×

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!

Massive Diamond Found Orbiting Pulsar

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the think-of-the-street-value-of-this-mountain dept.

Space 204

HairyNevus writes "A recent survey of pulsars has revealed a fascinating discovery of a millisecond pulsar in system PSR J17191438 that has stripped a nearby white dwarf star down to its very core. Although no longer visible, is still has the mass of Jupiter. The remaining core rotates its neutron star companion with a period of just under 2 hours, indicating extremely close proximity. Given this distance, scientists have calculated that the substance of the core must be very compact, and, without building up the point, they conclude it is made of diamond. One thing I found misleading about the article is that it refers to the core as having 'the size of Jupiter' and 'the mass of Jupiter.' Given their different densities (diamond vs. mostly helium), it would seem clear that their size (i.e. volume) differs."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

204 comments

Better Press Release (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212236)

One thing I found misleading about the article is that it refers to the core as having 'the size of Jupiter' and 'the mass of Jupiter.'

Here's the correct Science Journal link [sciencemag.org] and here is a better press release from the Max Planck Institute [mpifr-bonn.mpg.de] that clarifies:

For the newly discovered pulsar, known as PSR J1719-1438, the astronomers noticed that the arrival times of the pulses were systematically modulated and concluded that this is due to the gravitational pull of a small orbiting companion, a planet. These modulations can tell astronomers several more things about the companion. First, it orbits the pulsar in just two hours and ten minutes, and the distance between the two objects is 600,000 km - a little bit less than the radius of our Sun. Second, the companion is so close to the pulsar that if its diameter was any larger than 60,000 km (less than half the diameter of Jupiter) it would be ripped apart by the gravity of the pulsar.

So it appears that the article saying "size equivalent to Jupiter" (volume?) is wrong if the Max Planck Institute is correct in saying that its diameter has to be less than half the diameter of Jupiter.

Re:Better Press Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212632)

Unless, of course, they're talking about mass when they say "size."

Re:Better Press Release (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212704)

Which would just be a failure to understand English?
Size never means mass, it always means volume or set of dimensions. Perhaps not in all dimensions at once aka items claimed to be "size of a credit card" but are in fact far thicker.

Re:Better Press Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213168)

People writing about science shouldn't throw around words carelessly, but for things that are normally spec'd by their mass the term 'size' is conversationally interchangeable with dimentions.

If you ask the size of a diamond most jewelers will respond in units of carats, which is mass. If you ask the size of a fish a guy caught he will usually respond in units of mass.

Re:Better Press Release (1)

harperska (1376103) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213234)

I think this is a deficiency in English, actually. On one hand, you have a word "size", which is defined to mean an object's physical dimensions. On the other hand, there is a linguistic need for a word generically meaning "how much of it there is" without specifying which measurement is meant. To the casual non-physicist, it doesn't matter if an object has a comparable diameter to Jupiter, or a comparable mass to Jupiter. All they care about is that it is comparable to Jupiter - i.e. "pretty damn big, but not like star big, more like Jupiter big". The word closest to this concept is "size". So until a new word is coined that generically means "how big", then I maintain that "same size as Jupiter" is correct in this case.

Re:Better Press Release (1)

Cstryon (793006) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213606)

I have to disagree. If I hear same size as Jupiter, I think same dimensions. Trying to determine if that was my educated opinion, or if that was a common sense opinion, I asked my Mom, who knows very little about this stuff I told her we have 2 balls that weigh 2 pounds each, one is a beach ball, and one is a golf ball. Which one is bigger? She answered the Beach ball, but understood that they weigh the same.

Regardless of the common understanding (or misunderstanding), we should be clear that mass and size are 2 different measurements.

Re:Better Press Release (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213338)

I think by "size" the article actually means "mass". Not technically accurate, but at least they don't say "volume". The writer of the article does seem to be pretty clear that it has Jupiter's mass and not its volume.

damn (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212258)

Now my wife will want it

Re:damn (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212828)

Too bad, DeBeers already bought it. Gotta keep those diamonds out of the wrong hands.

Re:damn (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212844)

Bought it? Are you sure they didn't just lay claim to it?

Re:damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212976)

In other news, the DeBeers company has managed to construct a rocket to launch a probe that will apply a diamond plaque labeled "Property of DeBeers" on a recently discovered planet made of diamonds.

Re:damn (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213048)

They'll have to find it first! And they won't be able to do that with Google or TFA since the latter doesn't say where or even how far away it is and the former just returns page after page after page of the same press release copied verbatim.

