* Posts by h4rm0ny

4617 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Assange confirmed alive, tells Fox: Prez Obama 'acting like a lawyer'


Re: I'm game

Unless of course his source was someone in the DNC in which case it would be pretty obvious they wouldn't need to be "fed by Russia" as they'd already have access.

Coincidentally Seth Rich had such access.


Re: A pardon?

Correct, but you're missing something. There is precedent for a US president issuing a pardon for crimes where charges have not actually been brought. (yes, really). Essentially turning it into a promise not to prosecute. Assange has said that his fear is not the charges in Sweden but that he will be extradited to the US which will immediately issue charges. And that's not an unreasonable position given the circumstances. We had trouble enough holding onto Gary McKinnon and all he did was guess a couple of passwords and fail to find UFO evidence. So some sort of guarantee from the US president that they wont try to extradite him would be pretty valuable.

It will be interesting when Trump takes charge and the CIA presumably have to do what he tells them and actually reveal the proof they claim to have (if any). Well, at least I think the CIA are supposed to do what the president tells them to do... Actually, maybe somebody should tell the CIA that.

My fortnight eating Blighty's own human fart-powder


I believe it can be good and balanced...

But my question is what is the nutritional gap between this and say, a bowl of porridge and an apple?

Bitcoin breaks US$1,000


Re: Sudden crash coming again?

Correct. The amusing (and valuable) thing about BitCoin is that it is a literally fiat currency that behaves in all meaningful ways like a non-fiat currency.


Re: Sudden crash coming again?

>>"Seeing as there is still no material grounds for the valuation, and that with no underlying asset the exposure is 100%, are we just waiting for another big crash? The whole of the value is based on faith in people you probably can't trust (after all they're actively seeking an unregulated money transfer/launder), so maybe another trading platform theft will do it. Must say as a store of value it seems risky, and as an exchange platform it seems volatile."

My first instinct is to ask you whether you're talking about BitCoin or the dollar.

But then I remembered that the dollar actually is backed by something - USA's willingness to invade if you decide not to use it!

Prez Obama expels 35 Russian spies over election meddling


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>That's not as much of an either-or decision as you seek to portray, the third option is neither.

Neither doesn't really work. CIA say it wasn't a leak. Wikileaks say it was. And you sounding very clever say that neither is right? What would "neither" mean? Or are you suggesting that both are so lacking in credibility that there is no evidence either way. If so, please give some examples of where Wikileaks has lied or passed out false information. I'll be waiting.

>> If they had been digging as deep in GOP leaks as Democrats they would have had more credibility

You presume that there are available equivalent leaks for the Republicans as well. Given leaks of this scale are rare, you'd need to provide some reason why you think this is so. Wikileaks are a place for people to leak information to. They don't magic up a bunch of emails at will. There were very notable circumstances for the DNC leak - internal corruption, a popular candidate (who might have beaten Trump) being sabotaged by staff who were supposed to be neutral... On the Republican side, you already knew most of the Republican big wigs wanted to oust Trump. I mean they even discussed disregarding the result of the primaries openly. Where is your evidence that Wikileaks was passed leaked Republican emails and deliberately sat on them? Because that's what you're claiming with the above.


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

Maybe the USA should get rid of the electoral college if they dislike it so much. They could have a proportional representation system... Like Russia does. ;)


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"I did not go into these things because I did not want to appear to be judging from a bias. Albeit I am, but the opposite that you thought I was.... I try to be fair.. of course I fail, but I least I try."

Sorry, no offence was meant and I agreed with your post. It was a surmise as I said at the time. I found it interesting and positive that even two people who (I thought at the time) had different political views, could agree on the destructiveness of Obama's current approach. Apologies for guessing wrong.


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"The President has been and Congress will be hearing a great deal more than anything you'll find on the interwebs."

Important correction in turn: The president will be, but members of Congress have been refused access. There was a closed briefing for selected members.

Lack of access severely limits expert analysis and independent corroboration. Ultimately, I believe this will come down to "do you trust the CIA".


