* Posts by Matt Bryant

9690 publicly visible posts • joined 21 May 2007

WikiLeaks releases classified files on Guantánamo Bay

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: however, back in the discussion...

"......the point many of disputants in this fragfest are trying to make is that stooping to low standards does not help your just cause...." Believing you can fight any war, let alone one against religious nutters, without horrible things happening to possibly innocent people caught up in the cross-fire, is simply naivete of epic proportions. Whilst we may try to avoid it happening as much as possible (and unlike the Taleban who execute their own on the merest suspicion of treachery or collaboration, we do have rules), it is inevitable that some innocents will be wrongly accused or punished in amongst the massively larger number of "bad guys" correctly identified and detained.

During WW2, the Brits detained very large numbers of foreigners on the suspicion they may have helped the Nazis. Similarly, the Septics detained Japanese, Italian and German families as a precaution. We are talking about tens of thousands of people, not a few hundred. As well as the 11,000-odd Germans interned in the US, 4,500 Germans were shipped to the US from Latin America alone, and interned for the duration fo the War, which makes the modern extradition program look tiny in comparison. All were questioned and there is no doubt some were interrogated more roughly. Are you saying the whole war against the Nazis was "wrong" because of that? Grow up.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: re Matt Bryant

Which completely ignores the fact that children are routinely questioned by Police all over the World on suspicion of them having knowledge or of having taken part in a crime. Some are sent to young offender institutes whilst on remand. Many of those children are eventually tried and convicted and may be locked up for extended periods. You have no evidence that the youth in question was tortured or anything more than strongly spoken to. I'm quite amused at your presumption that it is only at age sixteen (or do you prefer eighteen?) that the jjihadi bug can kick in, especially considering the indoctrination known to have been going on for years in madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm not convinced the US authorities would have simply held onto this boy just for the fun of it, let alone gone to all the trouble of shipping him half-way round the World, so I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye. One aspect you may have failed to grasp is that if he has supplied info to the allies that led to Taleban or AQ leaders being kileld, then he is highly likely to be killed by his former comrades upon his return, especially given the tribal nature of many Taleban gangs. That threat to his safety may be a factor in the delay. Without the full story you're just hyperventilating.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: The British tried it in the 1970s

Which all kinda neatly avoids the facf that the mainstream IRA eventually realised it could not win a protracted "war" with the UK and eventually settled for disarment and entry to the political system. So, obvioulsy, all those Irish "detainees" that you are convinced became life-long commited terrorists also accepted the solution (mustn't call it "defeat", the IRA sympathisers like to cling to the idea that they didn't "lose", despite their having failed to achieve any of their aims). By that token, your argument is shown to be moot in the longrun.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: @Matt Bryant

"We won in Afghanistan then?...." Let's see - the Taleban are out of power and hiding in the hills; the AQ training camps have been dismantled and many of their fighters and leaders have been captured or killed, significantly reducing their ability to carry out further attacks on the West; the Afghans have held proper and democratic elections and are trying to build up the structures for a proper and peaceful country; and the Taleban and AQ are just playing spoilers as they have very little chance of getting back into power. Not complete victory, but pretty close. Should ceasefire talks with the Taleban bear fruit then the US and allies can claim a pretty total victory. Why am I guessing that what you actually wanted was the US and allies to fail and for the poor Afghans to return to the imposed and oppressive rule of the Taleban?

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: @Gumby

By your argument, we'd still be fighting German Nazis that were previously PoWs, or the Japanese. People, no matter how committed, do give up and accept defeat. In the case of Germany and Japan, they may even come round to accepting how their actions were wrong and/or illogical. The fact that not all jihadis detained at Gitmo do go back to fighting suggest that some of them do see sense. The bit you'll probably froth over is that we will probably have to kill or permeanently detain those diehards that won't accept defeat, if only to make it easier for the others to come to terms.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Re: And? - @Matt Bryant

"....Care to explain wtf that means? Brown?...." Just pre-empting the usual handwringer gumph that the US and allies are only concerned about "white Westerners" because we just have to be racists Nazis, etc, etc. Extra funny when you consider the Obumbler isn't white, but typical from the morons that fail to realise that many of the Gitmo detainees were actually captured by the Northern Alliance, which are Afghans that were fighting the Taleban long before the invasion. These weren't just people picked up after an anonymous phone tip-off, in may cases they were captured in firefights. In other cases they already had extensive jihadi records. Trying to pretend they are all innocents and bore us no ill-will before their incarceration is wilfull stupidity in the extreme.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Happy

RE: Please read the article

The problem (for you) is that I have done a lot more than just skim read The Guardian article, so I am not as lacking in knowledge, perspective or jusy sheer ability to think for myself. Unlike you.

