Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

NASA Will Crowdsource Its Photos of Mars

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the find-waldo-win-a-shuttle-main-engine dept.

Mars 66

tedlistens writes "NASA is asking the public to suggest subjects for the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment, or HiRISE, its super powerful camera currently orbiting Mars. Since it arrived there in 2006, the HiRISE camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has seen more success than that lost lander, recording nearly 13,000 observations of Martian terrain, with each image covering dozens of square miles and revealing details as small as a desk. By letting the public in on the Martian photo shoot, scientists aren't just getting more people excited about space exploration. They're hoping that crowdsourcing imaging targets will increase the camera's already bountiful science return. Despite the thousands of pictures already taken, less than 1 percent of the Martian surface has been imaged."

cancel ×

66 comments

First Priority (2, Funny)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838384)

Find Dr Manhattan and that cool floating ice scupture thing of his.

Look! (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838712)

A little green man!

...

No... that's just a dog...

Re:Second Priority (1, Offtopic)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838734)

Since they are now claiming its possible to notice things as small as a Desk,

They need to send one of these up around the moon and prove the moon lander is there.

I don't know would be more annoying - finding out its faked or seeing conspiracy theorists reject it as evidence.

Re:Second Priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30838810)

Yeah, this would prove nothing, if the landing was faked, the reconnaissance would also be faked. If the landing was real, the photos would be real.

The only thing I will say is that the conspiracy guys have a point that there was sufficient motivation to fake the thing.

Re:Second Priority (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30838816)

If you are going to refer to something, please get it right.

The actual conspiracy theory is that we did indeed send men to the moon (Armstrong, Aldrin, et al). However, what we found there indicated the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, either artifacts or real living beings. This information was immediately classified at the highest levels. The photographic evidence of men on the moon was faked not because we didn't really go there, but because we found things there that NASA decided the public could not handle knowing.

That's how the conspiracy theory goes. So, finding that the moon lander is there neither proves nor disproves it. It would be evidence, but evidence of what?

Re:Second Priority (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839086)

If you are going to refer to something, please get it right.

The actual conspiracy theory is that we did indeed send men to the moon (Armstrong, Aldrin, et al). However, what we found there indicated the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, either artifacts or real living beings. This information was immediately classified at the highest levels. The photographic evidence of men on the moon was faked not because we didn't really go there, but because we found things there that NASA decided the public could not handle knowing.

That's how the conspiracy theory goes. So, finding that the moon lander is there neither proves nor disproves it. It would be evidence, but evidence of what?

Wouldn't the lander be near the stuff we weren't supposed to be shown?

Moon hoaxers can't agree on which part of the whole thing was faked. With tens of thousands of scientists and engineers working on the project, I just can't really see how you could even conceivably not go to the moon. If I were writing a conspiracy script, what you're saying at least makes a wee bit of sense -- we got there and saw something bad and don't want to show our real vacation slides. But there's people who don't even believe there was a moon rocket! That the government somehow faked the launch or that it wasn't a real rocket that blasted off. Crazy.

Re:Second Priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839292)

Wouldn't the lander be near the stuff we weren't supposed to be shown?

Yeah, because nothing could have ever moved it either before they left the moon, or during the 40 years time since then. This conversation will be greatly enriched if you can address easy and obvious objections on your own.

Re:Second Priority (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841034)

The actual conspiracy theory is that we did indeed send men to the moon (Armstrong, Aldrin, et al).

It is? The ones I remember were more along the lines that they didn't go at all - look at the flag, it's standing up even though there can't be a wind if there's no atmosphere yadda fucking yadda.

Coathangers schmoathangers and chickenwire schmickenwire already. And a big hahahah to Mrs. Gorsky.

Re:Second Priority (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846114)

Well that's the problem with most conspiracy theory arguments, they can be answered in a couple syllables, ie. 'a stick'.

Re:Second Priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843654)

If you are going to refer to something, please get it right.

