Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States Technology

Air-Traffic Control Is in the Midst of a Major Change (wsj.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
Shift from radar to GPS should make tracking faster and more accurate, allowing more planes in the air. From a report: Since World War II, air-traffic controllers have used radar to keep track of aircraft. But as of Jan. 1, most planes and helicopters flying in the U.S. must be equipped with transponders that allow their movements to be traced with GPS coordinates. The deadline caused a flurry of upgrades last year as operators who hadn't yet complied with the mandate rushed to equip their aircraft in time. Now, more than 100,000 commercial and general aviation aircraft have the transponders, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, including nearly all commercial aircraft and an estimated 60% of general aviation aircraft that need it.

"If you're flying an antique plane in the middle of Ohio, you don't have to have it," said John Zimmerman, vice president of Sporty's Pilot Shop, an Ohio retailer and flight school. The U.S. controls 29.4 million square miles of airspace, including all of the U.S., large portions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The FAA mandate primarily applies to Class A airspace, which is 18,000 feet or more above sea level; Class B airspace, the areas surrounding the nation's busiest airports; Class C airspace, the areas around smaller regional airports; and above 10,000 feet in Class E, the most common airspace. LaGuardia Airport in New York is Class B. Richmond International Airport in Virginia is Class C.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Air-Traffic Control Is in the Midst of a Major Change More

Air-Traffic Control Is in the Midst of a Major Change

Comments Filter:

  • So are there going to be more flight controllers handling these additional planes? Maybe so that it isn't possible to have flight controllers locked out of the tower like happened at DCA?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

      Computers will separate the traffic, in fact computers could control the planes remotely.

      I hope they keep the radars around for backup. A tiny solar storm will knock out GPS

      • Or your transponder stops working....

      • Re:More flight controllers to deal with more plane (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24, 2020 @06:07PM (#59653350)

        ATC systems have backups upon backups upon backups - both hardware and software, and not just backups of identical systems, but entirely unrelated ones, with multiple data lines. Now, that level of redundancy is in part because they're all so friggin' unreliable, but...

        Humans make tons of errors (weird ones too!), to be sure, and computers can help prevent that. But automated systems have their own errors, and as a general rule, you need humans to deal with them. You may inexplicably have an aircraft repeatedly spam your system with CPDLC messages, or the MET office start issuing malformed weather forecasts, or any countless number of other things. And there's a million different systems around the world connected run by different people doing tons of different things, all of which have to do regular software and hardware updates / fixes, all of which might break things for you. And something thats working perfectly on your end may just spontaneously break even when not caused by a third party... maybe a hardware failure, maybe a date change alters paths in a way a programmer didn't expect, maybe something caused a disk to fill up unexpectedly quickly... And as a result, you have to have computer programmers and sysadmins on-call to be able to fix things any hour of the day.

        Don't get me wrong, though.... the level of unreliability of everything is compensated for via redundancy, the ability to do things manually, and telling aircraft to stay out of your airspace if things go really wrong until you can get things back under control. ATC-related accidents do happen, but they're rare, and they're usually related to the controller, not the system.

        BTW, GPS is already used even when you're not "broadcasting GPS coordinates". For example, MLAT is reliant on GPS to synchronize clocks precise enough for accurate triangulation. Really, satellites (from numerous types of systems) play way more of a role in aircraft tracking and communication than most people realize.

        (Disclosure: I work at an ATC centre)

      • Exactly. No GPS one day will be chaos if there is no radar backup, with transponders.
    • What additional planes? If anything there might be slightly fewer planes because those that have not been upgraded won't be allowed in the airspace with this new requirement. Why would there be an increase in traffic because new transponders are installed?

    • Re:More flight controllers to deal with more plane (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Inglix the Mad ( 576601 ) on Friday January 24, 2020 @05:13PM (#59653136)
      There actually isn't more traffic to keep track of AC.

