×

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!

Sea Level Rise Can't Be Stopped

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the time-to-invest-in-boat-companies dept.

Earth 521

riverat1 writes "Sea level rise won't stop for several hundred years even if we reverse global warming, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. As warmer water is mixed down into the oceans, it causes thermal expansion of the water. Under the best emissions scenario, the expected rise is 14.2 cm by 2100; under the worst, 32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone. Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

521 comments

And Neither Can This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533229)

FFrst Pstt.

You're lame, lameness filter!

Bye Florida! (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40533233)

Serves you right. You let all those New Yorkers in and bad things happen....

Re:Bye Florida! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40533593)

Serves you right. You let all those New Yorkers in and bad things happen....

Hope all those gators can adapt to a life at sea...

Re:Bye Florida! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533727)

Something tells me that 32.2cm won't affect all of Florida. I'm close enough to the beach to enjoy it, and far enough away that I might have beach-front property once all is said and done :).

pshaw! (3, Informative)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#40533837)

Something tells me that 32.2cm won't affect all of Florida.

It's call tidal surge. And increased atmospheric energy leading to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes.
Florida's not going to be a very hospitable place to live or grow crops if large parts of it are under saltwater frequently.


Anyhow, screw future generations, I've got mine. They can just adapt to the new normal, they'll never miss what they never had in the first place.

Overlords? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533263)

I, for one, welcome our new underwater overlords.

Not too bad? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533265)

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".

Re:Not too bad? (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 2 years ago | (#40533319)

Since this is slashdot I don't expect you to read the article, but even a goldfish would have the attention span required to read the last sentence of the summary.

Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533357)

have ample time to relocate those in "danger".

Funny. And you base that on what about our current politicians?
Oh, you mean relocate themselves. Got it.

Re:Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533415)

Oh, you mean relocate themselves while we foot the bill. Got it.

FTFY.

RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533421)

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".

The 14 - 32cm is only accounting for thermal expansion, not Ice / glaciers / aquifers.

Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion (-1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40533747)

Of course, water doesn't expand or contract based on temperature though. So....there's that.

Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion (2)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 years ago | (#40533815)

Or sea level rise from magic. Or because Gaia hates George Bush.

Re:Not too bad? (4, Informative)

afeeney (719690) | about 2 years ago | (#40533445)

Well, for one, in the US alone, more than half the population [noaa.gov] lives in a coastal area.

Even if just 10 percent are directly affected, that's still a large number of people.

In the US, can you imagine all the lawsuits and politics about how to move people, does the government have the right to do it, does the government have the obligation to do it, and who is going to pay for it?

For countries like Indonesia that are mostly islands, or in countries or areas that are largely below sea level, this could result in a major loss of housing and usable land.

Anything that changes ocean patterns could affect shipping and fishing, both of which would be major blows to the global and regional economies. If we lose major fish populations, that will increase food prices, and if shipping becomes riskier, that will affect the price of virtually everything.

It's a lot more than avoiding getting wet.

Re:Not too bad? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533827)

Coastal area != flood area. I lived less than a half mile from the Chesapeake bay, yet was at least 30 feet above sea level.

Re:Not too bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533833)

The greatest tragedy, of course, is that now the 1%ers beach houses will have to be abandoned and their servants will be the ones with beach front property. I'mn sure they'll find some way to grab that land!

Re:Not too bad? (1)

sosume (680416) | about 2 years ago | (#40533853)

You're seeing a lot of problems, while I'm seeing a boom in the dyke building business.

Re:Not too bad? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40533783)

What there isn't time for is the usual generation long denial cycle that covers this sort of thing. About the time those needing to relocate are noticing that the ocean comes up to their knees now when they get out of bed, someone in the Federal government will be hailed as a genius when he announces that there may be something to this sea level rise business and that as soon as he gets back from vacation he will think about forming a committee to set the agenda for a meeting to form a committee to discuss the need to commission a study on who needs to be relocated.

Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (5, Funny)

Jeff1946 (944062) | about 2 years ago | (#40533271)

It will be ok in North Carolina since their legislature said you can only use linear extrapolations of sea level rise to plan building in coastal areas. Guess they didn't get beyond simple algebra in school (no quadratic equations etc).

