×

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!

Congress Gets Their Own Piece of YouTube to Host Videos

ScuttleMonkey posted about 6 years ago | from the rules-lawyering dept.

The Internet 84

YouTube has promised a commercial-free zone in the near future to help Congress deal with the problem of hosting campaign videos that were technically breaking the rule of not redirecting constituents to a commercial site. "Within a month, the one and only responder, YouTube, should have its commercial-free zone up and running, Capuano said. Republicans on the commission still fret that with only one such site, the House could be seen as picking winners and losers on the Web. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), another commission member, said the panel's Republicans want to keep the new rules fluid enough to use any future Web site that comes forward with a better plan. 'Technology moves fast. Congress moves slow,' he said."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

84 comments

Better solution... (0, Troll)

Asm-Coder (929671) | about 6 years ago | (#23042280)

How about this... candidates no longer receive money from tax dollars for their campaigns, and there are no longer any other restrictions on the campaigns...

The tax money is not intended for campaigns, but if I want to donate a million dollars to my favorite candidate, (and it's my money) I should be able to do so.

Re:Better solution... (1)

Adradis (1160201) | about 6 years ago | (#23042332)

So, RIAA and friends hand over 2-3 million dollars to their favorite Congress-Critter. Now he happily obeys his new corporate overlords.

Re:Better solution... (0, Troll)

Asm-Coder (929671) | about 6 years ago | (#23042488)

And those of us who don't like his polices will donate in favor of the other guy.

This idea isn't fleshed out at all, and I'm not qualified to do so. It may be that companies should be restricted from contributing as well. It's just my opinion that they will find a way around it, (sending everyone home with a bonus if they donate to candidate X) so it's just easier to make the whole system transparent, and let people like you and me to point out when there seems to be something funny going on.

Re:Better solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23042642)

And those of us who don't like his polices will donate in favor of the other guy.
Which would work, but they're handing the money to all of their favorite congress critters.

Re:Better solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23043016)

You have no issue with buying power in government, and the poor being unrepresented as if they don't matter. Get out.

Re:Better solution... (1, Troll)

Monsuco (998964) | about 6 years ago | (#23043030)

So, RIAA and friends hand over 2-3 million dollars to their favorite Congress-Critter. Now he happily obeys his new corporate overlords.
Then the EFF, DefectiveByDesign, etc. donate to his opponent. This is called "pluralism" and the American founding fathers predicted it. They believed that special interest groups would do just what they are doing, trying to promote their special interest. They knew it was impossible for the government to control these groups or check their power so the solution was to allow for so many groups to form that they would end up checking each other. That's "hyperpluralism".

Also vote buying is a bit of a myth. People don't try to pay a congressman's campaign enough to convince the candidate (if he is elected) to vote their way, they support the candidate that already would vote their way. Think about it, if you are with Smith and Wesson and you want to ensure no new assault weapons ban comes into place, will you donate to the member of Mothers Against Gun Violence or to the card carrying NRA member?

How can we tell if votes are bought? Simple. A few studies looked at congressman who had made a promise to retire. After getting into office for that last term if their votes were truely being bought you would expect them to suddenly vote differently as they have no incentive to listen to their donors, since they can't run again anyway. But last term congressmen overwhelmingly tend to vote how they always have, which means their votes are not bought.

Re:Better solution... (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 6 years ago | (#23043828)

I wouldn't expect that at all. If anything, I'd expect more votes bought from last term congress people. They have retirement to think about. No more cushy congress salary, so better get the most out of it while they can. And if they get caught, they were finished anyway.

Re:Better solution... (1)

hardburn (141468) | about 6 years ago | (#23043548)

It's worse than that. In a two-party system, it's easy enough to split that amount evenly, effectively buying both candidates.

Re:Better solution... (1)

strabes (1075839) | about 6 years ago | (#23046488)

Who are you to tell me what I can do with my money? Regulating campaign finance is not an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Re:Better solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23049024)

They're not regulating what you can do with your money. They are regulating what money a congressperson can accept and from who.

Re:Better solution... (1)

sco08y (615665) | about 6 years ago | (#23049082)

Please explain how this "ownership" works. Why, exactly, can't the Congressman simply vote exactly as he pleases and pick up 2-3 million dollars from someone else the next time around, or retire?