".....take off your HP glasses...." What has this to do with hp? Oh, I see, you're one of the Sunshiners that got his mindless drivel exposed in another thread, so you thought you'd come and whine in this one too? Or is it just that you're a serial sucker and fall for every fashionable "cause" that means you don't have to do any thinking for yourself?

"....It's clear...." What, from a few reports stumped up by Assnut, without any providence either to their authnticity or context, or the background of the two "innocents" mentioned? Did they have Taleban associates, sympathies or were they related to AQ or Taleban operatives? Did either of them actually have priors for working for either AQ or the Taleban (or any of the large number of Afghan or Pakistani tribal gangs that specialise in arms smuggling, drugs smuggling, kidnapping or just good-old Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist-bashing)? So many questions, so little information to actually form a qualified opinion. But don't let that stop you from making a snap judgement based on your own political leanings, paranoia or plain idiocy.

/SP&L

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: @Matt Bryant (again)

"So, basically you are saying that because there are worse countries out there than the US it therefore exonerates the US from committing their little crimes?...." Nope, I'm saying try waiting for all the information before making a statement damning the US. But I'm sure that nasty things are done by the US every day, even if I'm not convinced by the current stuff out of The Guardian from Assnut. I'm not that bothered, becuase I've seen the World and how it works. That experience helps me realise it's not all black-and-white, there's plenty of grey in between. You obviously still have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

".....You need to get a dose of reality my friend." I'm laughing at that idea as I'm pretty sure reality and yourself don't meet much. Please feel free to fall back on the usual and predictable whining of "Nazi", etc, if it makes you feel any better.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Those are the standards you're now setting for your behaviour?

"......How about trying to be the best?" I suggest you aim a lot lower, seing as your IQ and moral hobbyhorse are going to seriously hamper you in dealing with the real World. I'm betting you think all the Taleban and AQ fighters can be "cured" if only we try being nice to them, talk calmly and not use any nasty swear words? An ostrich would consider you a miner.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: America: Land of the free

Care to do a simple comparison - number of people alledgedly being tortured or mistreated in America, verses any number of foreign countries, or even Afghanistan as it was under the Taleban? No, I didn't think you would, seeing as you so obviously prefer your "thoughts" spoonfed to you. Asking you to actually stop and consider reality would probably be far too painful an experience for you. Even professional handwringers like Amnesty International admit the worst of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib pale in comparison with routine practices in many other countries.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: title

Whilst your compassion is touching, you're looking at it from the typical Westerner viewpoint that children are innocents to be protected. Both AQ and the Taleban have thought nothing of using children, women and even the mentally ill as suicide bombers and operatives. Children as young as eight have been documented in Afghanistan acting as supporting members to AQ and Taleban groups. Child assassins are a common ploy in Middle-Eastern, African and Asian countries as they often play upon the mistaken belief that they are harmless innocents. Even the collosally-useless taking shop of the UN has recognised the problem and their Resolution 1612 advises montiroing fifty governments and "rebel groups". Without more facts to consider the background and actions of the child in question it is impossible to state his innocence or otherwise. Oh, sorry, did I just ask you to stop and think before tryping?

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: re: Matt Bryant

".....any of the people who have been kidnapped and tortured after being released decided they *didn't* decide to sign up with the "enemy"....." Yes, because in your fairytale version of reality, there was no 9/11, and no Taleban, and no AQ, and no-one even thought nasty thoughts about us Westerners before the invasion of Afghanistan, right? Please, go get a clue.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: "you could say..