Re: The Facts?

>>"Note the sequencing: first Trump declares an option, THEN he says he will try to be updated about the facts."

It's true. I went to court last week and the Judge made the comment that she was going to act as if I was innocent until she'd been presented with actual evidence. I couldn't believe that she leaned to a conclusion and said she'd stick to it unless persuaded otherwise. I almost demanded to be locked up then and there!


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"If he wanted to mess with Israel, he had two terms to do it. Chose not to, but now, he is messing around... this is not in the interest of the USA."

Oddly enough (odd because I'm a long-term critic of Israeli foreign policy), I agree with you. There's a real air of 'ha! they can't punish me now!' about Obama's recent shifts on Israel. I mean unlike you (I'm guessing, could be wrong), I actually want to see the US stop blindly supporting Israel but it's hardly heroic on Obama's side, more like a kid on the last day of school knowing the teachers can't put him in detention. I guess I'll take what I can get but like you say - he's had two whole terms to do this. This isn't really very helpful.


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"Have a non-reflexive down-vote purely for not being able to understand that a factual post can be completely worthy of a down-vote."

When a post is entirely factual, I like to see disagreement with the contents take the form of reasoned argument rather than just voting them down without explanation. At the time of my post (and still to the time I post this), the person I replied to had been modded down by a number of people but nobody had actually given any reason why anything they wrote was wrong. Which is not that surprising as what they wrote is easily verified.

I fully understand that one could vote down a purely factual post - for example any of those interminable "Try Linux" posts every single sodding time there's a story about a Windows issue no matter how off-topic it is; or if there's obvious lack of context or understanding such as "It was really cold last week" on a story about global warming. But this is neither so yes, I do find it disappointing when I see an on-topic, being voted down by a few people but none of whom dispute that it's actually accurate.

Do we know that Seth Rich was the leaker? No, we don't. Can we say it's very possible he was? Yes - we have a more reliable source stating it was a leak and he is a likely candidate and there are several actual hints that he was as well. It's pretty reasonable to suggest that his being shot multiple times in the back near his home in Bloomberg could be linked to an agency well-known for assassinations. Given that if it was a leak then someone (plausibly Seth Rich) was in a position to discredit said agency's story. If someone's first reaction to reading the above is "Conspiracy Theory" rather than "but that part doesn't make sense", then I humbly and politely ask them to take a few moments and ask themselves if there is anything that is obviously wrong in it. Nobody is saying we know it to be the case. But it's perfectly possible and, if one thinks that Wikileaks is telling the truth, then it actually becomes quite likely.

So short version: clearly I do understand that a purely factual post can be worthy of a downvote. But isn't it better to actually point out the obvious flaws in it? And if that isn't easily done, then downvoting isn't the next best thing, imo.


Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

I'm sorry to see some reflexive downvoting on your post as it's entirely factual. The CIA have a history of lying - including to their own government (example, they lied about their use of torture to a House Committee) and interfering with multiple country's democratic processes. They have a long and documented history of such. They even ran drugs to finance themselves independently of US government funding. In contrast, Wikileaks provide substantiated information and as far as I'm aware, have never been caught lying about such matters. Wikileaks say it's not Russia and was in fact a leak from within the DNC. CIA say it isn't but refuse to provide evidence - again, even to their own government. (The Chair of the House Intelligence committee was refused a briefing from them when he requested one).

Any logical and evidence based balance of probabilities would be to say that Wikileaks is more likely telling the truth.

And if it is a leak rather than hacking, then the immediate logical follow-up is that the CIA will want to prevent the truth emerging. Someone willing to leak that data is also someone who could plausibly confess to it. Seth Rich is one of the suspected sources of the leak. He could demolish the CIA's entire case by going public as the source. Or rather he could before he coincidentally died a few miles from his house in an alleged robbery. Fun fact: people who mug you for your wallet and phone are usually content to just get those items and run. They don't normally go out trying to shoot people dead. (Especially, you don't normally find their victims dying from multiple shots to the back).

