Posts by Matt Bryant 9690 publicly visible posts • joined 21 May 2007
"......I can't admit you're right about this....." Dupe, denial is not a river in Egypt, mmkay? The fact that Manning was so desperate as to attempt a deal with the lesser charges shows his team are not confident they can beat the aiding-the-enemy rap. Manning is so screwed, it seems the only people that don't realise that are him and you.
Whatever, you're just following your usual debating "tactics" - can't win the argument so segway off into some other piece of junk you think you stand a better chance in. Just admit it, Manning is up the creek without a paddle, and his only chance of leniency now is to spill the beans on how A$$nut coached him and encouraged his little tantrum leaking.
".....Condemnation of the Mossad, Israel, or Israelis is NOT anti-Semitism, Matt. A country is not fu**ing immune from criticism just because of a single hyphenated word....." Oh, yeah, you're right - it's only anti-Semitism when you put Jews in ovens, right?
Nurse, please check that Local Dupe is taking his meds, he's wandering waaaaaay off topic again.
Manning is not going to be hung or shot or otherwise executed, and now he's got a taste for the fawning bleats of the sheeple he's going to be too busy fantasising about appearing on Oprah to think of suicide. Well, at least for the next year or to, but when he realises he's looking at another forty-eight years after that he might start tying his sheets into a noose. I wonder which of his legal team wrote his thirty-odd page diatribe for him? Maybe A$$nut did.
".....Ever heard of Nuremberg....." I'm betting the only time you heard of Nuremberg was when one of your equally dense buddies said to you "and if you ever run into some guy that actually knows about the military and stuff, just hide your ignorance with this throw away remark about Nuremberg....."
".....What year did you visit Israel?....." I've made several visits, but the most fun when it came to security was in June 1982, just after the IDF had swanned across the border into the Lebanon to kick the PLO artillery out of the range of northern Israel. I've seen plenty of security, I even moaned after the liquid bomb scare meant UK airport security went silly, but Lod airport was tighter than Fort Knox that day! Mind you, after the massacre in 1972, you can guess why they'd be a bit concerned. But I still enjoyed my visit and I hope you enjoyed yours.
The rest of your post is just the usual bleating and evasions.
".... Show any MB reply to criticism of Israel not a charge of anti-Semitism...." Whatever. You obviously enjoy wasting time, so why don't you post every post in reply to one criticsing Isreal where I have accused anyone of anti-Semitism and then show that it is a 100% occurence. Don't worry, no-one expects you to prove it as it's patently false. I'll be genearous and say it was just a mistake on your part.
".....who invented the anal cavity visitation....." What the fudge is that, you going homophobic as well as anti-Semitic now? If you want to pretend that Israel invented body cavity searches then please provide some proof.
"....Maybe the Australians -- and Zygier had dual citizenship with Israel and Australia -- were demanding to interview him......" So what? The Israeli court could happily tell them to go get stuffed. Joining the IDF meant his joint-citizenship became instantly moot, as you should know but are desperately trying to ignore so you can bleat some rediculous conspiracy theory.
"......are you seriously saying that the US has NOT been supporting the House of Saud...." Where did I say that? It looks like the reason you are dependent on twits like A$$nut to tell you what to think is you suffer from a real lack of comprehension. Try READING what I posted. Besides, Manning's crimes were commited whilst serving in IRAQ, not Saudi, and the Apache attack that A$$nut massively edited into the "Collateral Murder" lie took place in IRAQ, not Saudi! If you're so clueless you don't even know the difference then it really is asking too much for you to have an opinion of your own.
".....This article explains how the British initially promoted Wahhabism and how the Americans made the same mistake in the 1970's. Leading directly to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban....." Dear Clueless Child, you have completely failed to realise that the problems of Islam long predate the involvement of either the US or the British Empire in Saudi Arabia. Your failure must be quite embarrassing to your family, I hope they didn't waste too much money on that "education" you slept through. Seriously, you really need to go do a lot more reading of real history books and not just trend-du-jour opinion pieces and blogs.