The majority of Gitmo detainees were either captured in combat with AQ forces in Afghanistan or in anti-terrorist operations, not just grabbed for a whim. Even The Guardian, which loves to pretend that there are oodles of "innocents" in Gitmo, is struggling to make a case for even five of them being so.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Have you ever considered....?

I would have thought that having seen the might of the Allied forces smash AQ in Afghansitan and send the Taleban back to the hills (and their Pakistani hidey-holes), and then seen how determined the US was not to see them return, that anyone with an ounce of commonsense would realise they were better off not fighting. And then, having been locked up in Gitmo for years, if it really was as nasty as you bleeding hearts make out then surely the released would be doing all they could to avoid returning? Check the results on what happens to jihadis that do return and go back to violence, the majority are killed within a few years. Oh, hold on a sec, I see the problem - you don't have any common sense.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Re: Have you ever considered

Many prisoners of war become depressed when captured. It's not surprising the jihadis get depressed as it must be a major wake-up call for them - they have been told their faith will protect them, that their "cause is righteous" and that they would win as long as they prayed five times a day and killed whomever they were told were "bad Muslims" and Westerners. Then they get a military kicking, get captured and locked up by the supposedly "decadent and inecffectual" Westerners. Realities often a female dog when your life is built around a skyfairy faith.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: re: The Guardian a bit hypocritical

Slight problem - there is a great big hole in international law around how such prisoners should be tried. Most of the existing laws are built around war between two nations, not war between a nation and a faith-based international group. The prisoners are not uniformed combatants of a nation we are at war with, so they don't fall under the Geneva Convention. And that's just the AQ and Taleban cannonfodder that got scopped up on the battlefield, what laws do you use for the Taleban and AQ puppetmasters sitting safely back in Pakistan that co-ordinated events like 9/11, the Madrid bombing or the London Underground attack?

With the cannonfodder, the simplest option would be to return them to Afghanistan for civil trial, but then their conditions of incarceration both pre- and post-trial would make Gitmo look trivial. And what if the Afghans said that in some cases they wanted to apply the death sentence, which does still exist in Afghani law? Then the US would be legally obliged NOT to return the prisoners, as shown by the case of the Chinese Uyghars.

It's nice and easy to sit there and moralise on and on from your moral hobbyhorse, but reality isn't all so neatly simplistic.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Tough luck on funny foreigners

"......And the human rights of non-citizens a zero priority?" Your prejudice against the Septics obviously meant you missed the fact that AQ and the Taleban kill far more Afghans, Pakistanis, Saudis, Iraqis and other brown "foreigners" (Muslim, Christian or otherwise), than they do Americans. The Gitmo captives released that have gone back to fighting in Afghanistan have been leading the campaigns of intimidation and murder against other Afghans and Pakistanis. In fact, you could say that in keeping them locked up, the US is actually saving foreign lives.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Thumb Down

The Guardian a bit hypocritical?

They have an article up on their webiste admitting that "150" of those released from Gitmo have gone back to fighting for AQ and the Taleban, including the new Taleban 2IC, Abdullah Zakir (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-released-taliban-alqaida). Even the Saudis admit their "re-education" program for Saudis returning from Gitmo has an estimated 25% failure rate. As in 25% of the "re-educated", despite being under the eye of the Saudi secret services, still go back to fighting for AQ in Saudi Arabia itself - they have been criticised by the US for not being able to say how many of the released Saudis have already gone back to fighting in the Afghan or Iraq.

The Uyghars are a particularly sad case. They cannot be returned to China as it is more than likely that their treatment in China will make anything that happened in Gitmo look like a holiday. The Guardian again carries many articles on this such as a recent death in custody (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/14/china-police-chief-dies-custody). But at the same time, many countries won't accept the Uyghars as there are Uyghar Muslims fighting a violent terrorist/liberation campaign in China, known to have links with AQ. Who's going to risk taking in such a "refugee"?

So, on the one hand we have the Guardian saying "Gitmo bad", but then on the other they are admitting that it is highly likely that many of those currently still incarcerated there (judged to be the worst cases, so the "returnee" rate is likely to be even worse) are likely to go back to killing. The Obumbler is damned if he keeps them locked up in Gitmo, and likely to be damned if they are released and promptly go back to killing. Still, if it helps The Guardian shift a few papers, what do they care.