      Currently, in all the places that the ADS-B mandate really applies, there was already a "Mode C Veil" where you had to have a transponder that reported altitude. The problem with this was simple, especially at regional airports: People flying VFR with a transponder code of 1200. You see, above 18k' or outside of a Class B VFR path (when they were open), people have discrete transponder codes (e.g. 1728, 4382) and filed IFR flight plans to make things easier for ATC. What ADS-B does is make being an Air Traffic Controller a bit easier.

      The ADS-B capable transponder broadcasts a lot more than the VFR pilot's GPS location, and what is available is more as well. So your ADS-B transponder is tied to your plane, it has a unique code and part of the certification for it is to check with the FAA. So they can tell by the code it's N000FH, which is a Cessna 172SP NAV III. Also by broadcasting your position, altitude, and direction to everyone else, you show up to other planes without ATC being involved. Finally, you see all the other planes on your display that are broadcasting ADS-B. On top of that there is free (but a bit delayed) ADS-B weather so that you can see what you are headed toward weather-wise.

      There's more, of course, but this scratches the surface on what it does. Really it doesn't change the workload because a plane squawking 1200 (VFR) is subject to no more control than any other VFR plane, there's just more information being sent to the display. Oh, and they aren't getting rid of radar for ADS-B.

    • nixon locked out the union

  • Boating went through this recently (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Friday January 24, 2020 @03:44PM (#59652696) Homepage Journal

    Vessel traffic control worldwide has required all containerships to have AIS transponder since the 90s, and all commercial vessels have required it since ~2005. Now consumer VHF marine radios have AIS receivers, and in the last 2-3 years you can get a VHF radio with a full send-receive transponder.
     
    It used to be that a AIS transponder used to cost $1000 alone 10 years ago, now you can get it bundled in with your radio for under $900. In another 10 years it'll cost $500 which is pretty reasonable for boat electronics.
     
    Generally it works really well. The downside is that AIS beacons look pretty busy in an area like San Francisco and it's hard to show all of them and calculate collisions etc. Radar still tells you what's actually there. Transponders require a very high level of trust as planes can fly with a disabled or broken transponder.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      This is the real problem.

      If all your air traffic control requires is transponders, than all anyone has to do to cause major havoc is to disable the transponder.

      • Re:Boating went through this recently (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday January 24, 2020 @04:22PM (#59652910)

        disable the transponder

        And then explain yourself to those F-16s flying alongside.

      • This is the real problem.

        If all your air traffic control requires is transponders, than all anyone has to do to cause major havoc is to disable the transponder.

        It worked in Die Harder [Die Hard 2]

      • Re:Boating went through this recently (Score:5, Informative)

        by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Friday January 24, 2020 @05:12PM (#59653128) Homepage

        The transponders only provide supplemental data to the secondary surveillance system. When there is a mismatch between primary radar and secondary surveillance, the air traffic controller notices it right away and calls the pilot. If the issue is not satisfactorily resolved they absolutely could initiate a military intercept if the flight posed a threat or pursue disciplinary action on the pilot.

      • This is the real problem.

        If all your air traffic control requires is transponders, than all anyone has to do to cause major havoc is to disable the transponder.

        Good thing they're not doing that. Dodged a bullet there.

        • Ah, apologies, I see the problem. The WSJ put it in TFA. Paywalled. Never mind.

          Whether or not if radar systems would be retired is speculation at this point. I note that in another article someone mentioned that it will improve ATC in current lightly radared areas, as the controller will be able to see an a/c for traffic purposes even if it's not painted by radar.

          • Boat radar is like you think it is, it bounces off metal boats (but not fiberglass yachts).

            Aircraft control "Radar" requires a transponder in the aircraft. When the radar sweeps an area, the transponder responds with a ping. It does NOT see planes without transponders.

            "TCAS" is that type of radar on the planes instead of on the ground, and so it can see other planes that have transponders. It annoys pilots due to inflexible rules that says they must do what TCAS tells them even though they can see the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            Whether or not if radar systems would be retired is speculation at this point. I note that in another article someone mentioned that it will improve ATC in current lightly radared areas, as the controller will be able to see an a/c for traffic purposes even if it's not painted by radar.

