×

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!

Eyeglasses Made of Human Hair

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the something-in-my-eye dept.

Earth 97

Mightee writes "Graduates from Royal College of Art have discovered a way to turn hair cuttings that parlors throw away as waste into sustainable eyewear named Hair Glasses. The idea behind this is to 'Go Green' by stopping the use of Petroleum-based plastic frames and use an easily available, environment friendly and renewable resource."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

97 comments

These are doomed (4, Funny)

Logger (9214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36665790)

Unless Elton John is their target market, these things are doomed.

Re:These are doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666468)

Very true. I recently started to compare modern day hipsters with hippies and it really seem like this decade may repeat the 60's. It's a sad, sad time that we live in. Perhaps, hopefully... We'll be repeating the 80's and 90's because I need to make use of my Michael Jordan air shoes and parachute pants. =3

Re:These are doomed (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666674)

Gives a new meaning to "Is that Foster Grant you're wearing?"
The designer market could go wild with "Celeb Hair Glasses"
Rarities like "Elton John Hair Glasses" for example would command Southebys type Auction Prices, due to limited supply. ( probably won't wait around for him to get enough haircuts and shave some off his ass or somesuch) Probably be for charity or something. Not only would he be targeted because of his eyeglass fetish, but because they would donate to save Chinese orphan penguins or somesuch.
Then what Booze chuggin, speedball slammin, producer humping, Hollywood scumbag would be caught dead on Rodeo Drive without the catseye model with built in eyebrows?

Re:These are doomed (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36668758)

It would be hilarious to read one day that some wack job tackled Donald Trump and shaved him bald just to be able to make a pair of glasses out of his hair.

Just to see where he'll start combing hair over his head from next.

Pfffff (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36665812)

Looks like approximately 5% hair, 95% "plant based bioresin". The artists statement neglects to compare its energy cost to manufacture versus metal or plastic frames.

Re:Pfffff (2)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#36665874)

Looks like approximately 5% hair, 95% "plant based bioresin". The artists statement neglects to compare its energy cost to manufacture versus metal or plastic frames.

You say that as if "Going Green" was actually about facts and reality. It may have started that way, but It's currently nothing more than a trendy fashion statement, and mundane marketing ploy.

Re:Pfffff (1)

d.the.duck (2100600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36665924)

Winner! That is the straight up truth right there. Green is more an industry and sales pitch than anything else. Though I might say these are slightly more green than normal glasses.... by a hair! ZING!

Re:Pfffff (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36665958)

This is so true. Notice even slashdot has gone green. Just look at their color scheme.

Re:Pfffff (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36667146)

Slashdot uses 90% recycled news, though.

Re:Pfffff (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732106)

Slashdot uses 90% recycled news, though.

I don't think slashdot has ever claimed to do other than 100% recycle news. Seriously, it's not and has never been an original news site.

Re:Pfffff (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666274)

Pffff is right. To be truly "recycled", something needs to add value in a way that avoids use of finite natural resources. Trees saved from recycled paper, mining averted from recycled metals.

On the other hand, THIS type of "end use" is referred to as "the solution is dilution". All the world's waste could get blended into eyeglasses if the percentage was small enough and the eyeglasses compensate for the amount of non-value material by getting bigger (as these thick critters do - the amount of "bioresin" appears to be increased to make up for the superfluous hair). Jimmy Hoffa may have been "recycled" into a parking lot somewhere, but if it didn't add value to the parking lot then we don't need to waste our time promoting it.

Re:Pfffff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666760)

I never did get the trees saved argument.

It's not like a new one doesn't grow when you cut another down (or the forestry company would soon go out of business). Besides, new trees absorb "horrible" carbon dioxide, right?

Greenies are so mixed up... or maybe they are in two camps on the man-made global warming bit. I still can't believe that they think catalytic converters are still ok, since they turn CO (truly nasty stuff) into harmless CO2.

HAHAHAHA

Re:Pfffff (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#36667566)

or just use real glass - lenses made from real glass are more scratch-resistant and thinner, and we;re nowhere near running out of sand.

Use plastic only if you *like* the coke-bottle-bottoms dork effect.

Re:Pfffff (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36667898)

They're also more fragile and heavy, relatively unsuited to active uses.