HP ProLiant power supplies 'may die when dormant'

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Happy

Why we beat our hp field engineers regularly.

I feel quite left out as we don't have any old, failed PSUs to moan about. But then that may be because we have regular meetings with our local hp field engineer, who keeps an eye on all our kit and makes sure the firmware is up-to-date, and anything listed as potentially "dodgy" in the hp engineering bulletins is scheduled for replacement or update before they go on the fritz. He seems to think this is a better idea than just letting everything that is going to cause problems happen whenever (usualy 2am on a Sunday morning). Admittedly, we pay a bit extra for the hp support that delivers this service. Strangely enough, this type of proactive system management means I don't have any PSU failures to moan about. Can I suggest a company that pays enough to afford international failover should also spend a bit more on proactive system managemt, or at least some admins with a clue?

New double-barrelled Taser unveiled

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: @Matt Bryant

Let's deal with the central plank of your revisonism first, the claim that "....the company has recently admitted these risk factors and linked them with risk of death.....". This is a wild exaggeration, as all TI have admited is that there is a very small likelyhood in extreme cases that a Taser shock may excaberate existing conditons to the point where death may occur. They defiantely have not said a Taser alone will kill.

".....then it leaves little in the way of postmortem evidence...." As all it can do is excaberate an existing condition. Seeing as Police usually don't have time to ask a potentially violent preson already resisting arrest for their medical records (and that's if we pretend we can train all cops to make a snap medical diagnosis based on doctors' records of whether someone is likely to die from an existing condition if Tasered), your argument is beyond stupid. Then, you might want to consider that a person likely to suffer heart arythmia from Tasering could also have an attack and die from the stress of being physically restrained, Maced or pepper-sprayed and restrained, or being shot and then restrained, which are the alternatives. Seeing as violent people resist arrest and are restrained every day the World over, and don't all drop dead, your tiny pool of Taser deaths is microscopic and your arguments deliberately misleading. Police value Tasers for the simple reason that it is the quickest and simplest and proven least risky method (both to the cops and the criminal) of arresting someone likely to respond with violence.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: @Matt Bryant

".......If there was zero causality then one would expect to see a significant number of people coincidentally dropping dead at the sound of the "Taser Taser Taser" warning. Or dropping dead even when the taser shot misses the target. The fact that these events essentially NEVER happen....." Unbelievable! Who writes that rubbish for you, Jenny McCarthy? Sorry to break it to you, but people drop dead in large numbers all over the World and every day, so your logic is not just flawed, it's monumentally stupid. I could just as easily say that since not everyone Tasered has died there must therefore be no risk. Please leave the thinking to those more qualified or at least equipped in future.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: @Matt Bryant

Ah, the denial is strong with this one!

".....Because the taser leaves no postmortem clues....." Really? So exactly what magic do you think is being used then, as I thought the Taser just used bog-standard electricity? Please tell me exactly what was the cause of death of the "600" (Wow, they're dropping like flies!), as I seem to recall reading about quite a few postmortems where they didn't seem to have a problem detecting death by electrocution? Do Tasers use some form of especially devious form of electrickery that then cleans up clues after itself? By the way, do you want to buy some Florida Everglades real estate?

Let's take the most widely and least scientific "theory" put about by ignorant Taser-haters like yourself - the Taser charge somehow manages to "scramble" the nerve signals to the victim's heart/brain/bigtoe and they die without any trace of real damage. This "theory" (or just idiocy) completely misses the point that you would need a massive charge to damage nerves, and the evidence of nerve damage would be easy to find (funnilly enough, by passing a current between the source and destination points on the nerves in question, which can be done even after death, and is done in postmortems where nerve damage is suspected).

Idiot theory number 2 - the Taser charge causes a heart attack. Which completely misses the fact that heart attacks leave indications either of the event or the cause. For example, you may suffer an ordinary electric shock from an everyday appliance, and the shock causes an embollism. You don't die on the spot, you may walk around for hours before the clot jams up an artery in your brain or heart. But then that clot is easy to detect in a post-mortem. A clot large enough to jam up your heart would need a completely blind coroner to miss it, and with a range of medical scanners capable of detecting any clot, even the blind coroner has cover. Heart arhythmia caused by the shock? See the point about nerve damage above.

