×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bohemian Rhapsody On Old Hardware

ScuttleMonkey posted about 5 years ago | from the too-much-spare-time dept.

Hardware Hacking 137

eldavojohn writes "The sweet sweet melodies of Queen and the late Freddie Mercury are reproduced by hardware almost as old as the song is. 'There are millions of computers sitting idle at home consuming fantom electricity. Let's see where all that power is going. This is dedicated to all fans of Queen and hey let's not forget about Mike Myers and Dana Carvey of Wayne's World. Please note no effects or sampling was used. What you see is what you hear (does that even make sense?) Atari 800XL was used for the lead piano/organ sound, Texas Instruments TI-99/4a as lead guitar, 8 Inch Floppy Disk as Bass, 3.5 inch Hard drive as the gong, HP ScanJet 3C was used for all vocals. Please note I had to record the HP scanner 4 separate times for each voice. I tried to buy 4 HP scanners but for some reason sellers on E-Bay expect you to pay $80-$100, I got mine for $30.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

137 comments

Big whoop (5, Funny)

DrMrLordX (559371) | about 5 years ago | (#27656529)

Nothing really matters anymore.

Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27656813)

Have some koks [youtube.com] instead. (Weird and unsettling video that Youtube saw fit to link to the Bohemian Rhapsody clip, not safe for garden gnomes)

Re:Big whoop (2, Insightful)

Alarindris (1253418) | about 5 years ago | (#27657267)

Either does timing, the parts aren't synced up properly.
It appears that he split the midi tracks up between the instruments, but didn't align them up properly afterwards.

Pretty impressive, but sort of poorly executed.

I'm sorry, but the misalignment is bad enough that I couldn't make out the song for the first 30 seconds D:

Chiptunes... (5, Interesting)

edlinfan (1131341) | about 5 years ago | (#27656533)

...hell yeah!

If you liked this, you might also check out the 8bitpeoples, who specialize in this sort of thing.
http://www.8bitpeoples.com/ [8bitpeoples.com]

Re:Chiptunes... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27656581)

warning: link looks like a myspace page!

*feels dirty after seeing that*

Re:Shittunes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27657653)

Did anyone else read that as "Shitpeoples" ?

Wannna hear it on an ancient 1982 computer? (SID) (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#27658067)

I enjoy the remix groups like the one you linked, but there's simply nothing as good as the original hardware. Ahhhh nostalgia. ;-) Unfortunately I cannot provide a direct link so you'll have to do a little bit of navigation to Internet Explorer (does not work on firefox) and click here: http://www.lemon64.com/music [lemon64.com]

Then:
- Click VARIOUS
- Click M-R
- Click Merman
- Click Bohemian Rhapsody

This version of Bohemian Rhapsody is "okay" but I've heard far better music than this coming from the Commodore=64, like the stuff in the 20CC folder (top directory). I like their TV Tunes Mix and 20CC/van_Santen_Edwin/Final_Axel and 20CC/van_Santen_Edwin/Enigma_Intro. Other favorite sidtunes: Galway_Martin/Arkanoid_PSID (songs 1, 2, 3, and 4) and Galway_Martin/Wizball and Galway_Martin/Never_ending_story. The "DEMOS" directory is also worth checking out.

The 1982 SID sound chip uses just 3 voices and primitive Attack-Decay-Sustain-Release (ADSR) sound generation. No samples like in the later Amiga or Super Nintendo machines - just direct manipulation of the "instrument". It was the first home computer that sounded like music instead of a touchtone phone. In later years hackers learned to use the volume control to do voice generation such as in Impossible Mission where it says, "Ahh another visitor. Stay awhile. Staaaaay forever!" Another first for home computers.

Yep computing in the 1980s was definitely not boring.
Always somebody inventing something new and exciting.
More information can be found here:
http://www.exotica.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special%3AHVSC&si=0&title=Special%3AHVSC&sr=0&md=qsearch&qs=arkanoid [exotica.org.uk]

Re:Wannna hear it on an ancient 1982 computer? (SI (1)

Pikoro (844299) | about 5 years ago | (#27659661)

Wholly fucking christ! heaven forbid you have a JVM open anywhere. That sounds like someone running that previous scanner sound through a carton of dry laundry soap.

Close everything if you open that URL!
Sounds fine after closing all Java instances.

Re:Wannna hear it on an ancient 1982 computer? (SI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27659891)

The SID is great and everything, but if that's the only chip you're listening to you really don't have a clue.

Oh and 8bitpeoples is not a 'remix group'.

