Sysadmins will come in all levels of skill and dedication. MS putting the blame on tardy sysadmins is typical microsoft (big corporations in general actually) deflection of blame.
I'm sure the cure Microsoft would recommend is that companies hire only Microsoft accredited sysadmins through some expensive Microsoft accreditation system, and when the problem persists, then a request would be issued to pass laws that all internet connected servers running Microsoft be maintained by same.
The sad thing here, is I initially started to read this with more credulity than it deserves. In one sense this is a joke, but on the other hand, there will be a sizeable portion of people that believe it.
You guys should add "Gotcha" at the end, for the more gullible, or those that skim through and miss things like "open sores software"
I still find this unfunny, because it comes framed as a personal attack.
I must confess, I have not yet read the article
Too anxious to jump into a lively debate:-)
I hadn't considered the prospect of this being a self-propagating virus!
Surely the contest rules should stipulate, the infection remains confined to his machine, but not attempt to propagate.
Since I didn't read the article (yet), I'm guessing many virus writers will likewise skip reading any fine print.
Please, Please, Please, if you guys want to be part of this contest (which I don't think has to be illegal), state your intentions to others in the field, document your safe guards, have your safe guards reviewed. And most importantly be sure there is no coding to self propagate. It will be enough just to demonstrate penetration and a level of control I'm sure.
If by use, you mean release, with the possibility of economic disruption by corruption of files, denial of service, etc. How is that not Criminal?
A focused attack on this one computer is probably not illegal, despite Ashcroff's pronouncements, because it is invited. If you write something, and never release it, that is probably not illegal, though of course if you write a virus, and it is discovered, and the legal system can prove (in the sense convince a jury) that there is reasonable intent to distribute, well that is problematic. Best not to write viruses in general.
For those who wish to pursue this contest, do so in an academic environment. Document your intent, your safe guards, and have your colleges review your safe guards.
If anyone actually wins this prize, it seems extremely unlikely he would want to infect other computers, or do anything in a way that would jeopardize claiming the prize money, since that's the motive for writing the virus in the first place. Lets not get too paranoid about the legal system, this would be an invited attack, and the winner would have their pick of security consultant positions around the IT world.
Yeah and don't forget those criminals Orville and Wilbur Wright who broke the law of Gravity.
The point here isn't to encourage a plethora of Linux viruses, but to show how relatively safe Linux is compared to Micro-suck. Plus any security hole found, would no doubt be plugged much quicker than a Windows security flaw, which probably has to be reviewed by marketing and the legal department before a fix is forthcoming.
The object of your uhmmmm... affection can be found here at retrocomputing which is listed in the article.
I find it odd how every syntax I have ever seen in a computer language looks ugly and stupid to me, until I become fluent in it, then I won't abide any change after.
And how many computer languages have you written that are better than any of these? The point isn't that these languages are useful in a commercial sense or even an academic one, only that someone was challenged enough in an intellectual way to try something different. As I posted in another thread here, "Befunge" and "Orthogonal" have some interesting properties that are worthy of consideration in and of them selves. God forbid our next round of languages should only evolve out of C, C++, and Java!
Wow, took some time getting to your point didn't you? But then again it isn't really about holding computer programmers in disdain.
That said, I will reply as though it were.
Inventing odd computer languages is a much better use of time than doing crossword puzzles for instance. If people get enjoyment from writing new, odd, programming languages, good for them. The proliferation of failed languages can help by exploring new ideas, and even provide a sort of Darwinian backdrop for evolving languages in general by show not only what works well, but what works poorly.
This article is extremely amusing, interesting, and informative, especially if you also follow the link retro computing that exists in the article.
I had forgotten how many failed experimental languages there were, and was amused to see these odd academic and intellectual experiments still sprouting up.
One can only hope that one of these odd languages might spark the imagination, and actually provide a paradigm shift. Especially note worthy were "Befunge" and "Orthogonal" which are two-dimensional languages. More experimentation along these lines could only be good. Could a multi-dimensional language more efficiently encode parallel-processing software for instance?
The Net is most certainly a different media, with a unique set of strengths and weaknesses, but I would balk at calling it our "Most Serious news Medium" by far. I read a lot of news articles on CNN.com TIME.com and many fine articles that I'm directed to by Slashdot.org. But most of these are just parroting what is (or will be) available in other media.
