back to article Cyber-spying, leaking to meddle in foreign politics is the New Normal

The allegations that computer hackers affected the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election have cast a long shadow and might appear to be unprecedented. But in fact they are not. Computer hacking has also featured as an issue in previous elections, in the US and elsewhere, albeit in much more peripheral roles. China, …

  1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Hmmm? If you aint making COIN you're an Expense and Liability causing Debt and Deficit

    Oren Falkowitz, a former director at the US Cyber Command turned chief exec of security start-up Area 1 Security,....

    Is that a promotion or demotion for Oren Falkowitz? Does the private sector provide command and control to/of the public sector, which obviously, naturally, will be tailored to ensuring and assuring and insuring its dominant advantage?

    Is Blighty engaged in Cyber Command Operations? The lack of evidence of evident success would suggest a negative or sub-prime performance.

    FFS UKGBNI ..... Get ur APT ACTivITogether and make a Fab Fabless Show. You are able to enable, are you not?

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm? If you aint making COIN you're an Expense and Liability causing Debt and Deficit

      Of course, the gazillion dollar question that is always neither normally asked nor ever to be clearly answered, is who and/or what is UKGBNI, and what is their MasterPlan if they can even think to have one, and what are their future means and memes for HyperRadioProActive AIdDeployment of ReProgramming Applications ……. for is that not the present current battleground in which humanity is fighting the indefensible with the abominable?

      In recent to distant past iterations of such “situations” was a Right Royal Rolls Royce type of lead the prime mover and shaker around which everything revolved. However, today are such able and enabling kings and queens and attending Royal Households a fiction for fairy tale tellings and endings?

      And shared as question for doubt to reign and fairy tales to spring into secret action if they want to be able to enable and rule anonymously from the heavenly private quarters of secured virtual spaces with Free ZeroDay Trading Ports for Access to Bounty and Riches.

    2. Omar Smith

      Re: Hmmm? If you aint making COIN you're an Expense and Liability causing Debt and Deficit

      translated for clarity:

      'iz that a promootion or de,mot1on f0r ro3n falk0witz!?!?!?!?!?!?!?? Doe zthew priv8 sectro provuide co/\/\mand and conTiorl to/of The public sectro, which obViously, ntualky, will eb tairlOeD to ensuring And assuring and insuring itsd 0minant advantage??????????????? olololollololololoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~

      is lbigty engag3d in ycber command op3rat1ons!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??? url ame the laX0r 0f vidence 0f 3vident success wpould suggest sa negative tro sub-prime performance LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111~~~~~~~

      Ffz kugb|\|1 ~ LOLOLOLLOOLOLOLOLOLO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1~~~ !!!!!!!!!111 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 GET UR APT ACT1VITOGETEHr AND MAKE 4 FAB FABLESS SHOW, you r ablet o en4ble, r ypou n0t!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?'

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm? If you aint making COIN you're an Expense and Liability causing Debt and Deficit

        Just love the OTTGBIrish, Omar Smith. Bravo, Sir and/or Madam.

        Have you noticed though that the leading COIN questions with identified components/entities remain clearly unanswered and that can always suggest that those bodies mentioned are unfit for consideration of leadership of the future with Provided Command and Remote Virtual Control Leverage in ITs Greater IntelAIgent Games Plays. Such then be transparently accurately extraordinarily rendered as puppets on a stage and dancing to strings pulled by others in the deep dark shade of shadows ..... the Harry Limelight.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm... Deja Vu...

    Have a careful look at how Trump looks after his face has been projected on a curved surface.

    Now have a look at this:

    Signs of things to come and where USA is going to go?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmm... Deja Vu...

      Well, Stalin, Putin, Trump... what could go wrong?

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Hmm... Deja Vu...

        A little unfair to compare the elected leader of Russia with a man who seized power and murdered millions in nationwide purges, isn't it? Do people in the West really see Putin as that much of a caricature that they roll him in with the likes of Stalin?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: compare [...] with a man who seized power and murdered millions in nationwide purges,

          Since even despots are capable of getting themselves elected on occasion, I suppose the remaining thing to question is whether or not we think that Putin, if he sees sufficient advantage, is capable of ordering purges in which millions would be murdered.