            Probably not, radar provides useful utility.

            ADS-B is required everywhere a transponder is required. Everywhere a transponder is required is under surveillance radar (the transponder is pinged when the radar sweeps around).

            The

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by atisss ( 1661313 )

      Good luck trying that in europe. The moment you approach country airspace with disabled transponder, you will be greeted with 2 fighter jets.
      Russians have tendency to do that, perhaps they have some really low quality transponders that break often.

  • Gonna be fun when the next war comes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Friday January 24, 2020 @03:44PM (#59652700) Journal

    When the next peer war comes... I mean real nation-state war, not "send your $100 million fighter to drop a bomb on goatherders war"... one of the first things that peer enemy will do is target our satellite com systems. Including GPS. So it's going to be one hell of a party managing air traffic then. Because we'll surely dismantle our existing radar system to save costs.

    A vulnerable satellite system, with no terrestrial backup technology to take over when the sats are shot down with ASAT missiles.

    Ahhh. Gonna be good times.

    • If we have a war like that, commercial air traffic will be the last thing you will be concerned about.

      • Nuclear states are not the only ones who can launch a satellite killer right now, so your scenario does not necessarily include an all-out war.

        Disabling the GPS system(s) would have far reaching commercial effects and would not necessarily mean a war

        I still see a need for radar as a fall back, particularly considering the GPS jamming that seems to be affecting shipping traffic in the South China Sea

        • Nuclear states are not the only ones who can launch a satellite killer right now

          The overlap is pretty similar. [wikipedia.org] You're looking at Iran and Japan. One of those I wouldn't be worried about and one of those I would, on both fronts.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
          Well if GPS is degraded just switch to Galileo. Or dud you use GPS (a trademark for the us system) as wa term describing all GNSS, in that case i think the sites fiering the sat killing rockets would find them selves in a heap of reobble long befor they could significantly degrade muktiple constaations

      • If we have a war like that, commercial air traffic will be the last thing you will be concerned about.

        Oh, I disagree. Civilian air traffic will be of vital importance for moving things like medical shipments quickly in the aftermath of a major war. Even if there's a nuclear exchange, EVERYTHING won't disappear, and moving emergency shipments of supplies quickly and accurately will be vital.

        • You're funny, there are not enough supplies, doctor's nor rural hospitals by a factor of ten thousand. The populace will be fucked and no amount of surviving aircraft will be relevant

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Those commercial air liners are paid to carry around reinforced flooring, just in case they need to be pressed into military service.

    • Considering it's only being required for higher altitudes, my guess is the radar systems will remain installed. Many of those light planes can't even reach 18k feet.

    • The radar systems will still be there. The next-gen ADSB systems the article calls "transponders" just makes things more efficient plus it provides aircraft with traffic and weather info.

    • GPS isn't the only game in town. There are now Russian (GLONASS) and European (GALILEO) systems as well. Soon there will probably be a Chinese system, and maybe an Indian one. Consumer-level devices already are including the three global systems. The peers fighting would need to disable not only each other's systems, but also the systems of everyone else - which is probably "act of war" territory. If we're talking world war, then commercial aviation is pretty much on hiatus anyway.

      • I would be surprised if it doesn't become easy to geolocate at least approximately using any of many, many satellites in the near future. Starlink, for example, all the complaints about having so many satellites in LEO that are too easy to see. Well, that will have benefits. You don't need the full accuracy of GPS to navigate ships at sea.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      And whoever does that will screw themselves as well. Space war is the ultimate cold war, you blow one of ours, the shrapnel will shred all of yours.

      • And whoever does that will screw themselves as well. Space war is the ultimate cold war, you blow one of ours, the shrapnel will shred all of yours.

