back to article Planning to fly? Pour out your shampoo, toss your scissors, rename terrorist Wi-fi!

A US airline delayed a flight on Sunday evening after an unidentified person somewhere in or around Los Angeles International Airport picked a rather unfortunate name for a Wi-Fi hotspot. American Airlines Flight 136 from Los Angeles to London was grounded for nearly a day after a passenger spotted a Wi-Fi network named "Al- …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My hotspot is called Ny-Dnrqn

    Do you think I can get away with that??

    1. MyffyW Silver badge
      Coat

      Security Services: Be proportionate in your response, don't do the Terrorists job for them.

      Practical Jokers: Air travel is no laughing matter. Keep calm, carry on. Check your custard pies and amusingly named SSIDs in as hold luggage.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well its official. The terrorists have won.

    They have us quaking in our boots, sensitive to the slightest little thing.

    Jesus Christ, what happened to the collective spines that we had when we were *really* getting the fuck bombed our of us by the IRA?

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      1) Newspapers realised that people love to be scared by something, and exploited the gap in the fear market left by the product recall of the threat of nuclear obliteration to push terrorism. If you look at the figures, rationally speaking terrorism is harmless when compared to such lethal and dangerous activities such as driving a car.

      2) Newspapers started carrying utterly fucking absurd criticism of the police/security services over not being able to put together 2 incredibly tiny clues out of a batch of around 20 billion such clues to come to a conclusion that it obvious in hindsight, but you'd have to be clairvoyant to put together beforehand.

      Stung by the criticism, security services take a totally paranoid approach to terrorism tipoffs like this in terror of ignoring something that turns out to be a clue that is overlooked which ends up costing several hundred lives and leads to the public demanding the severed heads of the people who weren't sufficiently paranoid.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        In a moment of extreme clarity here in Canada, an RCMP (Mounties) officer answered criticism from the public and media about the fact that prior to a recent "terrorist" incident there was evidence that one of the perpetrators had expressed anger publicly over something that "should have been picked up by the security services".

        The officer's response was something along the lines of (and I paraphrase here) "there was unsufficient evidence of this leading to the atrocity that was committed and, contrary to what some people believe, it is not a crime to be angry or have unsavoury opinions in this country."

        I just wish more people would realise that this is the proper response to this kind of situation.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Newspapers

        Those too, but it's mainly the bureaucratic/politician complex.

        Newspapers started carrying utterly fucking absurd criticism of the police/security services over not being able to put together 2 incredibly tiny clues out of a batch of around 20 billion such clues

        Those poor security forces. They are being forced to be retarded!! But seriously, did any newspaper carry anything along the lines of the above criticism, instead of grandious hailing of "those who eat donuts and serve to protect our remarkable freedoms"?

        Bruce Fein writes:

        Sermonizing on behalf of the president at Harvard Law School on Sept. 16, John Brennan, current Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, declared: “[O]ur highest priority is — and always will be — the safety and security of the American people. As President Obama has said, we have no greater responsibility as a government.”

        But the president and DCI profoundly err. They have subordinated liberty to an effete quest for a risk-free existence, and inverted the nation’s philosophy and Constitution.

        The highest and only priority of government was elaborated in the American Declaration of Independence: to secure unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, i.e, wisdom and virtue. The Declaration endorsed John Locke’s version of the social contract elaborated in The Second Treatise on Civil Government. Men consent to surrendering their freedom in a state of nature in exhange for the government’s protecton of their liberty and property from domestic or external predation or aggression.

        The paramount end of the social contract is liberty. It accepts the risk of evil or anti-social conduct as necessary and inevitable. Otherwise, safety and security would crush liberty like czarist pogroms crushed Jews.

        A Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality is latent in all humans. If safety and security trump all else — as Messrs. Obama and Brennan assert — then every creature on the planet is a candidate for extermination at the whim of the president and DCI.

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          > "Those too, but it's mainly the bureaucratic/politician complex."

          Or for a more radical but less popular point of view, The politicians only say what people want to hear and the newspapers only print what people want to read so they buy their newspapers. That leads one to conclude that the main problem is the people who read those newspapers and vote for the politicans.

