies killed, and roughly 2 wounded for every Tommy wounded. The American contribution was very welcome, but again was about half compared to that of the French (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/world-war-i-troop-statistics/)

"...,The war was fought, and the armistice was signed by some other 'minor players'</sarc>, like the UK and the USA...." Indeed, the Armistace was agreed on the basis of Woodrow Wilson's plans (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson1.htm), and was signed on the 11th November 1918. This, though widely thought of as 'the end of the War', was effectively a ceasefire, a truce, and nothing more. The War officially continued for another seven months until the signing of the Peace Treaty at Versailles on 28th June 1919 (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm). In the intervening period, the French upped their demands far beyond Wilson's original plan, but by that point Germany was in virtual civil war (due to Communist and Anarcho-Socialist agitation) and her people starving from the Allied blockade. The Germans had to agree to the French demands or face the Allies commencing their attacks again. The Yanks were so upset by what they considered the French taking advantage that they did not want to ratify the Treaty, not formally ending their War until the Knox–Porter Resolution of July 1921.

".....If these countries hadn't spent trillions they didn't have thanks to the Federal Reserve and similar schemes, their role in the war would have been more limited and less expensive, and they would have forced France to accept more generous conditions....." None of which had anything to do with the French desire to cripple post-War Germany. The Brits and Yanks could have been bankrupt and it would still have done nothing to stop the French. You are confusing your hatred for another of what you consider 'The Man's tools of monetary oppression' with historical fact.

".....they didn't have much choice but to milk Germany till exhaustion or face a long bankruptcy....." Rubbish. Britain made a tiny amount from reparations compared to the income derived from the post-War colonies, especially India. For example, Australia received ₤5,571,720 war reparations, but the direct cost of the war to Australia had been ₤376,993,052. Britain's prime concern was that the new League of Nations did not dismantle the Empire (as Wilson intended it to). The French likewise had more income from their colonies. The reparations and later occupation of the Ruhr, along with setting up Poland and the Baltic States, were all about crippling Germany. The cost of the Ruhr Occupation by the French was barely covered by the money recovered, so much so that the French had to thin out the occupation forces to concentrate their military budget on the Maginot Line, and was why the French caused so little fuss when Hitler finally refused to pay any more reparations in 1933.

".....the most important one was the poverty caused by the war...." Again, rubbish. Germany was not invaded, her wealth was not looted by a conquering force, her factories were not bombed into ruin. France WAS invaded and many of her Northern towns ransacked and reduced to rubble. The post-War struggles against 'revolution' in Germany and the subsequent instability was the destroyer of wealth and of the living standards of the people. And also nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.

".....The Communists, the Nazis, and the Anarchists were all a direct result of poverty and injustice...." You know so little, but post so much rubbish. Do you really want to claim 'Communism' was born in Germany only AFTER the Great War? Rosa Luxembourg herself was a politician in the Marxist SPD before the War. She formed the Spartacus League, forerunner of the official German Communist Party, in 1915, and it was at the core of the attempted 'Revolution' in Germany with planning starting long before the Armistace. Luxembourg and her partner Liebknecht declared Germany a 'Free Socialist Republic' in an attempt to kick-start the 'revolution' on 9th November 1918, before the Armistace had even been signed. Please stop embarrassing yourself and go read some history.

".....Meanwhile, in post-war Germany, the causes of the poverty and injustice were caused by 'the rest of the World'...." Nope, they were caused by Germany going to war, and were nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. Germany was not occupied after the Great War, her politicians were still in control and set economic and security policy. That is why the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender in 1945, because they believed they had been too lenient in allowing Germany to largely retain control of herself in 1918.

"....That's something they teach in History 101...." It is very obvious you have never studied any history of Europe, please do not embarrass yourself by pretending you have done anything more than read Leftie pamphlets.

