RF-Blocking Wallpaper 344
spitefulcrow writes "Silicon.com is reporting on a new application for RF-absorbing materials: Wallpaper that blocks Wi-Fi. BAE, the British defense contractor, has announced that the same material used to foil radar by stealth bombers can be used to selectively block certain frequencies and prevent wireless networking signals from entering or exiting a building. Is this the next take on lining the walls with lead?"
Wallpaper hats! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wallpaper hats! (Score:3, Funny)
Remenber: always put your cell phone in your pant's pocket!
I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:2, Funny)
Ok, I know it's not tin foil....
But the important question is, can I use it to make a hat [utexas.edu]?
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Aluminum is the perfect medium for constructing an AFDB [zapatopi.net]
*A Note About The Shiny Side:
It can't be stressed enough how important it is to have the shiny side pointing out. This is needed because the shiny side is most reflective to psychotronic radiation, while the dull side can actually, in certain environmental conditions, absorb it. However, as is illustrated in the instructions above, it is also wise to complement this with a layer of foil pointing shiny side in. This will keep your brain waves, which are also reflected by the shiny side, from being picked up by mind-reading equipment. There is a small number of aluminum foil researchers who believe that this may cause an alpha-wave harmonic to build up in the skull resulting in memory loss or pseudo-religious visions, but their findings have never been replicated by the aluminum foil research community at large. Even if their findings are validated, the risk involved is small compared to the potential of mind-intrusion.
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:4, Funny)
MindGuard is a program for Amiga and Linux computers that protects your mind by actively jamming and/or scrambling psychotronic mind-control signals and removing harmful engrammic pollutants from your brain. It also has the ability to scan for and decipher into English specific signals so you can see exactly Who wants to control you and what They are trying to make you think.
MindGuard works by leveraging your computer's aluminum-based innards to both detect and emit psychotronic energy using advanced quasi-quantum techniques. Once a mind-control signal is identified and analyzed, MindGuard can generate a specially tuned anti-signal that will jam the incomming signal. If MindGuard is unable to properly identify the signal, it will generate psychotronic white noise to ensure the signal's harmful message is scrambled.
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:2, Funny)
please!
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:5, Informative)
* FOOTNOTE: The American spelling** of aluminum is used here. If you are searching for more information on aluminum, be aware that the British spell it "aluminium" (and pronounce it accordingly).
** HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: Aluminum was originally named "alumium" by Sir Humphry Davy, who later changed it to "aluminum" (perhaps in an attempt to make it more Latinized since alumen is Latin for alum, the aluminum compound that the name is derived from). The British (and allied English speakers) shortly thereafter changed the name once more, this time to "aluminium" so that it would again match the pattern of most other elements (helium, sodium, etc.), while the North Americans eventually decided to keep the second, slightly more traditional name. I predict that North Americans will adopt the more regular "-ium" spelling by the year 2050, prompting the British to start calling it "alumininium". At that point debate can begin on changing "platinum" to "platinium"
;-)
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:5, Informative)
The pattern of most other metals, not most other elements. Every element ending in -ium is a metal except helium. The latter was first observed on the sun, via spectrometry, and was believed to be a metal, so it was named "sun metal" in Latin. By the time it was found on earth, it was too late to change the name.
rj
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:3, Informative)
-ium vs -um in Latin doesn't have anything to do with the elements being metals or not. Just look at the names of the different elements and you'll see a heap of non-metals ending in -ium: Hydroge
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
(L. alumen: alum) The ancient Greeks and Romans used alum as an astringent and as a mordant in dyeing. In 1761 de Morveau proposed the name alumine for the base in alum, and Lavoisier, in 1787, thought this to be the oxide of a still undiscovered metal.
Wohler is generally credited with having isolated the metal in 1827, although an impure form was prepared by Oersted two years earlier. In 1807, Davy pro
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:3, Funny)
On second thought, I'm going to need a hat too.
Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... (Score:3, Informative)
Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real people (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, its nice. This wallpaper blocks a lot of RF radation. This means that you can not use WLAN, cellphones and terrestrial TV/Radio. Is this really what you want?
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously you can still pipe stuff through wires. (you know, those plastic/rubber coated strings of metal? remember them?)
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl (Score:3, Informative)
It's what defense contractors, the government, and businesses worried about industrial espionage by employees, want.
And given that Witchfinder General Ashcroft [wikipedia.org] and Big Blunkett [wikipedia.org] are in power, I'm sure it will not only sell well, but be heavily subsidized by government, and probably required on certain government contractors.
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl (Score:5, Informative)
We do not like the term paranoid nuts (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I had to make a joke about something. 3 other people took my tin-foil hat joke
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Quoth the article:
The company has produced panels using the technology to produce a screen that will prevent outsiders from listening in on companies' Wi-Fi traffic but let other radio and mobile phone traffic get through.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
802.11b and 802.11g standards transmit at 2.4 GHz,
802.11a standard transmits at 5 GHz.
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl (Score:2)
Cellphones won't work, but TV and radio could, if the antenna is outside (on the roof) and the signals are distributed via cable. And cable TV/radio works too, of course.
I'm not sure how big the market really is. A few people are concerned with the increasing amount of radiation (TV, GSM, UMTS
Definitive answer: Statistically insignificant (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a definitive answer when you are talking about non-ionizing radiation like radio waves: if there is any deleterious health effect, it is so small that it cannot be reproducibly measured even in studies involving tens of thousands of individuals.
Pampered Western worry-warts would do well to drop their concerns about non-ionizing radiation from power lines and cell phones, and worry more about things with real consequences like what they eat a
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl (Score:4, Informative)
I'm really busy (Score:5, Interesting)
Hospitals too? (Score:2)
Yes, hospitals too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cell phones, even by being on can affect drug infusion pumps: it is not good to have the infusion rate spontaneously jump from 1 mL/min to 100mL/min. What's worse is that some people don't know the difference between "standby" and "off" - they think just not using it will turn off the transceiver. (Yeah, yeah, Snopes [snopes.com] says it's not a big problem. They're FOS on this one: it really does happen).
Some visitors argue it is a problem with the medical equipment and they should get to keep their phone on: 1) possibly a valid point, but the fact is that patient health is threatened by the phone, and 2) the historic FCC position is that RF shall not interfere with other equipment. (Incidenally, new medical equipment is better shielded (hinted at on the FDA website [fda.gov]).
Finally, to the genius who wants to point out that many hospitals are using wireless for notebook computing and wireless monitoring: 1) those in use are on different frequencies than cell phones, and 2) they are very carefully tested before implementation, (Also, I'm not sure on this point, but I believe they are probably less powerful than cell phones; this is why repeaters are in every hallway rather than just one on the roof. If the wallpaper is just on the exterior of the building, I doubt it would not interfere with current use).
Teidou
so-- the obvious solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet it would cost a lot less than wallpapering the entire hospital...
Re:Yes, hospitals too. (Score:5, Interesting)
You make an excellent point that the WLANs used in hospitals are very low power. Yes, they put APs every few yards down the hallways, so that the portable devices never have to step up their transmit power to reach one.
The solution to the cell phone problem in hospitals is to put base station equipment IN the hospital and run Radiax down the hallways. Alternately, just put cell sites as close to the building as possible. When the phones can reach a tower easily, they'll limit their output power accordingly.
This is also the counterintuitive solution to the weenies who protest when a cellphone company wants to put a tower near the high school. (This frequently happens when an athletic field is getting new lights.) Compare a cordless phone to a moonbounce transmission, which requires more power?