    2. Shady

      The power of nightmares is highly illuminating.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It is not just the terrorists that have one but the state also. All the airport security is brainwashing people into accepting a police state.

    4. JP19

      "They have us quaking in our boots"

      "sensitive to the slightest little thing."

      Not really.

      When your job is fighting terror and there isn't any you have to make do with fighting anything that faintly whiffs of terror like jokes, someone having a sly e-cig on bus, and now Wi-Fi hotspot names.

    5. Sparx

      true, just seems to prove the real terrorism is actually the fear of that which you are told by the ones with the most interest in its promotion.

      1. wayne 8
        Pirate

        Those who stand to gain from threats of Terrorism

        Overload the system. More of this type of behavior. Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Overload the TSA with inane threats until the system is chasing its tail.

        Aim to misbehave.

    6. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Black Helicopters

      Who is that exactly?

      "Well its official. The terrorists have won."

      100% Agree. Yet it is not Al-Qaeda or ISIS that I'm scared of (I mean really, who names themselves after a routing protocol? - OH NO, HERE COME THE JUDEAN PEOPLE'S EIGRP!)

      If it is not the 'terrorists' of fame that I am scared of, just who is it that is terrorizing me?

      So yes, the terrorists have won (the real ones).

      1. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        "Well its official. The terrorists have won."

        "100% Agree."

        I can't agree 100%. Because the correct word is "it's".

    7. EddieD

      I think that the difference is then it was the UK under threat (with US funding) - now the US feels under threat, so we have to react

    8. LucreLout

      what happened to the collective spines that we had when we were *really* getting the fuck bombed our of us by the IRA

      What happened? The IRA did much of their bombing in the 80s & early 90s in London where most people were English. Most people in London now are not English, so English courage no longer makes up the same proportion of the response as it once did; It has been replaced with fear. My foreign born colleagues bring many talents to the table, and many fine qualities, but an overabundance of spherical fortitude isn’t one of them.

      How that relates to America? Well, almost every time they fight without the British, they get their ass kicked. As a result, they only ever really feel safe if we’re holding their hand. If our hand is shaking, theirs will too.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        "Most people in London now are not English"

        For fuck's sake, give it a rest. That's simply not true. You should put down your Daily Mail, turn off Sky news, and actually go outside and experience the real world.

        According to Wikipedia*:

        The 2011 census recorded that 2,998,264 people or 36.7% of London's population are foreign-born

        Given that this country appears to be becoming increasingly hostile to visitors from other countries, thanks to rabid rhetoric from the likes of the idiots in UKIP, I'd suspect this figure has actually gone down since 2011.

        *Yes I know this is not an authoritative source, but it's better than uninformed bleating

        1. LucreLout
          Megaphone

          For fuck's sake, give it a rest. That's simply not true.

          You don't want it to be true, because it doesn't fit your world view, but it is nontheless, completely true.

          According to Wikipedia

          Even you must realise you've gone wrong already, right?

          The 2011 census recorded that 2,998,264 people or 36.7% of London's population are foreign-born

          So your numbers, which are 3 years out of date, take account of exactly zero illegal immigrants - the LSE think this is between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. And you still don't see why that makes them garbage? The ONS shows that 60% of the birth rate for London is to foreign born mothers. Even taking the lefty view that being born here is all you need ever do to "be English", you must see that the tide is against you?

          The ONS also state that more than half the increase in population is due to immigration. So to round down for you to keep it to a level you may understand, if half of the population increase is by birth and half of that is by foreign mothers, only 25% of the new people are English by parentage.

          Jesus was born in a stable, but he wasn't born a horse, nor was he feted as a derby winner. So being born here isn't enough to be raised with English values - for that you need stronger familial ties to the nation. I don't have stats for this, and I know you don't either, but even you can't possibly think that London is populated mostly by second or third generation English born. It isn't.

          Given that this country appears to be becoming increasingly hostile to visitors from other countries, thanks to rabid rhetoric from the likes of the idiots in UKIP.