        2. Potemkine Silver badge

          Re: Hmm... Deja Vu...

          That's true Stalin killed much more people, but Putin is no angel.

          Putin is the one who crushed Chechnya, killing tens of thousand, mostly civilians, using abductions, tortures and displacing hundred of thousands of people after destroying their housings

          Putin is the one who Ukraine by proxy, leading to ten thousands dead people for now.

          Putin is the one who sustain El Assad and sent his war planes to kill civilians in Aleppo.

          Putin is the one who ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, or the assassination of Nemrov.

          Among other things.

          1. fajensen

            Re: Hmm... Deja Vu...

            Well, that may be so, but we would have more of a moral base to argue from if we hadn't destroyed any attempt of democracy and self-governance in the middle east, then, when that didn't work, doubled down and destroyed entire countries, killing hundreds of thousands, sending millions on the run, while seeding their earth with depleted uranium for their kids to grow malformed from.

            Putin, and everyone like him, can always argue: "Hey, you lot did it first. I am just following your example on how to run an empire and fight terrorism". He would be right. I think he shouldn't be right.

            Precedence and Example matter a great deal, when one is supposed to be the leader of the free world, indeed the leader of Anything. Good, Bad and Evil behaviour are all displays of Leadership and *all* will be followed. Everyone who is not a baby knows this in practice: If management is corrupt, everyone all the way down will soon have their fingers in the till too. Just how humanity works.

            Vladimir Putin is such a small fry on the atrocity scale when compared to "Western liberal democracy".

            We should worry about what we control: Our own behaviour, contrary to Vladimir Putin's, that we actually could totally do something constructive about, except we don't care to do that at all.

            Because we rather prefer to rave and rant about the faults and failings of everyone else than owning up to our corruption and begin cleaning up just some of our own messes right here at home.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmm... Deja Vu...

          Oh well, the "elected" leader (after he bypassed the wise two terms limit Russia had too, and ensured opposition can't really participate to elections), is, after all, an ex KGB colonel... the arm of Soviet oppression in East Europe (he was in East Germany, AFAIK), and I'm quite sure he thinks Stalin was a great leader, otherwise he wouldn't have got his rank inside KGB.... after all he believe the fall of the Soviet Union - which murdered and enslaved millions - was one of the worst events of the XX century....

          And are you sure those matryoshka dolls are a product of the West? Putin is a caricature, yes, a very dangerous caricature like other dictators before him. We really hope the comparison is unfair, and he will disappear from history without being another Stalin...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmm... Deja Vu...

            Not Stalin you idiots.

            When you project the image of current Dear Leader of the Free World on a curved surface it is a spitting image of the Dear Alcoholic - the Pre-Putin leader of Russian state. Boris Yeltsin.

            The likeness is ... unsettling... to say the least...

  3. Potemkine Silver badge

    These operations being black or dark gray, no legal agreement will be enforceable ever. Only tacit agreements can be agreed on, based on reciprocity: don't do that or I will do it to.

    About DC Leaks, everyone knows it is a Russian Proxy.

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Everybody except Wikileaks. They said it was an inside job by a Bernie Saunders supporter who was a bit put out about the DNC rigging the election in favour of Hillary Clinton.

      Let's be honest though. The method of "meddling in politics" was revealing that one of the parties involved in the election was corruptly and successfully engaged in rigging the election, which caused sufficient people to stay at home or vote against this party in disgust.

      The party involved is blaming their loss of the election on their highly unethical behaviour being revealed at the point in the democratic process where people can hold them to account, not that they were engaged in highly unethical behaviour. Which is actually the problem?

      1. Potemkine Silver badge

        Why should we believe Assange , who says at the same time that Wikileaks does not communicate on its sources but says Russia is not involved? How could he even know he wasn't manipulated by a proxy?

        On the other side, saying that Russia tries to influence elections with dark means, we have FBI, CIA, NSA, CrowdStrike ,the BfV, the Swedish Institute of International Affairs....

