* Posts by h4rm0ny

4187 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Trump's cybersecurity strategy kinda makes sense, so why delay?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Reason why Trump didn't sign cybersecurity executive order

>>"Good try. Unfortunately for your comment, it didn't happen. One post does not a hijack make."

I count four. And yours makes it five.

And now mine has made it six. It's off-topic whether it's true or false (and it's false). Could the reason you're fine with someone ham-fistedly forcing their cause into the thread be because it's a cause you're favourable to?

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: He didn't sign it

The CIA are probably poisoning his tea as we speak!

2
0

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

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

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.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

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.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

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.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

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.

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

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?

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

"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.

5
1

Coming to the big screen: Sci-fi epic Dune – no wait, wait, wait, this one might be good

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Lynch's Dune was good, lots of people agree

I think if Lawrence of Arabia had been made to day, there would be an extremely vocal grouping of people who decried it as "having a White protagaonist who saves the day for the brown people" and demand that it be changed so Lawrence wasn't the hero.

8
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am obviously alone in this.

I'll say this for the Lynch version. If it had been a bog-standard Space-epic of its era, few would be talking about it here now. The spectacle of the floating baron ripping plugs out of people's hearts (why?) or enormous baroque fish-tanks being wheeled into an emperor's audience chamber, eyebrows like someone threw two jungle caterpillars at someone face at high speed... It may or may not be good, but it certainly makes one Hell of an impression.

13
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Can't be a single movie

But in this case, it's almost inescapable that the USA are the parallel to the Bad Guys. Paul Atreides joins a bunch of semi-nomadic desert people whose homeland is being mercilessly exploited for its natural resources by an empire and trade guild using better technology, air support, etc. and appointing the plum job of regional governor to their own upper class politicians. (Baron Harkonen, Duke Atreides...) It's essentially Lawrence of Arabia in Space.

Fremen or Yemen, the parallels are pretty starkly drawn. If they do this, they should absolutely carry it through to how Paul leads a semi-religious war against the rest of the galaxy leading to billions of deaths. People don't seem to do Tragedy in the classical sense anymore. It would be good to have the full arc. And I don't mean just making him a Hard Man Making Hard Choices anti-hero. I mean actually follow the path of the noble and caring leader through to the slaughtering despot he becomes.

23
1

Dear Microsoft – a sysadmin's wishlist

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

It must be great to have your own news outlet

So you can rant about all the things you're upset about.

1
10

Dido queen of carnage steps down from TalkTalk

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Great headline

Dido of Carthage killed herself, not her kingdom, though.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Dido's First Job Interview

>>".... because I need the money and no one likes me at home."

Well, I'm pretty sure that part is a lie, at least.

0
0

TV anchor says live on-air 'Alexa, order me a dollhouse' – guess what happens next

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Blakes 7 and Microsoft

Was it ever explicitly stated that Avon and Callie were involved together? There were hints and there was line of Villa's with "Did I miss something" and I think Callie or Jenna replied "yes, you missed something. which I thought was about Avon and Callie. I was too young to watch it when it came out, I think, but maybe they re-ran it. It might have been my first introduction to Sci-Fi.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Great. So in addition to the USA imposing its spelling and grammar on the rest of the world, it's now imposing its prhasing and meanings, too.

1
0

CES 2017 roundup: The good, the bad, and the frankly bonkers

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I quite agree

Put it in the toe of your shoes. A small vibration there as you approach your turning would be noticeable and intuitive.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

And now she can legitimately tell you to get lost? ;)

4
0

Assange confirmed alive, tells Fox: Prez Obama 'acting like a lawyer'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: >So what crime did Assange commit that would require a pardon?

>>"You can't have it both ways. The only way his behaviour adds up is if you assume something *did* happen and he damn well knows it."

Or if you believe that people in the US government are out to get him. That also works. Are you really arguing the unliklihood of that?