The first mobile phones weren't cellular, there was a single base station in the center of town. The powers used were on the order of 50 watts, so it's a good thing the vehicle-mounted antenna was several feet from the handset. When cellular was developed, it meant you were always within a mile or two of a tower, so the power levels decreased drastically. Phones reduce their output power in response to requests from the tower, because it's easier for the tower to "hear" the faint phones if the near phones aren't screaming.
Shielding the place into an RF hole is counterproductive. In the event that someone forgets to turn their phone off, it'll sit there chirping out its maximum transmit power every once in a while, searching for a tower it can't find. Worse yet, it'll maintain contact with a tower it can just barely hear, only if it really blasts out the RF. This helps nobody.
Re:I'm really busy (Score:4, Informative)
I think it sucks too.
Re:I'm really busy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm really busy (Score:2)
Re:I'm really busy (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm really busy (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we should never block cell phone reception anywhere.
What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted? What if a loved one were in an accident and people were trying to get ahold of you so you could possibly see them before they died?
There are many scenarios where having cell reception is important.
Just try to use the vibrate or silent mode. I can deal with people forgetting to turn their phones off in a movie (though I myself have the courtesy to turn mine off), as long as they don't yack on them in the theater.
Re:I'm really busy (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many scenarios where having cell reception is important.
Man, what *did* people do before cell phones? Give out the public number to the theatre/opera/amusement park/restaurant/stadium's land line and have an employee come and get them if they got a call?
Actually, an interesting note is that some classy restaurants offer this as a service. They ask you to forward your cell phone to a special number, let them know your name and where you're sitting, and the restaurant staff picks up the call and comes and gets you. "Excuse me, Mr. Smith, but you have a call. This way please..."
Re:I'm really busy (Score:3, Informative)
Plus when I worked in a cinema here in the UK, we had a scren that was underground, and you couldn't get reception there _ever_!
The way I see it, if a cinema puts up a notice saying that cellphones are not allowed in the auditorium, then there's nothing wrong with them using technology to inforce i
Re:I'm really busy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I think we all agree on that.
However, we should never block cell phone reception anywhere.
Bullshit. We should never block reception EVERYwhere I can agree with, but not ever anywhere.
There are some places where it is simply inappropriate to even HAVE a cell phone. Say, an operating suite? Do you REALLY want the RFI, or someone distracted by a call while you're on the slab?
No? Didn
Re:I'm really busy (Score:5, Insightful)
If being contactable means they have to spoil everyone else's enjoyment of the film, then...
Yes. Absolutely. I want to exclude these people from the cinema completely.
That's the RIAA's rationale. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no reason to block those of us who put the phone in silent.
I glance at the callerid if the phone vibrates. When an apparrently urgent call comes in either in a theater or in a restaurant, you hit answer and walk out the door. Anybody calling me in the off hours is accustomed to calling a second time if I ignore the first (calling again a moment after the first attempt is a good signal of urgency) and waiting for me to get out the door between the time I hit answer and the time I speak. Most also make sure they call my cell FROM their cell so that callerid works and I can just call them back.
Re:I'm really busy (Score:5, Insightful)
Serriosely if you job requires your assistance even when your in a cinema... and you can't escape for a measly 2 hours, get a new job.
I'm a parent.
Re:I'm really busy (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a parent.
And for the first 5 years or so, you won't be able to go out very much. If you're worried about junior swallowing bleach when the babysitter isn't looking, then perhaps you should choose an activity that is easy to interrupt. Personally, I like the idea of RF blocked theaters. If you don't, then don't go there.
then put the damn phone on VIBRATE and call back (Score:5, Insightful)
That's nice. Put your phone on vibrate. When it rings and says "Home" (or worse, the sitter's cell phone #) get up, go into the hallway, and answer it. If you're not fast enough, witness the wonder of using the "missed calls" list. This is also why god invented text messaging, which we Americans just haven't seemed to figure out quite yet. "Nick is screaming for his ba-wa-na, what/where is that?" "Joey ran into the wall, at e-room, hes ok but need med insurance info". Etc.