        So, we're talking here (with lot's of reverb)...MAD in SPACE!!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geggam ( 777689 )

      Surely you didnt post that from a cell phone which is doing the same thing to landlines

    • Doesn't take a war, just takes military exercises. See https://theaviationist.com/202... [theaviationist.com] for a current example. Heck, just look at the number of NOTAM's announcing GPS issues in areas all over: https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/P... [faa.gov]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      sats are shot down with ASAT missiles.

      No, GPS sat orbits are very high and from what I understand were put there because it is so difficult to hit. Think of how difficult it is simply to rendezvous with something in LEO. However, GPS can be denied by jamming the signal. That's why everyone except Lightspeed and FCC commissioners where opposed to Lightspeed broadband system at 1700 MHz. A simple relatively lowpower broadband transmitter will do the job in local area. Covering a wide area may be more of a challenge but lotsa cheap transmitters an

      • No, GPS sat orbits are very high and from what I understand were put there because it is so difficult to hit.

        Then your understanding is deeply flawed, or you are reliant on some absolutely insane information sources. The latter in particular, you really should address by getting less insane sources.

        When they designed the GPS system, they decided on a power and size of transmitter (which is obviously coupled with the receiver technologies too - they've advanced hugely since the system was designed). That li

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

          Then your understanding is deeply flawed

          ok, so I'm not one of the very few responsible for orbital mechanics for satellites. Probably should have phrased it better as I read sooooo many places GPS carries risk of vulnerable to anti-sats. In reality it is denial of spectrum. Anyway interesting mention the higher orbit, then don't have to update ephemeris as often.

          Speaking of spectrum denial, Navy has put this into practice, "U.S. Navy Now Jamming GPS Over Six States and 125,000 Square Miles" so I'm sure many others have such a goal. Kind of sca

          • All satellites are vulnerable to anti-satellite weaponry. After launch. That's the point of anti-satellite weaponry. What low explosives and nuts & bolts (or other shrapnel) doesn't take care of, an EMP will (if you fry the radio ... game over for the satellite).

            On the ground, thermonuclear weaponry is adequate, unless you have some political restraint preventing their use. It's war - morals are not a consideration.

    • They already decomissioned most lighthouses because of GPS, so yeah, no doubt they will dismantle the radar installations. And we don't even need a war... just another Carrington Event.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
      https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]

      Honestly, who's running this nuthouse?

    • And let's not forget terrestrial jamming and spoofing. No need to take out a satellite permanently and expensively if you can accomplish the same objective with ground- or air-based transmitters.

    • In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration has recognized that the loss of GPS signal is an eventuality. The contingency is met by maintenance of a "Minimum Operational Network" of ground-based VHF navigation stations and instrument landing systems at many airports. Most aircraft GPS units are compatible with this VHF ground-based navigation system as well. If GPS goes, we will lose a lot of functionality, but we can revert to what was done before GPS came along. We'll still be flying, just along V

  • In a typical GPS spoofing attack, the hacker forces the software to connect to their own equipment rather than the legitimate satellite systems. The hacker can then start sending false GPS data. But any sensible driver would be able to determine something was wrong if the map suddenly looked very different.Jul 12, 2018

    https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQslDGg9um7PU6ftanNUGgU5k18PA%3A1579895406663&source=hp&ei=bkorXun8JYXK_QaSrLyADA&q=gps+being+hacked&oq=gps+being+hacked&gs_l=psy- [google.com]

  • Not really a reason to exempt vehicles that can fly into buildings IMHO.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      The cheapest solution for an experimental is $1500, and we've already seen what will happen if someone tries to fly one into a building...a destroyed plane, and a broken window. Many of these planes don't even have an electrical system. There is no reason to require them if they are staying out of busy airspace.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ibpooks ( 127372 )

      That's not the whole story. The very cheapest aftermarket systems are around $2,000 that can be used in small general aviation aircraft. The most popular one is a transmitter device built into an LED dome that can replace the old tail light. This is still a pretty major upgrade when an old Cessna 150 is worth $18,000.