The Net has a unique compromise between the timelyness of TV and Radio, and the in depth coverage of print media. It also has serious credibility issues that Mr. Katz seems to be trying to sweep under the rug by citing mistakes made in other media during a time of crisis. Two or three days of disorganization in the main media streams in light of 9-11, seems very minor when compared to years of very credible reporting they have provided, and which the Net can hardly stake claim to. I'm also sure they'll do a better job next time round if we have another terrorist attack of similar magnitude.
The Net has been a Wild Wild West of sorts in years past, and now the homesteaders are arriving. Laws and Law enforcement of a type will have to follow. Instead of engaging in a knee jerk reaction of "Baahdges? We don't need no stinking baahdges", the IT community needs to have sensible debates on how best to clean up its act, ensuring that the Net is not easily used for criminal activity, hoaxes and defamation. Of course doing so in a manor that doesn't trample constitutional rights. To fight all legislation, instead of offer good reasoned regulation alternatives, will insure that what is forced on us is, by and large, all bad (a continuing theme of mine, and one that I appear to be alone in).
Contrary to the thrust of Mr. Katz's article, the Net has just not matured enough yet to be considered a news media of preeminent stature.
I like your modified stance, and will agree to reconsider mine as well. You make many good points, and I appreciate you see some merits to my idea, instead of engaging in a knee jerk reaction. You especially read correctly, my worry about loosing all privileges, if we in IT are inflexible on all points.
Once again I favor strong cryptography with no public registration of keys. Private information should be private (please read my original post).
Practical quantum communication has yet to be achieved, so that can of worms hasn't been opened yet, but even when it is, it isn't the contents I'm worried about protecting, but the ability to delivery untraceable messages. If someone sends me a message, why should they be able to completely disguise who sends it or from where? Why is this protected as Free Speech? Which is the argument I'm seeing over and over. I'm not restricting your right to say anything you want to who ever you want, only restricting your right to do it anonymously under circumstances where it is proven to be part of criminal activity.
If phones were untraceable, there would be an explosion of abuses. Women would never be free from obscene phone calls, because tracing back the callers would be impossible in a truly anonymous system. Death threats would be common. Hoaxes and bomb threats common. Drug deals greatly facilitated (although I am not actually pro most of our drug laws). Crimes of all sorts made much easier. Despite your assertion that police would just find other avenues to monitor criminal activity, It is unlikely to be effective without vastly restricting our rights to unreasonable search and seizer in some other fashion. Another trouble with, just monitoring the criminals by other means, is that without a means to backtrack, after proof a crime, someone without a criminal record, or a prior criminal not currently being monitored will never be caught. So you will have to monitor 24-7 all prior criminals, and most likely everyone you suspect could ever become a criminal. Talk about a police state!
Just because the majority of the/. community doesn't think guaranteed anonymity facilitates criminal activity doesn't make it so, and there have been no reasonable explanations of how to keep this from occurring. When I first started this thread, I was not has convinced that I was on to something as I am now, having defended my position from repeated attacks, some shrill, some personal.
The argument that crime is not rampant seems a bit specious. Do we wait for it to become rampant as criminals become more technically savvy, then implement what I'm suggesting?
It could be that you are confusing my position, as been the case in half the posting to this thread. I am not for the government reading your postings and transactions, only being able to identity the source of anonymous posting when there is proof of abuse.
My suggestions was to regulate anonymizers (not do away with them). One thing I strongly stated in the original post that started this thread was that I was far more worried about loosing strong cryptography tools, which is likely to happen, and happen soon with the take-no-prisoners attitude the majority of the IT community seems to have adopted. The reason I dislike government agencies holding onto all our cryptography keys, is the target those keys would make to be stolen, almost exclusively for economic gain (yes, not all government employees are honest). No demonstrably large financial motive exists for cracking into a US government anonymizer service.
Everybody seems to be in denial that either significant criminal activities are conducted through anonymizers, or that regulating them would hinder criminal activities conducted through them, or even if so, well, that's the price society must pay in order to support freedom in its most broad sense. Other than the OH-MY-GOD-you-can't-trust-the-government argument, I don't see the harm or the abuse of privacy rights this suggestion entails.