The coke-bottle-bottoms effect comes from the degree of refraction, not the material used.

Re:Pfffff (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#36671048)

Unless you're into either those big-ass fugly Elton John-style glasses, or the old-skool "aviator" style frames, the difference in weight is minimal. Most glasses are a lot smaller than they were a generation ago.

The coke-bottle-bottoms effect comes from the standard plastic lens having to be thicker to achieve the same degree of correction, made worse by combining it with one of the older, bigger eye glass frames.

Re:Pfffff (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36677490)

Unless you're into either those big-ass fugly Elton John-style glasses, or the old-skool "aviator" style frames, the difference in weight is minimal. Most glasses are a lot smaller than they were a generation ago.

As someone who has had both with the same prescription on similar sized frames (which aren't "aviator style")... no. It's a noticeable difference that particularly makes a difference by the end of the day.

The coke-bottle-bottoms effect comes from the standard plastic lens having to be thicker to achieve the same degree of correction, made worse by combining it with one of the older, bigger eye glass frames.

Did you not see what I said about the degree of refraction? Higher index plastic lenses are on par with glass, but the "coke bottle bottom" effect comes about because of the correction, not the thickness of the lens. You're more likely to observe that with higher index glass lenses than with plastic lenses, actually, since that tends to be used for the higher degrees of correction - though either one will have a similar affect once you get out past -9 or so.

bzzt (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 2 years ago | (#36668394)

RI for glass is 1.3-1.4 (unless you look into something exotic, which isn't really what normal people consider traditional glass for eyeglasses).
RI for high index plastic is 1.6. (VHI plastic is 1.72)

15 years ago, plastic lens were thicker, it's not necessarily the case anymore unless you're trying to make very low cost eyeglasses.

Re:bzzt (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#36670984)

The RI of ordinary glass is 1.5623., not 1.3 or 1.4. And all the polycarbonate plastics have really crappy scratch resistance (and don't clean as easily as glass).

Re:bzzt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36672550)

Glass shatters nicely as well. That is definitely what I want right next to my eyes.

Re:bzzt (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#36678696)

When's the last time you heard of that happening. It doesn't even happen with air bags literally exploding in your face. There are more drivers injured by air bags going off while they're picking their noses.

Re:bzzt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36751652)

no such glass has ever been used for eyeglasses. It's typically crown glass at 1.525.

Re:Pfffff (1)

Idarubicin (579475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36668256)

Looks like approximately 5% hair, 95% "plant based bioresin". The artists statement neglects to compare its energy cost to manufacture versus metal or plastic frames.

Quite. How much fuel was used by the farmers who harvested the 'plant-based bioresin', and how many liters of industrial solvents were used in its manufacture?

Let's be honest here--an entire pair of glasses, even with evil petroleum-product-based plastic lenses, is going to tip the scales at maybe a 100 grams (less than a quarter of a pound). That's how much oil is actually in the glasses themselves. Saving a few ounces of petroleum every couple of years is an utterly negligible savings.

While these frames may make a novel fashion statement, there are smarter ways to try to cut consumption of oil.

Re:Pfffff (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36670772)

Environmentalism isn't about Facts, it is about finding ways to be get a leg up being snottier to your neighbors, or feeling good about spending more money, for a lesser quality good. That said I am glad that people are looking into different types of producing materials. Hair and plant resin seems a lot like the concept on concrete and iron re-bar where the resin offers the hardness and compression strength and the hair gives it flexibility, and stops it from shattering.

I'm sure v2 could be prettier (1)

or-switch (1118153) | more than 2 years ago | (#36665854)

This is the problem of the difference between marketing and art. The art students, in addition to their technological development, must've also decided to make 'artistic' looking glasses, and hence they look like rejects from 80's fashion shows. If actually manufactured one hopes they would use contemporary designs, put real lenses in them, and then we can see if people are ok with the idea of wearing a stranger's hair on their face all day.

Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36665942)

They'd be great if they weren't so ugly

The "ick factor" will doom these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36665966)

"Excuse me sir/madam...would you like to try these glasses that have been made from another person's hair?"