2
6
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Maphhead Re: All Governments are dangerous and can easly end up as criminal gangs

".....WWII wouldn't have happened at all, because the Germans wouldn't have had to pay the allies all their costs plus interests plus penalties -which in turn wouldn't have caused the hyperinflation and misery in Germany....." Not so. The French had been through three wars with Prussian Germany, they decided that they had to make the terms of Germnay's surrender so massive and long-term so as to supposedly make another war with Germany impossible. The Fed had nothing to do with either the French decision or the economic pain of the French terms. At that point, whilst the Armistace was in place, the Allied blockade of Germany was also still in place and the German people were starving. Raising the blockade and feeding their people became much more important than economics for the Germna politicians.

".....and the subsequent rise of the Nazi party." All the parts for the rise of the Nazi party were in place already. Indeed, the biggest trigger for popular support of the far right was the dreadful behaviour of the Communists throughout Eatern Europe, especially in Germany, and the Soviet oppression of the Baltic Germans. In Italy, Mussollini was a socialist and abandoned the Left to form the Fascists as he considered the Left barbaric, immature and their policies unworkable. The NDAP that became the German Nazi Pary were the National SOCIALISTS - the Left grew the rise of Facism with their own stupidity. Again, nothing to do with the Fed.

3
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Stop

"Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

".....with the intent of curbing dissent mainly from socialists and pacifists....." It's part of the mythical victimhood of the academic Left in America that they insist they have been unfairly targeted 'forever'. The actual reality was the US had a fear of and targeted what they saw as 'Bolsheviks', concentrating on those that they saw as deliberately trying to spread 'revolution' amongst the workers. Lenin's April Thesis, with it's idea of stripping all land and goods from the rich and giving them 'to the people' (which actually meant giving them to Lenin and the few people he wanted to have goods), was anathema to the American Dream - the States didn't have nobles. But ordinary socialists had little to fear as long as they did not mix with the vocal hard Left or try unionising the workers. This distaste for Bolshevism gained added fervour when the Reds in Russia signed a separate peace with Imperial Germany in March 1918, at a time when Imperial Russia was an ally of the US in the Great War. In Britain, France, Italy and the States, Bolshevism became a bye word for traitor. Post-War anarchist bombings in the States (and the horrific mess of the Russian Revolution and other Communist excesses in Europe) led to the 'Red Scare' of 1919 and pretty much made Communism and Bolshevism the bête noir of American politics for the rest of the century. But petite socialists had nothing to fear. Indeed, many would consider Woodrow Wilson, Deomcrat POTUS form 1913 to 1921 and therefore in control of the early American eavesdropping capability, as more than a touch socialist and, by his own admission, a 'progressive'.

4
4

Kids hack Canadian ATM during LUNCH HOUR

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Arthue Dent Re: (@Matt Bryant) Mephhead Not an 'hack'. (@ Jim 59)(tl; dr)

Richard Stallman. Richard STALLMAN. RICHARD STALLMAN! Seriously, just go look him up if you don't know who he is.

0
1
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Mephhead Re: (@ MasterBollocks) Mephhead Not an 'hack'. (@ Jim 59)(tl; dr)

"....RMS is not a dictionary nor a technical tome....." OMGeez you really DO want to argue over whether Stallman is qualified to define hacking/cracking?!? You are beyond splitting hairs, you have invented a whole new level of denial! If you weren't so comic it would be tragic.

".....that happened years ago...." Yeah, and you can show that? No, you can't. Just more desperate denial. Enjoy!

0
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Mephhead Not an 'hack'. (@ Jim 59)(tl; dr)

".....so you can point us to another dictionary or 'technical tome' that agrees with your funny exclusive definition of 'hacking',...." How about Richard Stallman? Oh, you have at least heard of Stallman, right? As Stallman once put it whilst recalling the original 'hacks' from the MIT AI Lab:

"....Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers, they fixated on one narrow aspect of real hacking: the security breaking which some hackers occasionally did. They ignored all the rest of hacking, and took the term to mean breaking security, no more and no less. The media have since spread that definition, disregarding our attempts to correct them. As a result, most people have a mistaken idea of what we hackers actually do and what we think. You can help correct the misunderstanding simply by making a distinction between security breaking and hacking—by using the term "cracking" for security breaking. The people who do it are "crackers". Some of them may also be hackers, just as some of them may be chess players or golfers; most of them are not....."