So again, it's a shame to see some people go "Conspiracy Theory" and vote it down (or do so for other reasons). Maybe my post will be too, but there's nothing in the above that is implausible nor flawed reasoning. What it comes down to is that some people don't want to accept the liklihood that people in the US government are willing to have someone killed to suit their agenda. Despite that such people have knowingly killed hundreds of thousands with wars like Iraq or the bombing of Libya knowing full well that such loss of life would be the result. To reject the idea that the CIA or similar would assasinate someone or that people in government would turn a blind eye to it, is to reject countless historical cases where they have done exactly that, and on far grander scale than one life.

In short: which group has the greater credibility - Wikileaks or the CIA. Based on evidence one has to say the former. If the former is telling the truth is it the case that US parties have the motive and demonstrated willingness to dispose of someone who could expose them. Overwhelmingly yes to both of those again. None of this is unsupported so downvote away!

'I told him to cut it out' – Obama is convinced Putin's hackers swung the election for Trump


Re: Chris G Let me get this alt right

You know, Matt. I want to upvote you and sometimes do, but you make it really hard to by descending to the level of name-calling like "Obambi".


Re: DNC - Remove the mote from your own eye

The email server investigation was dropped before the election wasn't it? I thought the head of the FBI had declared that they weren't going to prosecute.


Re: DNC - Remove the mote from your own eye

Well all of the emails are available to read on Wikileaks so I would say that yes, found out what they really thought is fair. Fairer than the amount of misinformation about Trump, that's for sure. Got passed this little read yesterday. Worth the time:



Wasn't the accusation that John Podesta fell for a "reset your password" phishing link anyway? Hardly requires the resources of the Kremlin to pull that off. Hell, a fifteen year old in Ireland required more skill to hack TalkTalk than that. TalkTalk! But no, has to be the Russians.

PoisonTap fools your PC into thinking the whole internet lives in an rPi


Re: Revelation 22:13



Re: This is exactly how things are designed to work

>>"If you have userland code running with admin privileges that does that and malconfigures the system for you automatically that is where the problem lies"

Well, out of the box GNU/Linux systems normally would. That's the thing. Configure GNU/Linux to not accept any old DHCP server and it wont be vulnerable. But the same is true of Windows. If the criticism is that default settings are not adequate, then that applies to most GNU/Linux distros just as much as Windows. If the defence is that you can configure it more securely so this isn't an issue, then that too applies to Windows.

Antivirus tools are a useless box-ticking exercise says Google security chap


Re: If Only Google Could Get A Handle On Their Own Security Problems

>>"Might that correlate more strongly with size? Android has 80%+ of the market :. it makes sense that it would have 9x% of the attention. Windows suffers in the same way on the desktop."

Yes. Though that does give me ironic flashbacks to arguments in the mid-2000's when people here would hold up the quantity of Windows malware against the quantity of GNU/Linux malware and when I'd point out the difference in userbase size and user sectors (server vs. home), they'd go "nuh-uh. It's nothing to do with how many people use it".


I contacted my hosting company over a similar thing, asking if it were actually a phishing attack. They confirmed that no, it wasn't and yes, the domain name ICANN was using was legitimate even though it sounded like a scam. I was unimpressed.

I'll be holding on to my AV for a while longer. Did Google say who should be in charge of whitelisting? Was it them, by any chance?

Britain must send its F-35s to Italy for heavy overhauls, decrees US


Re: Archtech Take back control

>>Also, Ukrainians don't speak Russian - but Ukrainian which has not little differences. Despite the forced russification, despite the deportation of whole ethnic groups. Saying Ukraine is "naturally Russian" if just like saying Hungary (or Northern Italy) should be still part of the Austria,

But we're not talking about "Ukrania", we're talking specifically about the Crimean peninsula. An attached land mass which was previously part of Russia and which was ceded to the Ukraine (such as it was under the USSR) after WWII. Russia has not invaded anywhere else, only this specific peninsula which was a separate region (both administratively and geographically) from Ukraine as a whole.