LOL, that childish little rant was very revealing as to your self-delusions. Just for your information, I'm English, not a Yank.
".....There seems to be a particular dumb redneck mentality of "I'm dumb and I wanna drive my dumb truck and fuck anyone who get's in my way - fuck yeah!" which is prevalent in the US......" You obviously have never been to the States, and probably never even met an American. The funniest bit is your own sweeping statement condemns people like Manning that you just tried to hold up as some sort of hero! What a clown!
"......some other Saudis got angry about your support for the brutal House of Saud for the last sixty years - and hence 9/11 happened....." Yeah, I think you really need to do a lot more reading into the history of Islamism rather than what is in the back of cereal packets.
".....Let me make it clear - the shooting of the mini-van which was trying to pick up wounded was clearly utterly horrifying to any civilised person......" Let me correct that for you - utterly horrifying for some knob looking for a reason to get shrieky about the Big Bad Yanks. The rest of us that understand awful things happen in war without there having to be some dastardly evil motive involved, well we're just going to laugh at you. As has been pointed out endlessly here on these forums before, the Apache pilots were following the rules of engagement set out by lawyers and politicians, and in the case of the van attack they even asked for permission to engage from a senior officer despite there being more than enough justification to open fire in the first place. People like you that deliberately ignore the facts so you can satisfy your politically driven desire to bleat are simply fooling yourselves. If you actually knew some of the actual background to the events, rather than the heavily-edited version spoonfed to you by A$$nut, then you'd know that. But we've already established you are too much of an intellectual child to do your own research and form your own opinions Enjoy your trendy failure, just don't expect those of us with more than half a clue to applaud your stupidity.
".....Look at that Australian Israeli who was found hanged in his cell. He was on suicide watch yet he managed "to slip betimes away."......" Try putting your reflexive anti-Semitism aside and asking a very simple question, as asked by investigators all over the World - who had a motive to kill Prisoner X? And the answer is the Mossad and the Israeli government had no reason to kill him, he was securely locked away in isolation and no longer a threat of leaks, so why create the international incident of killing him? Honestly, if it pains you that much to realise the poor guy committed suicide then I suggest you need professional help.
"..... It's so easy to check facts these days......" You should have asked an adult to read this WaPo article for you, waaaaaay back in 2007, long before A$$nut got busy with his editing tool in 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html
Or maybe this article from the NYT looking at Reuters' efforts to investigate how two of their reporters got killed that day:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3EF930A25754C0A9619C8B63
The event was even covered by an American journalist in a book published in 2009. Oh, sorry, I forgot sheeple like you needed to wait for a popstar or a mediawhore like A$$nut to tell you about "the facts"......
"Read up on the facts....." bailey86 it is patently obvious you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the arse.
".....You're obviously determined to hold a particular viewpoint....." Your viewpoint was spoonfed to you. You mentioned eralier that you were thankful that Manning notified you of "these crimes", yet the chopper attack had been widely reported long before Manning's tantrum. Maybe if you actually went out, looked at news from a variety of sources, and formed YOUR OWN OPINIONS, rather than waiting to be told what was the protest trend-du-jour, then maybe you wouldn't look like such an ill-informed, shrieking, bandwagon-humper.
I have had (stupid) people say to me statements like "Here, this is our DR plan, but don't worry about reading it, we have an IBM mainframe and IBM told us it will never fail" (note - IBM are VERY careful not to make that legally binding statement in their sales pitch, but they are happy to leave you with the impression). I have called directors at three in the morning to tell them the bizz is swimming in the brown stuff because we have had a mainframe stop/pop/do-the-unexpected, and after a few moments of bewildered silence at the other end of the line you get those immortal words: "But it's a mainframe....?" Half the problem is people are so lulled by the IBM sales pitch they just don't stop to think ANYTHING MANMADE IS FALLIBLE, so when something does go wrong there is an inertia due to an inability to accept the simple fact stuff breaks, whether it has an IBM badge or not. I bet half the delay in solving the RBS outage was simply down to people getting past that inertia.