          I don't vote UKIP, and probably never will. Has it not occurred to you yet that the reason for their storming the polls is the naieve, pseudo-liberal, pro-immigration ranting of people like yourself, dancing up and down as soon as anyone dare voice a view that is not your own? Get over yourself for fucks sake. You're not special. You aren't somehow more enlightened than everyone else because you don't comprehend why unfettered immigration has changed England. You're just another guardian reader with a chip on their shoulder. Perhaps you should read more widely, or open your eyes a little wider?

          I'd suspect this figure has actually gone down since 2011.

          Now you're just lying. At best, only to us; At worst, to yourself as well.

          And before you start screaming racist, because I can sense you're about to, neither I nor any of my friends have married English people. We've all married foreign nationals. Their world view and values are not the same as the English. If you remove the English from England, what do you really have left? And should you really be suprised if the values of what remains differ from those that went before them? You can't have English courage without English people, and London just doesn't have enough to English left to "Keep calm and carry on".

          1. AndrueC Silver badge
            Meh

            Their world view and values are not the same as the English. If you remove the English from England, what do you really have left?

            The English are whatever particular group of people happen to call England home. Until a couple of hundred years ago everyone and their dog invaded us. Even the French managed it for a while. And even though there've been no military invasions for a long time there have been plenty of immigrants. Far from being a problem I believe that it's one of the things that makes England strong. We are all the result of thousands of years of invaders and immigrants. It's worked well so far - why stop it now?

            The only real definition of an Englishman is 'someone who lives in England'.

            1. LucreLout

              The only real definition of an Englishman is 'someone who lives in England'.

              It really isn't, though I can see why the rise of UKIP would perplex someone who shared your view.

              Take my mate Fred, for example. Fred is a Frenchman. Try and tell him he's an Englishman because he lives here, and one of you will have a bloody nose.

          2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            You don't want it to be true, because it doesn't fit your world view, but it is nontheless, completely true.

            It is true because it is backed with facts.

            Even you must realise you've gone wrong already, right?

            I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. If you are that concerned about accuracy, please go and find the source of the statistics quoted there, and show me how these differ.

            So your numbers, which are 3 years out of date, take account of exactly zero illegal immigrants - the LSE think this is between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. And you still don't see why that makes them garbage? The ONS shows that 60% of the birth rate for London is to foreign born mothers. Even taking the lefty view that being born here is all you need ever do to "be English", you must see that the tide is against you?

            The figures I gave are the ones available - those taken at the last census.

            The LSE figures state, "undocumented migrants oscillate between 417,000 and 863,000". These are figures for the whole of the UK, which has a total population of 64 million, so these account for maybe 1% of the population. I see no reason to believe they are any more concentrated in London than anywhere else, particularly since it is more expensive to survive in London than the rest of the UK.

            Even if 'foreign born mothers' have been breeding like the proverbial rabbits in the three years since the census, this is going to only affect the figures by a few percent at best.

            Jesus was born in a stable, but he wasn't born a horse, nor was he feted as a derby winner. So being born here isn't enough to be raised with English values.

            Jesus (if he existed), also was not a man made of straw. Your argument is both a straw-man and a complete nonsequitur; the one thing (even though it is nonsense) does not lead onto the other.

            Has it not occurred to you yet that the reason for their storming the polls is the naieve, pseudo-liberal, pro-immigration ranting of people like yourself, dancing up and down as soon as anyone dare voice a view that is not your own?

            I didn't claim to be pro-immigration. I simply questioned the veracity of those things you presented as facts. Which aren't. The rest of this particular argument of yours is pure ad hominem attack and does nothing to strengthen your argument.

            If you re-read my statement, I also didn't claim that you vote UKIP. I claimed that hostility towards foreign visitors is drummed up by people like those in UKIP.

            I also don't read the Guardian, except for occasionally Charlie Brooker's column which is very entertaining. In general, I find most newspapers to be presenting one political opinion, or another, as fact, so I avoid reading them, and try to find news reporting that is as impartial as possible, often from more than one source to filter out the bias.

            Now you're just lying. At best, only to us; At worst, to yourself as well.