      The flip side is that passenger aircraft need to install systems that are fully certified. That drastically increases the price, especially on older aircraft that don't have the modern avio

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by maxrate ( 886773 )
        There was a lot of misinformation floating around. I'm holding off for a while on my plane, I really don't care about ADS-B in that much, but I want the 1090 Out vs the 978 so I can show up in flightaware. I know of the device your are talking about, the one that plugs into the nav or tail light, configurable on your smartphone.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ibpooks ( 127372 )

      It is a tiered trust system. The collision avoidance systems built-in to aircraft take the ADS-B data transmitted from other nearby aircraft at trusted face value (mostly because they have no other option). However, actual air traffic controllers have both primary radar which detects planes as targets and secondary surveillance radar which picks up the ADS-B data transmitted from aircraft. If the primary return and secondary return do not sufficiently match, ATC will notice that the transponder is not wo

      • In reality, ATC barely uses primary radar anymore. Secondary has been the default for a long time. Relying on primary radar is simply too messy, with weather and other distortions cluttering the screen. (yes, I have worked as an ATC, at my last job we didn't even have the ability to see primary radar data. Flights with broken transponders (exceedingly rare) would be handled procedurally, by reporting bearing and distance to locators and assigning clear flight levels)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ibpooks ( 127372 )

          That's interesting to hear -- it must be a per-facility thing. Just last week I was on an approach frequency listening to the controllers working with another GA aircraft to diagnose some transponder weirdness compared against their primary return. It certainly sounded like they were actively monitoring primary and secondary. To me it sounded more like some sort of configuration problem and less like a true transponder failure, but I never heard the conclusion as I got switched over to another sector.

        • Interesting. What class of airspace did you work?

      • Seems like a bad actor could clutter the sky with loads of fake planes. Collision avoidance would be screaming 'pull up' on half the planes all the time.

  • If you already needed a type C transponder, now you need an ADS-B OUT. So what.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kunnis ( 756642 )
      It's a bit higher requirements that weren't included in the transponder requirements. The "new" part is anywhere below a class B or C. That's a pretty large area that wasn't in the list already. You didn't need a transponder if you were outside the mode C veil, but under a Bravo shelf. Now you do. Also now E below 10k feet MSL. But realistically, most aircraft that can fly over 10k MSL probably have a transponder already. Basically airports that are less then 5miles, but less then 10miles outside of

  • Isn't that a firm rule in networked systems? I know in online games that's pretty much mandatory. All the important details have to be done on the server, and if the client tries to say something happened that the server doesn't like, it just gets reset and those inputs are ignored.

    In this case it seems important that the ATC wouldn't ask the plane where it was...it would find out where the plane was. So the system is backwards. You can still use a transponder, but it just broadcasts an ID code.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Terwin ( 412356 )

      Isn't that a firm rule in networked systems? I know in online games that's pretty much mandatory. All the important details have to be done on the server, and if the client tries to say something happened that the server doesn't like, it just gets reset and those inputs are ignored.

      In this case it seems important that the ATC wouldn't ask the plane where it was...it would find out where the plane was. So the system is backwards. You can still use a transponder, but it just broadcasts an ID code. Using triangulation, the system would find out where that ID code was broadcast from and that becomes your plot. (And you'd have radar as a backup for those that weren't broadcasting.)

      They do not need to trust the client. Air traffic control has radar and they need to keep that radar in case of failures.
      What the client reported GPS does is shrink the circle of uncertainty.

      If the reported GPS is not inside the margins of error for the radar, ATC knows that the transponder is malfunctioning and can act accordingly, but if it is, then ATC can take that to shrink their margin of error, and thus fit more planes into the same airspace with less risk.

      This is not a case of blind trust, it is a

  • Radar over the USA, around 20:30 UTC https://www.flightradar24.com/... [flightradar24.com]
    • Actually, not Radar, that's coming from ADS-B returns mainly. Mostly ground based receivers or from satellite relayed data.

    • Thanks for the link, very informative. I don't see how these transponders are going to increase congestion, though.