        Another site presenting "alternative realities" as facts.

        For instance, "Six years ago Barack Obama banned refugees from Iraq from entering the US for six months.", when Trump’s comparison of his immigration actions to Obama’s policy in 2011 is a faulty one, or when it claims multiple times that "A total of 109 individuals were detained as a result of the [ban]", without ever mentionning that 90,000 people are indeed impacted by the ban

        This website is a pure illustration of what goes wrong with Trump's supporters: they have the cultural level of an oyster (all my apologies to oysters for that comparison), they know shit about the rest of the World and use as unique source of information rightists sources who deform, hide and manipulate informations to twist an 'alternative view' of the World. I doubt they will ever leave that fantasy, because none is so deaf as those who will not hear.

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          This is my point though. People are getting hung up on "the person who received the information says it was a young idealistic insider leaking information from a party who appeals to young, idealistic people" or "Them Ruskies!".

          Personally I haven't got much interest one way or another, because I'm not American. Personally, the former sounds at least as likely to me as the latter.

          But to summarise, your saying that the Russians rigged the election by revealing that Clinton succeeded in rigging the DNC vote for herself over Bernie Saunders, at which point idealistic and disillusioned democratic voters (and Saunders supporters) didn't then vote for Clinton.

          If that's how Russia rigged the election then I'd suggest looking up "cognitive dissonance" because this is a textbook example.

      2. Mark 85

        The party involved is blaming their loss of the election on their highly unethical behaviour being revealed at the point in the democratic process where people can hold them to account, not that they were engaged in highly unethical behaviour. Which is actually the problem?

        The problem is any form of democracy. Voting is based on public opinion of the candidates and manipulating the voters goes back a long way. Implied dirty dealings are worse than actual dirty dealings many times. Remember the old joke about the reporter asking the candidate "Do you still beat your wife?". It's tough to disprove some things that never happened.

        Is there an answer? Who knows but I expect that this type of warfare and dirty campaigning will continue and possibly get worse. Those dealing in it had best be careful since it's possible the backlash could destroy them.

      3. Robert 22

        I would take the claim of the source given by Assange with a grain of salt. It is really unlikely that someone leaking information obtained by a sophisticated hacking operation would want to draw attention to themselves, their methods and their motives. Attributing it to a disgruntled Sanders supporter is a perfect cover. From the viewpoint of maximizing the damage inflicted, there would be the bonus of sowing distrust within the DNC.

        This reminds me of some very successful and damaging WWII deception operations.

      4. veti Silver badge


        The post you're replying to refers to "DC Leaks", not Wikileaks. Different thing entirely.

        And doesn't it strike you as even slightly noteworthy that all the leaks, from both DC and Wikileaks, have been in favour of pro-Russian candidates?

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: @Peter2

          I'm not convinced that Trump is massively more pro Russian than Clinton, frankly. Clinton declared that she wanted to reset Russian relations and work on improving relations with Russia, and presented the Russian ambassador with a "reset" button symbolising the "reset" relations.

          Trump has declared that he wants to work to improve relations with Russia.

          The difference is...?

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: @Peter2

            >>The difference is...?

            That Hillary was Secretary of State and a close political ally of the government under which much of the ramping up of US presence on Russia's borders and increasing tension with Russia took place. And also that she is historically very hawkish. She was one of the chief proponents of the destruction of Libya and killing of Gaddafi. She has a considerable pedigree of being someone who pushes US hegemony abroad. Trump does not.

            1. fajensen

              Re: @Peter2

              She has a considerable pedigree of being someone who pushes US hegemony abroad.

              I.O.W: a serial screw-up and war monger. So, if one didn't agree with more countries being destroyed for nothing at all, then that makes one a Putin supporter by supporting the only available alternative, flawed as it certainly is, which was Donald Trump?

  4. Anonymous Coward

    Attack of the Russian cyber bogeyman

    The only leakers are the CIA/FBI and done to influence the US political system. For instance how the FBI leaked Hillarys emails in order to sabatage her Presidential campaign.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Attack of the Russian cyber bogeyman

      Go back further.. take a deep look at the antics of J. Edgar Hoover. I'm sure there's some instances of similar dealings that go back the earliest democracies. We just don't know about them.