Now, technical merit of Richard Stallman vs Merriam's - not even close! Looks like you'll have to continue your Quest To Prove Matt Bryant Wrong Just Once for a while longer, that is unless your sheeple denial means you really want to argue Stallman's position as suitable to comment on 'hacking'. Please do, just for the comedy value.

0
4
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Mephhead Not an 'hack'. (@ Jim 59)(tl; dr)

"....Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary...." LOL, such a well-known technical tome! Why am I so surprised little Mephhead doesn't have any technical books to use as a resource? Oh, I'm not actually surprised. And, of course, he's far too young (and ill-read) to know that hacking in the computing industry has ALWAYS referred to coding, even when applied to security, going right back to MIT in the '60s. Maybe when he graduates kindergarten he'll learn.

"....totally thrashing MB's arguments...." Wow, someone really needs to loosen up their panties! I'm beginning to think some of the sheeple have so little going on in their herd-life that they have dedicated their time to Proving Matt Bryant Wrong At Least Once - more than a little creepy! Such a shame for Mephhead that he still has a long way to go on that one, it's probably not healthy for him to be so obsessive.

"....it saddens me to see how MB sometimes gets away with using such tactics...." You mean you got your panties in a bunch because you hate it when your fellow sheeple can't disprove the facts and points I post. I really think someone should get Mephhead some professional help.

/need a 'stalker' icon, please!

0
4

How practical is an electric car in London?

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Flame

Re: Evil Auditor Re: More privileges?

"....I convert the Lotus to electric". Sacrilege! Burn the heretic!

Besides, Lotii spend most of their time being fixed so can't pollute that much anyway. :p

3
1
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: JeffyPooh Re: In other words, they're not sustainable

".....I can understand why petrol filler necks have to be on one side or the other. But given the simplicity of an electrical socket, why not have a charging port on both sides of the car?" To keep build costs cheap. Each socket or petrol filler cap requires a hole punched in the car body panels, each hole means another stamping operation, so more cost. And then each socket require the socket and more wiring, so even more cost. Luxury cars like the Jags often used to have two filler caps.

2
1
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Rakkor Re: On Street Parking

"....move to a less pikey area". Pikeys have caravans, they park them where they like. I would suggest you mean a less Chavvie area.

When I used to rent a place it had no allocated parking, just street parking. It was about five minutes walk from Esher rail station, so if you had to go out on an early shift you usually came back to find some commuter had nicked 'your' parking space, a delivery van was parked in it, or a tradesman's van. That was back in the '80s when I was firmly convinced the majority of London Councils despised all motorists and just viewed us as mobile tax opportunities. I doubt if they will love electric cars any more than they did petrol ones.

3
1

CIA rendition jet was waiting in Europe to SNATCH SNOWDEN

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Potty Re: @Trevor_Pott @Titus_Technophobe

Ignoring the childish digs at 'Imperial' Britian and the US, I would have to say I agree that a lot of the borders will have to be redrawn. You get an upvote for that. Does that mean you agree with the idea that Iraq will have to be broken up into at least three countries (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia)? Apart from the obvious question of how do you share the oil wealth, what about the minor Iraqi religions such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastians, all of which pre-date Islam, do they get their own chunk, and if so where? Are their 'cultures' less important? To them, Islam was the invader, the imperial oppressors.

And you get an upvote for the idea of respecting other cultures, though it seems you're more intent on bad mouthing Western culture than anything else. Anyway, what about Iraqi people that want to leave Islam, are you going to force the Muslims (both Sunni and Shia) to accept what they call 'apostasy', a crime their 'culture' insists is punishable by death? Where do the apostates then go? Maybe their 'culture' isn't so wonderful after all.

