Posts by Bernard M. Orwell 1177 publicly visible posts • joined 12 May 2010
....as a bloke, to sign up to one of these sites.
Right now, the media, and especially it's wife, are up in arms and hatred against any man they can find who might have been offensive, creepy or sexist in any manner by any definition that they may think of in that precise second.
Being signed up to a dating site makes you a "creep" in their books immediately.
My advice? stop interacting with women; it's never going to work out in your favour!
Interesting thing about the X-37; it's wings are oversized compared to fuselage dimensions. Now, why would you need bigger wings on something that only needs them on re-entry? Why, so that it can carry a bigger payload....
....a bigger payload BACK from space. It doesn't need wings during launch at all.
Now, we don't know exactly how big the cargo bay of the X37 is, but it has the capability to open and close just like its big, manned siblings.
It would be a crying shame if a non-existent spy satellite was grabbed and brought back for analysis at a base that doesn't exist by a militarised space shuttle that doesn't exist, wouldn't it?
Coo!
Who's your provider? Is that a corporate lease-line or into your home? Do you pay £35 a month for it? If it's, as I suspect, the bandwidth used by your business, I certainly have you beat in my workplace. If its into your home and a reasonable price then I'm allllll ears.
Just tried a few of those "blocked" sites....yeah, didn't take long to reach those either, not that I ever use torrents. Those are for n00bs.
So, all you folks enjoying a little schadenfreuder at the expense of a few inconvienienced VM users; a question: What sort of speeds do your providers peak at? 2mb? 10mb? a whopping 50mb maybe?
My VM runs solidly at 152mb. I like that.
Find me an ISP with a comparable speed that *never* has such issues and I will swap to them today.
Otherwise, TTFN haters.
I know we're all condemning this guy, as is probably right and proper, but is it only me that is detecting the note of something deeply tragic beneath the surface story?
What he wrote on the wall? The waiting for the police to arrive so they'd shoot him? The understanding that he'd done something terrible and that he would be no more soon? The fact he turned himself in, ultimately?
I don't think we have the whole tale yet.
"When I see a copper, I don't try to hide or run away covering my face since:
1) I've done nothing wrong (that I know of)
2) I trust them (within tolerances) to protect my interests. And my pancreas. You get it."
hmm...
1. You know *all* the laws then? Are you certain that the copper does too? If he says he can do X, do you know that you have the right to Y? Do you know the difference between a criminal infraction and a civil offence even? Let me assure you, you are probably about as skilled in such things as the coppers are themselves and if they decide they are going to "get you" for whatever reason, they will find something you've done. If nothing else they will find that you have "made obsence images" on your home computer which they found using RIPA and took using PACE. You will be held for 20+ days under S. 44 and S. 45. Am I right? Wrong? do you know? You going to argue that out with the coppers throwing you to the floor because you are black and in the wrong kind of car? Think that doesn't happen?
2. They don't trust you. They are told not to. They are trained not to. You are the enemy. They are not your protectors, your bobby or even your police. They belong to the state and the state wants to own you, your thoughts and your proclivities because those are saleable commodities. Not certain? Go take a look at the nature of the City of London Police Force. Not the Met., the City of London. They don't answer to the judiciary, but to an entity known as "UK PLC" - you can thank Gordon Brown for that. Still unsure? Take a look at the newly formed NCA - our very own secret police, answerable to the Home Office and set the task of hunting down TerrorPedos everywhere.
Still think you've done nothing? You're safe? Really?
I broadly agree with everything you've said in your posts so far, but let me take this up for a second as I don't hold with the "right to bear arms" thing as an expression of liberty. (Incidentally, thats the word we should be using in this thread instead of the word freedom. Worth looking up that rather subtle distinction.)
A gun only has one function: to kill. Especially automatic assault weapons. These are not suitable for hunting.
Other forms of infrastructure, such as the postal service, cars, fertilizer and alarm clocks *may* be used for acts of violence by imaginative persons, but guns *will* be by their nature and purpose. The two are not comparable.