I'm sure if landline phones had just been invented in the nineties, you would be arguing just as strongly that court orders must not ever be issued under any circumstances to allow phone taps. The fact that phones can be tapped when there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity has helped crack many criminal cases that could never have otherwise been solved. Phones with out the ability to be tapped or traced could be seen as an earlier anonymizing service. Many forms of lawlessness would be rampant in a no-taps possible world, but you probably think society would be better off.
There are all sorts of laws regulating the use of cars, posted speed limits come to mind as just one. I have not proposed taking anonymizers away, only having them regulated -- hey, just like owning a car;-)
I enumerated several in several previous posts to this thread prior to yours, so you've obviously skipped ahead in your zeal to confront me. Child pornography rings, death threats, drug drop arrangements, organized crime activities, frauds and hoaxes of various sorts, and while not entirely illegal (yet) certain types of spamming.
Since I am not in law enforcement and don't have available files at my disposal tonight, let's phrase this another way. Do you deny that these activities occur through anonymizer services, and probably are significant portion of the flow through anonymizers?
Get real, exercise some common sense, instead of screaming the sky is falling. The onus is on me? No the onus is on the IT community to keep from being branded a bunch of cyber bandits, when the government and a public enflamed by popular press labels us all criminals for defending viscously channels for criminals to evade the law.
You can label the politicians ignorant on Internet issues, but that won't stop them from passing laws at the general publics urging. Think I'm wrong here? Hacking has now been defined as a terrorist activity, and IT's press isn't going to get any better from here, with our side being so intransigent on these issues.
Box cutters are now restricted on airline flights, and no one is complaining about the restriction of their box cutter rights. This is much the same thing, not a proposal to do away with anonymizers, only restricting the circumstances where they can do harm.
As for proving a government run anonymizer would be effective, there is a catch 22 in effect. I can't prove what isn't being done.
I guess we will never convince one another, especially since you admit you don't care if proof can be offered that harm is being done.
As was posted earlier by someone else, when anonymizing services were first created, they were probably, by and large, used for the right reasons. Now they have been co-opted, by people using them for the wrong reasons. I am not proposing that anonymizing services be eliminated, just altered in such a way that prevents abuse.
If I go get concrete facts and statistics to prove my claim they are used in large part to support illegal activities, will you alter your stance?
This isn't all about terrorism, but recent terrorist events have overturned a large rock in the IT community, and not everything under there is pretty.
I can look back and say this with all sincerity that this is not a lie. I can also add that many well reasoned responses have softened my stance on some minor aspects of my proposal, but not the main points. Most responses however, like yours, are just jerks trying to wrap themselves in a cloak of moral superiority.
Wow, you convinced me - not!
Blah, blah, blah, Rights, blah, blah, blah, Rights.
Not one refutation that anonymizing services are routinely used to engage in illegal activities. Not one other suggestion of how to deal with this. I have routinely defended encryption (reread the original post). I'm suggesting we make intelligent decisions here, before everything (like encryption) is taken away from us.
Lets just all get wrapped up in the flag, and pretend we are doing the public a service. Sorry you spent so much time on your response, maybe you can recycle it to get an A+ in a college civics course from a liberal professor.
I am not worried greatly about terrorists using these services at the moment (though I have exaggerated some responses to further a lively debate). But terrorism has brought IT and illegal activities associated with it to the political debate scene. There are many illegal activities being done through anonymizing services (I will not re-enumerate them here).
By refusing to give up this easy to use cover for criminal activity, we, the IT community, are being labeled guilty by association.
I have said it in postings to other discussions, and I'll say it again here. If the IT community refuses to cooperate with the government in at least some small ways, we, the IT community will be demonized by the Government and Press, we will be branded outlaws, and we will loose all other rights and privileges we have. Joe-Six-Pack doesn't know nor care what the difference is between cryptography and anonymizing.
Once the public turns on the IT community due to negative press, you'll be lucky to be able to use a word processor without asking the government for permission first.
If you have read this entire thread you will see that I have challenged over and over again others to come up with alternatives to keeping anonymizing services from being used to support illegal activities, so far none have been proffered.
It may be the case that anonymizing services have not been used much by terrorists (to date), but this matters little. They are used for activities like; child porn rings, death threats, spamming, coordinating organized crime activities - probably use far more for these than they are used for legitimate reasons. Legitimate uses would still be well served by a government run service, one requiring a legal search document to investigate any shady goings on (of which there would be few by nature of it being a government service).