"......and at the time when the batch failed every night previously, the door to the server room opens, the janitor comes in with a hoover, looks for a spare power socket, finds none, so unplugs the nearest and plugs in the hoover. yes, you guessed it, plug that was unplugged was the power lead for the server in question....." Yeah, and I have some prime real estate in Florida if you're interested. A Hoover or the like would be on a normal three-pin, whilst a proper server would be on a C13/19 or 16/32A commando plug. It would also have probably at least two PSUs so two power leads, unplugging one would not kill it.
"Seems he's a skilled hacker but not that bright." I doubt if the prison employs the equivalent of the NSA's anti-hacking team, which would seem to imply Nicholas Webber is actually not a very good hacker if he got caught by them. And going by the fact that the class teacher got blamed, I'm guessing Webber's "skillz" amounted to peeking over the teacher's shoulder to pinch his login details.
".....When he is proven wrong....." Que? How is showing that the p260 only has two IO slots and no onboard LAN ports being shown to be worng when it illustrates the glaring compromise of the p260 design? In an HA environment, when I will want two LAN mezz cards and two FC cards minimum for redundancy, your only answer is to double up on converged cards. Leaving no other slots for high-speed interconnects like Infiniband, not to mention the SAS option if Flex even had a SAS option. The hp Itanium blades all come with two onboard dual-port converged adapters, which means I have redundant LAN and SAN just by adding a second converged mezz card, leaving two slots for linking to a second SAN or a SAS switch, or for redundant Infiniband cards. You can pretend that not having redundancy is not an issue if you like, but I seem to remember it being quite key to HA clustering.
"......Sure 2 adapters with will address all four switches in the back. Try reading a manual....." Oh dear, back to RTFM for you! Two IO slots on the P260 means NO options, it is simply too few. Does IBM offer a mezz card that can magically do LAN, SAN and Infiniband? No. So if you have one converged card and one Infiniband card, where is the redundancy required for clustering? You have none. One card failure and your p260 is a dead duck.
But back to the manuals you mentioned. When the original BL860c came out I asked the hp guys in Vegas if they could design a half-height Itanium blade and then said they could, but it would be too much of compromise. The p260 simply proves that point. You mentioned manuals, well go look here (http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/tips0880.html#locations) at the layout of the p260, note how the CPUs are at the front and their heatsinks cover all the airflow to the memory? Once again, IBM have designed a blade where the CPUs will cook the memory! And the disks, which hinge over the memory banks and are not hot-swappable (as they are on the hp Itanium blades). Yes, yet again, IBM have designed a blade where you have to take it out of operation and open it up to take out a failed disk - have they learnt nothing from their previous failures? The disks also limit the height of the memory and the airspace around it for cooling, meaning more pricey special low profile memory for the IBM Power blades.
But whilst we're on the disks, does the p260 have hardware RAID for the onboard disks as the hp blades do? Nope, software RAID only! This, however, does not seem to be a design compromise as just a lack of design, the full-height p460 also not having onboard RAID. So not only do you have to yank a blade if a disk fails, you have no RAID protection for the data on the internal disks unless you give up CPU cycles to software RAID.
So let's summarise - the p260 has no onboard adapters, no hardware RAID, no hot-swappable disks, not enough IO slots for real flexibility and redundancy at the same time, and will probably cook its expensive memory (along with those non-hot swappable disks) as soon as you start thrashing it. Yeah no compromise at all - NOT! But even funnier is IBM still haven't worked out how to make a big blade, even though the p-series rack servers have been modular for ages - four sockets is the best they can manage, whilst hp's blades have managed eight sockets as one hardware instance for years! That means whilst hp can run an eight-socket octo-core blade, with IBM if you want to scale that high you have to throw away the Flex chassis and go buy an IBM rack server and a whole lot of external switches.