Takedown? (4, Funny)

telchine (719345) | about 5 years ago | (#27656539)

How long before the RIAA have this removed from YouTube for copyright infringement?

Re:Takedown? (4, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 years ago | (#27656565)

Never -- the RIAA doesn't control the copyright of the melody itself, only recordings of it made by RIAA-affiliated performers. You should be worried about BMI [wikipedia.org] instead, I think.

Re:Takedown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27656593)

whoooooosh!

Re:Takedown? (1)

captnbmoore (911895) | about 5 years ago | (#27656641)

I would think that since it's not an exact replica (ie the timing is different and those are not notes) probably can't get em.

Re:Takedown? (3, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | about 5 years ago | (#27656665)

You'd be wrong. The composition is under copyright, regardless of what bizarre contraptions you choose to perform it on.

Nothing to do with the RIAA, though.

Re:Takedown? (1)

pmarini (989354) | about 5 years ago | (#27656885)

hold-on, so if I copyright my fart "noise", can I stop anyone else from farting the same peculiar notes?
how long is a composition?

Re:Takedown? (1)

boltik (683813) | about 5 years ago | (#27657613)

hold-on, so if I copyright my fart "noise", can I stop anyone else from farting the same peculiar notes? how long is a composition?

No one can't stop nobody from farting.
But if you can afford 500k$+ copyright lawyer, you can extort somebody who farted.
If you have millions - you can even jail them in some countries (USA,iran,russia. In sweden they will appeal).

Re:Takedown? (1)

adolf (21054) | about 5 years ago | (#27657145)

One word: Parody [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Takedown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27657875)

You do, of course, realise, that you just can't shout "parody!" to assert fair use every time you want to keep something from being taken down?

It's not a magical incantation, you know. Some things are parodies, yes. Not all things are, though, and I think it's quite clear that this isn't. Novel and interesting, yes, creative, certainly, but a parody? No. Sorry.

Re:Takedown? (1)

mike2R (721965) | about 5 years ago | (#27657841)

Wouldn't it count as a cover version? If so, then if this was being sold on CD then he would need to buy a mechanical licence [harryfox.com] (about 10 cents a copy I believe). Not sure how that applies to a non-commercial digital distribution though.

Metonymy of "RIAA" (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#27658245)

Nothing to do with the RIAA, though.

Slashdot users often use the term "RIAA" metonymically [wikipedia.org] for its members, just as "the White House" is used for the U.S. executive branch. And many RIAA members, such as the big four record labels, also happen to be members of the National Music Publishers' Association.

Re:Takedown? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 years ago | (#27656675)

Ah, that's a good point -- I guess you answered my question [slashdot.org] .

Of course, even if the MIDI file was bad on purpose, it was still recognizable as Bohemian Rhapsody. I don't think it was changed enough to avoid being declared infringement if BMI decided to go after it.

Re:Takedown? (1)

pmarini (989354) | about 5 years ago | (#27656899)

hey guys, reality check !
he didn't change the song title, he didn't attribute the song to himself...
what he could be forced to do is simply pay the royalty for a reproduction, much like bands do in your local pub/underground station... geez, get a life

Re:Takedown? (1)

pbhj (607776) | about 5 years ago | (#27657815)

Of course, even if the MIDI file was bad on purpose, it was still recognizable as Bohemian Rhapsody. I don't think it was changed enough to avoid being declared infringement if BMI decided to go after it.

It doesn't matter how terrible a rendition it was. If it sounds nothing like it then it can still infringe. It's called copyright infringement for a reason ... you infringe the persons legal right to a monopoly if you copy from them. That includes creating a derivative work _iff_ you copy from them. If your work was created independently (and you're going to need some evidence here I'm afraid) without copying then there is no infringement.

What precautions (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#27658265)

If your work was created independently (and you're going to need some evidence here I'm afraid) without copying then there is no infringement.

Say I write my own song, but I'm not trying to copy anything. What precautions should I take before I publish to avoid being sued for accidental infringement like George Harrison was?

Re:Takedown? (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#27658255)

>>>RIAA doesn't control the copyright of the melody itself, only recordings of it made by RIAA-affiliated performers. You should be worried about BMI instead, I think.

It doesn't matter.
- If they yank my video I will upload it again.
- If they ban my account, I will create a new one.
- If they ban my IP, I will just roll-over to a new IP.
- If they sue me in court, I won't even bother to show up.
- If they win the case for 2 million dollars per current law, I will not pay. Instead I'll be picking-up the phone and calling CNN, FOX, NBC. I'll be blogging the internet and visiting radio talk shows in order to stir-up outrage among the American people, because 2 million dollars for a single song is cruel and unusual punishment. Unconstitutional law is invalid law. The resulting protests will scare the ____ out of the leaders and change will happen.