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533483)

Algebra? That sounds Arabic. Must be a terrorist training camp. Shut it down!

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533539)

Algebra? That sounds Arabic. Must be a terrorist training camp. Shut it down!

Euler? That sounds like fuel. Must be ours by God-given right. Invade it now!

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#40533547)

Algebra & seconds - both Arabic origins.

Ban Math and Time!

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533839)

They don't bloody teach math here to begin with. :P

- NC resident

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533611)

Not sure if you were joking but it really is based on Arabic roots [wikipedia.org] . So is algorithm.

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina (5, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40533705)

Algebra? That sounds Arabic. Must be a terrorist training camp. Shut it down!

I heard they were working on weapons of math destruction!

Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40533275)

Should have known better than to try to save that ungrateful environment. I'm buying an SUV.

Suck my balls, you lying hippies!

Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533563)

Has been working alright for Texans: Strong mobile A/C units powered by whatever V8 engine you find to cool you down in the 100+ F.

Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#40533605)

What they didn't tell you is that you're using a lot of coal based power. I know, the truth hurts.

Nothing to worry about (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533281)

Jesus will come back and save us

Jesus is my lifeboat. This is all part of the plan. Relax.

Simple solution... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533295)

We find some areas like the Grand Canyon and Aral Sea, even the deep Sahara and Outback, and we pump water from the oceans there.

This will work fine, don't worry about the consequences. Just think of the benefits!

Sell! (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#40533299)

Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.

Re:Sell! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533433)

Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.

A-ha! I own the property just behind yours! I'm that much closer to having beachfront property!

Re:Sell! (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40533683)

Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.

A-ha! I own the property just behind yours! I'm that much closer to having beachfront property!

I once opened a fortune cookie to read: You'll make your home in the mountains and by the sea.

I didn't realize it meant at the same time.

Re:Sell! (4, Funny)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#40533463)

32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.

Somewhere in there is a "Your Mom" joke, straining against the seams to get out.

Re:Sell! (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#40533739)

32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.

Somewhere in there is a "Your Mom" joke, straining against the seams to get out.

Or worse, a goatse joke

Re:Sell! (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#40533655)

Or time to market marked up property as "soon to be" beachfront. Or time to invest in some myself, something for the great great grandkids to enjoy when they unplug from their neural-net-by-facebook world and want to be wheeled down to the sea by their robot butlers for their evening repast.

Re:Sell! (0)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 years ago | (#40533709)

Yeah, how could anyone ever build a 12-inch-high seawall in only 87 years?

I'll buy that property if you're selling at a nice discount.

Overall rise (3, Interesting)

zrbyte (1666979) | about 2 years ago | (#40533303)

Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that.

How big is the effect of thermal expansion in comparison to melting of ice? How much would be the additional rise in the worst case scenario?

Re:Overall rise (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533635)

If the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet melted, over twenty feet of rise. There's a heckuva lot of ice sitting up on top of Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

Re:Overall rise (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | about 2 years ago | (#40533797)

Current estimates place global sea level rise of 10ft if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to completely disintegrate

It's briefly touched upon in TFA (1)

TaggartAleslayer (840739) | about 2 years ago | (#40533343)

Does anyone have a map of affected low-lying areas? Can we get any visual depictions of the chaos to come?

People don't respond well to small numbers. Most can't understand the impact of them. Shouting, "The ocean will rise by 14cm!" only begs for the response of "Well that's only ankle deep..."

Can't we take what we've learned from marketing sodas to the masses and apply it to important doomsday scenarios like this? Where are all of the Don Drapers of the scientific world anyway?

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533373)

Yes, this: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

But that map makes even a 60m rise seem not bad at all.

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533403)

I know, I never liked Florida either.

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533397)

The fact is, it is only ankle deep. Tidal variations are greater than that. Any map showing New York underwater or Florida off the map because of a 14" rise in sea level is wrong. If that were the case, high tide would cause the same flooding.

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533665)

If that were the case, high tide would cause the same flooding

High tide would be getting 14" higher too. Derp.

You're right that 14" rise isn't much though, if you don't build seawalls it's only going to cut a few hundred to a few thousand feet off the shoreline in many areas.

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#40533825)

landlubber. Tides vary quite a bit based on position of moon in its orbit and weather conditions and wind conditions and currents and probably other stuff.