Stop pretending that p260 is anything other than a compromise design to counter the Xeon BL460c Gen8, nothing more. Even the IBM literature describes it as a "compute node", exposing their intention for it to be HPC and nothing else. It simply does not have the HA feature set for enterprise UNIX clustering.
".....The x240 -> 2 x PCIe 3.0 x16 slots, The p260 -> 2 x PCIe 2.0 x16 slots, (up to 16 CNA ports)....." LOL, I see you're still dancing away from the lack of IO options and the lack of redundancy! So, how do you do pure LAN, FC SAN and Infiniband on a p260 or x240 when you only have two slots and no onboard IO? Can you do a SAS option out to a shared SAS switch module? Can you address more than one fibre switch so you can split your backup SAN traffic (which the IBM offering needs as you can't do a SAS tape drive) so that it does not use the same ports and switch modules as your production SAN traffic? No, you can't. The hp offering not only has more options you can use more of them at once, making it more flexible and not IO starved like the IBM designs. Try again!
"You are rather clueless aren't you ?....." Sorry, Jesper, but you'll have to be a bit more specific as to which AC poster here has got your knickers in a twist.
"...... Let me guess HP marketing drone ?....." <Sigh> What is this IBM troll reflex to accuse anyone that doesn't share their blind devotion of being a duplicitous hp marketing employee in disguise? Can't you get it through your heads that a LOT of us customers actually prefer the hp kit for a reason (well, several reasons actually)? Not seen the blade server market figures lately?
"......and can have 16x10Gbit=160Gbit worth of IO+management....." OK, rather than blindly bleating on about maximum backplane figures, why don't you please explain how the two PCIe 3 slots on the p260 are going to give you the same amount of useable bandwidth as the two onboard dual-port Flex LOMs and three PCIe 3 slots on the BL860c i4? Face it, the p260 is another unbalanced IBM design - in order to get more blades into the chassis they had to chop bits off the design, and now they have an IO-starved blade in the p260. Another failed compromise from IBM, it doesn't even have built-in LAN ports, you have to use up mezz slots just to get connected!
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/flex/compute-nodes/power/bto/p260-p460/specs.html
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/3709945-3709945-3710102-1146345-3722789-5330436.html?dnr=1
"Enough with the subversive IBM slams....." Wow, what a detailed riposte! Just dripping with technical insight - not!
".....Everyone knows you are shilling for HP....." Whatever! The minute anyone disagrees with you IBM drones they're "shilling", right? Maybe the market is also "shilling for hp" seeing as they seem to buy an awful lot more hp blades than IBM ones. Or Gartner, maybe, going by their magic quadrant for blades - hp way out in the top right corner, IBM lagging behind. Gosh, what a nasty load of shills we all are! Face it - hp just make better blades, and customers are going to tell you it to your face if you ask us.
".....said no one ever." Actually I used to hear it a lot as an excuse whenever someone bought Dell, so I suppose IBM has just become the replacement cheap, "me-too", x64 vendor that Dell was considered to be.
"......HP has nothing comparable to the FSM native in their c chassis......" Sorry, but hp's Onboard Administrator and iLO combo is far superior to IBM's options. And, as far as I can see, the FSM "single pane of glass" is just a front end to the usual hodge-podge of IBM management tools.
".....The Flex x86 has about 50% more memory capacity per node and 200% more I/O than a c chassis...." Please let us know which blades you are comparing, because all the hp BL4x0c Gen8 blades have two built-in 10GbE flex ports and two PCIe 3 mezz slots, which seems directly comparable to what IBM are putting on the new half-height Flex blades, so your "200% more I/O" claim sounds like just marketting baloney. And as regards memory, the x220 blade has LESS memory than the hp Gen8 blades, it's only the x240 that has more, but I bet that comes with some lovely IBM gotcha around limiting memory speed if you go for the maximum, just like the old IBM blades. Oh, and where is the IBM Flex blade with AMD Opteron to compare to the hp BL465c Gen8?
