Posts by Matt Bryant

Re: Another "stop picking on the rich" article. to Matt Bryant

"...."Where do you get 10% interest on a deposit from all this?"....." I said investment, not a deposit. Friends in the City assure me it is still quite possible to see such returns on LARGE investments, not kiddie savings. Besides, I picked the 10% figure as it made the maths so simple I was hoping even the sheeple could follow it - apologies for over-estimating your capabilities again.

But, if you like, we can do the sums again with a figure more to your liking, they actually only strengthen my position - that someone earning an $100k income can live like a millionaire - and undermine your insistence that is 'bullshit'. If we adjust the sums and Mr Rich inherits his $1m, if he wants to maintain that amount (and ignoring tax and the long-term loss due to inflation) then he has to live off the interest as income. If you want to drop the rate to say 2.5% (again, I'm hoping that's going to be an a easy figure for you to handle, but maybe you should seek the help of a responsible adult?), then his interest before tax drops to only $25k, giving him an income that is not going to be buying yatchs or attracting supermodels. Which means the prior example of a guy earning $100k is now equivalent to someone trying to live off the income of a $4m deposit!

So, thanks for helping to destroy your own argument even further. Are you sure you really want to try debating this anymore, given your total lack of success so far? We can always re-do the sums with the Fed figure of 0.25% you mentioned if you really want to make yourself look even more stupid.

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

".....time to put your math where your Internet is...." Gosh, you're not STILL desperately avoiding providing the debunking of the simple example I made!?! AND after you insisted the only reason you couldn't was because you didn't have the time to waste, yet here you are posting more twaddle. Is someone telling porkies....?

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

".... which is where I did my undergrad....." Nil point! Just because the institute had an illustrious record does not mean you have or will have one at all. For all we know, you could be George Soros's love-child and he bought your degree.

"..... I'll make sure that the faculty is put on alert of your findings." Please tell them they also - very obviously - need to tighten up on their admissions policy.

Re: Tom 13 Re: Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"....because it's crap, long, crap, boring, and crap." Tom, you are taking the fact that it is crap and boring and assuming that the crappiness would discourage a reasonable person from reading it. Therein lies the fault in your otherwise splendid logic - peoples of one religion or another often aren't what might be considered reasonable. They often glorify those that claim to have studied their religious texts, so it really should not come as a surprise that there really are those, like our poor AC, that think reading Das Kapital is a great educational and social achievement.

Re: Chris Wareham Re: @ Tom 13

"....to remove us from the EU, making trade with our biggest export markets even more difficult...." Aren't you just repeating the FUD that leaving the EU means the automatic severing of all trade? After all, the rest of the EU does a lot of trade with us, so they would be cutting off their own noses to spite their faces if they decided to get too sulky. The Fwench might go for punitive tariffs it but the Germans probably would be more practical. And sitting outside the EU would allow us to retain control and avoid EU meddling in the one market we are actually much better at than the rest of the Europeans, the financial one you slighted.

Re: JLV sisk

".... I really doubt you care how the majority of the world's people live...." Apart from the fact you seem to have me confused with someone that would actually consider your opinion of any worth, you know that you in fact know SFA about what I do or have done, either here or abroad, so your baaaah-lieve as to my charitable activities are not based on fact but sulking spite. If you wish to prove otherwise then please do supply details on my past. In essence, all you are doing is dressing up your lack of counter to my point with something you like to think is insulting, based on a fallacy you want to baaaah-lieve, but actually makes no impression whilst exposing to all your desperation. Please do fail more, it's quite amusing watching you wriggle and bleat.

".....Judging by the amount of downvotes you tend to collect...." So your analytical capabilities stop at following the opinion of the flock? Wouldn't it be novel if you tried actually thinking rather than simply following the lowest common denominator.

".....You read like a member of the subspecies of American right wingers who thinks social conservatism and dogmatic laissez-faire automatically results in effective economic policies....." Wandering much from the thread? Could it be because you can't argue the points raised? Gee, the sheeple have never used that tactic before! Seriously, we need new sheeple, these ones are getting boringly predictable.

"....I am pretty sure we are both in agreement that Hollande is a looney...." That should be 'loony'. And Hollande is just a typical popularist politician trying to garner support by sticking it to the rich. That doesn't make him a loon, it just makes him smart as he has managed to pull off such an obviously daft ploy and get away with it with the voters. As Depardieu showed, if you annoy the rich too much then the global market makes it vey easy for them to take their toys and cash elsewhere. It would be interesting to see if the change did lead to a noticeable drop or increase in tax revenues, but what Hollande really cared about was keeping his base happy in tough political times.