Re:The "ick factor" will doom these... (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666016)

"Why thank you for the offer kind sir. But I think I will pass on this fine offer and try one of the dead dinosaur models over there. Thank you and good day to you sir"

Like yeah, like ewwww. Totally.

What do you think plastic is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666194)

It comes from oil, which itself is the body of a decayed dinosaur.

Re:What do you think plastic is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666890)

Decayed plant or plankton, typically. There have been far more prehistoric plants and plankton life than dinosaurs and other large animal life, but that doesn't make for good copy.

Token marketing (2)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36665980)

'It's environmentally friendly!' Well... it does nothing to actually contribute to a sustainable human society, and is merely marketing - but the makers of this product can sleep well at night thinking that they're 'encouraging environmental thinking' with their product.

They're just shifting a filler ingredient into a known product, and calling it environmental, while spending about as much (or more) petroleum products as part of the full product lifecycle.

Sort of like most "diet" food makers don't actually make food that will form the meaningful basis of an actual effective weight loss program (eat less, build a more productive metabolism with exercise)... but instead tell themselves they're offering choices that "encourage" healthy eating. All by charging more after shifting fillers into their ingredient list.

I wouldn't mind so much - but meaningless "solutions" like these seem to satisfy so many into forgetting the meaning of the problems they want to solve.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Token marketing (1, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666152)

The point isn't that they're made out of human hair. The point is that things we *assume* have to be made from petroleum could be made from *other raw materials*.

The proposed "solution" here isn't making everything we make out of plastic from human hair. The proposed solution is to apply chemistry and ingenuity to problems whose solutions we've taken for granted for the last fifty years or so. It's the materials science wizardry that makes these things cool, not the (ugh) design. Some years ago the company Arthur D. Little set out to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- actually they made a nylon-like polymer out of the collagen that forms the bulk of the ear. You'd probably say that was a pointless exercise since actual silk is cheaper, not to mention nylon, but that's because you're missing the point.

Even if you don't give a rat's ass a bout the environment, this is the stuff we'll need to maintain a modern, polymer material dependent lifestyle when petroleum becomes prohibitively expensive. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the environmental movement, but one of the *in*valid ones is that environmentalists want us to live with the tech level of medieval peasants. Possibly some do, but the serious thinkers are well aware of the need for advanced technology to provide an acceptable, sustainable standard of living.

Re:Token marketing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36668376)

There *has* been a non-petroleum plastic used for eyeglasses for most of the 20th century: Cellulose acetate (aka zylonite). Cellulose bioplastics are a traditional eyeglass material, having used from the very beginning when plastic frames became popularized by Harold Lloyd in the '20s. Until nylon frames came about in the '40s, plastic frames did not use petroleum at all. Even with alternatives out there, cellulose acetate is still a viable choice for eyeglass frame material: light, durable, and can be made in an infinite variety of colours and patterns.

Plastic Frames? (2)

theJML (911853) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666028)

If stopping the use of Petroleum-based plastic frames is the goal to making glasses greener, then I've been pioneering this approach for a while... I hate plastic frames, It's been metal ones for me since 8th grade. Plastic frames snap. Metal frames bend and can be bent back.

Re:Plastic Frames? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666222)

shut up four-eyes.

Re:Plastic Frames? (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666382)

Plastic frames hide the lens thickness and support the weight of glass lenses. They require more care in the choosing stage as they are less easy to shape. Personally, I go for optical quality over pure vanity and plastic frames allow me to have large area, low aberration lenses. Having said that, they have to look acceptable and I always had a problem with thick lenses in metal frames looking like glass bottle bottoms. Plastic frames+glass comfortably hide a 4-5mm edge thickness. As for the strength the pairs I have now have metal running through the arms.

Re:Plastic Frames? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666392)

Better than standard metal is "memory metal", aka Flexon-- bend them, and they snap back into shape.

Ive had my frames for about 10 years now, and theyve been stepped on (sneakers and cleats), dropped, rolled on, slept in, etc, and the only thing that gets damaged is the non-bendy hinge, which I can adjust back into shape.

Theyre quite nice, and not having to replace them is great.

Re:Plastic Frames? (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36668680)

Better than standard metal is "memory metal", aka Flexon-- bend them, and they snap back into shape.