Of course, the real limitation in the IBM Flex chassis is the same as the old BladeCenter, interconnects - since you want to use them in pairs you end up with limited choices of interconnects. You want just LAN for the onboards, FC for SAN and Infiniband for fast clustering? Not with redundancy in the IBM chassis, that would require six switch slots for three pairs, and they only have four slots. The C7000 can handle up to four pairs of switches if required. That's 100% greater USEABLE bandwidth option than IBM Flex.
"..... and the ability to go native four socket....." <Yawn>. Is that the new IBM troll buzzphrase, "native four socket"? Go look at the hp BL660c Gen8 - four sockets, same Intel cores. Try again!
"...... IBM didn't make a chassis change until the engineering required it to be done for electrical and thermal envelope reasons." You mean apart from having to upgrade the PSUs every five minutes, continually telling us customers that we now had enough power in the chassis, only to admit that we still couldn't have full redundancy and a full set of blades, that would come with the next PSU upgrade, rinse, repeat..... The only blades solution treated with more derision were the laughable attempts from Sun!
"Who on earth buys IBM blades?!......" We do, for lower-end tasks, because IBM discount them so heavily, but we use hp C7000s more. We've looked at the Dell and Fujitsu options but IBM keep dropping their pants so we keep IBM as second choice (as a purchasing strategy we have two possible suppliers for every bit of the stack). If IBM keep the Flex systems prices at the same basement level we'll probably carry on grumbling but buy them. It's just annoying that there is no commonality between BladeCenter and Flex, whilst hp just seem a lot better at designing blade solutions that have longer lifecycles built in. The worrying bit is how long IBM can carry on discounting them before they offload the range to Lenovo like they did a lot of the other x86 lines.
".....interconnects....." Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me - and after you're down to thirteen useable server blades, you then have only four interconnect module slots for switches compared to six for the Dell M1000e and eight for the Fujitsu BX900 S2 or the hp C7000. Even the old BladeCenter had four.
".....Flex System Manager, which is sort of a next gen version of Director which is embedded in a half-width node...." So, what you're saying is you buy a chassis that can only take fourteen server blades, already two less than the opposition, and then you have to lose another server blade to management?
IBM just didn't bother telling us customers last April that the Flex designs meant all our current investment in BladeCenter was being made obsolete. They didn't even sell the BladeCenter lines to Lenovo like I suspected they might, but then again they could still do that.
".......maybe they didn’t have time to go through full testing?......" I've seen similar mistakes, usually they are a combination of management pressure - "fix that NOW" - and over-confidence in one's own ability. Many, many moons ago, there was a rumour of a ping of death for CISCO Catalyst routers (5000 models IIRC) and much argument amongst netties as to whether it would work or not. At company I was working for at the time, our network architect, having the authority to do as he pleased, was firmly in the "it-won't-work" camp and decided to test it against one of our routers, only to find not only did it work but it also propagated through all the same models in the network. Cue embarrassing and company-wide network outage which we definitely did not step up and explain to the customers!
I vaguely recall a charity project a few years back to get shipping contractors to donate (as a tax write off) old steel shipping containers for Third World "instant shelter" buildings - there are already mechanisms and procedures to ship them all over the World, you send them full of aid and then all you need is an angle grinder and a few bits to cut and install windows, chimneys, etc. Containers can even be stacked and bolted/welded into blocks if land space is short, with steel or wooden stairways attached as required. And if you want to move it you can stick it on the back of a standard articulated lorry trailer. There's many a good reason the pod datacentre idea took off and they all apply to using them as houses too.
".....Also there are the complications that electricity and gas installations need to be signed off by a suitably qualified person." In the UK it would illegal to build the electrical or gas bits without being a qualified electrician and/or gas engineer, even if they came as pre-built frames, if they connect to mains gas or electricity supplies. Potentially, you could do it all if you were only connecting to your own generator and camping gas cylinders, but even then you would need your installations signed off by a building inspector. There is some loophole around classing your home as a "trailer" but IIRC you then have a different set of regs you still have to comply with. And if you skip any of it a busybody at the local council will order your work removed, and potentially they can order your whole building demolished if you really upset them, even if it is fully-compliant. Trying to evade the correct paperwork and procedures in the UK is simply stupid.