Re:Better solution... (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 6 years ago | (#23042356)

It might assuage your anger somewhat to know that very few candidates running for national public office in the United States take the public or so called "hard-money" anymore because of the restrictions attached to accepting such funding. One simply cannot buy the necessary advertising on the national television networks and websites at the going rates these days with the meager tax-payer funded "hard-money". That is why every serious candidate opts-out of public funding and takes "soft-money" from private political donors and groups because you just about cannot be a serious candidate at the national level without opting-out.

Re:Better solution... (4, Informative)

aengblom (123492) | about 6 years ago | (#23042560)

"Hard" and "soft" money has nothing to do with opting out of public funding. In fact, the record amounts of money raised in the primaries HAS been "hard" money -- or money raised under the ~$2,000 per person limit to candidates.

Soft money refers to ulimited donations to interest groups that, because of free speech laws, are able to run ads and perform other activities to support particular ideas and parties (which may just happen to align perfectly with one candidate).

The reason the candidates aren't accepting public funding is that while it gives candidates a bonus per dollar raised, it also limits how much they can spend. The amounts a major national figure can raise today is actually larger than the most they can collect under public funding plus the government subsidy.

Re:Better solution... (2)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 6 years ago | (#23042716)

You are quite correct, I had two separate but often associated concepts intertwined. Thank you for clarifying.

Re:Better solution... (1)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | about 6 years ago | (#23043102)

Agreed, but only if every cent a campaign spends is from named sources and any fraud results in the removal of the candidate.

(Not, of course, that it is anywhere near above board currently.)

Re:Better solution... (ad Soros) (1)

mkiwi (585287) | about 6 years ago | (#23043404)

The problem with this is someone who has a lot of money can essentially "buy" a lot of votes. I know it's not exactly a popular thing to say, but there are certain very wealthy socialists who will try to buy the next presidential election. There are all kinds of people who would buy the presidential election if they could- new finance laws make this possible. If all the adds gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling when I watched them I would not have a problem with people spending tons of money on them.

However, there are people who, despite Obama's and McCain's wishes, will run a hugely negative campaign and it's not going to be pretty. It demeans the American people, treating us like cattle. I'd rather keep the rich people to a minimum or at least make their jobs shuffling funds around more difficult.

I have a very strong belief that no one should be able to buy their way into office, even indirectly. McCain shot himself in the leg with his campaign finance bill he helped pass. Guess he wasn't thinking far enough ahead...

Re:Better solution... (1)

sheldon (2322) | about 6 years ago | (#23044010)

You might like to know that we tried that... It didn't work. A single wealthy individual could finance an entire campaign, and have a politician totally indebted to them. Wasn't very much fun for everybody else.

The system we have today where anybody can give any amount they want up to a limit of $2400 works great. Just look at Obama's fundraising totals.

Where do I opt out? (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 years ago | (#23042288)

YouTube will have a channel dedicated to campaign videos. The videos will not link to "commercial" sites after being played.

How is this newsworthy?

A dedicated channel for lies, and shitty political commentary by youtube users? Where do I opt out?

Re:Where do I opt out? (0, Flamebait)

russlar (1122455) | about 6 years ago | (#23042340)

A dedicated channel for lies, and shitty political commentary by youtube users? Where do I opt out?
There already is a dedicated channel for lies; it's called Fox News.

Re:Where do I opt out? (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 years ago | (#23042390)

Good question.
Remembering that this site is USA centric, I would contend the voting is important enough that it goes here. Especially considering the need to get younger voters involved.

You can, of course, choose not get any politic information with a quick change to your preferences.

To answer you specific question in your title, RTFFAQ document.

Re:Where do I opt out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23045360)

Huh? You didn't even answer the GP's question, much less - apparently - understand that it wasn't supposed to be taken at face value in the first place.

He's asking, tongue-in-cheek, how he can opt out of these political ads on Youtube, not how he can disable political stories on Slashdot.

And of course, in doing so, what he's REALLY doing is making a wry comment about the whole idea of Youtube doing this in the first place. But apparently, that was lost on you.

Re:Where do I opt out? (2, Insightful)

djradon (105400) | about 6 years ago | (#23042484)

Don't be such a nay-sayer. This could be pretty radical.

Does anyone know of another country that's done something like this?