Oddly, I've had the opposite experience. While the individual segments of memory alloy are near indestructible, I've had 2 pairs of memory alloy frames fail at weld points, with no repair possible. On the other hand, my current Monel alloy (Nickel-Copper) frames have lasted about a decade without problems (except for some greenish corrosion near the nosepieces).

"Biodegradable at the end of their lives" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666040)

The press release from the article claims that these are "100% biodegradable at the end of their lives". Since I would put the average lifespan of a pair of glasses at 5 years (less for perscription, but that's just because perscriptions change, and the expensive part is the lenses), I'm left with questions. Will these start breaking down while they're on my face (it's a pretty ideal environment--light moisture next to the skin, reasonable warm, etc), do they biodegrade if I spray them with some kind of solvent first, or are they biodegradable in the same way that glass is(technically, yes, it will degrade, just not in any practical timespan)?

Biodegradable? (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666044)

I'm a bit concerned by the fact that they claim that these frames are "biodegradable when they're no longer useful." Aren't the conditions where something would biodegrade generally: warm, damp, slightly salty... basically, their intended use conditions? Are these going to start melting on me an a hot summer day?

Re:Biodegradable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666076)

Don't worry you can just get a hair cut and make a new pair!

Re:Biodegradable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666308)

Are these going to start melting on me an a hot summer day?

Biodegradability does not mean melting. I'd more expect you to develop some slimy, stinking mold on your forehead over time.

Re:Biodegradable? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666670)

The 'biodegradable' thing in many instances equals planned obsolescene.

I update my glasses about 1/5 as often as the optometrist assures me that I should. Usually I do so only when the frames are broken and unrepairable. I've worn wire-frame glasses that I repair myself by soldering for many years in the past.

My most recent pair are titanium, and near as I can tell, they will last forever. The glasses shop didn't even want to show me titanium frames, I had to ask for them. Possibly because they last too long. They're virtually unbreakable.

Re:Biodegradable? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#36671696)

They're virtually unbreakable.

... until somebody steps on them. I hate those saunas without shelves for the glasses!

What fraction? (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666058)

...The idea behind this is to 'Go Green' by stopping the use of Petroleum-based plastic frames...

Just as a quick, back-of-the-envelope estimate, what fraction of the world petroleum usage do you think is used for plastic eyeglass frames? Order of magnitude is fine.

Re:What fraction? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36670802)

Well I think it is more to the fact the Plastic lens takes up just as much plastic or more then the frames do. Especially the fact that they grind down 50% and toss away of the lens so it can fit in the frames.

Horn-rimmed glasses (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666074)

Eyeglass frames have been made from keratin for a long time.

Re:Horn-rimmed glasses (1)

spartus (724018) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666764)

Exactly. Horn is actually a pretty ridiculously great material for frames anyway, super durable and flexible. So rather than cutting stuff off of buffaloes, do the keratin press artificially. Same net effect, with 100% less buffalo.

Re:Horn-rimmed glasses (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36670826)

Or goats, cows, and other animals with horns that we raise and and kill daily for food.

Re:Horn-rimmed glasses (1)

turtledawn (149719) | more than 2 years ago | (#36671246)

Well, except that the horn buds are typically removed within a few months of birth from animals destined for mass market commercial slaughter. But it would be a potential good secondary source of income for small organic or pastured farms.

My god they're ugly (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666078)

Those are among the ugliest glasses I've ever seen. Though I guess they're no uglier than most plastic frames. Personally, I'll stick with metal.

How much does the hair actually provide support rather than just acting as filler for the plant resin?

And could they make other crap out of this? I think this stuff would look a lot better in a car interior...laptops...cell phones...damn near anything, except perhaps anything that's going to be holding food. Might work, but I don't think people would want to use it.

Re:My god they're ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36667024)

How much does the hair actually provide support rather than just acting as filler for the plant resin?

Actually, probably pretty significant. Hair's not horribly strong, but it's not that weak either, and filling plastic with some sort of fiber improves mechanical properties more than you might expect.

Cat hair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666102)

With this magic resin I can turn cat hair into plastic?
I've got some cat hair for ya
I'm sure I have enough to make a whole kitty.

Amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666146)

I'd like mine made of Polar Bear hair but I'll settle for baby Seal or Arctic Fox.

Re:Amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666526)

Do you mean the _heads of innocent and defenseless_ baby seals?

Grave Robbers (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666534)

Expect soon to see a rash of graves being dug up, with the corpses shaved bald. The outraged victims will rise up, thus starting the Zombie Apocalypse. But at least we get to have some crappy glass frames.

renewable resource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36666630)

"renewable resource"? I'm bald you insensitive clod!

Re:renewable resource (1)

drcheap (1897540) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666726)

I'm not, yet, but it's definitely a limited resource that is on the verge of depletion!

The Military Market (1)

loimprevisto (910035) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666664)

These graduate students are obviously trying to muscle in on the US military's contract for BCGs! They're the only frames I've seen that are ugly enough to give the 'Birth Control Glasses' a run for their money.

Their heart is in the right place . . . (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36666816)

. . . but their head will not sustain a business like this. The trend for eyewear is durability (e.g., memory metal) and discreteness (e.g., rimless). These have neither. Perhaps a better use for this material would be disposable flatware. Chew on that for a while.

Thanks, but no thanks (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#36667186)

I'll keep my titanium frames. In nearly 50 years of wearing glasses I've never found anything stronger and lighter than titanium. Eyeglasses have to be dependable for those of us who actually use them to SEE, not just use them as a fashion accessory or political statement.

Embodiment of what is wrong with "Green" (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | more than 2 years ago | (#36667642)

The plastic content on eyeglass frames represents but a fraction of the petroleum used to go to and from the optometrist. Concentrating on the materials instead of the problem is the basic failing of much of the "Green" movement.

All too often I see folks claiming to be "Green" because they ripped out a perfectly good kitchen counter and replaced with recycled baby wipes or some such. Most of the movement is more of a scavenger hunt gone horribly awry than one that makes a meaningful impact. Most forget that the greenest thing you can do is get a vasectomy before breeding (well, consulting Kevorkian really, but the idea is the same).

These poor fools have their heart in the right place, but constantly show severely flawed math/engineering skills in what they come up with. Often their approach is by far WORSE to the environment than sticking with the status quo. Farmer's Market's are fun, but don't delude yourself that it actually took less petroleum per item to get that stuff to market in the back of an F250 pickup than to long haul trucking it to Safeway.

Oh well...

Re:Embodiment of what is wrong with "Green" (1)

djh2400 (1362925) | more than 2 years ago | (#36668314)

All too often I see folks claiming to be "Green" because they ripped out a perfectly good kitchen counter and replaced with recycled baby wipes or some such.

The problem is when people actively search for things to get rid of with the intention of replacing those with "green" alternatives — such as the kitchen counter in your example. It is somewhat different in the context of glasses frames: There are always people who are buying their first pair of glasses, need new frames because old ones broke, or were planning a change of style anyway. The "go green" mindset would be more justifiable in these types of cases.

But also the take-home leg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36675074)

Depends if you walk or cycle to market with a rucksack, or drive to an out-of-town Safeway in your car. Plus an air-conditioned, overlit, 3-acre supermarket sucks up a lot of power just standing there, whereas a trestle table in a day-lit public street takes barely any.

Ow NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36668048)

Brings a whole new meaning to your glasses are on your head.

Polymerization of keratin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36670538)

I was hoping that this was about the depolymerization/repolymerization of keratin. I was dissapointed to see the hair as a mere filler material. I want to build a ship of fingernails so badly...

old tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36670660)

I think the Nazis beat them to this years ago.

plastic glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36671918)

Are way too mainstream.

Nothing to see here, more of the same. (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36672174)

So they're using waste, great.

But, what are the input energy requirements to gather, collect, ship, process, and produce said eyeglass frames?

I doubt that they are going to beat the efficiencies of industrial-scale bulk material-handling and production. I don't recall any great hue & cry about the horrific environmental consequences of eyeglass-frame production?

In short, this is more "let's go green" wanking that makes people who care *feel* slightly better by paying for a product that ultimately saves/helps/does nothing.

It's the environmentalist equivalent of Catholic indulgences.

Kind of like the Kyoto Protocol.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...