RSS
film-music-culture

Did You Know?

By Dorsey Shaw

This viral video is all about the exponential growth of available information in our society and what effects it might have on our future. Everyone should watch it once. Created by Karl Fisch.


Comments

(39)

most of

Most of the new technology of the future , i would not be able to do anything with it. I use what we have now for music and home movies, And i will continue to go with the flow. The government already has enough technologies to spy on us. These are the things that should concern us. Such as what can be done today , that takes our liberties away.

Obama has it right to modernize the schools so that the students can be ready for tomorrow. Times changes ,so will the jobs.

Not until there comes a time , when there is supposed to be one giant super computer , that can clone itself and make itself stronger , And will not need man's help for maintenance or improvement then i would have second thoughts.

By getmad54November 28, 2008 - 3:16pm

I want to sing them old songs.

Most of the new technology of the future, you would not be able to do anything with it?

I suspect you are right.

Funny, a lot of the new technology is actually developed with money that comes from entertainment.

It's against national security to sell computer games to China and some other countries because the microprocessor used in the games, developed from consumer revenue which is funding game development, is more advanced than weapons systems in most countries.

Cad and Finite Element Analysis software was actually developed by those that make movies such as Star Wars and then the software is sold off to other companies which then sold it as cad software.

CD players forced the cost to go from 1500 dollars to 15 dollars as well as improving the technology from a double speed single sided CD to duel layer, double sided DVD with Blue Ray technology.

We have actually entered an ages where the new technology is driven by the entertainment industry.

The only way we can compete as a nation is to devolope young minds. As long as the conservatards fight to replace science with mysticism, it will never happen.

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 2:58am

I think the big factor in future tech

is in the fact that virtually every kid now uses a computer second naturedly. 40 years ago only scientists had access to a computer. so only specialists were working on ways to use them. Today they are tools the way calculators were a few years back and people are looking for ways to use them in virtually every aspect of life.

By gt6November 29, 2008 - 9:45am

Computer

Just being able to steer to a website or download illegal music doesn't make you an expert.

Everyone in the US knows how to turn on a light (use the switch stupid), but probably only a tiny percent knows how a light bulb actually works.

The difference between adults and kids is that the kids aren't "afraid" of the computers. Believe me, I have worked with both. Adults are afraid they might mess something up, kids want to know what to do next.

Without a background in "art", computer art looks tacky. Without a traditional background in "music", computer music is just noise. The same for engineering.

Computers today are designed by other computers. No human can design a CPU with millions of transistors. But it's the "people" that program the computers. THAT TAKES EDUCATION.

I remember when John McCain, during the election, referred to college students as a "special interest" group. And talked about nuclear safety and what to do with nuclear waste as "blah blah blah". Throngs of the ignorant cheered. That moron almost became our president.

Does anyone think that if McCain and Palin became the CIC and VP, they would be putting together a bipartisan cabinet with such speed? No, Palin would be "vacationing" in Alaska and McCain would be out playing golf.

The inmates would still be running the asylum. The US has several wars going on right now:

1. War in Iraq
2. War in Afghanistan
3. War on the economy
4. War on this government humbled by Bush
5. War on our world image given to us by Bush
6. War on what disasters Bush will cause in his last 50 days.
7. War on Ignorance
8. War on the mystical who want to replace science in our schools with "supernatural"

And another two dozen wars I haven't even mentioned.

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 1:15pm

By deanrdd November 29, 2008 - 1:15pm

#7..."war on ignorance"

Don't you mean "war for ignorance? These goons have sought to dumb down Americans to the point where we just say "OKAY" to all of the injustice, "OKAY" to all the prejudice, "OKAY" to each and every move that this Poseur In Chief has made in our names.

I know what you meant, It's only that I believe that there are those like 'hatey' who will pounce on this to try to make that dull pin at the top of his head look like a point.

By roadgoddessNovember 30, 2008 - 9:07am

Depends on which side you are on.

Republicans are the ones "FOR" ignorance.

They have this "tactic" that seems to work for them over and over again among their "ilk".

They come up with these bizarre, outrageous scenarios and use those to justify the awful things they do.

Examples:

Iraq was close to setting off nuclear weapons and that's why we had to stop them. We were next.

If abortion is allowed, women will use abortion exclusively as the only form of birth control and will feel justified killing newborns.

Gays will marry their pets.