".....Your "ideas" have about the same dogmatism and absence of rationality behind them....." It is a simple fact that the majority of the World's population do not have clean drinking water, electricity or even regularly assured sources of food, let alone indoor loos or many of the other creature comforts we would consider normal at the 'poverty line' in the West. If you wish to pretend that my 'idea' is not true, that the statement has an 'absence of rationality', then please do provide some figures to prove if only so the readers can laugh at you more. You may wish to gain some insight here (http://www.unwater.org/water-cooperation-2013/water-cooperation/facts-and-figures/en/ and http://www.wfp.org/hunger/who-are and http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/ and http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/Dec.%202012/4e.xls).

".....Also because few people really take you seriously...." Once again all you are exposing is your desperate desire to be part of the flock, to be accepted, to 'adjust' your views so that they are applauded by the sheeple around you. Individual thought is obviously not just unappealing to you, you actually think someone should be ashamed of it! Unlike Hollande, I am not in the business of popularity so I can speak my mind as much as I like, especially as I also have no great concerns about not fitting in with the flock. Please try not to assume everyone succumbs to the same character failures as you commit with zeal.

"..... I never claimed third world isn't dirt poor and more so than anything hereabouts. I only called you an idiot for using it as a justification that makes it OK to disregard homegrown poverty....." So, finally, after paragraphs of your vacuous venom, we finally get to your grudging admission that you can't actually disagree with what I stated, but then you try to diminish your surrender with a lie. I never said I was justifying homegrown poverty, I actually said some of us would use the raising of the poverty line as a way of hopefully advancing the lot of ALL in our society. What I objected to was your fellow-sheeple sisk's stupid claim that 'poverty is poverty'.

".....Let's just stick to the main point then: I called you an idiot and am happily restating that position." Which is the sum of your contribution - no facts, no figures, no independent thought, just bleated attempts at insults to dress up the fact you have lost again. This is my surprised face, honest! TBH, your efforts are quite yawn-inducing.

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"..... I don't have time debating YOU. YOU are a waste of time....." Excuse my obtuseness, but didn't you insist that my simple example was 'bullshit' and easy to debunk, so it really shouldn't take much of your uber-econimically-knowledgeable time to disprove, right? After all, you say you have no time to waste but have posted many times since first querying my example, so it would seem you DO have plenty of time to waste. Or is it that you now find that you have painted yourself into a corner? LOL!

".....Marx, DeSoto, Keynes, Friedman, Samuelson, Krugman, are not a waste of time, they are quite an interesting read...." You could argue the same about thousands of texts, but the real value - which you seem to be in short supply of - is the ability to take their teachings and APPLY them to discussions. Rote learning for the sake of rote learning is just a trick for parrots. I do hope your parents took advantage of the free education available, and didn't pay through the nose for your wasteful time spent ticking off titles on your reading list whilst learning SFA. Seeing as that TLA is not in Marx, Engels or any other of your religious texts, you may need someone who spent more time outside the library in the real World to explain it to you.

"....But it's good to know you are comparing your own Internet posts to Marx, Keynes or Krugman....." No I didn't, but it is revealing to see you have now fallen back on simply making stuff up to fit your story - a true Piketty fan! I suppose it was far too much to expect you to add to the discussion once you had stopped bragging about what you considered an extensive reading list. Once again, either debunk my simple example of how a million in cash can equate to an earning of 100k - as you stated you could - or go sulk in the library.

Re: JLV sisk

Yeah, whenever you finally get round to admitting you were wrong just remember to wake the readers up, they will have fallen asleep trying to read your lumbering evasion from the simple fact the majority of the World's human beings don't have indoor toilets connected to a proper sewage system.

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"....I'm done trying to reason with you...." Which translates to you having finally realized you should have beaten a retreat a long time ago.

".....You are a waste of time...." So you have all that time to read all those (boring) economic texts and Marxist claptrap yet simply don't have enough time to debate them? And yet you claimed you could debunk my 'bullshit' maths with ease! Wow, how do you run so fast with your tail between your legs? ROFL.