Maybe you can now realise what the 'Imperialist' Brits realised long ago - the Middle East is complex, and if it was easy it would have been fixed long, long ago. The only powers that have managed to maintain anything like peace in the region have been imperialist (ranging from the Assyrians through the Ottoman Turks, the Brits and French and the Hashemite Arabs) or dictatorial (Assad, Hussein, Sadat, Mubarak, etc.). Just blaming everything on 'Imperialism' is a cop out.

2
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: DrKnob Re: TheOtherHobbes

".....the lies of WMD's...." Go learn something (http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/).

0
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: DrKnob

"....the Mujahadeen having seen off one bunch of invaders turned their freely supplied weaponry on to the next invader, the USA....." Actually, you I'll-educated moron, the Taliban turned on their fellow Afghanis, aided by AQ. On the other side of the border, they turned on the Pakistanis. Both happened long before the US invasion. The Northern Alliance, which represented the MAJORITY of Afghans, was all in favour of the US removing the Taliban from power, especially after AQ murdered their leader. Try a bit of reading before bleating thoughtless propaganda pieces, mmmkay?

0
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Blitheringeejit Re: Matt Bryant Silver Badge Commentard Rating

"..... the coveted Silver Badge status....." Aw, what a laughable little popularist troll you are! I take it you think you need the adulation of your fellow sheeple to be 'a success' to have 'achieved something'? Would you stick your head in an oven if they offered to upvote you for it because it sounds like you would. As I have pointed out before, I really couldn't give a jot whether you sheeple get your panties in a bunch. When the forums started the badges, I posted that there should also be a black badge for achieving a certain number of down votes, it would at least show independent thought.

".....But does El Reg count downvotes towards removal of said status?" LOL, to really upsets you, does it? So amusing! Oh, and again, nothing at all to do with the thread. You sheeple really do hate a dissenting voice, don't you.

0
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: AC Re: now that Matt Bryant has clarified everything there is to know ...

"....Link to the abstract of an interesting research article published in the Journal of Psychological Science...." Of course, because there never were any racist or homophobic Lefties, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_antisemitism

You guys really need to realise bad science is just bad science, no matter how comforting you find it. Oh, and that's another sheeple post with SFA to do with the thread or the with any counter to the points I raised. Try again, only a lot harder, mmmkay?

0
3

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: AC Re: now that Matt Bryant has clarified everything there is to know ...

I see that you go another whole post bitching about my posts but - again - being unable to post any counters. And now you're moaning about Orlowski too? You must be a Green sheeple.

0
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Arnaut the clueless Re: AC You guys should know by now

".... Iran is not an Arab country,nor is Malaysia....." Neither Iran or Malaysia were listed in the countries the original AC poster tried to claim where their current problems were 'all the fault of US foreign policy'. However, as well as being a major cause of the friction in the current Shia-Sunni conflicts in the Middle east, Iran itself is not immune to the problem, the Shia authorities having oppressed and victimised local Iranian Sunni Arabs, especially since the Islamic Revolution. Malaysia is currently awash with petrol cash and stabilised by the system of government, law and civil service they inherited from British rule, but all is not rosy there either. They currently have an internal struggle between those that want to encourage Western investment and those that want to impose hardline Sharia laws. Persecution of Christians in Malaysia has been rife since the British colonial powers left. The Open Doors charity has an UK site which has a list of the fifty worst offending countries that persecute Christians (http://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/country_profiles.php), topped by North Korea (one of the last rabid Marxist countries, therefore outlawing religion) and including Malaysia - please do count the number of Islamic states that appear in the list, then try arguing it is a co-incidence. Islam is non-democratic and breeds intolerance, hence their inability to let bygones be bygones in Iraq.