Incidentally, for well over half a decade people went to the cinema, dinner, etc and left their kids behind with a sitter...with no cell phone. Don't give me this "I'm a parent, I simply must be within seconds contact of my children at all times" bullshit.
Re:then put the damn phone on VIBRATE and call bac (Score:3, Informative)
That's nice. Put your phone on vibrate. When it rings and says "Home" (or worse, the sitter's cell phone #) get up, go into the hallway, and answer it.
That's what I do.
But it wouldn't work if theaters blocked RF.
Really, there's no reason for parents and others to lose the ability to be contacted during a movie and, as you pointed out, there's no reason for that ability to disturb others, either.
The problem of phones ringing during movies is a social problem, not a technical one.
Incidentally, for
Re:I'm really busy (Score:3)
Yeah, me too, but that's no excuse to leave your phone on in a theatre.
If you feel you must have it on, put it on silent and vibrate. If your phone won't do that - tough. Buy a new one.
Also, even if you do get a phone call, don't talk until you've got out of the theatre.
You need to set a good example to your kids of good manners...
parent!=control freak (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're an over protective control freak who just happens to also be a parent.
Parents have managed to be away from their children for two hours or more for millenia without the world exploding. Look out the window, the human race seems to have made it this far just fine.
Some bad things will happen to your children in life. That's actually natural. The child who's never been allowed to fall, get a cold, cut themselves or anything else will be chronically ill prepared to live a life outsid
Re:parent!=control freak (Score:4, Insightful)
A person who incorrectly weights the value of preventative measures against their relative costs.
Yes, it's wonderful to be contactable in case your permission is required for medical procedures. How many times has that been necessary? How many procedures that really can't wait for you to be contacted do they actual stop because they can't contact you?
Now weigh that against the cost. Even if it's a small cost per instance, there are a massive number of instances of jerks ruining movies, meals and everything else making unnecessary phonecalls, with phones ringing, etc.
A rational person can accept that certain environments have a great cost for permitting cell phone usage than the cost of not doing so.
That only becomes more so when there are valid options for those establishments (such as them having a posted emergency number, having call forwarding available, a single lit 911-only emergency phone placed in the theater). Also, if it truly isn't worth it to you - you personally don't have to go. You can go to a cinema that does permit cell phones along with all the other parents, teenagers and everyone else who feels more entitled - that doesn't mean no one else should be permitted the option.
So, if a rational person can accept that the overall cost of permitting cellphones in certain environments is greater than overall cost of blocking them, the rational response is to permit their blocking and allow individuals to make their decisions as to whether or not to go there.
To be unable to agree with permitting rational choices to be made, because it affects your possible ability to deal with one exceptionally unlikely circumstance implies that, no, you can't correctly value the situation and, yes, you are a control freak.
Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:4, Interesting)
When planning a security system (not restricted to computers, I'm talking about security in general), it's usually a good idea to take into account what an insider can do. Most often, what an insider can do is a strict superset of what an outsider can do, so if your system is secure against attacks from insiders, it's automatically also secure against attacks from outsiders.
In the case at hand, it might be possible to use separate cryptograhic keys for separate groups of insiders, just like not every employee in a large company has a door key for every single door in the building. Restricting the signal by means of a wallpaper could be harder.
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:5, Insightful)
UK **defence** contractor
For some applications encryption isn't enough. Note also that WEP is a commercial encryption system this means it is NOT secure enough for very serious military applications which is where technologies like this play a role by preventing leakage or blocking interference.
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:2)
(a) If you are so worried about interception that you think cryptography is not enough (meaning you are worried about traffic analysis and alike) then you won't be using a wireless network anyways.
(b) WEP is not secure enough for any application. When the grandparent said encrypt things, he didn't necessarily mean WEP: for example, run an encrypted VPM over the WIFI network. WEP may suck, but claiming that commercial encryption syst
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:4, Insightful)
governments are several steps ahead!