If someone sold alarm clocks on the basis that they are the very best alarm clocks for timing explosives, or an ISP sold its services based on fast, secure bandwidth for the discerning terrorpedo shopper then I might well, if I were the Authorities, question the motivation of that reseller and the nature of his customers. In fact, I may well agree that probing that relationship with electronic surveillance might well be prudent.
If someone is selling automatic weapons, rocket launchers and phospherous ammunition then I'm not going to give them an automatic pass on the basis that its "probably ok".
Thing is, the persons selling that sort of kit to the terrorpedos happens to be our own governments. There's almost no law regulating the international arms trade but these clowns want to regulate my internet usage? If something needs to be investigated, probed and surveilled (watched?) then it's there we need to be looking. Not my internet history.
I note that you haven't refuted this yet, MB. Why not?
Surely you have some opinion about how many children we're allowed to kill before its not ok? Or some argument that they aren't really children?
Or perhaps you're going to fall back to that idea that those who aid "terrorists" are just as bad as the "terrorists" and need to be killed? Doesn't matter if they aren't cooperating willingly or they've been herded into buildings you consider to be "military/viable targets" does it?
They're just terrorists getting in the way of killing more terrorists.
Not children. Not victims.
"When those drones are used they are striking at real terrorists and I have zero problem with killing them or the 'innocent bystanders' they are being assisted by." ~Matt Bryant, 2014.
Here are my replies to that, MB.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/
You fucking sicken me, MB.
More children have been killed as a result of the US war on terror than died in the 9/11 event and all other "related" events. How many more children have to die to support the way of life you espouse? Before you and your demented thinking tells you you've "won" the war on an abstract concept?
"Of course *you* have never been personally affected by Ebola or the beheading of hostages, so from *your* perspective you have nothing to worry about, do you?"
Bit of a shame that. Of course, it may be that he has experienced one or both of the above, but got better.
Agreed. Having played this through, I felt the alien was a little too "Humanoid" both in its stance and its movements. There was also something human about its behaviour, especially its search patterns.
There was some indefinable element of the original Alien that was somehow lacking.
That said, with the Oculus Rift hack it was one harsh experience....I may be scarred for some time.
Space is not particularly colourful by nature. NASA adds colour to images to represent different variables; distance, spectronomy, mass, age etc.
NASA has a dept. dedicated to photshopping pictures and often spend months on such before they are released to the public. They even tinted early pictures of Mars red because the public *expected* them to be red. The actuality is that the sky of mars is a very similar tone to Earths skies and the ground isn't actually that red.
Sounding like a conspiracist? Not at all. These are verifiable facts from NASA itself. Draw your own conclusions...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/27/nasa-photoshop-images-video_n_841187.html
http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-imaging/data.html
http://www.ominous-valve.com/martian_sky.html
http://astronomy.wonderhowto.com/how-to/nasas-secret-colorful-space-photos-from-hubble-plus-create-your-own-0132340/
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm
"Suggesting they will remove human rights is clearly a way to loose the next election, they must see that?"
Alas, no. The government (of any flabour or stripe) has been weaving a narrative, supported by certain elements of the press, that Human Rights only serves to protect criminals who would otherwise have been convicted. It's on this platform that the right (ConKip) has been steadily building public concensus towards getting out of the EU.
Once we leave the EU (which is looking fairly inevitable at the moment) we will lose not just the HR protections we have, but *all* oversight that prevents our government from enacting just about any measure they want.
For some examples of things the EU, ECHR and ECJ have protected us from look back over the last four or five Home Secretaries careers and look at the various plans that have been scuppered by Europe saying "Non!" and "Nein!" at our leaders; Identity Cards, Stop & Search, Centralised DNA database, Camera surveillance in homes (Yes, they did try that one) and many others.
Unfortunately, the stupid part of our nations population has come to believe that to get rid of the TerrorPedos, Brown People Next Door and Spongers(tm), we have to give up this oversight...but it's all ok, because Cameron will write a nice, new British Charter that will protect all the "Proper Brits", won't he?