The actual conspiracy theory is that we did indeed send men to the moon (Armstrong, Aldrin, et al). However, what we found there indicated the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, either artifacts or real living beings. This information was immediately classified at the highest levels. The photographic evidence of men on the moon was faked not because we didn't really go there, but because we found things there that NASA decided the public could not handle knowing.

That's how the conspiracy theory goes. So, finding that the moon lander is there neither proves nor disproves it. It would be evidence, but evidence of what?

You're thinking of the 1989 movie "Moontrap", starring Walter Koenig.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097911/

Re:Second Priority (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838904)

You have weird priorities.

I would be outraged to learn that the landings were fake and don't care what fringe lunatics have to say.

Re:Second Priority (2, Funny)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839120)

Since they are now claiming its possible to notice things as small as a Desk

Good. That might go a long way in explaining where my supervisor has been hiding for the last month.

Re:Second Priority (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839202)

They need to send one of these up around the moon and prove the moon lander is there.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to be better evidence than the presence of mirrors for laser range-finding placed there by the astronauts that a variety of institutions around the world have used to measure the earth-moon distance (and of course in the process verifying their presence) would be.

I don't know would be more annoying - finding out its faked or seeing conspiracy theorists reject it as evidence.

Annoying? If the probe provided evidence that the landings were "faked", meaning we could no longer see the landers that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter imaged only months ago [nasa.gov] that wouldn't be annoying. It'd be one of the most baffling mysteries in modern history!

The question wouldn't be "does this mean we never landed on the moon?", it'd be "who landed on the moon without telling anyone and stole the fucking landers?!"

Oh and obviously if the conspiracy theorists are not satisfied with the existing evidence, they will never be satisfied, because they simply don't want to be satisfied.

Re:Second Priority (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841374)

Don't use the presence of laser mirrors as evidence, they can be as well placed there by unmanned probes (as Lunokhods, for example, certainly did)

As a matter of fact, don't even try too hard to convince those people - as you said, they don't even want evidence of any kind.

Re:Second Priority (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842396)

Annoying? If the probe provided evidence that the landings were "faked", meaning we could no longer see the landers that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter imaged only months ago [nasa.gov] that wouldn't be annoying. It'd be one of the most baffling mysteries in modern history!

The question wouldn't be "does this mean we never landed on the moon?", it'd be "who landed on the moon without telling anyone and stole the fucking landers?!"

Brennan. He does [wikipedia.org] things like that. All he needs to have had done will be to will have had invented a time machine. The timing is right given the startup of the LHC a few months ago (even if I haven't got the grammar of time travel sufficiently deobfusticated).

Re:Second Priority (1)

calanor (1653819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844788)

even india's chandrayaan has confirmed the trip to moon was NOT faked, so you can stop this conspiracy bullshit

Re:Second Priority (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840168)

I don't know would be more annoying - finding out its faked or seeing conspiracy theorists reject it as evidence.

Well, until someone can refute the Lunar Laser Ranging [wikipedia.org] data (and do it using actual science instead of wacky conspiracy logic), I'm still putting my money on the landing being real.

If you could fake the lunar laser ranging stuff ... well, you'd have made it to the moon, actually. And, you'd have installed retroreflectors exactly where they are supposed to be.

What with the known speed of light and all of the other physics involved in this, I consider that to be fairly irrefutable. Of course, that doesn't mean someone out there isn't going to try -- but it does mean they don't understand the physics they're trying to refute.

Cheers

Re:Second Priority (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841404)

No, no, no. There is even link on the page you provided, leading to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme [wikipedia.org]
Which also carried laser raging experiment.

Just accept that the reasons for conspiracy theorists doing what they do don't have much in common with the "big affair" at hand (other then that it's "big")

Re:Second Priority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30855828)

That is like so last year already....
http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/

Re:First Priority (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838900)

Here you go, start looking... http://beamartian.jpl.nasa.gov/welcome/ [nasa.gov]
Right now you can help look for crater or map mars.

Re:First Priority (0)

680x0 (467210) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839230)

What a bunch of losers! NASA is spending my tax dollars on crap that relies on M$ Silverlight.