Re: JLV Re: sisk

".....Matt, I assume your local building codes allow fireplaces and outhouses...." So there are no BBQs in your neighbourhood? And the UK Building Regs simply state there has to be a toilet connected to a sewage tank or to the main sewer with a new build home, not that it has to be indoors one. But I do laugh at your attempt to avoid the issue that what we consider essentials would be considered outright luxuries in a lot of countries.

"....Apparently you wish to compare living conditions in say, Haiti....." It was sisk that insisted "poverty is poverty" because he had no real World experience to gauge the realities of poverty with, not me. I suggest you point out the example of Haiti to him, but before you do you may want to consider the number of Haitians that seem desperate to avail themselves of 'poverty-line' living in the States.

".....I am soooo glad you are on my side, as you obviously have a way with convincing people who might think otherwise....." Sorry to disappoint (not), but shortly I will be swanning off into the sunset to laze out my days on my cache of filthy lucre, so I really couldn't give a fudge which numpty you vote for as it will have zero impact on me. But you go, girl, and don't forget to remind the scroungers to vote or they may lose the cushie free ride you will be paying for. Enjoy!

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"I can't counter bullshit. Your calculations are not only wrong, they just aren't calculations at all...." So it should be really easy for you to debunk them then, right? This should be entertaining! Do you wish to argue that 10% of 1m is not 100k? Or maybe you have a problem with my pegging inflation at 3-5%? Or could it just be you're just lost because Keynes doesn't have a chapter on calculating the returns on investments?

.....You take the initial hypothesis "become a millionnaire in 10 years by earning £100K/year" - which is mathematically impossible because of the economic reasons I've already outlined....." Again, try actually COMPREHENDING rather than skim-reading. You would find I posted no such premise, I actually suggested the 'rich kid' that inherits a million and then lives off the interest from investing it has the same effective income as someone that earns $100k per annum, therefore the person that earns $100k, whether it is over one year or ten, is 'living like a millionaire'. It seems the only area you are consistent in is your ability to fail to comprehend. Are you dyslexic?

".....To this hypothesis you add some unknown-about investment fund which was never part of the initial hypothesis...." Actually, that was my hypothesis. You do know that they first thing they teach you in school is to READ and UNDERSTAND the question before you try to answer it?

".....Do you even understand the difference between bullshit and math?...." It seems you do not, seeing as you have provided neither mathematical proof nor been able to prove my simple example is the 'bullshit' you claim it is. Please do remember, you don't get any marks if you don't show your working out, and just leaping to a wrong answer without showing any working out is a guaranteed path to failure.

".....You cannot alter the initial hypothesis during the course of a logical reasoning....." It seems you were so filled with righteous moral outrage you have confused my example with the original posters, can I suggest you go back, read the thread, take a chill pill and then try again? Just to give the readers some more comedic material.

Re: DavCrav Re: TheOrherHobbes Rustident Spaceniak Theoretically speaking....

".....Alan Sugar is an example. I can show you a lottery winner as well: doesn't prove that the lottery is a game with anything other than slim odds of success." Yeah, but I note you cannot disprove that he is a very good example of exactly what is trying to be denied, that it IS possible to work your way up from 'the bottom'. Nice try with the lottery, but I bet Sir Alan would have a few choice words should you ever imply to his face that he got where he is just by luck. And Sir Alan is an extreme example, there being plenty of other people from low-income beginnings that have worked their way up to comfortable living if not the riches of Sir Alan.

Re: sisk

"....Until you go hungry for a few days so that you can feed your kids (a pretty common situation for families living on the poverty line) don't go telling me how great it is to be there....." Thanks, but I have actually been to many Third World countries and seen real poverty, and there is nothing like it in the West. When you meet kids that happily tell you they ate yesterday so they won't be eating today and they accept that as not just normal but good, then you can come and talk to me about poverty. Until you do you're talking out of your rectum.

Major denial - ".....100 years ago you could cook on your fireplace and have an outhouse...." There is nothing to stop you doing so today, and many families in the developing World still only have that option, but we in the West CHOOSE to insist on a higher standard of living as the baseline we consider acceptable. If you took a starving family out of somewhere like Ethiopia and gave them a council house with heating, running water that is safe to drink, cooking facilities and an indoor loo, plus free education and healthcare, but tell them the benefits system and cost of living means they can only shop for food and clothes at Asda, please do pretend they'd refuse.

"......The bottom line is that poverty is poverty." The constant steam of illegal immigrants desperate to get to Europe or the US just to get that 'poverty line' living you insist is unacceptable just goes to show you don't have a clue about the realities of the World or real poverty. Kindly do yourself a favour and go get some real World perspective.