            Really? I'm lying about what my opinion is? Thanks very much for telling me what I really think. You are free to disagree with me, but calling me a liar just makes you a liar yourself.

            And before you start screaming racist, because I can sense you're about to, neither I nor any of my friends have married English people. We've all married foreign nationals. Their world view and values are not the same as the English.

            Wow, you can really tell what I'm about to say? Well then, you must be psychic too! I wasn't actually going to call you a racist, as I don't believe mud-slinging is necessary in a civilised discussion. However, since you brought it up:

            You clearly think that anyone who is not English should be somehow less entitled to live here in the UK, whether they are legally entitled to or not (just as UK citizens are legally entitled to live in the rest of Europe, as many do). This implies that you think foreign nationals are less deserving than British ones, which implies that you think they are in some way lesser. This, I am afraid to say, does make you a racist. The fact that you have married a foreign national does not actually have any relevance in this matter. Nigel Farage's wife is German, but several UKIP members hold very unpleasant opinions towards foreign nationals (as well as women).

            If you remove the English from England, what do you really have left? And should you really be suprised if the values of what remains differ from those that went before them? You can't have English courage without English people, and London just doesn't have enough to English left to "Keep calm and carry on".

            You are aware, are you not, that Britain is entirely composed of immigrants? What you define as 'English' is a various amalgam of Saxon, Norman, Viking, French, etc. cultures. Our language is so difficult for non-native speakers to learn because it is so irregular, being made up of an amalgam of so many different sources. London has always been a trading city, with a large transient population. Nothing has really changed, except the gradual downward spiral of people's racist opinions in this country.

            It started off in the '90s with talk of 'illegal immigrants' - the figures for which have always been inflated by the right wing press to bolster their viewpoint. I'm fairly widely travelled, and I've still never met one. Other countries in Europe have much larger problems with these (such as the flood of refugees coming across the Turkish border into Eastern Greece). There is a real problem of what is now called 'people smuggling', where people are essentially smuggled here and sold into slavery as sex workers, or in 'hand car washes' and nail bars, and the police, at least where I live, do a very good job trying to tackle it with increasingly limited resources. This is where the real problem lies, which the politicians and right-wing press seem to be unconcerned with.

            These days, the hatred seems to have turned towards those legally entitled to be here; I can see no other word for this other than racism. I personally know several EU citizens living and working here in the UK, just as I know several UK citizens living and working abroad in the EU. Nobody seems to be talking about the UK citizens going to Ireland to claim the (more generous) dole there, but it happens. A lot.

            At the end of the day, people are people. In broad terms, there are good people and bad people. If you claim that there is a correlation such that English = good and foreign = bad, then you are wrong.

            So what I would suggest, is that rather than repeating whatever you have read in the right-wing (or left-wing for that matter) press without filtering it through your brain first, stop. Think. Observe. Gather facts. Base your opinions on those, not on the opinions of others. Taking what you are told at face value just makes you an idiot, and someone else's puppet.

          3. IsJustabloke
            Stop

            You married foreign nationals....

            Which means that you probably spend a lot of time in the company the foreign nationals that make up their friends and families and so will undoubtedly have a view coloured by that experience.

            This is akin to the small vocal minority that use internet forums who somehow come to believe that their collective view / wisdom is in fact the correct view.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      The goal of the terrorist is to alter the behavior of the State to such a degree that the citizenry destroy the State for the terrorists. Only what I've known since the 70's courtesy of "War in the Shadows." I posted that sometime back but you hit the nail on the head much better. Definitely worthy of an up vote and hopefully CotW!

  3. Robin

    Fakes on a Plane

    Well, the airline pretty much has to act on such reports, but who would report that in the first place? Surely the real 'Al-Quida' would be a little more covert in the naming of their hotspots?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fakes on a Plane

      Or if I name my hotspot Hhywstn/a9IeiciU7sNvET4LEL8i30Kwb/5SGlfhte+N9+D6 does this instantly gain me accomodation at the Guantanamo Bay Holday Resort?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fakes on a Plane

      "The airlines pretty much have to act on such reports"

      No they don't. Any more than they have to act on warnings that flying unicorns are orbiting the tower.