They'd like us to think that, but it's probably not true, in general.
Based on what the public cryptology industry can see, it's likely that the NSA is well ahead of us in stream ciphers and key management, somewhat ahead of us in block ciphers and they probably learn from the public community with regard to public key crypto.
This article [slashdot.org] contains a long thread examining some of the NSA's previous public successes and failures and inferring from them the state of their capability.
As for the ways in which governments might utilize this RF-blocking wall paper, I'll tell you how they'd really use it: In installations where sensitive data is not handled. Organizations, like militaries, who really care about security tend to take precautions with non-sensitive data on the theory that an enemy who collects and correlates enough non-sensitive data can deduce something important. Because of this, they will just refuse to use wireless networks even for unclassified data, because they make collection of large volumes of unclassified data too easy.
This RF-blocking wallpaper may be good enough that they decide they can use wireless for unclassified networks.
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, when's the last time you had the electrons from your monitor's gun encrypted on the way to the screen? Right, never. That's what i thought...there are many, many forms of RF that can give away what it is that you are doing on a computer...encryption is only the beginning of the game.
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:3, Interesting)
The main reason I don't want WiFi in my home is the potential health-risk. If I could limit the RF-field to certain rooms, I just might consider it.
Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a replacement for tinfoil hats (Score:2)
Interior decorating? (Score:5, Funny)
At last! A sanctuary!
Re:Interior decorating? (Score:2)
Why not just use a fine metal mesh... (Score:2)
That's probably what this is (Score:4, Informative)
Is it just me or ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me or ... (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me or ... (Score:5, Informative)
OpenBSD has built-in support for IPSec, so it was quite easy to setup for WiFi. The OpenBSD firewall at home is functioning as an access point, and only IPSec related/authenticated traffic is allowed. So when I boot up the older laptop - that is also running OpenBSD - I'm up and running securely. And fast, since no encryption is done on the WiFi chipset, and thus freeing the chipset for handling packets only.
OpenBSD really makes it straightforward to setup a secure, functional and stable home gateway.
It'll never take off. (Score:5, Funny)
Nice and all, but who's going to use it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? (Score:2)
Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? (Score:5, Informative)
Copper cables are far too easy to detect and physically tap. For really sensitive applications fibre-optic cables are used. A classic text book example being the use of fibre optics to link up scud missiles launchers in Iraq [britains-smallwars.com].
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
But i'm getting away from my original point: this is sweetness. No, it's not exactly what i'm looking for, but it's a stop in the correct direction. Think you've never had a neighbor whom owns a 900MHz scanner? Anyway, i think this is great. You and i both know that information, its protection, secure dissemenation, and reliability of said information are the weapons of the upcoming century. You need to have your data safe whether you think so or not, so the more things like this the better.
Okay, nice idea but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really strikes me as a product for the "Security-Concerned-But-Uninformed", because I really wonder how many companies that want to use this will block other means of RF egress. And those that don't will simply have a false sense of security and a big hole in their "defenses".
Believe me, I'm literally right across the hall from a "RF-Secure" room at times, and that has EVERYTHING covered in every direction, windows, doors, floor and ceiling.
Re:Okay, nice idea but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Okay, nice idea but... (Score:2)
I suspect that many of the rooms this has been designed for are unlikely to even have Windows. However quoting the article: The panels are 50 to100 microns thick and can be applied to most surfaces including glass.
Believe me, I'm literally right across the hall from a "RF-Secure" room at times, and that has EVERYTHING covered in every direction, windows, doors, floor and ceiling.
Oh I believe you!! The military have been known to paint entire rooms 100% black (inclu
forget walls. (Score:5, Funny)
No more radar speed traps!