I doubt much if say Libya should complain about human rights posting though a US government anonymizing service, that the state department will release the names and internet addresses. In fact let every government set up a service, and see who gets the most traffic. It will make it easier to sort out friendly governments from hostile, when they won't release names of radicals making death threats on Americans.
Mistakes do happen, lives are ruined, our justice system is flawed, but self-correcting. There are going to be judgment calls in which addresses to release, not every call will be clearly right or wrong. But if we elect the right people and put the right safeguards in place, these mistakes will be very few, especially in comparison to the amount of criminal activity that can be halted. I do not support the death penalty, mistakes here cannot be corrected. To carry the mistakes argument to extreme, and ensure maximum possible rights, let's do away with the police departments and FBI. Never an innocent American ever jailed again!
I support everyone's right to have and express any view they have, but I fail to see the harm here, or how your rights are greatly diminished. All I see is a bunch of carping about how you can't trust the government, and how government storm troopers are going to be talking away your computers next. Many of those posting here sound just like the broken record complaining of Gun Rights advocates.
You'll have to pry my private anonymizer from my cold dead fingers.
In an earlier post to this article, I suggested a government run free anonymizer. Flames ensued. Lets have a US government anonymizing service
This would still work for your needs.
The flag is a great fit, when it fits your needs. -- an original DumbSwede-ism
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the cure Microsoft would recommend is that companies hire only Microsoft accredited sysadmins through some expensive Microsoft accreditation system, and when the problem persists, then a request would be issued to pass laws that all internet connected servers running Microsoft be maintained by same.
You guys should add "Gotcha" at the end, for the more gullible, or those that skim through and miss things like "open sores software"
I still find this unfunny, because it comes framed as a personal attack.
Too anxious to jump into a lively debate
I hadn't considered the prospect of this being a self-propagating virus!
Surely the contest rules should stipulate, the infection remains confined to his machine, but not attempt to propagate.
Since I didn't read the article (yet), I'm guessing many virus writers will likewise skip reading any fine print.
Please, Please, Please, if you guys want to be part of this contest (which I don't think has to be illegal), state your intentions to others in the field, document your safe guards, have your safe guards reviewed. And most importantly be sure there is no coding to self propagate. It will be enough just to demonstrate penetration and a level of control I'm sure.
If by use, you mean release, with the possibility of economic disruption by corruption of files, denial of service, etc. How is that not Criminal?
A focused attack on this one computer is probably not illegal, despite Ashcroff's pronouncements, because it is invited. If you write something, and never release it, that is probably not illegal, though of course if you write a virus, and it is discovered, and the legal system can prove (in the sense convince a jury) that there is reasonable intent to distribute, well that is problematic. Best not to write viruses in general.
For those who wish to pursue this contest, do so in an academic environment. Document your intent, your safe guards, and have your colleges review your safe guards.
If anyone actually wins this prize, it seems extremely unlikely he would want to infect other computers, or do anything in a way that would jeopardize claiming the prize money, since that's the motive for writing the virus in the first place. Lets not get too paranoid about the legal system, this would be an invited attack, and the winner would have their pick of security consultant positions around the IT world.
The point here isn't to encourage a plethora of Linux viruses, but to show how relatively safe Linux is compared to Micro-suck. Plus any security hole found, would no doubt be plugged much quicker than a Windows security flaw, which probably has to be reviewed by marketing and the legal department before a fix is forthcoming.
Rush Limbaugh is a Great American...
no wait, I mean a grating American.
I find it odd how every syntax I have ever seen in a computer language looks ugly and stupid to me, until I become fluent in it, then I won't abide any change after.
And how many computer languages have you written that are better than any of these? The point isn't that these languages are useful in a commercial sense or even an academic one, only that someone was challenged enough in an intellectual way to try something different. As I posted in another thread here, "Befunge" and "Orthogonal" have some interesting properties that are worthy of consideration in and of them selves. God forbid our next round of languages should only evolve out of C, C++, and Java!
That said, I will reply as though it were.
Inventing odd computer languages is a much better use of time than doing crossword puzzles for instance. If people get enjoyment from writing new, odd, programming languages, good for them. The proliferation of failed languages can help by exploring new ideas, and even provide a sort of Darwinian backdrop for evolving languages in general by show not only what works well, but what works poorly.