In short, we have medical science to a point where people don't often "just die to no obvious cause", and there is no reason for any coroner to have "covered up" any death that may have been caused by a Taser. Tasers do not use magic, just everyday electricity, something that is both well-known in action and in how it affects the human body. Your desire for some "great conspiracy" is just the usual unscientific blather.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Pirate

RE: @kain preacher

"......With respect to rarity indicating non-causality, that's defective logic....." Nope, it's just showing up the headline figure of "500" as the over-hyped hogwash it is. More people die falling down stairs every year, do you want to ban stairs? But I do see an advantage to you buffoons and your bleating - maybe the crims out there will read your schpiel, believe it, and then NOT get arsey when they get faced by a copper with a Taser. After all, if people don't get violent or aggressive and co-operate with the Police then they don't run the (miniscule) risk of being killed by a Taser.

Matt Bryant Silver badge

RE: You're missing the subtle central point of the controversy

<Yawn> As previously pointed out (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/11/26/futuristic_guns_feature/) in reply to another hysterical anti-Taser post, you are more likely to be killed by lightning, crushed by your own fridge or killed by an electric fan, than be one of the "500" (another exaggerated figure) that may have died as a result of being Tasered. Please, try a bit of analysis before regurgitating whatever was spoonfed to you.

Man arrested in crackdown on pro-WikiLeaks DDoS spree

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: To whom are you referring -- WikiLeaks informants or Gov't thugs?

Sorry.... can't ..... type ..... laughing.... too .... hard!

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Happy

RE: Sad, lonely individual?

Probably several, all online and all actually other men pretending to be women!

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Happy

RE: Cannon Fodder

"Guaranteed this guy was one of the nameless many...." You saying that or hoping that?

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: Anonymous arrest

I'm going to hazard a guess here but I'm thinking your righteous zeal meant you overlooked the fact that the people attacking Wikileaks seem to have not been as stupid as the Anonyputzs. The Wiki stuffers seem to have hidden their IP addresses and not used tools names by a five-year old, making detection, capture and trial a might harder than the "look-at-me-I'm-so-morally-superior" morons useing LOIC.

Animal lovers stamp on goldfish racing

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Goldfish crime

Because goldfish don't taste good cooked, maybe. Of course, if you've BRED the fish in question for the fishing, and then you take the fish and eat it afterwards, then your argument sounds like just veggie moralising blather.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Happy

Jersey bar games are for wimps!.

Worried about the fish being scared? The Thai version is so much more scarey for the punter. The hostesses make you sit on a chair, then put a pair of this little snakes down the front of your trousers, advisng you to sit still "or they may think you have a big snake in there and bite you!" They use harmless snakes, but they don't tell you that. The rest of the bar bets on which snake will come out which trouser leg first. Believe me, you will never sit so still in your life!

No, iPhone location tracking isn't harmless and here's why

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Boffin

Apple = commercial.

I was going to read all the comments before posting, but after the first page of paranoid delusions I just skipped straight to posting. So apologies if someone else has already pointed this out and I missed it in the deluge of hysteria.

Apple is a commercial company, not a secret arm of the Gubbermint. Everything Apple does is to make money, period! Giving up your location to the cops/FBI/NSA does not make Apple a profit, if anything it could mean they get sued, so I don't think socila responsibility was high on the Apple business case. You're also forgetting that the authorities can simply ask the carriers for records of all the cells your mobile has talked to in a period.

I'm betting the this is linked to locational-based advertising in searchs, either for current Safari searchs or for a future product Apple is bringing to market. I'm betting the reason there are gaps in the databases are because the owner simply wasn't near anything that Apple thought worth advertising (in reverse, this explains why there would be thousands of hits in a city due to all the stores, shops and resteraunts). And by "worth advertising", I'm thinking in the Google terms of "pay-me-to-get-your-place-as-the-top-search-result". Given the widespread adoption of Apple mobile devices by the fanbois, it would seem that Apple are sitting on a potential goldmine if they can monetise the location information.