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"....That's not the complete list of Economics book I've read in my entire life....." I don't doubt you have read a great many books, you just seem to be lacking in the ability to apply their knowledge. After all, reading without comprehension is simply gathering educational Brownie points to try and impress the rest of the chattering class. For all the relevance you seem to be able to bring to bear you might as well have studied the economic theories of Brer Rabbit.

".....But, perhaps you can provide a reference in support of your earlier millionnaire calculations." The fact that you seem unable to counter it gives lie to your pretence at economic superiority. I admit the sums are simplified but surely you don't need Keynes's help,to prove or disprove it, or is it that all you can do is regurgitate the thoughts of others rather than actually doing the test of the theory yourself? If you wish to pretend the simple sums I posted are tosh then please do astonish us with your insight.

Re: AC Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"....I say this with love." You may say whatever you like however you like, that is your prerogative, but I note you are unable to post a counter to the quite simple post. Do you really need a calculator to handle 10% of $1m? Or were you hoping no-one would notice?

Re: AC Re: Another "stop picking on the rich" article

".....Which of these books have YOU read?" All of them except Das Kapital - it got REALLY boring half-way through Volume 2. The problem is you not only limited your shallow reading to what obviously sat with your preconceptions, you also failed to read any critiques of them, or took a step into the real World to see the difference between theory and practice. Try leaving the ivory tower sometime, learn more than the words of dead men, it helps.

Re: AC Re: Another "stop picking on the rich" article

"....Simple arithmetic fact: earning £100K/year for 10 years does not make you a millionnaire...." Well, yes and no. Let's take the much hated 'rich kid' that the Socialists like to whine about so much. He inherits $1m but doesn't work, so he lives off the income from his $1m. If he just leaves it in the bank then inflation and tax will erode it's value and he won't be one of the 1% for long. If he gets some investment manager to play on the market for him he could average a return of 10%. So Mr Rich actually has an income of $100k (10% of $1m) which he can spend without decreasing his investment fund. Actually, if he wants to grow his fund to stay ahead of inflation, he actually needs to plough $30-50k a year of his 'profit' back into his investment fund, so his actual income is only $50-70k a year (ignoring the tax he will have to pay which reduces his actual disposable income even further). Which actually is LESS than the example given by our hard-working poster. So, in terms of disposable income, earning $100k is not really that different to being a millionaire.

Re: The Mole Re: @ Rustident Spaceniak

".....Training for the unemployed? Childcare vouchers for those in work. Tax breaks for low income earners. Low skill labour intensive projects that guarantee anybody who wants to work can get a job in a location they can get to....." Well, I would upvote you for sentiment, but as an earlier poster pointed out, immigrants have come in and taken plenty of jobs our scroungers CHOSE not to do, so why do you think they would be any more likely to give up the lazy life just because they have a greater choice of jobs to avoid? The reality is such projects would simply help the immigrants get ahead, not shift the scrounges into being a benefit to society.

Re: AC Re: Another "stop picking on the rich" article

".....Your realistic chances are that you will earn a decent living if you work hard, but not much more....." Gosh, what a terrible fate! Surely it would be so much better to trash it all and go back to good ol' Soviet breadlines, waiting six years for a crappy Lada, and having your job assigned to you by some faceless bureaucrat? Because THAT is the real result of Marxism, not the dribblings you posted. You also gloss over the fact that regardless of how few, some Americans from any generation did become millionaires, and some from very lowly origins. Trying to pretend their success is all down to luck is classic envy politics. I suggest you put down Das Kapital and try reading something a bit more modern and relevant.

Re: sisk

".....the percentile at which the poverty line sits would be reducing....." So you missed the whole bit where the 'poverty line' moves up to 'reflect' the rising level of living? For some, continually moving the line upwards allows them to carry on moaning about the 'equity gap', for others it is a way to remind us we should be looking to improve the lot of all citizens. But what we blithely refer to in the West as 'on the poverty line' today would have been considered the good life a mere hundred years ago, and better than the lot of many in less fortunate parts of the World.

Re: sampo Re: Interesting Analysis Applied to the Wrong Subject

"....Child care, education, health care all have enormous value, but we get none of them...." So, just for starters, all the State schools and colleges are imaginary then? IIRC, public and free elementary schools have been available in all States since 1870. One little-known fact is that, during the 1800s, the Yanks had higher levels of literacy than the established States of Old Europe, which kinda debunks the oft-repeated myth of 'dumb Americans'.