>>And I wonder what those agreeing with Crimea invasion would say if the US invaded Cuba

If the Cuban people overwhelmingly were US emigres and wanted to be part of the USA, then they should be so. I'm not sure that's the case, though. Crimea is about half the size and a fifth of the population of Cuba, incidentally. Unlike Cuba, which is a country, the Crimean Peninsula is a ruled territory. A better analogy would be if the people of Northern Ireland voted they wanted to be part of Russia and the welcome they gave to Russian troops arriving was called an invasion of England.


Re: I don't get it... (@ Ivan 4)

>>"Why would Russia care about the UK's military capability? (Such as it is)."

Well it shouldn't need to, but as we seem to act as a tool of the USA who want regional dominance, I guess its relevant to them.


Re: Take back control

>>If you shrug your shoulders over the annexation of part of a soverign state(1) just because you think "some"(2) of the people there "might"(3) be happier ruled "elsewhere"(4)

Corrections to some of your weasel wording:

(1) An autonomous region attached to a sovereign state which snaffled it up after WWII.

(2) "Large majority"

(3) Are known to by reputable surveys and the fact that by referendum the people there didn't want to be controlled by the Ukraine.

(4) The country that the Crimean Peninsula used to be part of and which the people there identify as.

>>"Also since when did ignoring a dictators illegal actions EVER make any of them more inclined to follow the rule of law?"

(1) Putin has majority support in Russia. You might not want to believe that but he does. Standard of living has risen dramatically in his time in office.

(2) Strawman because what I was saying was that most European people don't want confrontation with Russia. Putin's feelings on our lack of desire for a war are immaterial to whether we want it or not. (We don't).

>>"Yes, god forbid would should respond in kind to russian military build up."

If NATO forces are surrounding Russia at key strategic points right on its borders, it's a little whimsical to affect that its a defensive and reactive measure. Building missile bases in Poland (against the wishes of the majority of Polish people) is provocation, not defence.

>>"No, we should just tuck our tails between our legs and run off like typical EU cowards"

Does that actually work on people? Calling people cowards for not wanting to act aggressively towards our neighbours? I'm sure there's some hyper-testosterone'd uneducated types out there that will leap up to attention if you tell them they're cowards, but I don't think it's going to work on El Reg forums.


Re: I wonder...

>>"AC because I don't want burying in the Desert for telling you."

Dr. David Kelly is buried here in the UK. Nowhere near a desert!


Re: I don't get it...

>>"BAE would still be cheaper"

Possibly the most damning indictment of what a mess this is that one could imagine.


Re: I don't get it... (@ Ivan 4)

>>"The obvious downside is that by doing this, we would be supporting Putin, Steven Seagal and Gerard Depardieu! :-D"

This gets into Milo Minderbinder territory, but are you sure that it's not more advantageous to Russia to watch us demolish our own military capability than to throw them a few million here and there?


Re: Take back control

Some European leaders were. Many European people were shrugging and saying the people of the Crimea want to be part of Russia anyway and maybe we shouldn't be building up massive military forces around Russia in the first place.

Russian banks floored by withering DDoS attacks


Re: I hope the perps aren't Russian

Goldman Sachs have way more money that you could shake them down for than any Russian bank. Wonder what influenced the choice of targets... Hmmmm?

Panicked WH Smith kills website to stop sales of how-to terrorism manuals


>>"powered chocolate"

Where can I get this? It sounds wonderful!

FBI's Clinton email comedown confirms it could have killed the story in a canter


Re: Is there any reason...

Yes. The relevant laws that Hillary may have contravened were introduced after Colin Powell's private email server. You can't and shouldn't retroactively try someone for laws that weren't in place when an act was committed.


Re: But Wait ...

I agree with much of what you say, but not your repeated misuse of the word 'literally'.