Letting a gay into the military is like putting a straight guy into a platoon of hooters girls.

Believing in evolution is a one way ticket to hell. What is to stop you from orgies and murder?

Obama will bring rap and thugs to the White House because he is black.

--------------

I have heard every single one of these arguments from the right. They are awful people. You know that the Christian population in Iraq has been decimated by 1/2 to two thirds? They say things like, "Well, you have to break a few eggs".

The right has been taken over by the worst America has too offer. The unpatriotic ignorant who revel in their ignorance. They can't be reasoned with. They must be defeated. That means that mainstream America must stand up to them. Standing up to them doesn't mean violence. It means exposure. You have to drag them from their damp dark place of prejudice and ignorance into some type of enlightenment. You can't let up. You can't acquiesce. The last eight years has been a free ride for the Republicans and that has been a disaster for this country.

By deanrddNovember 30, 2008 - 12:22pm

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 2:58am

Of all forms of entertainment, it is porn that drives technology the most. That has been true since the printing press.

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 9:55am

Yes and no.

Spending money on porn provides revenue, but not technology. That development aspect comes from movies mostly. Virtually all 3d technology came from movies.

You don't need special effects for porn. Just a couple of messed up people with no other talent who would do anything for a buck, a garage, a blanket (optional), a bottle of lube (optinal) and a working video camera.

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 1:00pm

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 1:00pm

I disagree. Porn outsold the bible with the printing press, creating demand. Porn drove sales of photographic film from the start. And porn is responsible for the development of internet technologies.

In some cases porn is responsible for the new technology. In others it creates the demand that brings about mass production at lower cost. The former is happening with internet and computer technology. For example: Danni Ashe.

If 3d technology can be applied to the porn industry in some manner, it will end up advancing that field farther and faster than any other contributor.

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 1:14pm

If 3d technology can be...

I think you are giving "porn" way too much credit.

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 3:38pm

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 3:38pm

Well it isn't worth arguing about. But I do not believe I'm giving porn too much credit.

I have history to back it up. As soon as photographic film became available there was a demand for pictures of naked people. And that demand brought about increased production, improvements in production and lower prices.

The same goes for the internet. It was the demand for streaming video of naked women that brought about the development of better ways to stream quality video. It was a large market waiting to be tapped.

Now take the idea of being able to manipulate robotic hands through the internet. There is now the ability to perform surgery remotely with very expensive equipment. But when it comes to upscaling this to mass production, what do you think will drive that technology?; The need to shake hands remotely or the need for hand jobs for $25 a session?

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 3:55pm

.

How was that?

It's was great, if a bit "mechanical".

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 7:28pm

Printing press was first used to print Bibles.

2nd use was to print raffle tickets for wealthy to buy seats in heaven.

3rd use was the original blog, to get the word out to all, of the insanity of the church and the wealthy, for the 2nd use of the printing press.

By aaazzz111November 29, 2008 - 8:00pm

Porn didn't develop or

Porn didn't develop or enhance the technology, but the technology was rapidly embraced by the purveyors of porn. It wasn't the demand for better quality streaming video for porn that developed the technology. As soon as the technology was available, purveyors of porn used it. The printing press wasn't developed to purvey porn, but as soon as it became available, purveyors of porn used it. They really aren't very imaginative people, those porn-ographers. That's why women find most porn very, very boring after the first two or three times. They don't develop stuff, they use what is available. People who are visually stimulated will pay top dollar for a little titillation.

By MichtouNovember 29, 2008 - 8:14pm

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 1:00pm

Pornography Drives Technology: Why Not to Censor the Internet
Peter Johnson

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 1:09pm

replace science with mysticism

Given the Internet, I doubt that this will ever happen. Unless the Conservatards find a way to shut off the Internet to their non-curious, non-sexually active (yeah right--just ask Sarah Palin how Bristol became pregnant--immaculate conception no doubt) progeny.

I bought a book a few months back called, "The Encyclopaedea of Biblical Evidences." I was hoping to find a scientific discussion. Instead I found nothing but dogma. We are right because the Good Book says we're right, and evidence be damned. Don't you know that scientists can be wrong? Read this book and arm yourself for the next cookie party (since cocktail parties are dens of iniquity) where you can slay the hedonists with your knowledge of biblical evidence.

Sorry, I'm a scientist. I may believe in God but I do not believe that we were created precisely at noon about 6,000 years ago. There is too much evidence to the contrary that suggests double-digit billions of years for the age of the Universe.