As for healthcare, isn't 60+% publically-funded? Childcare was covered in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the At-Risk Child Care Program, enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508). These programs were preceded by enactment of a major welfare reform initiative, the Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485). Are you sure you're posting from the States?

Re: TheOrherHobbes Re: Rustident Spaceniak Theoretically speaking, the article....

".....It's been proven time and again that societies that are better at redistributing income are better at social mobility......" There is plenty of social mobility in the UK, as proven by the example of Sir Alan Sugar which you studiously avoided. When even Scousers tell you Boris Johnson was right it tells you a lot about both the levels of denial and political correctness at play.

Re: AC Re: wrong type of regression curve

".....Getting the 99.9% to pay for the economy-crashing cock-ups of the 0.1% seems to be the way it works nowadays." Another Leftie myth! The top 10% of earners pay more than half of ALL taxes, therefore the top 10% did the majority of the bailing out. The bottom 20-odd% paid bugger all. And this after the typical bottom 20-odd% of voters helped vote in the socialist morons that caused the crash! Do you seriously think many of the top 10% voted Labour?

Re: Rustident Spaceniak Re: Theoretically speaking, the article makes a perfectly....

".....there is a *perceived* level of inequality, not just of wealth but also of development chances...." You mean there is a self-perpetuating insistence on victimhood. There IS a massive difference in attitude towards hard work and education at different levels of society. People like Sir Alan Sugar are very good examples of exactly what rubbish the whole "I'm too poor to stand a chance of being rich/successful so I might as well just give up." I know Indian immigrants that came to the UK in the Fifties and lived in very poor circumstances in areas like the Midlands, but worked hard. They sent their kids to school and instilled in them the hard-work-brings-success ethic and expected them to go to uni. Now their grandchildren are doctors and lawyers and some even members of The Rich that Picketty and co so blindly despise, whilst the non-immigrant families from the same Midlands areas are still moaning about "no chances".

Also, the cornerstone of the Picketty mantra is that, once The Rich are rich, they cannot become anything but richer. This is obvious bollocks, as shown both by the decline of the noble families across Europe (many of which have had to sell off their lands, castles and holiday homes) and the way our bankruptcy courts are kept busy dealing with The Rich that ran out of cash. Democracy and capitalism offer all the chance of success, it's just that some seem better at whining than doing. As Will Smith put it, "it is the PURSUIT of happiness, not the GUARANTEE" - you still have to be willing to get off your arse and do the pursuing.

Re: AC Re: Hmmmm

".....in 1983 the Irish military were embarrassingly useless. When the IDF drove up to their (Irish) check point they opened the gates and waved them thru'....." More than a bit unfair. Apart from the futility of the tiny Irish contingent trying to stop the whole Israeli Army, the UN had issued orders not to get involved in fighting. It is a simple UN oxymoron - peacekeeping only works when both sides want their to be peace, so when both sides are itching to kill each other there is not much the UN can do other than stand aside, make notes and issue "strongly worded letters".

Re: Snapper Re: September 11, 2001

".....Most historians now accept that Pearl Harbour was known about by the high-ups in the American and UK Governments before the attack....." Partially correct - they had warnings but no concrete proof of the time or place of the attack. The British, Dutch and US had an a agreement to share intelligence from decoding Japanese communications and knew the Japanese planned an attack as early as 1940. The UK sent a first specific warning in 1941 after being tipped of by the Russians. An NKVD spy, Richard Sorge, had heard a rumour of Japanese plans and gave the correct month and the likely US target as early as June 1941, but when MI6 sent the news to the US it went to Hoover at the FBI. Hoover had not heard anything through his own sources (which included thousands of line-taps on Japanese-Americans) and had an inherent distrust of "the Commies", so he did not accept the warning. Ironically, Sorge had also earlier sent Stalin warning of the German attack on Russia and Stalin had ignored him! Unfortunately, Sorge was arrested in October 1941 before he could supply actual proof. MI6 followed up with their own spies and were able to get much more detail which Winston Churchill himself sent to Roosevelt. The theory is that many in Congress would not support a war, being isolationist, and would insist the British warning was a ruse to force the US into the War on the side of the Allies, meaning Roosevelt was unwilling to mobilise US forces without proper evidence. Roosevelt's policy was that America could not make the first move in a Pacific war, nor give the Japanese the excuse by mobilising forces. Thus only a warning of "possible attack" was sent to US bases including Pearl. The actual concrete proof, given by the breaking of the Japanese diplomatic "Purple Code" did not come until too late, and even then did not mention Japanese targets.