Re: @Doug S @Ian Michael Gumby - 'shy voter' theory

Pence is a born again evangelist Christian (i.e. not the nice affable kindly type, but the righteous and judgemental type who is a devout supporter of Israel on anything they wish) who has left little doubt that he wants to confront Russia in the Middle East ("hello WWIII"). Hilary is no better. At this point, there are no good options

Computer forensics defuses FBI's Clinton email 'bombshell'


Re: I sense political meddling.

>>"For me, the fishy part is this: they claim that they had to build special software to only index and examine his emails"

Public: How did you search the emails?

FBI tech: I did a Bash script with some regular expressions.

Public: Regular what?

FBI tech: It takes like 30 seconds, it's scripting.

Public: Scripting?

FBI tech: You just have to adjust a few parameters because we want to make sure we get all the aliases covered and this email server used a new header format too and...

Public: What????

FBI tech: Fine, I "wrote a program that reads emails"

Preston: "Why would they need to write special software to examine the emails?"

This is answerable by translating tech into public speak and then back into tech, imo. Public speak really only has two ways of understanding any technical process: {Wrote a Program | Didn't Write a Program}.

We're great, you don't understand competition law, Google tells Europe


That's two words.

Capita STILL hasn't delivered usable Army recruitment IT system


Re: Speaking from experience

I recall giving a presentation at a conference and someone in the audience asked a question about integrating with a Capita project. I off-handledly described Capita as a "a rolling disaster" and half the audience spontaneously broke into applause. I wasn't trying to be funny or dramatic, it was just a matter of fact statement. Clearly it resonated though.

I am sure there are some hard-working engineers at Capita. I suspect they spend most of their day pleading for better requirements or adequate resources. Or else just browsing job sites.

America has one month to stop the FBI getting its global license to hack



I believe they were using the murder sentence as an example of irrationality - 12 consecutive lofe sentences. Seriously?

Though it can work as an example of how the US court system is about vengeance rather than justice too. I mean what the Hell is the point of imprisoning someone for 12 life sentences? It blatantly doesn't work as a deterrent as even one life sentence (or even a few years) would act as a deterrent to any rational person. And it sure as Hell isn't about redemption or rehabilitation. Such sentences exist only as a means by which US society can express its desire for punishment. It is a country with a very strong streak of Biblical righteousness to its character. They love to see sinners punished!

Belgian court fines Skype for failing to intercept criminals' calls in 2012

Paris Hilton

Re: MS could buy Belgium

Ireland is in the EU, yes?

Microsoft's Surface Studio desk-slab, Dial knob, Surface Book: We get our claws on new kit


Architecturally, the 10x line isn't really any different to its predecessor. Pascal is just die-shrunk Maxwell. I'd be far mor interested to see what AMD's Vega would look like in this. Polaris brought a number of new features that are interesting over Pascal. , it's just that it was aimed at the larger mainstream market than the high-end. Vega should be the same but high-end.


Re: "People like ultimate laptop and we wanted to keep that title..."

With the Surface Book.


"Posix"? Seriously? POSIX is pre-object orientated and antiquated. It was designed to try and bring some much needed consistency to the mess of different UNIXs out there. That doesn't mean Windows should follow it. It's not suitable for Windows at all, given that the entire Windows environment is Object Orientated and pretty much every interface in the OS is exposed as an object. Why the Hell would POSIX be an advantage for Windows?


Re: Hybrid Raid SSD

>>Gosh, what an absolutely AMAZING coincidence. We've only ever encountered that problem for, what? The entire lifespan of Linux minus the few years it took for MS to realise it was taking its lunch?"

Is it a coincidence that new and recent hardware doesn't have Open Source drivers for it, yet? I mean you seem to be hinting at some AMAZING (tm) conspiracy, but Open Source has almost always lagged behind for new hardware support. You can't really expect MS to hold off on buying something until there are Linux drivers.


Re: Microsoft Surface Studio

John Lewis is also owned by its employees.


No, I don't work for them either, they're just a good shop. :)

Microsoft goes back to the drawing board – literally, with 28" tablet and hockey puck knob


Re: Only 4GB RAM?

It's not for gaming.