C'mon people. Where's your hacker spirit? Fight the man.

More likely it won't escalate that far, so no worries. The video will continue to be spread across the net either by youtube or bittorrent, and Liberty will win by default.

Re:Takedown?-- um No (1)

secret_squirrel_99 (530958) | about 5 years ago | (#27659365)

because 2 million dollars for a single song is cruel and unusual punishment.

While I agree that it is ridiculous, your argument is factually incorrect. The eighth amendment deals specifically with criminal punishment. Copyright infringment and the associated penalties are civil matters

Re:Takedown? (1)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#27658515)

Never -- the RIAA doesn't control the copyright of the melody itself, only recordings of it made by RIAA-affiliated performers.

You mean how Disney doesn't control Mickey Mouse?

Re:Takedown? (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | about 5 years ago | (#27656879)

But there is a subtly here: this *is* how the RIAA produces its music nowadays. Case in point Sulja Boy et al. Computer programs checking other computer programs..I guess we are one step closer to artificial intelligence...sort of.

Re:Takedown? (2, Insightful)

PipingSnail (1112161) | about 5 years ago | (#27656995)

No ocpyright infringement. This is an original recording of a unique arrangement. Copyright exists in this new recording.

In the UK, the PRS (Performing Rights Society) will what a fee for the performance of this work because it is a derivative arrangement of an existing protected work. In turn the PRS will protect this arrangement and collect fees for that as well, should they accept a request to protect it.

Just to repeat though - Nothing to do with copyright.

The PRS perform useful and harmful work all over the UK. Useful in the for commercial performances they ensure the original composers and musicians get rewarded for their work.

Harmful in that their enforcement is over-zealous and results in them regarding not-for-profit performances (you and your mates playing tunes on folk instruments down the local pub) as a revenue generating exercise. This imposese ridiculous fees on pubs etc and results in music sessions shutting down etc. Resulting in less music for everyone and less space for musicians to hone their skills who some of which become the very people the PRS need to protect. So short sighted. I know many PRS members, and non of them think the PRS treat music sessions correctly.

The PRS are loathed just about everywhere for their heavy handed approach to licensing. They even insist that an employer is responsible for licensing an employees radio if used in that workspace (because everyone can listen to it, in theory, never mind the workspace is a noisy car mechanic workshop - yes, this went to court and sadly, the PRS won).

Many parallels to the RIAA, where what they gain on one hand they lose with the other through insensitive, heavy handed greed.

Cool, but needs syncopation (1, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 years ago | (#27656543)

The reproduction sounds too -- excuse me -- mechanical. I wonder, was it due to limitations in the timing granularity of the devices used, or just a bad MIDI file?

Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | about 5 years ago | (#27656585)

Of course it sounded mechanical. All of the notes were being made by various hardware. I doubt anyone could coax human-like musical performance out of the hardware that was used, but the performance kicked ass given the choice of 'instruments' imho.

Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 years ago | (#27656647)

I don't think it was necessarily a limitation of the instruments; the problem was -- as I said before -- timing, not timbre. It was inadequate in the same way that a perfectly normal instrument played by a robot would be. I think it was simply that the person who made the (presumably) MIDI file used to drive the thing just did a poor job of it, and that it would have sounded just as wrong if it had been played back using the sound card's synthesizer.

Some of the pitches weren't quite right either, but that really would be a limitation of the hardware, and I'm not complaining about it. Far from it; I think the hardware aspect of it was brilliant! I just wish he'd used a better score.

Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (2, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | about 5 years ago | (#27656695)

Exactly. I thought it seemed pretty well in tune; it was the timing that was off.

If the creator is reading Slashdot: perhaps you could make some of your source material public, so we can see how you programmed each device to play its notes? Perhaps we could help work out some of the rhythmic details.

Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (2, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | about 5 years ago | (#27656643)

The timing is definitely off, and with the timing of each "instrument" a little off, they're not in sync with each other. It's close enough that you can tell what it should sound like, but it doesn't actually sound like that.

For example, the rhythm of "easy come, easy go" starting at 0:36 is clearly wrong. The bass part starting around 1:30 isn't bad by itself, but it's not in sync with the other parts. 3:09 to 3:31 is pretty bad too.