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: ...unlike his credibility

Fascinating. So what information has been passed to Wikileaks that they have decided not to publish for reasons of bias. Presumably you have such a clear view of what Wikileaks have been given in order to say that they're being selective. I mean if you didn't, your post would be without support.

11
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I'm game

Unless of course his source was someone in the DNC in which case it would be pretty obvious they wouldn't need to be "fed by Russia" as they'd already have access.

Coincidentally Seth Rich had such access.

10
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: A pardon?

Correct, but you're missing something. There is precedent for a US president issuing a pardon for crimes where charges have not actually been brought. (yes, really). Essentially turning it into a promise not to prosecute. Assange has said that his fear is not the charges in Sweden but that he will be extradited to the US which will immediately issue charges. And that's not an unreasonable position given the circumstances. We had trouble enough holding onto Gary McKinnon and all he did was guess a couple of passwords and fail to find UFO evidence. So some sort of guarantee from the US president that they wont try to extradite him would be pretty valuable.

It will be interesting when Trump takes charge and the CIA presumably have to do what he tells them and actually reveal the proof they claim to have (if any). Well, at least I think the CIA are supposed to do what the president tells them to do... Actually, maybe somebody should tell the CIA that.

14
0

My fortnight eating Blighty's own human fart-powder

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I believe it can be good and balanced...

But my question is what is the nutritional gap between this and say, a bowl of porridge and an apple?

3
0

Bitcoin breaks US$1,000

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Sudden crash coming again?

Correct. The amusing (and valuable) thing about BitCoin is that it is a literally fiat currency that behaves in all meaningful ways like a non-fiat currency.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Sudden crash coming again?

>>"Seeing as there is still no material grounds for the valuation, and that with no underlying asset the exposure is 100%, are we just waiting for another big crash? The whole of the value is based on faith in people you probably can't trust (after all they're actively seeking an unregulated money transfer/launder), so maybe another trading platform theft will do it. Must say as a store of value it seems risky, and as an exchange platform it seems volatile."

My first instinct is to ask you whether you're talking about BitCoin or the dollar.

But then I remembered that the dollar actually is backed by something - USA's willingness to invade if you decide not to use it!

7
1

Prez Obama expels 35 Russian spies over election meddling

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>That's not as much of an either-or decision as you seek to portray, the third option is neither.

Neither doesn't really work. CIA say it wasn't a leak. Wikileaks say it was. And you sounding very clever say that neither is right? What would "neither" mean? Or are you suggesting that both are so lacking in credibility that there is no evidence either way. If so, please give some examples of where Wikileaks has lied or passed out false information. I'll be waiting.

>> If they had been digging as deep in GOP leaks as Democrats they would have had more credibility

You presume that there are available equivalent leaks for the Republicans as well. Given leaks of this scale are rare, you'd need to provide some reason why you think this is so. Wikileaks are a place for people to leak information to. They don't magic up a bunch of emails at will. There were very notable circumstances for the DNC leak - internal corruption, a popular candidate (who might have beaten Trump) being sabotaged by staff who were supposed to be neutral... On the Republican side, you already knew most of the Republican big wigs wanted to oust Trump. I mean they even discussed disregarding the result of the primaries openly. Where is your evidence that Wikileaks was passed leaked Republican emails and deliberately sat on them? Because that's what you're claiming with the above.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

Maybe the USA should get rid of the electoral college if they dislike it so much. They could have a proportional representation system... Like Russia does. ;)

8
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"I did not go into these things because I did not want to appear to be judging from a bias. Albeit I am, but the opposite that you thought I was.... I try to be fair.. of course I fail, but I least I try."

Sorry, no offence was meant and I agreed with your post. It was a surmise as I said at the time. I found it interesting and positive that even two people who (I thought at the time) had different political views, could agree on the destructiveness of Obama's current approach. Apologies for guessing wrong.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"The President has been and Congress will be hearing a great deal more than anything you'll find on the interwebs."