There is no simplistic grade school single value of "high tide" level. The end effect is that rather than legendary high tides causing extremely minor flooding once a decade, it'll happen once per year, or something like that.

Tides are not simple. Landlubbers get killed all the time thinking that "back home the difference between high and low tide is always about 5 feet so I can dive off this pier" little did they know that in that area, low tide is like 30 feet lower. Its a decade or so before my time, but I think one of the Beetles died that way, jumping off a pier at low tide in a area with unusually low, low tides.

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40533621)

Where are all of the Don Drapers of the scientific world anyway?

Can't happen. Good scientists are honest.

Astonishing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533349)

I really thought our cunning plan of exporting [institutef...search.org] our coal consumption to Asia was going to work. I mean, nothing that happens over there is in the Environment, right?

Yes we knew this (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40533353)

This paper is just further evidence that we've already released enough CO2 to continue the warming trend. Even if all humans disappeared, like one of those History Channel Life After People episodes, the globe would continue to warm towards a non-ice age state.
 

Re:Yes we knew this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533385)

This paper is just further evidence that we've already released enough CO2 to continue the warming trend.

Is it? Is it really? Or could it be that other factors -- in conjunction with human activity -- are contributing to this?

Re:Yes we knew this (1)

bbecker23 (1917560) | about 2 years ago | (#40533871)

If you get caught going 90mph down the highway, the fact that you had a tailwind is probably not going to convince anyone of your innocence.

Hell yes! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533355)

That coastal property I bought in Arkansas for 48 BTC is going up uP UP!!! My investments own.

remove excessive CO2? (4, Interesting)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 2 years ago | (#40533383)

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

Re:remove excessive CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533477)

GRAPHINE TO THE RESCUE!!!!

Re:remove excessive CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533509)

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

That sounds like a great business model. Remember, we live in a capitalistic society so unless you can figure out a free fix, we're fucked.

Re:remove excessive CO2? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#40533537)

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

Sure there is. But it will cost more than any country will spend (or could spend) to do it on a scale that will make any noticeable difference. Besides, how happy do you think people will be if one country does this but others keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re:remove excessive CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533545)

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

Diamonds are made of carbon, right? So find some way to convert the excess atmospheric carbon into diamonds and market them as "Global Warming Bling." It'd be the latest fashion craze. I'd bet Paris Hilton and the Kadashians would account for 50% of the carbon alone! The rest of the world's uber elites would buy the rest.just for bragging rights.

Then our problem would become too little carbon in the air!

Re:remove excessive CO2? (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#40533577)

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

Wouldn't it be much easier just to grow a crapload of fast-growing trees (since as you noted, they already do this very thing) and then bury or sink whatever wood isn't needed for housing and furniture?

Re:remove excessive CO2? (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40533623)

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

Yeah. It's called an ocean. But it runs on its own timetable. Geological time, to be exact.

Re:remove excessive CO2? (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 2 years ago | (#40533643)

There are several different proposed methods. Fast-growing trees and crops (that are then turned into biochar and buried), enhanced weathering by grinding and spreading silicate materials such as olivine, ocean iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton blooms and increase carbon transport to the deep ocean (where it will stay for a couple thousand years). Unfortunately they are all expensive and it is uncertain how effective any of them are.

Re:remove excessive CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533645)

yeah, it's called planting trees

Re:remove excessive CO2? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#40533703)

I would give you the obvious answer (if I could decide wether you were making a joke), but you simply said it yourself... Why didn't you accept the obvious answer as such, and asked for another one?

We can make it better, of course. Trees are extremely inefficient. But then, we'd better using any power source created for that task to reduce our emissions, instead of taking the carbon already on the athmosphere. So, the only answer are trees. That, or if we want to get all hight tech, grass, stored as some purified product (some people say one can put letters on that purified stuff and tell histories).

The sky is falling... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533389)

There is no man-made global warming. Besides drowning liberals, communists and socialists in California and New York is good for the Country.

Re:The sky is falling... (5, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40533503)

It's a poorly understood fact that any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over.

Re:The sky is falling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533729)

Indeed, the grandparent is ignoring the unwanted fact that drowning coastal urbanity will exacerbate their tendency to migrate [thedailybeast.com] to places they haven't messed up yet.