Bradley Manning to be moved to new military prison

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: That's probably the intent

Just listen to yourselves - keep him in solitary and you moan that's an attempt to drive him to suicide, but then they say they'll move him to general population and you start implying it's a plot to get him killed because all soldiers just must be a bunch of uber-patriotic queer-bashers!?! Please, put down the Kool Aid and the get some perspective, otherwise please post your full names so we can look forward to seeing you listed as future Darwin Award nominees.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
WTF?

RE: Wrong-o

I'm guessing you do not consider Manning's actions "criminal", then? So, you just want to ignore the military laws he broke, or the oath he took, all because it lines up neatly with your political faith? You want the US to apologise because he couldn't hack it as a gay in the military and chose (yes, chose, not by accident but by design) to break the laws he had signed up to follow, rather than just resigning and leaving? Manning dug his own hole and Assange took pleasure in giving him a bigger shovel.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: "People like you"

"......you've conveniently put me in a box....." It was your own rediculously ignorant statements that put you in that box, without any need for labels given the way you scrawled "eedeeot" in crayon all over it. You cast slander at his jailers, not just implying but outright saying they deliberately did this to make Manning suicidal, without for a second looking at the facts - they were standard brig procedures, not the actions of sadistic guards. They are based in military laws, not random political machinations. The procedures were there to actually keep Manning from harming himself after a qualified psychiatrist examined him and said he was likely to self-harm. I'm betting you have zero psychioatric training, have definately not appraised Manning's state of mind in any other way than regurgitating whatever you read on some loon website, and haven't bothered to read up on any of the laws Manning broke or the terms under which he can be kept. In short, you are a know-nothing blow-hard, riding around on your moral hobbyhorse and thinking you know better than those that actually bothered to look at the facts. Don't bother going back to IndyMedia, go back to school and start from scratch.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Do I now?

"....To me that reeks of extreme pettiness on the part of his jailors...." I'm guessing that's because you know nothing about US military law (which Manning is subject to) or the standard procedures that the Marines were following. Seeing as they have been discussed here in these forums before, and are available on the Web, I can only assume you are ignoring the facts to allow you to vent some more, are willfully ignorant because you don't want to admit Manning put himself in the position through his own actions, or just stupid.

".....What I did was draw lines between dots in a certain way...." You even fail at dot-to-dots! People like you will see what they want to see because they are so busy hating "The Man". You're so full of prejudice and denial it's impossible for you to get a realistic view of anything, you just wait for the next set of spoonfed ideals from conmen like Assange.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: Next that'll happen?

You sound like you'd be completely disappointed if he doesn't take his own life! What, would that deny you a martyr to grind on and on about? So predictably hilarious that you get what you want - Manning moved to a "softer" facility - and you still find something to whine about. Seriously, let go of the hatred.

Intel's Xeon biz bolstered by server refreshes

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Boffin

Y2K may have knocked the analysis a bit.

The Y2K hilarity meant many companies replaced kit early in their lifecycle to ensure they had Y2K compliance. OK, I meant that many admins used Y2K as an excuse to ditch older kit and get shiny new stuff sooner than usual. This was problematic as companies had finite IT budgets and so then cut back on spends after Y2K, with the following economic downturn meaning the IT industry went from a peak down into a trough. But, purchases after that were in lockstep - everyone that had bought new kit prior to the Y2K date then went and renewed it three-to-four years after. Over time, that lockstep will dissipate as buys spread out, but I think you can still see the cyclical pattern in the vendors' results since. I think Intel is just riding up on the wave of current x64 replacements, and we may see a dip going into 2013 regardless of economic performance. Whilst that may not bother Intel too much, AMD's problems mean AMD doesn't seem to have made hay whilst the sun was shining, and may suffer as we go into the dip. With the next big scare date (in UNIX) being 2038, AMD may be facing lean times for a while.

RAF Eurofighters make devastating attack – on Parliament

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: Super Hornet not advanced??