"....they have implanted a Western state in the region (Israel), which is rapidly changing its ethnic mix to become mainly Russian and African...." Apart from the fact that the UN Partition Plan for British Mandate Palestine was based on areas which had an existing Jewish population that had been there for thousands of years, you mean? And are you being racist as well as anti-Semitic when you say Russian or African Jews should be refused the right to live in Israel simply because they are Russian or black? You do realise (probably not) that there are plenty of Islamic states in Africa, such as Egypt, with black African Muslims, are you going to insist they get rid of all of them too?

"....The US has consistently sided with the Sunnis...." If that were true they would not have let the Shia majority take control in Iraq. The US stood by their democratic ideals, it is the Iraqi Shia that failed to see the possibilities of engaging peacefully with all Iraqis.

"....I realise it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you...." Because I expose the idiocy of your convictions? Because I debunk your silly ideas with ease? Because you are unable to argue against the points I raise? Grow up, TBH.

"....your categorising Islam as the problem would be like blaming Christianity for the series of European wars from Luther to Hitler...." If you wish to pretend that the Sunni-Shia schism has no bearing on the current conflict in Iraq (or Syria, or simmering away in Lebanon) then please do provide an in-depth appraisal of the history of each country the AC listed and point out how only the US is to blame. It should be good for a few laughs!

".....it may be by causing the brighter thinkers in US politics to start to grasp, not only how they have been spied on, but also how the Intelligence agencies and their neocon cheerleaders have consistently misrepresented what is happening on the ground to get support for policies that favour the arms makers and the oil industry....." Too silly for words! If the 'brighter thinkers' actually needed Snowjob, Manning or A$$nut to give them an insight into the capabilities of the NSA or GCHQ then they can't have been that bright. The evidence has either been there or been public conjecture for many years. Even Duncan Campbell had to admit during the ABC Trails that all the 'secrets' on GCHQ he had 'exposed' were already in the public arena, what he was prosecuted for was discussing the secret work of a former GCHQ employee in breach of the OSA. If your 'bright thinkers' hadn't picked up on it then they were, frankly, not bright. You also forget, all too easily, that the Democrats have been holding the reigns during much of the NSA's existance, and yet they didn't dismantle the "neocons' apparatus"? Your diatribe against 'neocons and the arms makers and the oil industry' just sounds like junior grade sheeple material, please try and be original.

1
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: AC Re: You guys should know by now

"....US foreign policy is very simple:...." What, you want to claim the US went back in time and created the Sunni-Shia schism? Apart from Ukraine (which is a problem of Russian origin), the ret of the countries listed share a simple common factor - Islam. Trying to pretend the US is the sole cause of all the World's ills may get you kudos inside the herd but don't be surprised when the rest of the World laughs at your sheepleness.

0
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: AC Re: now that Matt Bryant has clarified everything there is to know ...

".....edumacate the rest of us..." Well, some of you seem to be suffering from an excess of education from which you derived no knowledge.

"....ranging from finance to economics to central banking to interest-rate setting mechanisms...." Aw, you're not STILL sulking over the kicking you took in not being able to disprove my simple example of how someone earning 100k lives like a millionaire, are you? That 'illustrious' college degree you bleated on about should have included a module in getting over yourself.

0
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Mark Butler Airspace classes

"....Do you have a source for the NATO thing?" Not really. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article on rendition flights as having been agreed on 4th October 2001, otherwise it got a lot of airtime in these forums. It basically allowed the other NATO governments to deny all knowledge because they didn't have to record legal docs like flight manifests. To the public, it was dressed up as allowing NATO to deploy resources quickly in response to terrorist threats without the delays of flight plans, etc. It's also been used by US politicians to keep surprise visits to dangerous areas as secret as possible right up to the time of visit, in the hope it won't allow someone like Hezbollah or AQ (or ISIS) to setup a 'reception'.

1
2

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Mark Butler Re: Airspace classes

"Considering the ceiling for IFR flight across Europe is around 66,000 feet and that requires a flight plan and ATC comms it doesn't bode well for the accuracy of the rest of the story." I don't think that's the case for the North Atlantic, over which most of the flight took place. I think you'll also find that a NATO countries agreement from 2001 allows US military and government aircraft to overfly NATO countries without filing a public flight plan.