Having played with liquid-cooled PCs I'd have to agree. Whilst it's all fine in theory, and cools very well in practice, it all becomes a bit dicey when you want to move or replace components. Even the flexible hoses don't like being bent new ways when full of fluid. I can see this stuff being used for liquid-cooled racks, but not directly piped into servers.
".....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_companies....." You should read your own link, it explains that the Forbes listing is a calculation based on four metrics, not one measure. But, if you like Wiki links, please go take a look at some of the following.
List of the World's largest information technology companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_technology_companies << hp in third, above IBM in fifth, Dell in eigth, Oracle not even in the top ten.
List of the World's companies by revenue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue << hp in at 38, IBM at 52, Dell and Oracle not even in the ranking.
".....HP shares tanked originally when it said about splitting off the hardware division to become a software/services house....." And, finally, what really matters - what the market thinks!
Fortune 500 listing:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/ << hp at number ten, IBM at nineteen, Dell at 44, Oracle at 82 (they finally made someone's list!).
".....Did they have the innovative nous to take WebOS forward? Obviously not. HP are a me too company....." You obviously missed the bit about hp being a diversified group, across a whole range of products other than just tablets. For instance, they're the third largest software company in the World, so probably not too bad at that software thing.
".....Hammergren, a CEO of US healthcare services giant McKesson Corporation...." I'm pretty sure McKesson were being used as an hp case study, IIRC. If he's the director I'm thinking of (http://www.forbes.com/profile/john-hammergren/) I think he was listed as the US's highest paid CEO back in 2011, so I doubt he'll cry too much if he has to lose his part-time hp jaunt. I assume CtW investment Group has something against him as he would seem a succesful CEO in the health industry, surely a target industry for hp....?
As for Ken Thompson, wasn't he head of Wachovia when it all went pear-shaped? If so then not much of a loss IMHO, certainly less successful than Hammergren.
Long ago in the days of contracting, I talked myself into buying an Orange "high speed" card for my laptop (this was in the days before neat 3G USB dongles). What a mistake! Performance was scorching, just about everywhere I didn't need to use it, with Orange's "coverage map" turned out to be as big a work of fiction as the average politician's manifesto. Ten feet outside of central London it was down to a very ropey GPRS signal. Calls to Orange's customer support, whilst polite and as helpful as the staff could be, proved fruitless, and I decided i was being ripped off given the awful coverage. Looking at the coverage map for EE, which is WORSE than the old Orange map, and even without taking into account the "optimistic" picture it shows, there is no way I'm paying out for 4G any time soon!
".....Research shows that ZFS is indeed safe....." Can it be clustered yet? No? Oh, so when your one ZFS server dies you lose access to all your data. FAIL! This has been pointed out to you countless numbers of times, Kebby, so please stop with the ZFS cheerleader routine until it is enterprise-ready.
"The rumors go 'round and 'round about HP spinning off its PC business...." TPM, as someone that goes to pains to repeat those runours that's a bit like the kettle pointing at the pot rack! So a drop in hp PSG figures of 7% and 8% is "cratering"?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/23/ibm_q4_2012_financials/
".....IBM's Power Systems line, which has only just begun its transition to eight-core Power7+ processors, took it on the chin a bit, with revenues dropping 19 per cent......"
Editorial trolls in glass houses....
"Here, have a link......." Read this you obtuse moron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Trademark
".......Have you finished digging or shall I hand you a spade?" Well, take the spade and your head out of your arse and maybe you'd be able to see for yourself.
BTW, JavaScript was also behind some of the most serious security holes in Firefox:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html
So don't try and pretend your fave scripting language is holy and infallible just because you can't see reality from your self-inflicted rectal domain.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