The Gripen is in the same boat as the Rafale (and the F/A-18, and the F-16, and even the F-35 and Su-35 "Flanker") - it's considered a cheaper but less capable option to one of the real top-end fighter choices, the F-22 or the Typhie. If you're going to go for the cheaper option to save costs on the basis you can still get away with it for 95% of the UN "peacekeeping" tasks, you might as well buy the much cheaper and just as capable single-seater Hawk 200 series, which actually has the same basic radar as the advanced versions of the F-16. The Hawk is also totally British built (or assembled at least), so protects British jobs and there is no need to faff around with European "partners". It also shares a number of parts with existing RAF Hawk trainers and has been proven in use by a number of foreign air forces. The Hawk has also already been checked out with all the weapons likley to be used in the role, with the possible exception of Brimstone (not sure if that has been tested on the Hawk but they can use Mavericks as an option). As has been pointed out, it could even be navallised with the knowledge put into developing the T-45 Goshawk carrier trainer for the USN (please, Septics, do tell us again how much you enjoy having a British trainer in use by the USN?). The Gripen offers none of those advantages, so would be a very poor choice.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: RE: RE: Did you read the article ?

<Yawn> So, what you're actually having to say is you don't know for certain, but you THINK they might have been abandoned tanks and MAYBE unserviceable.

"......how about the fact that many tanks are all parked in the same spot....." Really? So in your mind, tanks run around in some kind of never-ending circuit, never needing to refuel or bomb up, or for their crews to get some sleep or chow? And they never take cover in built-up areas in an attempt to avoid UN/NATO airstrikes? The vid shows three tanks (not "many") and some other vehicles, not exactly a massive number. Want to re-think that last schpiel?

".....long enough to be found...." So, in your obviously massive experience, how long do you have to look before you can find a tank? Is there a mandatory five hours you have to put in first before you're allowed to find one? Of course, you might want to consider that the RAF knew they were there because recce or satellites had already found them.

"....and taken out in the middle of a war...." Yes, 'cos modern aircraft blowing up tanks is just so uncommon and unlikley! Did you forget that whole Gulf War 1 and 2 thing, there were lots of vids of US and RAF bombers doing all sorts of nasty things to Iraqi tanks all over the news.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Easy Tiger

"Based on your argument the Rafale is at least as good...." Wrong! All it shows is that in the situation so far they are operating equally well. But, the Rafale cannot meet the RAF's requirement for a long-range interceptor. The Fwench already tried offering it to the RAF, the Germans and the Italians and it didn't meet their requirements. Even the RN did consider the Rafale as a cheap option to the F-35, but decided it was a better bet to wait for the unproven F-35 than accept the limited Rafale, and that is really damning as the F-35 is already not considered good enough to replace the Typhie in the air-to-air role. In fact, IIRC, the Rafale as yet to pick up a foreign order, so it seems everyone else is also thinking the Rafale is just not the best option.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: 'Typhoon was built to a specified requirement.'

So isn't it lucky that the airframe has proven adaptable to new roles! Oh, and BTW, the long-range, North Atlantic interceptor requirement the Typhie was desinged for hasn't gone away.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: A slight precision

"......Oh, and for air superiority, the only Lybian jet shot down was by a Rafale...." Monumental fail! The Rafale killed a Galeb - that's a subsonic armed-trainer, about the air-to-air equivalent of stepping on a bug! And, as I hear it, the Galeb wasn't even up and fighting, it was landed on the runway when the Fwench "shot it down" ( but missing the other Galeb of the pair - how hard is it to hit a taxiing trainer?). So, not an air-to-air victory. Try again!

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: @ Matt Bryant

"....for an order of magnitude less TCO per plane?...." Seeing as you have zero ability to define the exact cost per unit of even the basic F/A-18 airframe for an UK order; the cost of the additional avionics upgrades to bring it up to the required RAF spec; or the cost of just keeping the base airframe in service, let alone the additional avionics bits plus training required, I can comfortably state that you are talking out of your rectum. Please try thinking for yourself rather than just accepting what Lewis pukes up as gospel.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: Did you read the article ?