Re:First Priority (1, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839260)

Is it really all that useful having 100,000 people with zero technical experience or knowledge looking at these pictures?
We might be able to identify gross features, but the nuances will be glossed over entirely.

But if it doesn't require any technical knowledge, NASA should start pumping out lesson plans and get school kids do the bulk of the dirty work.

Re:First Priority (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840450)

Finding craters is easy all you have to do if find circles in the pictures, and I very much doubt the NASA only goes on the work of the public. Mapping all you have to do in line up a picture on a larger picture, I know real technical, but it may be to hard for you. Finding circle and matching patterns, how much experience do you need?
You know people with zero technical experience find stuff on google maps all the time.

Re:First Priority (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839142)

Since you believe in fantasy anyway, why not wish for finding (and returning to owner - you) the Silk Spectre II. Without Dr. Manhattan - far too reliable.

Re:First Priority (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839170)

Unreliable, unreliable!

Umm... (2, Funny)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838396)

...NASA has heard of 4chan, right? I don't want to see thousands of "crowdsourced" pictures of the robot's crotch.

Re:Umm... (2, Funny)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838490)

They apparently hadn't heard of Stephen Colbert when they wanted to name the recent ISS module.

Re:Umm... (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838960)

Sure the had, one of the stipulations on the internet poll was that it wasn't final.

They named the COLBERT after him because it was good publicity.

ESA Mars Webcam (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838416)

There's a similar thing going on for some time on ESA Mars Express mission, where public is invited to participate in obtaining, processing, etc. of images taken with a camera that was meant originally to observe Beagle separation.

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/VMC/index.html [esa.int]

Re:ESA Mars Webcam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30838858)

There's a similar thing going on for some time on ESA Mars Express mission, where public is invited to participate in obtaining, processing, etc. of images taken with a camera that was meant originally to observe Beagle separation.

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/VMC/index.html [esa.int]

That's all well and good but I'll take 30 cm/px over an image comparable to what we get from a good telescope on Earth. :P

Re:ESA Mars Webcam (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838998)

Well, yes and no. Is 30 cm/pixel higher resolution then the "webcam" on Mars Express? (ignoring for a minute the latter is not a proper scientific instrument) Certainly.

But is it better? For many things - of course. But not for some other. It doesn't give view of the whole planet, or large part of it, in one shot (the summary says MRO hasn't covered even 1% yet). So there is still potential to discover something very interesting.

Most importantly, from the perspective or side of Mars which isn't visible from Earth at that moment. So it's not equal to having a good/great telescope on Earth (never mind that they are quite busy doing many things already)

Crowdsource this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30838418)

Who's up for a little ass fucking? 17 big black boys against your anus. Bring yo Tears.

Wait.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30838686)

They've found desks on Mars?!

Re:Wait.... (1)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839264)

It all makes sense now...

Bureaucracy KILLED the Martians!

Re:Wait.... (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839642)

It all makes sense now...

Bureaucracy KILLED the Martians!

Well, they thought that bureaucracy was killing them, so they sent the B-Ark to Earth.

The other two-thirds led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

Re:Wait.... (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839660)

Apparently I left off a / (inserting something so it doesn't look like I meant /.).

Re:Wait.... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839608)

Don't be silly. It can only see objects the approximate size of desks. For example refrigerators or golf carts, of which there are plenty. No desks have been found yet though.

Re:Wait.... (1)

RockWolf (806901) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840674)

They've found desks on Mars?!

There's definitely no intelligent life on Mars, then. Just paper-pushers.

Or whatever it is they use instead of paper.

13k pictures, and .... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30838768)

13,000 pictures of the surface of mars, and still no clear photos of the aliens. It's a coverup I tell you. The government doesn't want us to know the truth [iwatchstuff.com] ! They're hiding it [iwatchstuff.com] until they can take these natural resources for themselves [interviewmagazine.com] . It's the man taking away from us what rightfully belongs to all of us! If you let them get their way, well, just be left with these [thesun.co.uk] .