".....Also strange how the only American ships to be damaged were the almost useless battleships, but the really powerful ships, the aircraft carriers, were out of town on that Sunday morning....." A fave musing with conspiracy nuts that totally avoids the fact that US Navy strategy was built around the use of battleships, with the carriers more as providing support to the battlegroup and protecting them from land-based bombers. Royal Naval actions in the Med against the Italians (especially the Battle of Cape Matapan) had reinforced the belief that the battleship was still the primary means of sinking enemy warships. Ironically, it was the RN use of carriers at Taranto to sink Italian battleships that directly influenced the Japanese plan for Pearl, but the primary target was always the USN's battleships. Indeed, the loss of the battleships at Pearl forced the USN into quickly forming a novel strategy around the use of carriers as the main striking force. As it turned out, it was a superior strategy, but it was anathema to the many admirals that had planned their war against Japan on the basis of battleship actions.

".....you have to ask yourself why the Japanese attacked in the first place, especially when they were so short of fuel oil and manufacturing capability that they could not hope to win a war of attrition...." Imperial Japan needed to expand, particularly into China, to secure the resources it needed. The US was particularly upset about the move into China (they really didn't give a fudge about the Japs moving on British, French or Dutch colonies). There was also a Japanese belief that a quick, overwhelming attack would force America to withdraw from the Pacific to defend the US mainland, and that isolationist American politicians would then be amenable to a peace settlement in Japan's favour. In short, the Japs misunderstood the US as much as the US misunderstood Japan.

"....Elizabeth the First .... left the sailors to starve to death on ships anchored out at sea so the government wouldn't have to pay them....." Not true. Whilst the Royal Navy had driven the Armada out of the Channel ports and into the North Sea, it still represented a striking force far larger than the RN, and could still swing round and resume picking up the Spanish armies from France. Liz kept the Fleet at sea so as to guard against any further Spanish attempts at invasion. In the event, the Spanish tried to take their remaining ships round Scotland and most were wrecked in storms, leaving the survivors little option but to return to Spain.

".....Do some research before you parrot the government/media line." Petard moment.

Re: Shahahahaha what a sham Re: Jim 59 TRAITORS

".....maybe ours is the sort where people no longer question why so much of our lives is spent "working" and so little "playing"....." Bullshit. My grandfather worked sixty hour weeks every week in a draughting office and considered himself lucky. Miners and the like in the Twenties worked much longer hours in much worse conditions for much less pay than the average office "wage slave" of today. Before people start bitching about how they have it tough they really need to go read some history and get some perspective.

Re: AC Re: SigInt might have casued the Iraq war

".....Sanctions meant that little real progress could be made....." Yeah, the "WMD was a myth" myth. People that peddle that claptrap have no idea what Saddam's busy scientists had already achieved, or how much still has not been accounted for:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/nuclear.html

Re: Jim 59 Re: TRAITORS

The obvious problem with option A, that Big Brother is planning to impose tyranny, is asking why it hasn't happened yet? If the sheeple are so convinced that is the plan, what is Big Brother waiting for? After all, if they are gathering info on all of us they have been doing it for fifty-odd years, what's the hold up? Of course, the sheeple can't give an answer to that. At which their paranoid delusional fantasy collapses like the house of cards it is.

Re: steward Re: I'm not sure...

".....Just look at the codenames, like "Circuit"....." In order to stop the enemy guessing what certain operations or projects pertain to, after WW2 the Brits started using randomly generated lists of words for projects, missions and operations. Each new mission or project gets a word from one of the lists, maybe two in some cases. The best known examples are the Rainbow Codes used for British high-tech projects which gave us such wonderful code names as Blue Steel, Red Cabbage and Purple Possum. This can lead to some interesting co-incidental names, such as the story that does the rounds of one SAS mission in Roman Catholic Ireland having been dubbed "Operation Condom".

Re: Jamie Jones Oh bugger!