      The ignorance and stupidity of people paid way too much for us to accept this kind of response didn't start with the "war on terror", of course. It goes back far enough to be a "Murcan" tradition.

      Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) wasn't a low brow satire. It was a prophecy.

      1. zen1

        Re: Fakes on a Plane

        I gave you a +1, but generally flying unicorns don't kamikaze the tower. Conversely though, all the bad guys have to do is instill the perception of a little fear and they've won, whether anything happens or not. The security guys have to be right 100% of the time or they're accused of either taking a zero tolerance or crying wolf. I see it as a no win situation for the good guys, but we could get a little more spine when it comes to being able to decipher media hype from relatively legitimate threats.

        An SSID certainly isn't a threat.

      2. Pete 2 Silver badge

        Re: Fakes on a Plane

        > No they don't. Any more than they have to act on warnings that flying unicorns are orbiting the tower.

        It's not ignorance or stupidity. It's a simple case of covering your arse and increasing your own importance.

        Security, police or practically any institution have nothing to lose by inconveniencing the public, no matter what the pretext. If a flight gets delayed by a security scare, then whoever made that decision does so with impunity. If asked to defend their actions, a reply of "national security" goes unquestioned and frequently praised.

        So given that it costs them nothing to take such action, but leads to a shitstorm of apocalyptic proportions if they get it wrong, there is no question which way they will go. If the inconvenience and headlines their action causes can be leveraged to increase fear awareness which will only ever lead to increased job security, then there's no possible downside. Unless, of course, you're a passenger.

      3. TitterYeNot

        Re: Fakes on a Plane

        "Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) wasn't a low brow satire. It was a prophecy."

        That's a relief! Silly me, I thought it was a documentary...

    3. Anomalous Cowturd
      Joke

      Re: Al-Quida?

      I thought that was the Islamic version of Poundland... ;o)

      I'm here all week. Or maybe not.

      1. Jedit Silver badge

        "I thought that was the Islamic version of Poundland... "

        Beware of their cheap shoddy knock-offs. I don't care how they brand their products - you can't get one virgin for a quid, let alone 72 of them.

      2. Simon Harris
        Coat

        Re: Al-Quida?

        and in the Islamic Hogwarts, I believe al-Quidditch is compulsory on games afternoons.

    4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Fakes on a Plane

      Just goes to show once again that while terrorists aren't smart, they don't have a monopoly on stupidity.

      I'd like to see some cleverer fake-terrorist SSIDs, though. I'll offer "Bin laden with apples", celebrating the climactic scene of Ten Apples up on Top.

  4. ThomH

    If I name my hotspot "United States Perfect Freedom Democracy Network", will I get a free upgrade to first class?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. lambda_beta

        they will still think either you are an American terrorist

        Actually, they'll think you're an isis terrorist masqurading as an Al-Quida banker who is masqurading as an American used car salesman who thinks that Obama was born in Iran, and really working for the Hamas while masqurading as a black.

        Just remember it's not Wi-Fi hotspots that kill people it's packet switching that kill people.

        It's all very simple .. we lost.

    2. Tom 7

      @ThomH Perfect Freedom and Democracy would be hunted down and destroyed by the US - and many other countries.

  5. Chris G

    Seriously

    " get taken seriously by the Transportation Security Administration, airlines, and airport officials. ®"

    The TSA are not capable of taking ANYthing lightly, they are chosen for their lack of humour, empathy, sensibility and possibly humanity, OH and the ability to don a pair of rubber gloves faster than you can say the word 'bomb'!

    1. tfewster

      Re: Seriously

      ...while investigators looked into possible threats...

      What possible threats? That a device might be set to explode when it lost contact with its "home" network? Like when the plane was moved? Rendering a plane inoperable on the ground isn't like turning an airborne plane into a brick, but keeping the passengers on board seems to still be putting their lives at risk.

      I suspect the biggest threat was that jokes could undermine the seriousness of the TSA and DHS (and their budgets).