A diamond that big? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212262)

Time for a celebration, I'll get De Beers in

Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212276)

Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

Still, its kinda nifty to see such a large chunk of the stuff.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212520)

Diamonds on earth, outside the ground, and outside vaults controlled by De Beers are kept rare, though.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212758)

Goldman's following this business model and will soon have all commodities priced artificially higher(happening since 1999). Now, they would be 'players' even if Gramm-Leach-Bliley is repealed(WHFO) or Volcker is watered down enough to make a suitably neutered paper tiger.
Mo money [commodityonline.com]

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212550)

Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

So if you had a 10-carat diamond, you would cheerfully give it to me in exchange for 100 carats of carbon powder?

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (5, Interesting)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212746)

Well they are actually rediculously common, were it not for a very very large percentage of the supply in the hands of a handfull of companies, and making a perfect undetectable forgery of a diamond is extremely easy with the right equipment. Without the right lobying and rules, forcing all manufactured diamonds to have a watermark to be distinguished as "fake", and having the actual supply in control of a handful of companies that intentionally release the supply slowly to keep demand high, Diamonds could easilly become cheaper then copper.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213300)

making a perfect undetectable forgery of a diamond is extremely easy with the right equipment

Actually, the easiest way to detect a manufactured diamond is precisely that it is so unnaturally perfect. Any natural diamond, no matter how "perfect" it is, has microscopic imperfections. Of course, you'd need to be a trained jeweler with special equipment to tell, but it's not at all undetectable.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212686)

Yes, but if you go with a synthetic diamond, you aren't getting Genuine Blood Diamonds (TM) from third-world countries. The infused suffering makes their sparkle brighter.

Or you're not getting Genuine Not Blood Diamonds (TM) from the same company that brought you Genuine Blood Diamonds.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212740)

Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

Hydrogen is the most common element, not Carbon. Or was that a hyperbole?

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (3, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212928)

Perhaps the parent meant on Earth, but that's also wrong [wikipedia.org] , or perhaps they meant just the crust... nope, still wrong [wikipedia.org] . Or maybe it's the entire Universe? Nope, distant fourth [wikipedia.org] .

Care to enlighten us Kenja?

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (3, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213276)

I bet he meant that carbon is the most abundant element in diamonds. That's pretty much true.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213014)

Obviously it's hyperbole, but it ignores the distinction between carbon and diamonds. Diamonds here on Earth are relatively rare. And if you count this star or remnant as a single diamond, then they are still rare. Unless parent can explain his point about De Beers tricking everyone or whatever.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

Anguirel (58085) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213146)

DeBeers allegedly have lots of diamonds that they hold in vaults to reduce supply and artificially drive up costs. [nytimes.com] And apparently bought rough diamonds from competitors to maintain monopoly control. As they have in the past acted to control supply in that fashion, it would not be surprising if they continue to do so, and continue to lie tot he world that diamonds are as rare as they claim them to be. Along with probably lying about the "supply running low" as diamond mines are fully exploited, and purposely reducing production to allow the mines to be operated longer.

I have no idea how much of that is accurate, but it seems to come up any time diamonds are mentioned.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (0)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213330)

If you average earth and that thing together, we're about 90% diamond.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213416)

DeBeers has almost total control over diamond production (there are only a handful of mines worldwide that are not DeBeers controlled). They produce more than they sell, and stockpile the rest, creating artificial scarcity. Their marketing department is also responsible for a large proportion of the demand for diamonds. Despite what people think of as a long-standing tratition, prior to DeBeers marketing the hell out of them, diamonds weren't often used in engagement rings. Check your great grandparents rings, if they're still around - they probably have ruby, sapphire, amethyst or emerald settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Diamond_monopoly [wikipedia.org]

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212798)

"Carbon is the most common element around."

No, in the universe, that would be hydrogen. Carbon is 4th in abundance. It's much farther down the list if you just consider the earth.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213112)

Hydrogen, helium, lithium and trace amounts of everything else.

Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. (1)

emt377 (610337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213650)

Hydrogen, helium, lithium and trace amounts of everything else.

Lithium??? I must be missing an internal joke here. The third most abundant element of course is oxygen. In order: H, He, O, C.

Value (1)

Doodlesmcpooh (1981178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212294)

How much would a diamond the size of Jupiter be worth? Obviously if you could get it to earth somehow then diamond would be the most abundant material we have so it would be worthless but at todays prices I wonder how much it would be worth.

Re:Value (2)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212480)

It wouldn't be sold in one piece. You can bank on that. Also, I bet ownership and "land" claims would be a really hot topic.

If it were feasible to get it to a nearby stable orbit and not wreck the Earth or any of our stuff in the process, then it would cost an immense amount at first. Prices would get progressively lower as the technology evolved to "mine" and transport the pieces. The market would reach its saturation point eventually, too.