Re:Where do I opt out? (4, Informative)

bockelboy (824282) | about 6 years ago | (#23042796)

Estonia. A lot of the congressional meetings are held online, bills are not printed out, the president signs bills with the click of a mouse. Citizens even vote on the internet.

Re:Where do I opt out? (2, Funny)

megaditto (982598) | about 6 years ago | (#23043280)

Ah, I was wondering how the goatse guy got to become the vice-speaker of their Parliament.

Re:Where do I opt out? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#23043632)

The population of Estonia is 1.3 million.

Maybe if we could talk the federal government into delegating power back to the states and creating smaller individual units of power, this might work.

Re:Where do I opt out? (3, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 6 years ago | (#23043720)

...the president signs bills with the click of a mouse.

Sorry, but someone already has a patent on the "Buy It Now" feature.

No Shit, Sherlock (1)

russlar (1122455) | about 6 years ago | (#23042320)

"Technology moves fast, Congress moves slow."
Thank you, Captain Obvious!

Re:No Shit, Sherlock (1)

dwater (72834) | about 6 years ago | (#23042612)

Yeah, obviously he meant 'slowLY'.

He's probably just a simple Apple user.

Furthermore, is that a correct use of 'fast'? He probably should have used 'quickly', but I'm not sure anymore, since I myself own and use several Apple products.

Part of Obama's plan (4, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | about 6 years ago | (#23042344)

View this ahem, youtube video about his "interview" at Google [youtube.com]

In it (can't remember where it was) he talks about going around the media going directly to the people to bypass the corrupt culture in government... and mentions he will make transparency a big part of his platform, and youtube all white house meetings.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | about 6 years ago | (#23042520)

I have to be honest here that is part of the reason why I am even thinking about voting for him. Even though I have more republican views. I also like him because of his more moderate views so it is more of a balance then many of the extremists are and in many ways he is a good fit(In my opinion).

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1, Troll)

megaditto (982598) | about 6 years ago | (#23043318)

I am sure you remember the last "Candidate for Change" that ran in 2000.

A Washington outsider, a uniter able to bridge across party lines, a new man bringing change to Washington corruption, George W. Bush accomplished all this, and so much more.

Given how well that worked out, I too am thinking of supporting Obama.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23042930)

Yeah, Barrack definitely knows about YouTube's ability to inform people [youtube.com] now!

His platform is pretty much irrelevant now, though, since the truth about his views of America have come out.

All thanks to YouTube.

Which I think is a good thing, but Hillary and McCain may view as a lesson against transparency.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | about 6 years ago | (#23043050)

For those interested, his response is at the end of the video, when he responds to the last question. Around 61 min, but the video is worth watching overall.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 6 years ago | (#23043244)

I don't know about you, but I do NOT want all White House meetings available to the public. They talk about some secret stuff sometimes you know. I can see maybe a few general policy meetings for public consumption, but the President *needs* a certain level of secrecy.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23043304)

I don't know about you, but I do NOT want all White House meetings available to the public. They talk about some secret stuff sometimes you know. I can see maybe a few general policy meetings for public consumption, but the President *needs* a certain level of secrecy.
I'm pretty sure that the aliens at Area 51 won't be YouTubed. Or maybe Obama is actually under alien mind control and after being elected will free the prisoners at Area 51, thus allowing for the end of the world!!!

Re:Part of Obama's plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23044144)

Don't be dense, obviously we'll never see anything classified. What we'll get are hours and hours of really really boring bureaucratic meetings, and we'll get lots and lots of it. Governments generate huge amounts of paperwork I'm sure they can easily produce thousands of hours of meetings where next to nothing goes on.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 6 years ago | (#23045654)

Exactly my point. It will be meaningless, harmless photo op content, only in video on the 'net rather than in printed media. Nothing to see, move along.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 6 years ago | (#23044262)

Actually, its the opposite. There's some stuff that needs to be kept secret. The vast majority of it does not. As a public office, the policy default should be open, not private.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23043322)

That is awesome.

Obama is anti-NASA (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | about 6 years ago | (#23043382)

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1100/1 [thespacereview.com]

He wants to cut the VSE budget to use the money for education.

If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight. Some of you may think that's a good thing. If you are not one of these people, please, STOP OBAMA.