    2. tr1ck5t3r

      Re: Attack of the Russian cyber bogeyman

      Smokes and mirrors whilst the UK and US slowly go bust as Globalists exported your jobs and politicians sold off your industries.

      Trumps has several bankruptcies under his belt, no other US politician has that sort of experience, so not only does he know how to make businesses profitable, the fact he had issued many executive orders including a ban on Govt recruitment is no different to what Tesco's did when Labour got into power in the 90's.

      Govt spending in both countries is out of control, you only have to look at how George Osborne increased the national debt more than Labour did over 13 years.

      Baby boomers and pensioners stole your future by never paying enough tax or NI to fund the NHS crisis today and politicians only interested in their short term careers feathered their nests for their next payemaster once unelected.

      So the question is, when China decided to offload US Treasuries & UK Gilts, how long with these currencies exist until hyper inflation like we saw during the Weimer Republic or will the UK see a repeat of 1976 with the Sterling Crisis and IMF loan.

      Use public data for the house price crash that's happening right, and China's recently announced increased capital controls which is hurting the value of UK housing stock, arguably the last asset the country can export but where the stock never leaves the warehouse.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Attack of the Russian cyber bogeyman

        "So the question is, when China decided to offload US Treasuries & UK Gilts, how long with these currencies exist until hyper inflation like we saw during the Weimer Republic or will the UK see a repeat of 1976 with the Sterling Crisis and IMF loan."

        It won't do much and China knows it, since most sovereign debt (at least in the US) is Internal (the biggest debt holder is the Treasury, at least double what China holds which isn't even 10%).

  5. h4rm0ny

    "MIght appear to be unprecedented?"

    Well, only if you've never followed the entire history of the CIA and their repeated interference in foreign governments - not infrequently democratically elected ones as well. THEN you might see quite a lot of precedent.

    Also, doesn't this assume rather a lot in the first place in taking as a given that this did occur as the CIA (sans proof) say it did? I mean Wikileaks claim it was given them by an insider in the DNC (the one that was shot several times in the back in a "robbery" near their home, by any chance?) and to my knowledge, Wikileaks have never lied about this. Whereas the CIA lied to their own government about torturing people and ran an entire profit-making drugs business to fund operations that Congress hadn't? So isn't it more likely that it was a leak and not "Russian hacking the election". Which is a funny way of putting informing the electorate about what their candidate actually did and said, anyway.

    1. Potemkine Silver badge

      Re: "MIght appear to be unprecedented?"

      Wikileaks have never lied about this

      How could you know? It wouldn't be the first time Wikileaks propagates false information

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: "MIght appear to be unprecedented?"

        When you have to start not merely taking sentences out of context, but snip out fragments of sentences for your point, you should question whether you're arguing in good faith. You quoted my words "Wikileaks have never lied about this" and responded with "How could you know?" My actual words: "to my knowledge, Wikileaks have never lied about this." Whereas we have established examples of the CIA lying even to Congressional hearings about their use of torture. Any objective assessment will conclude that the CIA should be afforded less benefit of the doubt than Wikileaks.

        As to your link, have you even read it? It headlines about a major lie by Wikileaks. But the "story" seems to be that someone on the Wikileaks twitter account repeated a news story that Clinton's campaign manager had deleted their tweets and then deleted the comment when he did tweet. Wow. Such significance. They don't even link to anything involved. The "story" is rubbish.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: "MIght appear to be unprecedented?"

          Well, to the best of my knowledge the CIA has never lied about this topic either. Sure they've lied about other things, but then so has Wikileaks - with a much shorter track record to go on - so that's a wash.

          Seriously, h4rm0ny, at this point I'm wondering what your agenda is. Why are you so keen to throw doubt on the blatant Russian agenda that even Trump himself now acknowledges?

    2. breakfast Silver badge

      Re: "MIght appear to be unprecedented?"