Space diamonds would probably always cost more than diamonds originating here on the planet, though, because of how expensive it is to safely retrieve objects from space.

Re:Value (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212620)

If you get it to an orbit around earth, wouldn't it act like a more shiny moon? Or would it not sparkle?

Re:Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212914)

"Shine on you crazy, diamond!"

Re:Value (1)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212522)

Very crude estimate
mass of Jupiter = 1.8987 × 10^30 grams
1/2 carat = .1 gram = worth $ 1,650 USD http://diamondregistry.com/price.htm [diamondregistry.com]
Or about $16,500 per gram USD .
Estimate value :
31.32855 x 10^33
or
31,328,550,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
but I think diamond would be worthless if there were that much diamond, you probably couldn't give it away.

Re:Value (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212678)

Now work out the cost of getting it out of the gravity well of that pulsar. I don't even think the Enterprise D could pull it away with a tractor beam.

Re:Value (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212870)

I don't even think the Enterprise D could pull it away with a tractor beam.

They would need to use a multi-phase tracker beam while diverting all power from the warp drive and most from life support. Perhaps even use a modified shuttle to create a warp bubble around the object to reduce its mass. Or they could just ask Q to do it.

Re:Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213024)

Couldn't they reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, then cross the streams?

Re:Value (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213140)

What they'd need is Wesley Crusher on board.

The little [expletive] can solve everything.

Re:Value (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213258)

TO be fair he IS supposed be the first person to take the next step in human evolution.......the Traveler thing and all..

Re:Value (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213120)

"Honey, I just found out that ring you gave me had diamonds in it! You told me they were cut glass! You liar, you cheat!"

Re:Value (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212692)

Probably very little because of its relative density. Diamond needs to be workable and light to be suitable for jewelry usage. This one is unlikely to be either, and even if it was workable, having a small ring that weighs kilograms, and earrings that rip your ears off don't make for good accessories.

Re:Value (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213026)

It would be worth exactly what you can get someone to pay for it. No less, no more.

Ask a stupid question...

Don't tell my wife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212352)

she'll want it mounted on her anniversary ring

Arthur C. Clarke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212392)

genious.

Re:Arthur C. Clarke (0)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213250)

I don't know about genius, but at least he could spell.

I suggest you buy a new Mac; the iOS-style spellchecker really comes in handy despite occasionally mangling perfectly corpulent words.

Jodrell Bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212460)

Here's the Jodrell Bank / University of Manchester press release: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2011/DiamondPlanet/

How many carats? (0)

rstanley (758673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212472)

My girlfriend wants to know! ;^)

You all know women, and their obsession with size! ;^) Of Diamonds of course! What did you think I meant? ;^)

Re:How many carats? (1)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212516)

That was my first thought. How can I get this for my wife? We all know what a man's best friend is, and the women have it. A big diamond is one way to get it.

Re:How many carats? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212906)

We all know what a man's best friend is, and the women have it. A big diamond is one way to get it.

You're talking about dogs, right?

Re:How many carats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212940)

I count 3.

Excellent news (2)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212476)

Now we'll get private companies saying "hey, if we get into space there is some serious money to be made". That's how we'll finally get there, for keeps. And I'm serious. The future of space is in the hands of corporations, not governments. And that's how it should be.

Pity I won't be around to see it, but can't have everything.

Re:Excellent news (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212526)

A big hunk of carbon light years away? There's better incentives than that out there, for sure. Maybe if it was a giant tank of rocket fuel...

Re:Excellent news (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212680)

Now we'll get private companies saying "hey, if we get into space there is some serious money to be made". .

Just to let you know, I will gladly sell you a deed for some land on the new diamond planet! Get in now before all the parcels are sold out!

Space is limited, but you will receive a certified verified framed deed for your own acre of diamond land, along with your name listed in "who's who in planet sized diamond owners"

Act now! Get in on the ground floor! Put your money in something solid, like diamond planets! We do layaway!

Sing along time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212568)

Twinkle, twinkle little star
How I wonder what you are
Up above the world so high,
A freaking diamond in the sky,
Twinkle, twinkle... wait. What now?

Wow.

Re:Sing along time (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212902)

Starkle, starkle, little twink
what the heck I are you think!

or

Twinkle, twinkle, little bat!
How I wonder what you're at!
Up above the world you fly,
Like a tea-tray in the sky.
Twinkle, twinkle--

THE COMMENTER HAS BEEN CLUBBED UNCONSCIOUS FOR YOUR SAFETY.

Stay calm and carry on!

Dibs! (1)

alamandrax (692121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212628)

I called dibs. This planet is now mine. If you want a piece of it. You have to pay me. I called dibs first. Remember it. And you better believe it.