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (2, Interesting)

hardburn (141468) | about 6 years ago | (#23043590)

I'm also anti-NASA. However, I stopped associating being anti-NASA with being anti-space exploration years ago. The most interesting things in space over the next 10 years will probably come from private companies.

Whoa, talk about hyperbole (1)

sheldon (2322) | about 6 years ago | (#23043992)

Next, suggesting delaying the Joint Strike Fighter makes you anti-military.

Suggesting restricting funding on school sports makes you anti-children, and anti-sports.

It's fucked up arguments like this which result in pandering politicians promising you everything you want to hear.

Re:Whoa, talk about hyperbole (1)

QuantumG (50515) | about 6 years ago | (#23044064)

Dude, read the fucking article ok? He sees the purpose of NASA as inspiring kids to become scientists. He believes NASA has failed to do that in recent years, so he wants to cut NASA funding and redirect the funds to his own pet project which he believes will achieve that goal. If that's not anti-NASA, I don't know what is.

Re:Whoa, talk about hyperbole (1)

sheldon (2322) | about 6 years ago | (#23054810)

So it's not space exploration that you care about. You are upset that he's criticized NASA.

Whaaaaaaaa!

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23044076)

Spaceflight is cool but when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a functional, non-disastrous government. Although he is still a politician and thus still scum, Obama seems to be by far the best hope for this outcome.

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 6 years ago | (#23044792)

If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight.

Wait a minute. Why would cutting VSE funding mean the end of human spaceflight?

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23047136)

Hmm.. tough call. Spaceflight is important, but surely Education is the most important issue in America today. Our children are growing up ignorant and stupid.

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23048224)

If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight in United States.
Fixed that for you.

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23049284)

The end of human spaceflight? He wants to delay VSE for five years. So we can help improve early education and make elementary school a much more level playing field, and stop a large portion of kids just starting school and already being behind in their studies. It might not be the best program to cut money from, but it's a good initiative, and there are many, many more important issues for this election than a plan on spaceflight.

Even if this happens, it won't be the end of human spaceflight. It will, at worst case scenario, cause damage to the US space program, which is currently not most aggressive at pushing human spaceflight anyway.

Re:Obama is anti-NASA (1)

aztektum (170569) | about 6 years ago | (#23049742)

End of human spaceflight huh? No chance another program will spring up? No chance that perhaps another country will focus on it? Never ever again.. EVER EVER again will a human go into space?

Ok. You're right. Let's elect Clinton or McCain. I'm sure NASA programs are #1 priority to them!

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 6 years ago | (#23043978)

I like how he'll take my money and buy broadband for poor people. I was just thinking the other day about how poor people don't get to see enough pornography.

I'm glad he wants to modernize goverment services to cut costs but people who can't afford internet connections and/or don't want them can go to the library or an internet cafe. Providing internet access isn't the government's job.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | about 6 years ago | (#23044402)

Funny; you don't want poor people to get it, but you yourself get it through government subsidies. Classic.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 6 years ago | (#23045298)

I don't care if it costs me $1000 per Mbit, I'd be first in line voting to get rid of those subsidies.

The government buying and/or subsidizing internet for anybody is wrong.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | about 6 years ago | (#23051538)

Very convenient to get rid of the subsidies *now* when *you* can afford it, after a huge subsidy from DARPA created the thing, but before the poor are wired up. Yeah "get rid of the subsidies" now that others might be getting a chance.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 6 years ago | (#23052826)

Okay, you're right. Obviously once you've made a mistake, the best thing to do is keep making it.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | about 6 years ago | (#23057342)

Okay you're right, obviously once a mistake benefits you, you should make sure to correct it as fast as possible so that you so that you get to hog all of the benefits.

Re:Part of Obama's plan (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 6 years ago | (#23057844)

Except it's not correcting a mistake. That mistake's already been made, and the poor are benefitting from it just as much as I am.

But Barrack wants to make a *new* mistake and create a *new* program, above and beyond the existing subsidies.

And this isn't exactly like the original DARPA funding, either. What are the chances Barrack's program will unconditionally lower internet costs for everybody? Better or worse than the chances it lowers the cost for poor people at the expense of everybody else?

It's not a matter of correcting a mistake, it's a matter of not making a new mistake.