Please, when the referendum comes up, consider this before voting away our last line of defence.
I believe its entirely possible that I've not long finished working for that company, and yes, they did encrypt everything. I don't recall a message about "top management" however, but they were certainly big enough tossers to do something like that.
It was clear, each and every day, that they trusted management, demanded results without resources and wanted to reduce technical headcount constantly.
A**s....sorry, *they* were deeply stupid as a company and that probably explains why they've been losing contracts hand over fist of late and are not long for the UK market.
...but usually for unjust ones.
"..a convert to Islam who describes himself as "anti-democracy, loyal to the Caliphate, harsh on kuffar".
In other words, a complete idiot, poorly educated, gullible and misled. A worshipper of sky-fairy #117, a murderer, unrepentant for his crimes and willing to commit more unless his personal demands are met.
You want an enemy? Here it is. A war worth fighting or we will all be consumed by its mad-dog philosophy.
Israel? Hamas? More sky-faires. Just as bad. We need to stop respecting religion and treat it like the wasting sickness it has clearly become.
It needs to be excised and cured.
I'm not debating with you, Matt, for precisely the reasons I have stated elsewhere. Instead, I am planting a warning for others who might think it's worth their time engaging with you.
As I have gone to quite some lengths to explain, I don't call you a troll because you have opposing views to mine on many subjects, but because you are verbally abusive to everyone who disagrees with you, or even to those who agree with you but whose posts you have failed to comprehend.
As I have said, elsewhere, I value well considered and researched opposing views; they assist in refining my own thinking. You, however, are deliberately and consistently abusive in your debating, therefore you are a troll.
To be fair, and speaking as one who has undergone such a process, these kind of risk are normally very carefully managed and each analyst will be subject to an extensive vetting process that will determine their independant level of risk. Duties are normally assigned in accordance with those findings.
Iraqwatch is one site of several maintained by Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms control, a not-for-profit NGO.
The Wisconsin Project receives financing through grants from the U.S. government and from several private foundations, the identities of which are undisclosed.
Draw your own conclusions.
"There is no way of intercepting (say) an email from Boko Haram giving the location of the Nigerian girls, without intercepting everybody else's email as well."
Even with all of this surveillance infrastructure, nothing could be done to locate these girls. In fact, I *keep* seeing incidents of "terrorism" of this nature happening. I thought that empowering the TLA's was intended to protect people? If thats so, then the system they've designed IS NOT WORKING and is therefore just a collosal waste of money... ...unless it has another purpose of some kind?
7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby, the time it took to find Bin Laden (Eventually found after an informant changed sides), the rise of Boko Haram, even 9/11 itself have ALL occured since the founding of 5i, Echelon and many of the systems and methods described by Mr Snowden.
If nothing else, surely this indicate that the system is simply not fit for purpose and is a burden on taxpayers that need not exist?
On a closing note; can all of you saying "well, we all KNEW they were spying, why are we suprised?" just shut the hell up? Some of us have been warning of mass surveillance and government cover-ups for years...
....you called us "Conspiracy Nuts" and dismissed us as "tin foil hat wearers".
Finding the Red Pill a little more tasty now are you?
"At one point, she noted that master NSA squealer* Edward Snowden had damaged the image of national security by exposing the scale of surveillance being carried out by spooks on both sides of the Atlantic."
Translation: "Oh god! We got caught! We're sorry we got caught! We'll make sure we don't get caught again! It was so bad of us to get caught! We look soooo bad because we got caught!"
*I doubt the minister used the word "squealer". I suspect that someone else applied that particularly choice term for some other, unbeknown reason.
"So you want to try switching attention by suggesting spelling mistakes by highlighting a part of my post with no spelling mistakes?"
I think it was you that started that particular bun fight, Matt, with the quote below:
"please do check your "Idiots' Guide to being a Revolutionary" for the correct spellings of such terms as lackey, Imperialist running dog, etc."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