      Another way to look at this is that if the CIA say an election has been tampered with, they really are the experts on this topic.

  6. h4rm0ny

    Further to my last comment, I have to seriously question this article writer's impartiality. For example, they talk about the alleged Russian interference in the election of Yanukovich (I see Wikipedia states it as fact, but uses the Supreme Court of the Ukraine - appointed by the people who overthrew him - as their citation). They neglect to mention that the USA was actively funding opposition in the Ukraine and helped forment the Orange Revolution which overthrew the government. You also can't help but notice how for its example of nation-state hacking against Germany, the article goes with alleged hackers possibly from Russia of very dubious success, rather than the much more widely known and established fact that the USA was monitoring Angela Merkel's communications. In her own words: "that's not what friends do."

    This article does not do what I consider the required level of journalism to present an accurate picture.

    Also: "It's possible that culprits can manipulate digital evidence to make it appear as is someone other than themselves perpetrated an attack."

    Well, duh! Here's a pro-tip that actual security experts have been saying for a while: use paper ballots, not voting computers.

  7. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    a non-cyber aggression agreement

    Or maybe a cyber non-aggression agreement?

    In any case, good luck with that!

  8. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Fighting the Good Fight in Times and Spaces where Fools Tread

    Cyber warfare is an attacking engagement that does battle with novel ideas and lays waste to trashy concepts. Is the enemy to be defeated and annihilated then identified as the defenders of the inequitable and morally repugnant and indefensible ...... serial losers?

    What fool then would not sign up and volunteer great service to the end the abomination? Surely it nothing less than your human duty and an inalienable right freely available everywhere for exercising.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Will politicians learn from it?

    It really isn't THAT hard to use two factor authentication and encryption for email. Regardless of who hacked the DNC email server or their motives, it is clear it was damaging to a campaign that lost by pretty thin margins in three states that would have swung the election the other way with a fraction of a percentage point change in vote totals. Surely the DNC and RNC will want to avoid the potential for that happening, right?

    Or will technologically clueless oldsters who use private email servers or carry insecure personal Android phones everywhere they go as POTUS keep doing what they want, rendering any such improvements in the DNC and RNC moot?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Will politicians learn from it?

      With the stakes as high as they are, odds are ANY second factor can be duplicated.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Will politicians learn from it?

        If there's a way to "duplicate" or crack an RSA smartcard, calculator/fob or keygen smartphone app, I'm sure all those companies and governments using them would be very interested to know. The stakes sure aren't getting any higher if the DNC & RNC use them when much of the Fortune 500 already does along with the DoD.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Will politicians learn from it?

          Wasn't that precisely what the RSA attack was all about? And that was just an attack that got DETECTED.

    2. fajensen

      Re: Will politicians learn from it?

      Surely the DNC and RNC will want to avoid the potential for that happening, right?

      Maybe not. The DNC for sure only cares about how much they get to collect from donors and other shenanigans, if they can lose the presidency, and still collect, it may be a better position to be in because then they can concentrate 100% on the graft and not be distracted with running the country and all.

      We see a similar pattern with the European social democrats and socialists - they always just manage to not have influence, leaving them free of any responsibility for doing any of the good things they claim to be wanting to do for us and free to double down on the virtue signalling too. By not taking part, they too are supporting neo-liberalism.

      Which is why we have Brexit, Le Pen, Wilders, AFD - voters simply want *anything* other than neo-liberalism, no matter the consequences and collateral damage, and those are the options.

      Just look at SPD. Get a huuge boost just on sentiments like "Someone, anyone, but not the AFD, please, GOD, put a fork in Merkel and rid us of that old bat", then, what do they do: Martin Schulz proposes that migrants should be allowed to vote. The "opposition" are perma-losers, by choice and by design.

  10. Stork

    I have wondered for a while

    If NSA, GCHQ, et al. got hands on something embarrassing on a politician in a reasonably democratic, nominally aligned, country*), would they hesitate to use it? Perhaps just as in "nice reputation you got there, it would be a pity in anything happened to it".

    Not very long I think.


    Oh yes, of course paper ballots is a no-brainer. It is just so much more difficult to manipulate without signs of it.