Re:Dibs! (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212960)

I'll only consider honouring your claim if you can hammer your flag into this solid diamond planet (assuming you can even reach it). Good luck with that.

Is it really diamond? (2)

Xerxes314 (585536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212650)

The phase diagram of carbon at extreme temperature and pressure is pretty much unknown. We don't even have any really good studies of liquid carbon. So it's entirely possible the core of such a white dwarf would be made of some other phase of carbon. See, for example, this figure of the carbon phase diagram from density functional theory [pnas.org] , showing that over a terapascal, diamond is unstable. Stuff is not the same at the core of a star (even a small one) as in your backyard.

Re:Is it really diamond? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213396)

This planet-sized diamond is actually an ultra-rare form of diamond? This just keeps getting better and better!

Serious question from someone with only college physics: if one were to somehow extract this liquid carbon from the white dwarf, would it cool off/ depressurize /decondense to form diamond? Graphite? Or is that so theoretical that no one has a good idea?

Re:Is it really diamond? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213636)

not so serious answer from someone with no degree:
I have no freaking idea, but:
If you slowly depressurize it you get graphite, if it's rapid you get diamond (based on how kimberlite pipes form and bring diamond up with them?)

twinkle twinkle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212674)

little star...
like a stripped nearby white dwarf
in the sky...

This isn't diamond the way you're thinking (3, Informative)

MMORG (311325) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212700)

This isn't diamond in any sense that we usualy think of it. Yes, it's carbon atoms, and yes, they're "crystallized", but the core of a white dwarf is composed mostly of electron-degnerate matter where all of the electrons have been disassociated from their parent atoms and all the nuclei clump together, floating in a sea of electrons. This stuff has a density of roughly 1000 kilograms (2,200 lbs) per cubic centimeter. I imagine it would *catastrophically* decompress if you could teleport a chunk of it back to earth. It's not diamond.

Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212924)

So... what you're saying is it's a "Diamond BOMB"! Get me the defence department STAT! We must acquire this new weapon before the commies...

Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213358)

I imagine it would *catastrophically* decompress if you could teleport a chunk of it back to earth.

It's cool, we'll teleport it first to some other country, and then pay off the government in the form of space-diamonds.

Clarke strikes back (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212830)

2010: Odyssey Two, written in the early 1980s, featured Jupiter having a diamond core.

Re:Clarke strikes back (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212990)

Actually, it was "2061" [wikipedia.org] (which was written in the mid to late 80s.) The... prospectors? sent a transmission to their allies back on earth using "Lucy [wikipedia.org] " as a prearranged code word to indicate that they should... start doing whatever it was they planned to do in the stock market if their hypothesis about the diamond's existence was confirmed.

Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37212854)

The first thought that jumps into my mind is the obligatory "ca-ching" factor of hypothetically attempting to harvest/sell something like this. ....... but then I realized it was hundreds of times the size of Earth, and would just end up flooding the market. You'd eventually be able to buy real diamonds out of the gumball machines at WalMart,

Re:Value (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212926)

But what about building diamond semiconductors and revolutionizing the electronics industry? Would diamond be a very good material to build a chip with? It worked in a SciFi short story I read once where they were harvesting diamonds from the core of Neptune... They were the size of a VW.

Wow it exists? (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 2 years ago | (#37212942)

It reminds me of an old Sega-CD game called Dungeon Explorer where you can wish for great wealth at the end and you just get stuck on a planet sized diamond. (Sort of a "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)

Minecraft (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213002)

You know when you've been playing too much Minecraft when you try to calculate how many pickaxes it would take to mine it, and how big of a diamond block castle you could construct with it.

what took them so long? (1)

trb (8509) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213094)

it should have been pretty easy to find, after all, a diamond that large should be all sparkly.

Mass vs. size bothers you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213126)

The remaining core rotates its neutron star companion with a period of just under 2 hours

That's odd.

By the way, does it orbit the star, too?

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213256)

Looks tiny from here.

Husband didn't go to Jared...

Dibs! (0)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213340)

I call dibs on it. It's mine. As soon as someone finds a way to get there, I'll let them have half the diamond they can carry back.

Obligatory Old Spice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213446)

This pulsar is now diamonds!

Great now my wife will complain more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37213506)

I thought I had heard enough about how other people had bigger diamond stone on their finger now.
This will be the new standard. You bought me this tiny itty bitty rock and someone else has one
the size of Jupiter. I want one that is at least a quarter of that.

Star as a gift (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37213580)

So all those times I've said to girls: "I am giving you that star over there, shining in the sky as a gift", I was actually giving them the biggest diamonds of all times. They should have been thanking me for that, not running away.

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...