    • Definitely an interesting image; but, unless airplane bodies are in fact 60-80 miles long - it's not really a good representation of the actual overall congestion.

    • uh huh, now draw an aircraft to scale in that image. Hint, you can't, would be less than a pixel. That isn't congestion, you'll notice the sky isn't aircraft colored it's blue. That's because there is mostly nothing up there.

  • For the longest time I've always thought aircrafts all have GPS transponder. Having said that you guys already can tell I'm clueless in the aviation world. Regardless, a $20K car has GPS, that's why I've always thought a $100M plane definitely has not just one but multiple for front/rear/mid sections to identify the plane size and servicing as backup transponders. Anyways.. I'm totally surprised that if GPS was more accurate than radar, why did it take decades to make a move?
    • A transponder is not the same as a receiver. Cars have GPS receivers. A transponder transmits when requested to do so - a receiver (alone) doesn't. Transponders are much more expensive ($2000 vs $10; mainly because they're made in far smaller quantities).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kunnis ( 756642 )
      The FAA would have to get money to install new equipment. And getting businesses to pay for upgrades. Plus making changes to planes is kind of risky. How "transponders" work is by listening for the radar signal, and sending out a radio message right after you're hit with a radar ping, which gives you a user-entered ID, and likely you altitude. Most airline aircraft have 2 GPS's in them, and 2 computers that can read from either GPS, and 2 GPS systems that could do the navigation. They also have 2-3 IR
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I was watching how Capt Joe (airline pilot) described VORs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and he mentioned what if US were to turn off GPS? There are many people saying VORs are so outdated but Joe also says if you want to be an airline pilot need to know how to use VORs. Candidates are exercised in a simulator which evaluator will ask them to get a location by VOR and use them to go to another location. I can see ADS-B has a role like hams using APRS so you can see exactly who and where they are indepe

  • The main advantage of ADS-B for ATC is it reduces the number of aircraft which can fly in controlled airspace; no one without the expensive ADS-B transponders can legally do so (there's nothing inherently expensive about them, but they have to be FAA-certified and installed by FAA-certificated aircraft mechanics).

    The secondary advantage is it lets them see exactly who is flying in the ADS-B required areas, which means they can more easily penalize them with fines and "certificate actions" for various violat

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      It's not like your describing. I've had ads-b for well over a year. It's certified. No problems. At least two times in the past year if they wanted to they could have busted me. One time ATC flew me into restricted airspace and the other time mother nature pushed me into a class C airspace. Down draft, I hit the ceiling and saw stars. Never the less they could have made something of that. ATC understood. Tough day to fly.

      Are you a pilot or do you have any experience in this?

      They're really not out to get you

      • They're really not out to get you. Actions happen. Someone has a bad day or you were just being an ass. Follow the rules and you're fine.

        No one can follow all of the rules all of the time. I've seen what it takes to operate in controlled airspace: Follow a bunch of complex radio procedures, and immediately and without error obey the coded instructions given to you rapid-fire over the radio. And even if you could get it right all the time, one day ATC is going to tell you to do something wrong and you get

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

          Complex radio procedures? I suppose they may seem that way if you're not a pilot. Some places like NYC, Tampa and Atlanta are crazy busy. The guys at Tampa are like a machine gun talking and the instructor I had said you must be ready. If I hear my number, I start writing and repeat it back to him. As long as I have it right he'll move on to the next one. Otherwise he'll repeat it again. First time I flew to Albert Whitted airfield (Right off Tampa bay) it seemed a bit overwhelming. The next time I flew in

  • meaning that it is a good practice to have redundant means at your fingertips if the main systems fails. There are many links in the signal chain that can potentially fail: GPS itself, GPS being jammed, GPS selective availability being reintroduced due to a military crisis, the onboard ADS-B transponder, the ATC ADS-B receiver, etc. If any of these fails, the ATC controller MUST have a backup method to detect and track the traffic, and this is - tadaaaa! - radar. As far as I'm concerned, and I worked in NA

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close