Re:The sky is falling... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40533637)

Because, of course, the laws of nature obey your political ideology.

Here's news, moron, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Liberal vs. Conservative, Socialist vs. Capitalist. It does not fucking care. If pumping millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of two centuries is going to cause serious climactic changes, it is absolutely fucking irrelevant who you fucking vote for, or whether you masturbate to Vladimir Lenin or Ayn Rand.

Fucking hell, you ideological fanatics are a tiresome, mentally handicapped lot. Don't like evolution because you think it falsifies your religion. Don't like acid rain or climate change because it means there are consequences to wide-scale and uncontrolled industrial activity. Don't like regulations because it kills your particular get-rich-quick-while-fucking-the-economy scheme.

Is there any part of you at all that isn't a selfish, greedy piece of stupidity? Is there any part of you that gives the least little fuck for anyone other than yourself? Or are you really the vile repugnant sociopathic troll you appear?

Re:The sky is falling... (1)

BeerCat (685972) | about 2 years ago | (#40533681)

How to respond...

Option 1: Wish I had mod points

Option 2: .... And breathe! Sometimes a good rant is what it takes.

New disaster (1)

cyberspittle (519754) | about 2 years ago | (#40533405)

Imagine the trenches under the water expanding and kicking off earthquakes and tsunamis. Any idea what would happen to the Marianas Trench?

Re:New disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533469)

one of the things about water that makes it so interesting is that its a fluid

Re:New disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533531)

It would be cold, dark, and wet?

water is much lighter than rock (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#40533555)

And we are just redistributing water already there: from the poles to the whole ocean.

Obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533507)

The obvious solution is to make a huge solar reflector that can be deployed for about 10 minutes every ten years. That should do the trick.

Re:Obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533595)

Paging Dr. Wernstrom.

LMAO captcha: mirror

As long as NYC and SF are ok... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533553)

who gives a shit if the fucking hill billies flood themselves to death.

Good news... (4, Insightful)

mevets (322601) | about 2 years ago | (#40533667)

Now that there is nothing we can do about it, the shills can stop pretending it isnâ(TM)t happening.
Already, Exxon has stated the obvious - burning fossil fuels is warming the planet by increasing the co2 level; however had to mute it with a statement that we can handle the change.
I suppose a whiff of honesty is better than before.

But then there's the laws of physics (-1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40533731)

As warmer water is mixed down into the oceans, it causes thermal expansion of the water.

Well then it's a darn good thing water doesn't actually change density based on temperature. What dumbass wrote that nonsense? A middle school physics student can tell you water doesn't expand or contract under any conditions.

Re:But then there's the laws of physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40533859)

is this a joke? any 8 year old would know its density under various temperatures does differ... any person with eyes would really: have you ever made ice cubes, dumb ass? never realized how much of a pain in the ass it is to get them out of the ice cube tray?

Listen and understand. (4, Funny)

feepness (543479) | about 2 years ago | (#40533821)

That global warming is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until your tootsies are completely soaked.

Not the worse (2, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#40533829)

When I think of climate change, increased sea levels are not the worse that I think about. Increased sea levels are simply about real estate and lost infrastructure. To be sure, I plan to be around awhile and these increases in sea level are going to directly effect me in terms of flooding and real estate value, but that does not have anything to with long term livelihood and food production. If anything, it might provide more territory for certain sea creatures to grow. Of course a sea levels rise, some fresh water is going to become brakish which could be a long term concern for certain population. Not to mention a few populated low lying islands that will disappear.

But when I think of climate change, I think of longer periods of temperatures that are outside what a human can really aclimate to, and food can really be produced in. For instance, daytime temperatures that approach or go over 100F during the day and don't get under 80F at night. In Europe we are seeing another winter with temperatures staying at freezing for a continuous period. This is a concern because if we can't produce food, we can't survive. Look at the desertification of Africa. Look at the fight over water going on now in Texas and California. There are going to be some things that are just going to involving restructuring, insurance, and large writeoffs. This will be over and forgotten each generation, like the recurring banking crisis that hits us every 20-30 years. The other, like weather and temperature changes, are not going to be so easily fixed.

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...