By blogbobNovember 30, 2008 - 12:59am

I personally have no ghostly beliefs, neither holy nor friendly.

American Christians are not very, well, Christian. I attended Catholic school growing up. In the Bible, Jesus talks about poverty and the wealthy helping the poor more than 3 thousand times, yet never mentions gays a single time.

Just the fact that American Christians support the new Iraq constitution which makes Islam the national religion and merely shrug at the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have been beheaded, crucified and chased out of a homeland they have been living in BEFORE there even was Islam proves how low they have sunk.

American Christians are fixated on gays even though there are "swingers" clubs in every state in the union (even Alaska) and some of those clubs boast of members from more than 35 countries. They have swingers conventions every year in Las Vegas and Florida. They take over huge resort hotels and have dozens of orgy rooms covering many floors. It's possible there are more swingers living in the US than gays.

Yet, ask them if they even know any gays and they say, "I don't want to" or "I know someone how knows someone who has a cousin".

Many American Christians don't even know where gays come from.

American Christians would rather their sons and daughters live in extreme danger in Iraq rather than being helped by a gay translator who might "see" them in the shower. They are more afraid of the gays than the terrorists. Could they be any more ignorant?

I use the gay issue because it is so out there and the most obvious. But it is only one of many.

By deanrddNovember 30, 2008 - 12:42pm

Where in the constitution does it give the president

the POWER to modernize the school system?

By momofukuNovember 28, 2008 - 9:11pm

Hi Again, Dummy!

I'm not sure that it does, but when he has a filibuster proof majority in the senate and the overwhelming majority in congress, it should be pretty easy to get the juice to start reversing all the damage you PNAC neo cons have inflicted on my country.

Bye, Dummy!!

By othelloNovember 28, 2008 - 9:50pm

By othelloNovember 28, 2008 - 9:50pm

Happy Thanksgiving weekend!

By f u bush2November 28, 2008 - 10:52pm

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend To You Too, fub2!

I had the entire week off... took a couple days vacation along with the two holidays. I wonder if all of our trolls are thanking unions for fighting to get them paid holidays? I doubt it, they're ingrates and morons.

I've been dope slapping momofuklansman for a while, but he's getting boring already. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

By othelloNovember 28, 2008 - 11:06pm

You mean with that horribly-misnamed...

..."No Child Left Behind" travesty?

Classic example of RepubliCANT doublespeak. Name something the exact opposite of what it's intended to do.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manNovember 29, 2008 - 6:41am

good call nonex

dumsh*it put his foot right in his mouth.

By aaazzz111November 29, 2008 - 10:41am

Or spy on other Americans?

Or attack countries that never attacked us?
Or torture?
Or arrest people and hold them indefinitely?
Or lie to the American people?
Or give out 363 tons of 100 dollar bills of American Taxpayer money on the streets of Iraq?
Or send our soldiers off to other countries with shitty and old equipment?
Or give away a trillion dollars of middle class money to the very rich?

There are lots of things not spelled out by the constitution. When did that ever stop Republicans, or that shitstain - Bush?

By deanrddNovember 29, 2008 - 1:53pm

The Power

1. The State is charged with the responsibility to educate our young.
2. This power has devolved from the states to the counties or municipalities over time.
3. States, counties, and municipalities seek Federal government mioney to improve the quality of education.
4. The money is provided through grants and other financial instruments via the US Depaertmernt of Education, a Cabinet-level position since the late 1970s.
5. The DOE has long used these instruments as levers to get school systems of states, counties, and municipalities to do their bidding. If you want Federal money you must comply with the following: (a) (b) (c) and so forth.
6. Every so often there is the unfunded mandate like "No Child Left Alive" that dictaters to school systems without funding the needed changes to implement the dictates.
7. As Chief Executive, Barack Obama will have power over items 4 through 6 above.

As to your question, the power of the President to affect education in the United States is found in Article II, Section 2:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Empahasis added.

any more questions?

By blogbobNovember 30, 2008 - 1:18am

Jerusalem worried US will sell tanks to Lebanon

Jerusalem worried US will sell tanks to Lebanon
Nov 22, 2008

Israel is concerned with reports that the US plans to sell dozens of M60 main battle tanks to the Lebanese army, senior defense officials said over the weekend.