".....Do we ban social gatherings, because terrorists can use them to recruit? Do we track and store the movements of every vehicle because criminals use cars as getaway vehicles? Do we stop selling fertilizer because it can be used to make bombs?....." There are already many laws regulating social gatherings, especially protests. In times of war they have been extended to cover even small gatherings and the Government retains the right to issue an order banning any gathering it likes. We also already do record most car journeys in cities on cameras that can recognise both number plates and the face of the driver. And we already have a system in place that monitors the purchase of 'dual-purpose' goods such as fertiliser. I didn't down vote you but you are displaying an alarming lack of insight into the systems already in place.

Re: bofh80 Re: Are you sure?

".....You think they chased him around the planet because he was just a little lying scumbug with no proof to back up his claims?....." The 'chase' for Snowjob was actually quite minor. Just looking at the limited legal actions taken, the US could have gone even further with sanctions against those giving him sanctuary, let alone the insistence of the sheeple that Snowjob was bound to be assassinated every five minutes. What is amusing is the way you insist everything Snowjob says HAS to be true simply because you want it to be so, you are completely unable to deal with any inconsistencies in his stories. Please do explain how Snowjob could steal so many secrets but be unable to even copy off his own emails?

Or how he could have been trained by the NSA or CIA for foreign work as a spy when all his foreign engagements, apart from a stint as a sysadmins in Geneva, were with contractors? Are we to believe that Dell undertake training on advanced spying techniques? The idea is too laughable for words!

He has already claimed to have been an active Special Forces soldier, only for that to have turned out to be a lie - he was a Reservist and never even completed training. Then we have his bizarre story of witnessing the CIA getting a Swiss banker drunk, getting him stopped by the local cops for drink driving, and then somehow turning that into a blackmail issue to recruit the banker? He makes Walter Mitty look like a beginner.

Frankly, I think a lot of the documents Snowjob has released are real, much of it has been public conjecture for decades, though some (such as the backdoored-to-order network kit) sound more than a bit unlikely. The stories where we have nothing other than Snowjob's word sound pure fantasist. The insistence that Snowjob was constantly arguing with management over security and ethical issues, even without his lack of email evidence, sounds bogus as it would be far more likely he would be trying not to draw attention to himself. But you carry on baaaah-lieving what you want if it helps you sleep at nights.

Re: Sir Rediculous Loon Re: Marsbarbrain Oh Boner "the potential source...."

".....What was the argument again and what was your stunning contribution?....." My contribution was when I pointed put to Steve Knox that, whilst he was quite right to point out the massive inconsistencies in Snowjob's claims, that it was pointless to do so with you sheeple as you are simply don't want a discussion, you simply want everyone else to unthinkingly swallow the same ideas you have been spoonfed as The Truth. It is blatantly clear that Snowjob is at least massively exaggerating again, if not flat out lying, yet you unquestioningly insist that he must be telling the truth. Your failure is quite comic.

I could be generous and suggest Putin is making Snowjob exaggerate in return for letting him stay in Russia, especially as Putin's original terms were that Snowjob could only stay if he kept his gob shut. It seems the Ukrainian issue has made Putin forget that little promise to the US.

Re: Marsbarbrain Re: Oh Boner "the potential source of my thumbs downers"

".....once again Matt Bryant goes for the man instead of the argument....." Truly ironic given that you have - yet again, again - posted another whining bleat about name calling and NO ARGUMENT related to the topic. Your constant failure is truly amusing.

Re: Oh Boner Re: "the potential source of my thumbs downers"

"..... the NSA's fascist little fan club." Ah, it's that typical response from the sheeple when you don't agree with their spoonfed viewpoints, and when they don't have the intellectual capabilities to form an actual argument - 'you're a fascist!' Maybe Boner can try again when he graduates kindergarten.

Of course, the fact that Leftie regimes have ALWAYS had far more repressive eavesdropping is simply ignored by these cretinous sheeple, but then their education is usually totally lacking in any grasp of history.

Re: Dmitriy Re: Release of our Fibre Channel capability by the end of FY15....

".....If you have a properly implemented 10Gb iSCSI network optimized for storage traffic and compare to 8Gb FC....." Apart from the fact I'd argue that little statement, the competition have already moved up to 16Gb FC, and 32Gb is due in 2016. Nimble's own inclusion of FC on their roadmap underlines the logical fallacy of your claim that iSCSI is better than FC - if it were true, Nimble would be spending the money on demonstrating iSCSI's superiority to customers rather than integrating additional FC ports into their products. Are there 40Gb iSCSI ports on the Nimble roadmap?