Important correction in turn: The president will be, but members of Congress have been refused access. There was a closed briefing for selected members.

Lack of access severely limits expert analysis and independent corroboration. Ultimately, I believe this will come down to "do you trust the CIA".

12
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: The Facts?

>>"Note the sequencing: first Trump declares an option, THEN he says he will try to be updated about the facts."

It's true. I went to court last week and the Judge made the comment that she was going to act as if I was innocent until she'd been presented with actual evidence. I couldn't believe that she leaned to a conclusion and said she'd stick to it unless persuaded otherwise. I almost demanded to be locked up then and there!

9
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"If he wanted to mess with Israel, he had two terms to do it. Chose not to, but now, he is messing around... this is not in the interest of the USA."

Oddly enough (odd because I'm a long-term critic of Israeli foreign policy), I agree with you. There's a real air of 'ha! they can't punish me now!' about Obama's recent shifts on Israel. I mean unlike you (I'm guessing, could be wrong), I actually want to see the US stop blindly supporting Israel but it's hardly heroic on Obama's side, more like a kid on the last day of school knowing the teachers can't put him in detention. I guess I'll take what I can get but like you say - he's had two whole terms to do this. This isn't really very helpful.

15
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

>>"Have a non-reflexive down-vote purely for not being able to understand that a factual post can be completely worthy of a down-vote."

When a post is entirely factual, I like to see disagreement with the contents take the form of reasoned argument rather than just voting them down without explanation. At the time of my post (and still to the time I post this), the person I replied to had been modded down by a number of people but nobody had actually given any reason why anything they wrote was wrong. Which is not that surprising as what they wrote is easily verified.

I fully understand that one could vote down a purely factual post - for example any of those interminable "Try Linux" posts every single sodding time there's a story about a Windows issue no matter how off-topic it is; or if there's obvious lack of context or understanding such as "It was really cold last week" on a story about global warming. But this is neither so yes, I do find it disappointing when I see an on-topic, being voted down by a few people but none of whom dispute that it's actually accurate.

Do we know that Seth Rich was the leaker? No, we don't. Can we say it's very possible he was? Yes - we have a more reliable source stating it was a leak and he is a likely candidate and there are several actual hints that he was as well. It's pretty reasonable to suggest that his being shot multiple times in the back near his home in Bloomberg could be linked to an agency well-known for assassinations. Given that if it was a leak then someone (plausibly Seth Rich) was in a position to discredit said agency's story. If someone's first reaction to reading the above is "Conspiracy Theory" rather than "but that part doesn't make sense", then I humbly and politely ask them to take a few moments and ask themselves if there is anything that is obviously wrong in it. Nobody is saying we know it to be the case. But it's perfectly possible and, if one thinks that Wikileaks is telling the truth, then it actually becomes quite likely.

So short version: clearly I do understand that a purely factual post can be worthy of a downvote. But isn't it better to actually point out the obvious flaws in it? And if that isn't easily done, then downvoting isn't the next best thing, imo.

15
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Evidence it was the Russians what dunnit

I'm sorry to see some reflexive downvoting on your post as it's entirely factual. The CIA have a history of lying - including to their own government (example, they lied about their use of torture to a House Committee) and interfering with multiple country's democratic processes. They have a long and documented history of such. They even ran drugs to finance themselves independently of US government funding. In contrast, Wikileaks provide substantiated information and as far as I'm aware, have never been caught lying about such matters. Wikileaks say it's not Russia and was in fact a leak from within the DNC. CIA say it isn't but refuse to provide evidence - again, even to their own government. (The Chair of the House Intelligence committee was refused a briefing from them when he requested one).

Any logical and evidence based balance of probabilities would be to say that Wikileaks is more likely telling the truth.