Why YouTube? (-1, Troll)

billy901 (1158761) | about 6 years ago | (#23042414)

I don't think these guys are showing off a good page by using YouTube. I think that they would have a better image by getting this done professionally. The democrats will take this advice with their extra money, the republicans will use it to prove to earth is flat! Like Ann Coulter says: "The earths is flat! Jesus for president! omg111 bible! OMG!

Well thats all well and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23042566)

But, has anyone thought of the tubes!? I think they will get a division by zero error and crash.

Why youtube? (3, Insightful)

RalphSleigh (899929) | about 6 years ago | (#23042568)

If I can host flash video and a simple player on my £30/year web host, is there any good reason their in house tech is 'slow and cumbersome'? Flash video is not rocket science.

Re:Why youtube? (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | about 6 years ago | (#23042736)

Why youtube?
Youtube is all the rage in today's youth, they are just trying to take advantage of that.

If I can host flash video and a simple player on my £30/year web host, is there any good reason their in house tech is 'slow and cumbersome'?
Think about how many people connect to your server. Now think how many per second connect to the youtube servers.

Re:Why youtube? (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | about 6 years ago | (#23043026)

Yeah, I once embedded my video in a myspace page and watched my bandwidth disappear down a black hole. However if they can handle the web traffic, adding flash video is not as huge extra.

Re:Why youtube? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 6 years ago | (#23043938)

People do not go to you tube searching for campaign videos they get to youtube via the campaigners web site. All that needs to happen is for congress to add video streaming to the library of congress so the videos can be hosted there. Side benefits, kept as a matter of public record, un-editable once put up and campaigners held legally liable for them.

WTF is all the nonsense about trying to make Youtube of any other commercial site suitable, and should the video then go on to also be hosted by commercial video streaming sites, who cares.

Republicans... (3, Insightful)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | about 6 years ago | (#23042684)

Republicans on the commission still fret that with only one such site, the House could be seen as picking winners and losers on the Web.

Every time I see popular political videos on You Tube it looks to me like Republicans are the losers on the web.

Re:Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23043160)

Not true. What about Ron Paul? It's the dishonest republicans that come out looking like fools.

Re:Republicans... (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | about 6 years ago | (#23044820)

Ron Paul didn't come out looking like a fool? That's news to me.b Except for Nader, he is the biggest joke of the '08 Presidential campaign, especially on the web. Even Huckabee did better.

Re:Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23043274)

Losers?

McCain girls disagree!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s

Re:Republicans... (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 6 years ago | (#23044810)

it looks to me like Republicans are the losers on the web.

Uhhh, everybody is a loser on the web.

Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23042702)

Can we call it YouSATube?

Republicans always concerned about fair play (0, Troll)

carcosa30 (235579) | about 6 years ago | (#23042774)

The republicans worry and fret-- to such an extent that they lose sleep-- about fairness on the web. They are shocked-- SHOCKED! that someone in government might try to pick winners and losers.

It's up to the phone company and Fox to do that.

Next, YouTube will be OURTUBES... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 6 years ago | (#23042838)

We'll all be connected up the ass with CONgresspeople. I imagine OurTubes will be immune from persecution (and PROsecution?) for testifying or implicating ourselves...

Okay, so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23043054)

The rule says you can't redirect constituents to a commercial site, but can you redirect them to Rick Astley's music video "Never Gonna Give You Up"?

Capuano (3, Informative)

Roxton (73137) | about 6 years ago | (#23043078)

I've had the good fortune of being represented by Capuano in Boston. He's great, because he maintains an electronic newsletter detailing issues faced by the House and his rationale for voting. Regardless of where you're from, I recommend visiting his site and taking a look at his "e-updates" to get a sense of the political process.

http://www.house.gov/capuano/ [house.gov]

Awesome, awesome congressman.

YouTube (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#23043142)

should get a PBS channel. With a semi-annual begathon and everything. Of course sites like vote smart, open secrets, and c-span are good enough for me. They show what the politicians do, not just what they say. And crooks and liars is always good for a few laughs.

Goo Tube rules (1)

heroine (1220) | about 6 years ago | (#23044072)

Of course, qualifying videos must be handheld, shaking, out of focus, and pointing in the opposite direction of the subject.

Re:Goo Tube rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23044258)

Of course, qualifying videos must be handheld, shaking, out of focus, and pointing in the opposite direction of the subject.
So they ALL have to feature McCain?
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...