No menton on any of the major news services.
But then again, an anonymous caller to a radio talk show would know.
I had forgotten how many failed experimental languages there were, and was amused to see these odd academic and intellectual experiments still sprouting up.
One can only hope that one of these odd languages might spark the imagination, and actually provide a paradigm shift. Especially note worthy were "Befunge" and "Orthogonal" which are two-dimensional languages. More experimentation along these lines could only be good. Could a multi-dimensional language more efficiently encode parallel-processing software for instance?
The Net has a unique compromise between the timelyness of TV and Radio, and the in depth coverage of print media. It also has serious credibility issues that Mr. Katz seems to be trying to sweep under the rug by citing mistakes made in other media during a time of crisis. Two or three days of disorganization in the main media streams in light of 9-11, seems very minor when compared to years of very credible reporting they have provided, and which the Net can hardly stake claim to. I'm also sure they'll do a better job next time round if we have another terrorist attack of similar magnitude.
The Net has been a Wild Wild West of sorts in years past, and now the homesteaders are arriving. Laws and Law enforcement of a type will have to follow. Instead of engaging in a knee jerk reaction of "Baahdges? We don't need no stinking baahdges", the IT community needs to have sensible debates on how best to clean up its act, ensuring that the Net is not easily used for criminal activity, hoaxes and defamation. Of course doing so in a manor that doesn't trample constitutional rights. To fight all legislation, instead of offer good reasoned regulation alternatives, will insure that what is forced on us is, by and large, all bad (a continuing theme of mine, and one that I appear to be alone in).
Contrary to the thrust of Mr. Katz's article, the Net has just not matured enough yet to be considered a news media of preeminent stature.
I like your modified stance, and will agree to reconsider mine as well. You make many good points, and I appreciate you see some merits to my idea, instead of engaging in a knee jerk reaction. You especially read correctly, my worry about loosing all privileges, if we in IT are inflexible on all points.
Practical quantum communication has yet to be achieved, so that can of worms hasn't been opened yet, but even when it is, it isn't the contents I'm worried about protecting, but the ability to delivery untraceable messages. If someone sends me a message, why should they be able to completely disguise who sends it or from where? Why is this protected as Free Speech? Which is the argument I'm seeing over and over. I'm not restricting your right to say anything you want to who ever you want, only restricting your right to do it anonymously under circumstances where it is proven to be part of criminal activity.
If phones were untraceable, there would be an explosion of abuses. Women would never be free from obscene phone calls, because tracing back the callers would be impossible in a truly anonymous system. Death threats would be common. Hoaxes and bomb threats common. Drug deals greatly facilitated (although I am not actually pro most of our drug laws). Crimes of all sorts made much easier. Despite your assertion that police would just find other avenues to monitor criminal activity, It is unlikely to be effective without vastly restricting our rights to unreasonable search and seizer in some other fashion. Another trouble with, just monitoring the criminals by other means, is that without a means to backtrack, after proof a crime, someone without a criminal record, or a prior criminal not currently being monitored will never be caught. So you will have to monitor 24-7 all prior criminals, and most likely everyone you suspect could ever become a criminal. Talk about a police state!
Just because the majority of the /. community doesn't think guaranteed anonymity facilitates criminal activity doesn't make it so, and there have been no reasonable explanations of how to keep this from occurring. When I first started this thread, I was not has convinced that I was on to something as I am now, having defended my position from repeated attacks, some shrill, some personal.
The argument that crime is not rampant seems a bit specious. Do we wait for it to become rampant as criminals become more technically savvy, then implement what I'm suggesting?
It could be that you are confusing my position, as been the case in half the posting to this thread. I am not for the government reading your postings and transactions, only being able to identity the source of anonymous posting when there is proof of abuse.
Everybody seems to be in denial that either significant criminal activities are conducted through anonymizers, or that regulating them would hinder criminal activities conducted through them, or even if so, well, that's the price society must pay in order to support freedom in its most broad sense. Other than the OH-MY-GOD-you-can't-trust-the-government argument, I don't see the harm or the abuse of privacy rights this suggestion entails.