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Seriously

      "The TSA are not capable of taking ANYthing lightly, they are chosen for their lack of humour, empathy, sensibility and possibly humanity"

      I think you may have missed a word there: judgement.

    3. Eddy Ito

      Re: Seriously

      they are chosen for their lack of humour, empathy, sensibility and possibly humanity

      Well I suppose it's an improvement from the previous 'first come, first hired, no vetting required' system they were using, or maybe not.

      1. chivo243 Silver badge

        Re: Seriously

        I have a friend that worked for the TSA just after it's inception. He didn't stay... Probably because he didn't want his last shred of humour, empathy, sensibility and possibly humanity ripped from his soul.

  6. Mark 85

    Indeed, the terrorists have won.

    I realize that what was done has been almost a running joke for a few years, but now someone decided to do it. And 5 will get you 10 that the security paid particular attention to the grannies and children in their search so they wouldn't be accused of profiling.

    We have airlines and security taking things to extreme, various spy agencies running amok, governments screaming about if you have nothing to hide..., even street conversation is becoming more guarded lest prying ears hear something that sounds bad. Not just you Brits, but we here in 'Merica too are having this. Some crazy goes a bit nuts in a mall or elsewhere and the first question is: "Is it terrorists?". Same goes for some clown climbing the fence at the White House.

    I shudder to think what would have happened if, during WWII, we all had this same mindset. It's almost like the media and government want another terrorist attack. One for the ratings, the other for more repressive power.

    1. NotArghGeeCee

      @Mark 85 Re: Indeed, the terrorists have won.

      "...I shudder to think what would have happened if, during WWII, we all had this same mindset. It's almost like the media and government want another terrorist attack. One for the ratings, the other for more repressive power..."

      Gosh, I don't know. If there had been such a mindset then there may have been forced internments and relocations of Japanese-Americans. But I am sure that such a mindset would not have existed back in the enlightened 1940's.

      Oh, hang on a minute...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Expulsions_and_population_transfers_of_World_War_II

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. PleebSmash
    Facepalm

    This could have been avoided by renaming it "Al-Quida-Free Anti-Terror Network"

  8. Khaptain Silver badge

    Statistically speaking

    According to Wikipedia there have been 20 attacks on airports since around 1975... So around 1 attack every second year on a global scale.

    Statistically speaking the odds are "extremely" small of ever getting killed by a terrorist attack.

    According to a small article, here, the odds are 1 in 20 Million. Just for comparison the odds of being hit by lighting are 1 in 5 million... The chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 19000....

    The guy goes on to explain that even if the 39 documented cases of attacks that were interupted were actually successfull you would still only be running a 1 in a million chance..

    Maybe the TSA et al need to start reviewing statistics, or is it just a case of certain governments keeping the public in a controlled state of fear..... It makes you wonder who the true terrorists really are...

    Apparently counter-terrorism is a multi billion dollar industry....

    1. dan1980

      Re: Statistically speaking

      @Khaptain

      If we started funding agencies and government departments/bodies by their effectiveness and contribution to the public good then we'd be in a sorry state. Oh wait, no, the other kind of thing - much better off and with more money for things like health and education and caring for the elderly and improving vital infrastructure and lowering tax rates and investing in new developments and alleviating the plight of our fellow humans. Yes, that's the one.

      Of course, one could at least put forward the argument that the money being spent on all this and the strictness and inconvenience and invasion of privacy it all entails is the reason the actual risk of being killed in a bomb blast or terrorist attack hasn't gone up despite the current threats.

      But then, if you put forward that kind of argument then you would probably want to have some statistics and, you know, evidence to back it up.

      So yeah . . .

    2. mrjohn

      Re: Statistically speaking

      yeah, but planes are expensive and you aren't

    3. P. Lee

      Re: Statistically speaking

      Who uses fear to motivate people? I think we know who does that the most. Who uses arms in pursuit of political and economic goals? The same people.

      The TSA is part of a huge government bureaucracy. Their goal is therefore compliance not effectiveness. It is a bonus for them that they know security protocols are irrelevant.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like