1
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Uffish Re: Damage

"There is also damage to a free society* caused by rampant bugging of everything that can be bugged.....also the damage caused to a free society by the neutralisation of democracy...." So, you can show evidence of this 'damage', right? Maybe you'd like to help YawnGreen with his search for proof of 'harm' and Marsbarbrain with his search for evidence of his claimed 'chilling of liberty'. It should keep the three of you quiet for quite a while.

0
16
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Levente Zillyboy Re: TheOtherHobbes

"He was probably thinking of the partitioning of India which arguably was designed to be unstable...." The partitioning of India was thanks to the intractability of locals Muslims, especially Muhammad Jinnah, not the British. The British simply wanted out, especially as they were now under the post-War government of Labour's Clement Attlee. Ghandi certainly did not want to partition India, he wanted a single state where all religions could live in equality, but the Muslims feared being the minority under the dominion of the Hindu majority. The British tried to accommodate both sides with the Mountbatten Plan but it left the smaller princely states the choice of which country - India or Pakistan - they wished to join. And that's how the whole Kashmir mess started, when the Maharaja of Kashmir chose to join Kashmir to India against the wishes of his Muslim subjects, leading to the first Indo-Pakistani War in 1947. The big difference was pre-partition India had very distinct states and principalities that made up the overall country, whereas the chunk of the Middle East seized by the Brits from the Ottoman Empire did not, hence the countries of the Mid East were just about all arbitrary European creations.

6
3
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Christoph Re: TheOtherHobbes

Sorry but you lost all cred when you linked to that raving loon Craig Murray. His drivel makes Campbell's half-baked theories look like scientific fact.

0
4
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Roland6 Re: Why wasn't the plane investigated or shot out of the sky?

"What is missing from this piece is that here we have an aircraft that has not announced it's presence to air traffic control...." Because the article only states no public flight plan was filed, that doesn't mean no-one was aware. Indeed, the whole article is based on the fact they tracked the radar transponder, which means air defence radar in most of Western Europe would have been aware of the aircraft. It also means they could simply look up the tag and say 'oh, it's an US Government aircraft which has been granted carte blanche to fly overhead outside ATC controlled airspace'. For all you know they could have spent the whole flight chatting with the RAF controllers that monitor and control the airspace outside the commercial levels.

0
3

AV for Mac

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Dogged Re: AV for Mac

I'm just waiting for Dick Plinston to come along and insist it's because she let a Windoze admin near it....

Malware is driven by greed, not OS fanboism, and does not care what OS you are running.

0
1

Snowden's Big Brother isn't as Orwellian as you'd think

Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: YawnGreen gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"....And you're the carnivore?...." Going on the evidence you present in your posts, compared to you I'm a cross between Einstein and a T-Rex. Now stop evading and procrastinating and post the evidence of 'harm' you insisted it was so easy for you to prove.

0
2
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: YawnGreen Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"...consider the number of sheep who inhabit this domain, who disagree and downvote you..." As I have pointed out to you and the other sheeple before, I am completely unconcerned about 'fitting in with the flock'. After all, it is a natural law of nature that the herds of herbivores outnumber the carnivores that prey upon them. Or, for a simpler example that might make it past your reality filters, the number of sheep in New Zealand far outnumbers the number of humans, yet the New Zealand Government don't ask the sheep for their views. But I suppose it helps you cope that you like to baaaah-lieve your views are 'popular' if only in the tiny circle you move in.

"...why you keep coming back here...." Apart from the fact I was here when it was a respectable technical website, long before the majority of the sheeple arrived, I also find exposing your stupidity quite amusing. Unlike you and your unquestioning acceptance of what the herd tell you is 'fact', I am quite happy to think for myself and more than equipped to debate the facts with you I'll-equipped sheeple. I know you have been inculcated with the idea that independent thought is 'bad', that any divergence from what you have been told is 'The Truth' is just verboten in the flock, but I think it really is in your own best interest to realise those here that post alternate views (backed by verifiable facts) are actually doing you lot a favour. Oh, and we get to laugh at your frothing responses. Enjoy!