I'm sure if landline phones had just been invented in the nineties, you would be arguing just as strongly that court orders must not ever be issued under any circumstances to allow phone taps. The fact that phones can be tapped when there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity has helped crack many criminal cases that could never have otherwise been solved. Phones with out the ability to be tapped or traced could be seen as an earlier anonymizing service. Many forms of lawlessness would be rampant in a no-taps possible world, but you probably think society would be better off.
BTW, how did you know I have sex with goats???
Since I am not in law enforcement and don't have available files at my disposal tonight, let's phrase this another way. Do you deny that these activities occur through anonymizer services, and probably are significant portion of the flow through anonymizers?
Get real, exercise some common sense, instead of screaming the sky is falling. The onus is on me? No the onus is on the IT community to keep from being branded a bunch of cyber bandits, when the government and a public enflamed by popular press labels us all criminals for defending viscously channels for criminals to evade the law.
You can label the politicians ignorant on Internet issues, but that won't stop them from passing laws at the general publics urging. Think I'm wrong here? Hacking has now been defined as a terrorist activity, and IT's press isn't going to get any better from here, with our side being so intransigent on these issues.
As for proving a government run anonymizer would be effective, there is a catch 22 in effect. I can't prove what isn't being done.
I guess we will never convince one another, especially since you admit you don't care if proof can be offered that harm is being done.
If I go get concrete facts and statistics to prove my claim they are used in large part to support illegal activities, will you alter your stance?
This isn't all about terrorism, but recent terrorist events have overturned a large rock in the IT community, and not everything under there is pretty.
I can look back and say this with all sincerity that this is not a lie. I can also add that many well reasoned responses have softened my stance on some minor aspects of my proposal, but not the main points. Most responses however, like yours, are just jerks trying to wrap themselves in a cloak of moral superiority.
Blah, blah, blah, Rights, blah, blah, blah, Rights.
Not one refutation that anonymizing services are routinely used to engage in illegal activities. Not one other suggestion of how to deal with this. I have routinely defended encryption (reread the original post). I'm suggesting we make intelligent decisions here, before everything (like encryption) is taken away from us.
Lets just all get wrapped up in the flag, and pretend we are doing the public a service. Sorry you spent so much time on your response, maybe you can recycle it to get an A+ in a college civics course from a liberal professor.
By refusing to give up this easy to use cover for criminal activity, we, the IT community, are being labeled guilty by association. I have said it in postings to other discussions, and I'll say it again here. If the IT community refuses to cooperate with the government in at least some small ways, we, the IT community will be demonized by the Government and Press, we will be branded outlaws, and we will loose all other rights and privileges we have. Joe-Six-Pack doesn't know nor care what the difference is between cryptography and anonymizing.
Once the public turns on the IT community due to negative press, you'll be lucky to be able to use a word processor without asking the government for permission first.
It may be the case that anonymizing services have not been used much by terrorists (to date), but this matters little. They are used for activities like; child porn rings, death threats, spamming, coordinating organized crime activities - probably use far more for these than they are used for legitimate reasons. Legitimate uses would still be well served by a government run service, one requiring a legal search document to investigate any shady goings on (of which there would be few by nature of it being a government service).
I doubt much if say Libya should complain about human rights posting though a US government anonymizing service, that the state department will release the names and internet addresses. In fact let every government set up a service, and see who gets the most traffic. It will make it easier to sort out friendly governments from hostile, when they won't release names of radicals making death threats on Americans.
Mistakes do happen, lives are ruined, our justice system is flawed, but self-correcting. There are going to be judgment calls in which addresses to release, not every call will be clearly right or wrong. But if we elect the right people and put the right safeguards in place, these mistakes will be very few, especially in comparison to the amount of criminal activity that can be halted. I do not support the death penalty, mistakes here cannot be corrected. To carry the mistakes argument to extreme, and ensure maximum possible rights, let's do away with the police departments and FBI. Never an innocent American ever jailed again!
I support everyone's right to have and express any view they have, but I fail to see the harm here, or how your rights are greatly diminished. All I see is a bunch of carping about how you can't trust the government, and how government storm troopers are going to be talking away your computers next. Many of those posting here sound just like the broken record complaining of Gun Rights advocates.
You'll have to pry my private anonymizer from my cold dead fingers.
Lets have a US government anonymizing service
This would still work for your needs.
The flag is a great fit, when it fits your needs. -- an original DumbSwede-ism