Re: Load of bollocks

My experience with MS customer service has been good. The problems I have encountered have all been with their billing department.


Re: The big question It's a PC, I don't see any reason it wouldn't.

>>"You never know - one day MS might write a bios/UEFI lockout that works."

Microsoft is not UEFI. UEFI is a consortium of big players from Samsung to AMD to Intel to Microsoft and a number of others. And Secure Boot could be set to lock out other OSs right now but it isn't and MS's own requirements for Windows certification mandate that a physically present user be able to turn it off. Secure Boot serves a valuable purpose - it blocks a number of real world malware attacks that subvert the boot stack. Things that actually exist. It hasn't been 'failing to keep out Linux' all this time, you can just enter the UEFI menus and turn it off with a keyboard if you want. Or have we reached a generation of GNU/Linux users who now regard that as complex subversion?

Is this the worst Blockchain idea you've ever heard?


Re: No.

>>"Buy once, play forever - that's the ONLY model I wil accept. Once they have you on pay-per-play hook for 0.1p, it won't be long before the beancounters will start hiking the price every month or so to milk ever more money out of you. Zero tolerance of this is the only way to prevent that from happening."

But the value of my music depreciates and there is new music coming out all the time. A subscription model is a cost effective way for me to keep cycling my music as I stop listening to old songs that I've heard a lot and start listening to new songs that are still fresh to me.

>>"Fortunately I now have mp3s or flacs of every single piece of music of every composer or band I ever liked"

This is probably the case given you're arguing for buying outright rather than subscription models, but just checking that you paid for all of those rather than pirated, because that sounds like a huge investment.

What will happen when I'm too old to push? (buttons, that is)


Re: RE; LEDs

I've got three similar cases. One is a computer case with a painfully bright blue power LED. It's not too bad when it is continuous, but if I put the computer into sleep mode it blinks continuously. And it shares a connection with the power cable (not sure how they manage the sleep detection with that) so cannot be easily disconnected. It's bright enough that I can see the room flicking on and off in blue from another room.

Second case is a portable, battery-powered speaker. Same deal - it blinks on and off constantly which makes it useless for the bedroom. Turning it to face the wall obviously spoils the sound quality a little and duct tape to the front of a speaker is not my preference.

Finally a speaker beneath my TV set. Happily that one can be duct-taped over.

I really don't know what all these people were thinking.

Basic income after automation? That’s not how capitalism works


Re: @I guess that's economists for you

>>"Really? When The Git was in Big School, logic was taught by a philosophy major."

If I were to list the number of occasions I had seen someone assume that because they understood logic and had decent reasoning skills, they could make pronouncements in any field by abstracting a few gross principles and finding a pleasing conclusion, we would be here for a very long time.

>>"Unsurprising really since logic has been an important part of philosophy since at least Aristotle's day over 2,000 years ago"

Case in point, Aristotle loved his idea of his five elements to explain matter. And justified it with assumptions and logic based upon them because the conclusion seemed elegant to him.

The arrogance of someone who thinks their logic skills from Philosophy classes allow them to dabble usefully in a field as complex of economics is staggering. Reminds me of a manger who used to do some coding and thus gets the basic principles. You'd think it would be good but it's so long since they did it and their understanding is so rudimentary that all it really leads to is someone thinking they understand it when they're really just making loose generalisations that elide a lot of complexity. Much like this article.

Democralypse Now? US election first battle in new age of cyberwarfare


Re: General uptick in Villainous Russian stories lately.

>>"Natwest froze Libya's accounts?"

No, Natwest is freezing Russia Today's accounts (a news agency). They notified the UK arm of Russia Today (which employs about sixty people) that they would be locking the account on the 14th of August. So RT has that long to get the money out of there and set up all the staff payments, expenses, invoices, standing orders and direct debits and all that mess. It's a big hassle just for you or I to do that. It's much worse for a news agency. And no reason has been given and Natwest have said they refuse to give one. Though they may backtrack on that due to backlash. Shutting down news agencies is not a good thing.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019