Oh, and BTW, that little spittle-flecked tantrum was yet another post with nothing to do with the thread, just more diversion, and you are still avoiding posting the proof of 'harm' you claimed you could show.

0
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Marsbarbrain Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"....I wonder how Matt would describe the comment: "STFU you boring, repetitive, lying, moronic sheep"?" As an accurate description of YawnGreen's posting habits.

0
4
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Psyx YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"....you seem repeatadly disinterested in anything constructive....." So, I post verifiable facts and arguments, you just post blather and froth, but you say I'm disinterested? Your denial really is quite exceptionally developed, at least your social services team can reflect that you have finally excelled in something, even if it is being pointless.

"....then you go quiet and scuttle off to another thread...." What, you're complaining I haven't exposed your stupidity enough? Are you some kind of psychological masochist? Are you labouring under the mistaken assumption that your posts are somehow a contribution?

"....BTW keep annoying gazthejourno...." What, by clarifying the rules? Oh, I forgot - for you there is no 'understanding', no rules, you simply obey the shepherds unquestioningly. How quaint.

Oh, BTW, you still didn't post the proof of 'harm' you claimed you could provide.

0
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Psyx Re: YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"Whereas name-calling is far more constructive?" At least my name-calling comes with verifiable facts and arguments. YawnGreen wouldn't know a fact if it bit his fat backside. Indeed, it seems the sheeple are much happier bitching about name-calling rather than admitting the article has a point, and that their fervent bleatings about big Borther Now are just hysterical melodramatics.

0
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Stop

Re: gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

Was that down vote because someone doesn't want gaz to remain as Moderatrix? I admit, he's not Ms Bee, but there's no going back, she dumped us and moved on. You'll just have to quit moping and accept gaz is it, she ain't coming back.

0
4
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Happy

Re: YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

You make the assumption that I clicked the 'abuse' button for your drivel, when the reality is I would have clicked a button for 'laughable stupidity' if that was available. Or a button for 'constant repetition' which is against the house rules. Because that's all you do, repeat, deny and divert. Once again, post the proof of 'harm' you insisted the NSA's actions are inflicting on 'everyone', you said you could do so. If you are finally realising that what you stated you cannot prove, I'll make it easier for you - simply show the proof that the NSA's activities are 'harming' you. Surely if what you claim is true then that should be so easy for you that you won't even need your usual, abusive diversions?

0
6
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"....So, is that acceptable now?" No, because you are still just avoiding posting any proof of the 'harm' you claimed the NSA was doing to 'everyone'. It doesn't matter if you use abuse or not, all the forum readers get that all you are doing is trying to divert attention away from the fact your mindless claims have no basis in reality.

0
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: YawnGreen Re: gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"Look matt, if it upsets you so much, if you really think it's so harsh, I'll repost with the offending line removed and delete the original...." But, as expected, you won't post any proof of the 'harm' you claimed the NSA was doing to 'everyone'. So, you're just avoiding again.

0
5
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

Was the down vote because someone actually thinks I do have power over the editorial staff?

0
4
Matt Bryant
Silver badge
Pint

Re: gaz Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

"The reported comment does not, in my judgement, breach the house rules...." So the system is working as intended, the editorial staff are in complete control of comment visibility, and your assertion I was trying to hide comments was simply... Well, incorrect, I suppose? Made in the heat of the moment, perhaps? A slip of the keyboard, maybe? I assume it's merely because you've had a long and tiring week, and are looking forward to beer-o'clock.

Everyone please show your appreciation for gaz and his thankless task of moderating us in his unflinching, unbiased and humorous manner. Long may his overwatch continue.

0
4