I suspect it was easier to get the timing right with some "instruments" than others. The bass part, by itself, seems very rhythmically solid, particularly from 3:29 all the way through to the end, it's just that the other parts aren't in sync with that.

Overall, a brilliant piece of work. If these minor timing details could be cleaned up, it would be awesome.

Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (4, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | about 5 years ago | (#27657221)

I concur re the timing. I suggest replacement of the old hardware with some modern synthesisers and drum machines so that they all stay in time with a master clock. Maybe even get some humans to sing parts of it.

Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (2, Insightful)

pz (113803) | about 5 years ago | (#27660173)

The timing is definitely off, and with the timing of each "instrument" a little off, they're not in sync with each other. It's close enough that you can tell what it should sound like, but it doesn't actually sound like that.

For example, the rhythm of "easy come, easy go" starting at 0:36 is clearly wrong. The bass part starting around 1:30 isn't bad by itself, but it's not in sync with the other parts. 3:09 to 3:31 is pretty bad too.

I suspect it was easier to get the timing right with some "instruments" than others. The bass part, by itself, seems very rhythmically solid, particularly from 3:29 all the way through to the end, it's just that the other parts aren't in sync with that.

Overall, a brilliant piece of work. If these minor timing details could be cleaned up, it would be awesome.

The OP neglected to take into account (or neglected to do a good enough job taking into account) the latency for each command to each instrument. This is especially evident with the scanner: it has a long startup time, but, once running, does well. When it first starts up after a period of silence, it's horribly late, but if it is just changing pitch, it's snappy. The same is true, but to a lesser extent, with the floppy drive -- but it also is producing a louder tone for the initial few hundreds of milliseconds and then quiets down.

In all, I concur: a very good start at something that could well be brilliant, if a little more time had been spent obsessing.

One of the things that makes the original a phenomenal performance is the non-robotic timing (the grace notes, for example, are not performed the way they appear on the score; the rising lead guitar arpeggios accelerate, as another example). A serious job would have tracked down not only all of the latency idiosyncrasies of the hardware, but also the subtle timing variations. And it might have mixed the recording a little better, too.

Good start, though.

Queen Bohemian Rhapsody Old School Computer Remix (4, Insightful)

omar.sahal (687649) | about 5 years ago | (#27656563)

This is mad, but something makes me respect the artistry that you have done this with.

one thing......... (2, Insightful)

omar.sahal (687649) | about 5 years ago | (#27656579)

Some marketing weenie is going to take this idea and use it in some television advertisement.

Radiohead did it first..... (5, Interesting)

danielsan05 (1537423) | about 5 years ago | (#27656597)

Or at least one of their fans did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOswq2P-pAs [youtube.com]

Yes, and the Vimeo version is MUCH better quality! (3, Interesting)

Wacky_Wookie (683151) | about 5 years ago | (#27656753)

The High Quality Viemo version can be viewed here:

http://www.vimeo.com/1109226 [vimeo.com]

Radiohead were so impressed that hey linked to it from their homepage for a while.

Re:Yes, and the Vimeo version is MUCH better quali (1)

pbhj (607776) | about 5 years ago | (#27657833)

The High Quality Viemo version can be viewed here:

http://www.vimeo.com/1109226 [vimeo.com]

Radiohead were so impressed that hey linked to it from their homepage for a while.

Was that "until their record company bosses noticed it was an unlicensed reproduction and sued their asses"???.

Idle (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27656603)

Idle.

Holy crap, get a life!

no, it doesn't _ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27656633)

(does that even make sense?)

No, not really.
What does standby power usage have to do with old hardware and music I don't personally like?

I mean, you probably plugged in that stuff just so you could play that song.
So, like.. unplug it. Problem solved.

The only response (1)

rossz (67331) | about 5 years ago | (#27656637)

When I saw this video, the first thing that popped into my mind was Get a life! [photobucket.com]

Re:The only response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27657183)

I remember watching that sketch the night it first aired. But this version cuts off before he comes back and says under duress from Phil Hartman about how he was only kidding, playing the "evil kirk" from episode #22 or something or other...

Re:The only response (1)

rossz (67331) | about 5 years ago | (#27657421)

It was the most complete version I could find. The SNL website doesn't seem to have any kind of search function.

Most parts are good, some are just pushing it (1)

bersl2 (689221) | about 5 years ago | (#27656649)

I wish there were another instrument. Some parts feel a little too sparse without one more voice.

Re:Most parts are good, some are just pushing it (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 years ago | (#27656697)

I think it would be cool to dub in the vocals. Maybe run them through a vocoder first or someting.