I not only read the article, I obviously thought about it a lot more than you did. So, the Telegraph has inter-continental-range x-ray vision? Was there a Telegraph reporter on the ground, in place to confirm that the "tank-park" was indeed abandoned and the tanks were definately not useable? Don't tell me, it was in a broadsheet so it must be true!

Matt Bryant Silver badge
FAIL

RE: "Pu-lease...

"....And when did we last need air-to-air ...." <Takes deep breath, counts to ten> It's operating a no-fly zone, so air-to-air capability is kinda VITAL. Especially as the Typhies are operating hundreds of miles from the nearest friendly base or support and could conceivably have to face a dozen MiGs if Quadaffiduck decides to give it a go, which means the best air-to-air capability is required. Try thinking, you just failed the last time you needed to do that.

Iran lays blame for Stuxnet worm on Siemens

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Happy

If Siemens really did help hack the Iranian nuke systems.....

.... Then thanks, Siemens.

Microsoft opens Office 365 beta floodgates to the world

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Boffin

RE: See now...

"......All Your Software Are Belong To Microsoft?....." Your anit-M$ fervour is blinding you to the fact that many less technically-capable (or just technically-adventurous) companies are quite happy to use nothing but M$ software and pay the M$ tax, because the software (largely) does what it says on the tin, has good support from a company unlikley to curl up and die next week, and also has a wide base of users so it is easy to recruit trained people to run it. All that generates a sense of comfort. Sure, you could replace everything with Linux and FOSS, but just try finding skilled people that can run it, develop it to your needs (not just in-between snowboarding jaunts), and then doing all that on a small budget.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Stop

RE: Ooohhh... I can't wait...

You are thinking from the techie's viewpoint, but buisnesses see software and licences as just expensive things they have to pay for to allow them to do business and make profits. It is completely irrellevant to the majority of CEOs what makes up the IT stack and who controls it as long as it allows them to run the business. If you are working in a position where you think you will have to defend against the idea of moving to the M$ cloudd then I suggest you formulate a business case as to why this would be a bad thing (such as suggesting the additional security required would cost more than the savings, or that it might reduce flexibility). Use real and proveable figures because money is what they understand. Don't use what they will see as "techno-babble" as that will just make you look like a paranoid, anti-M$, Linux-lover.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Boffin

RE: nope

"You need office local for this thing to work....." Yes, but you only need the license on the lcoal machine, you don't need the ooomph of a full desktop to run the full suite though, you can use a skinny client PC (such as a laptop, notebook, or even a tablet). This is the same model as virtualised desktops - big back-end server farm with centralised admin and backup - with the "added bonus" that all your data is supposedly safely stored offsite, in a redundant cloud.

M$ is being clever here - it's hard for the Linux crowd to compete as few FOSS players are going to be able to offer a cloud service as they will lack the resources to provider a truly competitive offering. Can Red Hat provide a cloud service, Worldwide, to the same level? Google can, but M$ are tying them up in knots with an anti-competitive lawsuit around search. Apple? Too small in the office market (the M$ cloud could be the killer app for the new M$ tablets that undoes the Apple iPad tablet dominance). IBM or hp? Too busy partnering with M$ to want to butt heads with M$.

Matt Bryant Silver badge
Boffin

RE: Dear oh dear

Whilst my control-freak nature wants me to say "Agreed!", I remember the same thing being said by many about the original hosting offerings, and look at how many businesses now run just about everything server-based in someone else's datacenter. For a smaller business I'm sure it would be very attractive - the office desktops can be skinny; admin is taken care of; no need for local storage as it's all backed up and stored (probably redundantly) by (hopefully) experts you'd have to pay a fortune for if you employed them directly; and all the important data is being securely stored in a site (or multiple sites) that probably have far better physical security and security processes than you can afford in your dinky office. As long as the hoster can suplly a good enough (and securely encrypted) link it is no different to running a VDI-type setup with your users remote from the desktop servers in your datacenter, it's just the datacenter is a bit further away.

Big bizz? Well, that's a bit different - we can afford to indulge our paranoid control-freakery. But I'm sure CIOs would look if M$ said it would be, say, 50% cheaper to do it all in their cloud than have licences for thousands of desktops. I suppose it's all about pricing and security, two areas M$ has historically had problems with.