Suggestion (0, Troll)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839012)

Why not buy a rocket, round up Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, put them in it, blast it off towards Mars, and have it crash land, scattering their corpses' body parts across the Martian plains, and take a picture of that. I bet I could find quite a few people that would pay good money to see that,...

Re:Suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839836)

Limbaugh is as big as a desk, so that'd probably work!

My vote would be (2, Funny)

MyBrotherSteve (944845) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839028)

If they've imaged 1% of the surface of Mars, then my vote for new pictures would be (drum roll..................!) the OTHER 99% Thank you - no applause, please.

Science by popular opinion? (0, Troll)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839112)

So, what, are we gonna end up with like 10,000 photos of the face on Mars, or the "pyramids"?

Re:Science by popular opinion? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839404)

What, haven't any nutjobs found Martian images of Moses or Mary or Mohammed or Moroni or Manson that they want a closer look at?

Find The Beagle2! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839192)

Kudos to the first person to find the Beagle2 (or the crater it made)

Sort of like finding Waldo on a much bigger scale.

As much land area as Earth (2, Informative)

Jeff1946 (944062) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839284)

Remember there is a lot to cover. Mars has a similar land area to Earth.

Re:As much land area as Earth (1)

SpitfireSMS (1388089) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840494)

And its all SOLID

Why the Phoenix Negativity? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839432)

The Phoenix Lander was extremely successful. It found exactly what it was sent to look for. I don't know any better definition of success that that. It was never designed to survive the winter... they are just looking to see if somehow it did. The writer should be a little less cavalier.

Re:Why the Phoenix Negativity? (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839984)

Agreed, and why the downmod for the AC? He has a point, referring to the Phoenix as, 'that lost lander' seems a bit disrespectful. The Phoenix Lander [wikipedia.org] completed its mission successfully in August of 2008. It gathered the science and data it was designed to and transmitted it back to Earth successfully. Everything that happened with the lander post 08/2008 is actually a continuation of the mission. One could make the case that the lander outperformed its design goals just like the rovers both did as it didn't stop transmitting until November if I recall correctly. Perhaps the editor/author was trying to make a joke but it really just seemed like an odd statement made in ignorance. At first I thought it was a mistaken reference to the crashed Polar orbiter (the infamous Standard vs. Imperial units crash) until I clicked on the link to the story about the Lander. I suppose the editor could have referred to it as lost just because, well, it's not active anymore, but that just seems like a poor choice of words.

Whatever the reason or intent, the statement came off like a slight jab at a very complicated and successful mission. The AC that posted the protest to this had every right, in my opinion, to call to question the motives. Odd.

Re:Why the Phoenix Negativity? (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842928)

That's all true but I can't act surprised when they name their lander the Phoenix and some people are disappointed when it looks like it isn't going to rise from the dead. :)

Re:Why the Phoenix Negativity? (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843498)

That's all true but I can't act surprised when they name their lander the Phoenix and some people are disappointed when it looks like it isn't going to rise from the dead. :)

Phoenixes don't tolerate low temperatures all that well.

Would you like to see Rock number 31455 or 98110? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839506)

Of course the images are beautiful and all, but the range in that 1% probably represents the majority of terrain one would find on Mars. I wonder what exciting development they could possibly expect.

John Cleese (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839556)

with each image covering dozens of square miles and revealing details as small as a desk.

Yes, the desk please. I expect John Cleese will be sitting at it saying, "And now for something completely different."

Just do the rest (2, Interesting)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840100)

Are they trying to suggest that only about 1% of Mars is obviously interesting to Martian scientists? There's really nothing else they know they want to look at? Okay sure, the PR could be a good thing and they might get some cool suggestions, but honestly:

- Pictures of the rovers
- Pictures of the canals
- Pictures of the mountains
- Pictures of the ice caps

Outside of that, everything is just "more red sand." Nobody really cares which small portion of the planet it is as long as they get cool desktop photos in a handy resolution (1680x1050, please). Do your own damn work and figure out what deserves to be photographed.

Re:Just do the rest (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840980)

Uh, no, they're saying that the 13,000 pictures already taken only represent 1% of the surface of Mars. The point is that it'd take a LOT of pictures to completely image the surface.