The (v. short) article - before it gets nuked (Score:2, Informative)
June 18 2004, by Ron Coates
UK defence contractor BAE Systems has developed a stealth wallpaper to beat electronic eavesdropping on company Wi-Fi and wired LANs. The company has produced panels using the technology to produce a screen that will prevent outsiders from listening in on companies' Wi-Fi traffic but let other radio and mobile phone traffic get through.
The FSS (Frequency Selective Surface) panels are made in the same way as printed circuit boards -
Wow, they use Aluminum foil in stealth bombers! (Score:2)
It's high tech, it can block wifi! So can standing in front of the antena.
Find a tastefull way to tape aluminum foil to all your walls, without looking like a kook, and I guess you can make a million.
Is this a kind of copper wire net/mesh? (Score:2, Funny)
Does that mean I can't patent my own copper wire net?
Can you patent the laws of physics?
If yes, I patent the gravity and demand fees for using my patent....
a much better use... (Score:3, Funny)
Alright...! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool... Be the first kid on your block to own your own flower wall paper stealth plane.
Shielding is Hard (Score:5, Interesting)
Radar detection (Score:4, Funny)
In a related article:
Wallpaper coated cessna evades radar detection.
Perfect for theaters and airplanes (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming the material is actually absorptive (not reflective) at cell-phone frequencies, it would also reduce the passage of cellphone signals into and out of airplanes and reduce any chance of passenger's cell phone transmissions from interfering with the airplane's electronics or the ground-based cells they are flying over.
Finally, they could use the stuff to help separate WiFi networks in office and apartment buildings. A layer of the stuff under the carpet or in the ceiling would keep wifi signals confined to a single tenant's floor or section of the building so that different tenant's wireless nets don't collide.
Re:Perfect for theaters and airplanes (Score:3, Insightful)
No "force" is involved. Their cell phones would simply get no signal which means no inbound calls, no outbound calls, and no shouting. I'd say that cellphones in theaters is both a people and technological problem because the technology lets people use noisy telecom devices where they shouldn't and lets people think they must
lead walls? (Score:4, Funny)
And I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
Definitely better than tinfoil.
I guess ThinkGeek would find many customers on slashdot...
This will thrill my boss. (Score:4, Interesting)
This scream "health issue" (Score:4, Interesting)
yuck
.
-shpoffo
Re:This scream "health issue" (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon CDMA
Not too worried.
What I'd Like... (Score:3, Interesting)
RF-Blocking Wallpaper (Score:5, Funny)
My parents were doing this when I was a kid (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe companies selling this kind of wallpaper should rebrand it as inexpensive high-tech (but low cost) Faraday shielding. And maybe the defense agency could save a few billion dollars by using an off-the-shelf solution. Nah.
I know a man who had this in the Eighties... (Score:5, Interesting)
As he did not have wi-fi, I beleive that he was more concerned with preventing eavesdropping of his CRTs rf feild. There were other CS guys (from the uni) who did the same thing.
As he my first real programming teacher, I always assumed that the tech to "tempest" a CRT was available then. Tapping WiFi is undoubtably a magnitude simpler.
I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
National Security (Score:5, Funny)
Relaxation (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, this whole story is probably fictitious. A plot from the government to get citizens who are on to them to let down their good.
Phew, almost got suckered in.
FSS is a kind of high-tech foil. (Score:3, Informative)
So it is very different from ordinary aluminium foil. Foil wallpaper and window treatments have been available for quite a while, both for security applications and for people concerned about electromagnetic radiation. But these blocks all frequencies.
RF Proof clothes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Reuse (Score:3, Interesting)
lining the walls with lead? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrapping the whole places in tinfoil would work nicely as well, as long as you don't leave any holes. No need to go to anything as heavy as lead, unless you're trying to block things like X-rays or gamma rays.
RFID (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tinfoil hat brigade? (Score:5, Funny)
Three people made the same joke in the same minute. This sucks. I am no longer original. Ahh sod it, I'm going streaking. Nobody else can have thought of that....