And if it is a leak rather than hacking, then the immediate logical follow-up is that the CIA will want to prevent the truth emerging. Someone willing to leak that data is also someone who could plausibly confess to it. Seth Rich is one of the suspected sources of the leak. He could demolish the CIA's entire case by going public as the source. Or rather he could before he coincidentally died a few miles from his house in an alleged robbery. Fun fact: people who mug you for your wallet and phone are usually content to just get those items and run. They don't normally go out trying to shoot people dead. (Especially, you don't normally find their victims dying from multiple shots to the back).

So again, it's a shame to see some people go "Conspiracy Theory" and vote it down (or do so for other reasons). Maybe my post will be too, but there's nothing in the above that is implausible nor flawed reasoning. What it comes down to is that some people don't want to accept the liklihood that people in the US government are willing to have someone killed to suit their agenda. Despite that such people have knowingly killed hundreds of thousands with wars like Iraq or the bombing of Libya knowing full well that such loss of life would be the result. To reject the idea that the CIA or similar would assasinate someone or that people in government would turn a blind eye to it, is to reject countless historical cases where they have done exactly that, and on far grander scale than one life.

In short: which group has the greater credibility - Wikileaks or the CIA. Based on evidence one has to say the former. If the former is telling the truth is it the case that US parties have the motive and demonstrated willingness to dispose of someone who could expose them. Overwhelmingly yes to both of those again. None of this is unsupported so downvote away!

45
4

'I told him to cut it out' – Obama is convinced Putin's hackers swung the election for Trump

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Chris G Let me get this alt right

You know, Matt. I want to upvote you and sometimes do, but you make it really hard to by descending to the level of name-calling like "Obambi".

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: DNC - Remove the mote from your own eye

The email server investigation was dropped before the election wasn't it? I thought the head of the FBI had declared that they weren't going to prosecute.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: DNC - Remove the mote from your own eye

Well all of the emails are available to read on Wikileaks so I would say that yes, found out what they really thought is fair. Fairer than the amount of misinformation about Trump, that's for sure. Got passed this little read yesterday. Worth the time:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Wasn't the accusation that John Podesta fell for a "reset your password" phishing link anyway? Hardly requires the resources of the Kremlin to pull that off. Hell, a fifteen year old in Ireland required more skill to hack TalkTalk than that. TalkTalk! But no, has to be the Russians.

7
0

PoisonTap fools your PC into thinking the whole internet lives in an rPi

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Revelation 22:13

IpV666?

7
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This is exactly how things are designed to work

>>"If you have userland code running with admin privileges that does that and malconfigures the system for you automatically that is where the problem lies"

Well, out of the box GNU/Linux systems normally would. That's the thing. Configure GNU/Linux to not accept any old DHCP server and it wont be vulnerable. But the same is true of Windows. If the criticism is that default settings are not adequate, then that applies to most GNU/Linux distros just as much as Windows. If the defence is that you can configure it more securely so this isn't an issue, then that too applies to Windows.

5
0

Antivirus tools are a useless box-ticking exercise says Google security chap

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Happy

Re: If Only Google Could Get A Handle On Their Own Security Problems

>>"Might that correlate more strongly with size? Android has 80%+ of the market :. it makes sense that it would have 9x% of the attention. Windows suffers in the same way on the desktop."

Yes. Though that does give me ironic flashbacks to arguments in the mid-2000's when people here would hold up the quantity of Windows malware against the quantity of GNU/Linux malware and when I'd point out the difference in userbase size and user sectors (server vs. home), they'd go "nuh-uh. It's nothing to do with how many people use it".

7
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I contacted my hosting company over a similar thing, asking if it were actually a phishing attack. They confirmed that no, it wasn't and yes, the domain name ICANN was using was legitimate even though it sounded like a scam. I was unimpressed.

I'll be holding on to my AV for a while longer. Did Google say who should be in charge of whitelisting? Was it them, by any chance?