WTF?..totally unrecognisg as pertinent (-1, Troll)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 years ago | (#27656663)

Having been alive and cognizant during that time period, my only reaction can be WTF!!.

You need to delve back far deeper to find anything relevant.

WTF? and how did this get on /.?

Really!

This is a 1970's tune that was not that big of a deal at the time....Yes, I graduated High school in 1976..don't try to B.S. me what was relevant then....I know better!

Re:WTF?..totally unrecognisg as pertinent (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 5 years ago | (#27656739)

This is a 1970's tune that was not that big of a deal at the time....Yes, I graduated High school in 1976..don't try to B.S. me what was relevant then....I know better!

Yeah, right. You're posting on Slashdot; you can't fool us! You were too busy listening to Mr. Spock's Music From Outer Space [wikipedia.org] or something, and had no more clue about Queen than I do about Britney Spears (or whatever the Hell it is that popular assholes listen to these days)!

Re:WTF?..totally unrecognisg as pertinent (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 5 years ago | (#27657205)

This is a 1970's tune that was not that big of a deal at the time....Yes, I graduated High school in 1976..don't try to B.S. me what was relevant then....I know better!

Maybe in your neck of the woods but in this country (UK) it was massive right from get go. It was number one for nine weeks over the all important Xmas period and returned to number one later - the first single to do that. In 1977, only two years after its release, the British Phonographic Industry named "Bohemian Rhapsody" as the best British single of the period 1952-77

Hmm... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27656681)

slow news week?

Kickass (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | about 5 years ago | (#27656709)

Incidentally, I just discovered that Alan Turing was gay while reading up for class.

Seems like there's potential for some sort of a Turing-Queen tribute concert.

Though perhaps this suffices.

Re:Kickass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27657355)

Why haven't you read Cryptonomicon?

the best part (4, Funny)

ffflala (793437) | about 5 years ago | (#27656777)

No Synthesizers!

um... well, it's kinda similar, sometimes, I guess (2, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | about 5 years ago | (#27657167)

The sweet sweet melodies of Queen and the late Freddie Mercury are reproduced by hardware almost as old as the song is.

This statement holds true only if you use a very broad definition of "sweet".

And "melody".

And "reproduced".

There were large segments where, if I didn't know in advance that it was supposedly "Bohemian Rhapsody", I would have had no idea wtf I was listening to.

Re:um... well, it's kinda similar, sometimes, I gu (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 years ago | (#27657263)

This statement holds true only if you use a very broad definition of "sweet".

And "almost as old": BR came out in 1975, and the 800XL much later, in 1983.

Or does that 8 year difference only matter to people born before 1965?

Yeah, but... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 5 years ago | (#27657211)

That was fantastic.

BUT, should someone with that much technical ability, creativity, and imagination, really be allowed to idle so much as to DO that? He should be curing cancer, or making space travel reasonable, or building giant robots to help me take over the planet! Don't you think?

A phenomenal waste of resources (0, Flamebait)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 5 years ago | (#27657597)

Given we now know the CO2 impact of traffic on the Internet, I almost can't believe we're incrementally destroying the Earth over this..

Re:A phenomenal waste of resources (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#27658237)

You should waste your angst on Las Vegas or something.

Re:A phenomenal waste of resources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27658419)

Feel free to plant more trees instead of whine. Faggot.

wow (2, Funny)

scharkalvin (72228) | about 5 years ago | (#27658195)

Brings back memories of a road trip from NYC to Dayton OH to go to the hamfest.
Must have heard that song a gazillon times on the radio. Also Layla.
Maybe he can do Layla next.

Fantom? (1)

Porchroof (726270) | about 5 years ago | (#27658473)

'There are millions of computers sitting idle at home consuming fantom electricity.

Fantom? As in "Phantom of the Opera" or that old comic "The Phantom"? Nah, can't be. Not spelled the same.

But, if in fact phantom was intended by the author, just what in hell is phantom electricity?

Cool hardware, 4th grade rythm (1)

just fiddling around (636818) | about 5 years ago | (#27658621)

This sounds like 4th grade chilren playing music together: no one is on the same beat, and nobody follows the rythm. Technically, everybody follows the melody, but what a mess!

Cool use of the scanner and the disk drive, tho!

Awesome, just needs a little more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27658731)

... cowbell

Bravo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27659269)

And I don't mean the cable channel. This is brilliant and fun and anyone who complains is just a big pimply butt.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...