    *) E.G. "unconventional" financial arrangements (Socrates, former PT PM, Thorning-Smith, former DK PM and husband)

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: I have wondered for a while

      The NSA and FBI probably wouldn't use Intelligence such a manner. The CIA would and almost certainly have. The NSA for all that they are the bete noir of privacy, do actually honour their goals internally I believe which is to serve their country (however that may or may not align with civil rights). The FBI are all about the law enforcement. (The DEA should be given notice immediately to disband and their entire jurisdiction and case load and budget be handed over to the FBI to be re-prioritised). But the CIA are a political agency in their own right. They have run drugs operations for profit in order to fund themselves on things that congress didn't. They absolutely have political agendas and I have no doubts personally that they abuse their powers in ways that not only the public but Senators would be horrified to learn about. Of course there are thankfully policies on what they can do on US territory but I don't know how much that actually restricts them in practices.

  11. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    Occam's razor

    The easiest way to hack the election in the US is just to gerrymander the electoral boundaries to corral the opposition into districts that they can't win. For bonus points, you remove their voters from the voting register for offenses like being called John Smith and finding that John Smith is registered in another state - remove them both if they are not in Republican districts.

    And the sweet thing, It's all completely legal.

  12. bladerunner-55


    Ever wonder why they have never denied the authenticity of the content; instead, decrying how it was obtained.

    We should be asking ourselves, those who wrote the emails and those who obtained them what is true and what is fiction. Then trust the public to make their own decisions, rather then telling them what they should believe. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: Wonder

      Have you actually read any of the leaked emails? In full, I mean?

      I have, and I'm here to tell you that "truth" and "fiction" don't separate out that easily.

      For instance, there's quotations from third parties - a lot of those, often reported in the press as if the author of the email was saying these things, when in fact they've just copied and pasted a whole article from somewhere else. Are those things true or false?

      Then there's places where the email author has added their subjective opinion about something. By nature, "subjective opinion" is neither true nor false. But it can be embarrassing or compromising, particularly when taken out of context.

      Then there's stories where some "journalist" has cobbled together extracts from dozens of separate emails to tell an overarching story with much personal interpretation and innuendo by the author. (I put "journalist" in scare quotes here, because I think there's a better-than-50% chance that any given one of these stories was actually written by a Russian propagandist.) The quotes may all be genuine, but that doesn't mean the story is even remotely valid.

      Then there's things like "The Real Fake News List". How do you even grade that? (Hint: try clicking on a couple of the links.)

      Bottom line is, if you even try debating this stuff, the best possible outcome is that you'll generate another round of headlines about it, and everyone who already thinks you're crooked will walk away with the impression that you're trying to obfuscate things. Because it's complicated, 'mkay?

      1. fajensen

        Re: Wonder

        I have. What strikes me the most is just how totally dull, boring and petty these people appears to be. About 80% of the mail volume is office gossip and office politics with zero importance and limited entertainment value. Curated version:

        One of the true gems in the pile is that the Hillary campaign worked to promote Donald Trump as part of their oh-so-clever uber-wonkish strategy:

        Which just proves once again that left on their own consluttants will happily overthink and overdosing everything - the bill by the hour after all.

  13. Anonymous Coward

    Time for a non-cyber aggression agreement

    I call cyber BS on this, what we need is 'computers' that can't be so easily hacked.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    What exactly happened that causes such storm in the sea of letters that can roll tender and warm waves instead of those striking the shores of your exalted conscience, People of Earth? Putin? Tramp? I searched, and they appeared to be just Rare Pepe cards, let me know more if anybody knows about it better than Alice... Elections? What is wrong or what is right with the elections? What does it change except rising the glandular temperature? Ions are shot to run with the same speed, thanks to Creator, but the environment inside your human bodies causes a traffic jam. It dims and spoils the Glow of a human body, the only one in the Universe worth building the telescopes. This is what is real wrong and needs to be remedied immediately. Better stop chewing what is long out of the bowels, and chill the neuronet of your planet...

    RLY ppl. Just do it.

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