8
1

Britain must send its F-35s to Italy for heavy overhauls, decrees US

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Archtech Take back control

>>Also, Ukrainians don't speak Russian - but Ukrainian which has not little differences. Despite the forced russification, despite the deportation of whole ethnic groups. Saying Ukraine is "naturally Russian" if just like saying Hungary (or Northern Italy) should be still part of the Austria,

But we're not talking about "Ukrania", we're talking specifically about the Crimean peninsula. An attached land mass which was previously part of Russia and which was ceded to the Ukraine (such as it was under the USSR) after WWII. Russia has not invaded anywhere else, only this specific peninsula which was a separate region (both administratively and geographically) from Ukraine as a whole.

>>And I wonder what those agreeing with Crimea invasion would say if the US invaded Cuba

If the Cuban people overwhelmingly were US emigres and wanted to be part of the USA, then they should be so. I'm not sure that's the case, though. Crimea is about half the size and a fifth of the population of Cuba, incidentally. Unlike Cuba, which is a country, the Crimean Peninsula is a ruled territory. A better analogy would be if the people of Northern Ireland voted they wanted to be part of Russia and the welcome they gave to Russian troops arriving was called an invasion of England.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I don't get it... (@ Ivan 4)

>>"Why would Russia care about the UK's military capability? (Such as it is)."

Well it shouldn't need to, but as we seem to act as a tool of the USA who want regional dominance, I guess its relevant to them.

8
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Take back control

>>If you shrug your shoulders over the annexation of part of a soverign state(1) just because you think "some"(2) of the people there "might"(3) be happier ruled "elsewhere"(4)

Corrections to some of your weasel wording:

(1) An autonomous region attached to a sovereign state which snaffled it up after WWII.

(2) "Large majority"

(3) Are known to by reputable surveys and the fact that by referendum the people there didn't want to be controlled by the Ukraine.

(4) The country that the Crimean Peninsula used to be part of and which the people there identify as.

>>"Also since when did ignoring a dictators illegal actions EVER make any of them more inclined to follow the rule of law?"

(1) Putin has majority support in Russia. You might not want to believe that but he does. Standard of living has risen dramatically in his time in office.

(2) Strawman because what I was saying was that most European people don't want confrontation with Russia. Putin's feelings on our lack of desire for a war are immaterial to whether we want it or not. (We don't).

>>"Yes, god forbid would should respond in kind to russian military build up."

If NATO forces are surrounding Russia at key strategic points right on its borders, it's a little whimsical to affect that its a defensive and reactive measure. Building missile bases in Poland (against the wishes of the majority of Polish people) is provocation, not defence.

>>"No, we should just tuck our tails between our legs and run off like typical EU cowards"

Does that actually work on people? Calling people cowards for not wanting to act aggressively towards our neighbours? I'm sure there's some hyper-testosterone'd uneducated types out there that will leap up to attention if you tell them they're cowards, but I don't think it's going to work on El Reg forums.

5
6
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I wonder...

>>"AC because I don't want burying in the Desert for telling you."

Dr. David Kelly is buried here in the UK. Nowhere near a desert!

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I don't get it...

>>"BAE would still be cheaper"

Possibly the most damning indictment of what a mess this is that one could imagine.

11
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I don't get it... (@ Ivan 4)

>>"The obvious downside is that by doing this, we would be supporting Putin, Steven Seagal and Gerard Depardieu! :-D"

This gets into Milo Minderbinder territory, but are you sure that it's not more advantageous to Russia to watch us demolish our own military capability than to throw them a few million here and there?

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Take back control

Some European leaders were. Many European people were shrugging and saying the people of the Crimea want to be part of Russia anyway and maybe we shouldn't be building up massive military forces around Russia in the first place.

6
2

Russian banks floored by withering DDoS attacks

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I hope the perps aren't Russian

Goldman Sachs have way more money that you could shake them down for than any Russian bank. Wonder what influenced the choice of targets... Hmmmm?

0
0

Panicked WH Smith kills website to stop sales of how-to terrorism manuals

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Happy

>>"powered chocolate"

Where can I get this? It sounds wonderful!

5
0

Forums