Re:Just do the rest (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842054)

Yeah. But why would they need ideas for what should be next?

Re:Just do the rest (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842852)

Oh. Well, the article doesn't say specifically what they hope to gain from user submissions, but I can guess. I'm sure the astronomers already have some subjects in mind. But the fact is that Mars is really big despite being smaller than earth, and you could probably spend your whole life looking at low-res photos of the surface identifying things you might want to take a closer look at. There's so much of the planet that we simply haven't looked at closely, that it's easy to imagine amateurs poking around for things that look interesting to them could actually yield new discoveries.

Google Mars maps upgrade (1)

Tuqui (96668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840912)

Just waiting for the Google Mars upgrade.

Re:Google Mars maps upgrade (1)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841384)

A bit sad to think that there will be places on Mars that we will have a better view of than ones on earth.

My mother-in-law's house in Japan, for example.

Maybe that's a good thing...

Be ready. (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841076)

I suggest they photograph a Martian city.
Then keep an eye on the shipyards.

Great idea - Horrible term (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841086)

What Einstein came up with "crowdsourcing"? I put that up there with "core competencies", "stakeholders", and "rightsizing" as jargonny business babble. If I were an evil overlord, I would instantly put to death any underlings who dared utter those terms in my presence.

Yes, I think I need a hug.

Mars Odyssey THEMIS did this a year ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30842560)

With nice Google Maps integration:

http://suggest.mars.asu.edu

THEMIS isn't as sexy, as it's a lot lower resolution imagery than HiRISE, but it's been done.

Glass worms of Mars (1, Interesting)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843366)

How about some hi res images of the glass worms of Mars http://www.enterprisemission.com/can.htm [enterprisemission.com]

Re:Glass worms of Mars (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30844984)

There are already plenty of pictures of those, including even some [nasa.gov] from [nasa.gov] HiRISE [nasa.gov] . Zoom in all you like on those pictures. They are much more detailed than the MGS ones. Contrary to the interpretations of the "Enterprise Mission" guys, these structures are clearly just dunes in the bottom of canyons, as people have previously suggested. They are all over the place on Mars.

The real problem is, the Enterprise guys don't know how to interpret aerial photography and integrate it with other information very well (e.g., terrain profiles from MOLA) to figure out what the real 3D geometry of surface features are. Basically, if something superficially looks like a "tube" or that it is "transparent glass", to them maybe it is. They often fail to use shadows or other known features properly to figure out the geometry, and invert the shape of things (hence the thinking these things were "tubes" rather than the bottom of valleys). The depth of analysis on that site is quite shallow -- lengthy and wordy, but not very critical. For example, he's simply wrong that you can't have wind blowing along the length of differently-oriented valleys and producing dune patterns that reorient due to the terrain, or even that abruptly cross each other (the dunes don't have to all be active simultaneously. In perpendicular valleys the crosswind may be too weak to move those dunes while the parallel ones are active, and vice-versa). There are all sorts of places where the orientation of dunes on Mars practically bend around the terrain at a surprisingly small scale [nasa.gov] . It is quite common for the dunes to be differently colored from their surroundings because they consist of wind-sorted material -- selective transport of certain mineral grains due to size is common on Earth.

That being said, sure, why not take a picture of the particular ones the Enterprise Mission interpret as something weird? 100 quatloos says the image will show their interpretation to be wrong.

getting the public to look at Mars photos is easy. (1)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852708)

Just put a naked photo of Jessica Alba in the foreground.

Map the whole planet, please (1)

Pearson (953531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30856372)

I don't really get the point of this. The goal should be to map the entire surface of the planet using a system that maximizes each pass as much as possible. Crowd sourcing the poking around for interesting details is fine once you have those pictures, but people are only going to be interested in doing this for a short while. Having them work on low-res proxies for the short duration of their interest is failing to utilize their energy properly, imho.

What I'm saying is that if responding to user requests means failing to take as many useful pictures as possible, then that is a waste.
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...