"There is a possibility these tanks will fall into Hizbullah's hands," one official warned. "At the moment, Hizbullah does not yet have heavy armor in its arsenal."

On Friday, the An-Nahar daily reported the US was planning to deliver dozens of M60 tanks to Lebanon in several batches starting early next year. A specific number was not reported.

The M60 tank is an all-purpose tank made in the US with advanced firepower and mobility. Though superseded by the M1 Abrams, the M60 series remains in service throughout the world. Egypt has the most, with 1,700, Turkey is second with more than 900 and Israel is third with over 700.

The decision to send tanks to Lebanon is part of a $410 million military aid program the US approved following the 2006 Second Lebanon War, to bolster the Lebanese army against Syria and local militia groups such as Hizbullah.

The US has already provided the Lebanese army with weapons, ammunition, communication devices and vehicles such as Hummer jeeps.

...

By f u bush2November 28, 2008 - 10:52pm

Funny, Earlier, momofuklansman cut and pasted an article...

... about some guys in Texas being convicted of funding Hezbollah and Hamas, and here we are putting old tanks in their hands! I mean, as far as he is concerned, all Muslims are terrorists, right? I mean, he's said that here before, something about mass murdering the whole billion of them, right?

I wonder if we will supply them with depleted uranium shells as well?

By othelloNovember 28, 2008 - 11:14pm

robot probe air-drone superiority is the new ground superiorty

Jews in Space.
--Mel Brooks.
.
Do the schwartz.

By aaazzz111November 29, 2008 - 8:37pm

Well, nice to get a return on that old hardware

Israel has no need to worry. The M60 wouldn't last 10 secondas against an Israeli M1A2 or Chieftan.

By blogbobNovember 30, 2008 - 1:24am

More on porn and new technology...

The dirty secret that drives new technology: it's porn
John Arlidge
guardian.co.uk, Sunday March 3 2002 01.23 GMT
The Observer, Sunday March 3 2002

Some excerpts:

...

That sex sells is scarcely a startling discovery. What is striking, however, is how analysts and executives are acknowledging - for the first time - how important it is when it comes to driving technological advance.

As one senior industry figure put it: 'For years it has been a dirty secret that one of the key drivers of new consumer technology is sex, pornography. The need to make 3G technology work - and work fast - is exposing that secret.'

Analysts estimate that demand for sex services delivered via mobile phones could be worth as much as £1 billion a year in Britain by 2005. Some believe that the future of third-generation mobile communication depends on sex.

Dario Betti, an analyst at London-based digital media consultancy Ovum, says: 'Like it or not, pornography drives each new, convenient visual technology, and 3G, which combines powerful new media applications, will be no different.'

Betti certainly has history on his side. If you are reading this article at home, you may not have any centrefolds stashed under the bed. You may disapprove of porn. But the spin-offs of the industry are all around you.

The camcorder and video machine you use to capture those memorable family moments - baby's first steps, weddings, holidays - use VHS tapes. US pornographers' decision to adopt the cheap convenient VHS - rather than rival Betamax - when the two systems were introduced in the 1970s killed off Betamax while sales of pornographic films drove take-up of video recorders.

Your DVD player may be great for watching out-takes of the Mike Myers' comedy Austin Powers II: The Spy Who Shagged Me, but it is real sex movies which have driven DVD sales because, unlike videotape, users can skip quickly to and from their favourite scenes. The pay-per-view cable or satellite TV movie channel is only available on your TV because pornographers pioneered subscription 'premium' services first in hotels and then on digital networks.

Did you watch the BBC's interactive coverage of Wimbledon on Sky's digital network last summer? Watching four games at once or changing the camera angle so you can watch your favourite player more closely may look new but it isn't. Pornographers perfected the technology a decade ago for an entirely different 'sport'.

...

Pornographic sites are also one of the few web services that make money. Forget the great dot.com crash, the Online Computer Library Centre's annual review of net use last year found 80,000 'major' adult websites, which generated profits of more than £1bn - more than any other e-commerce sector. Much of that money has been reinvested in developing leading-edge interactive services including 'virtual reality' sex games that allow users to 'join in' the action.

Porn providers have become so good at developing technology and making money online that mainstream e-businesses from banks to supermarkets are now asking its leading practitioners for advice.

Danni Ashe, an American 'erotic actress' who made millions selling nude pictures of herself on her own website - Danni's Hard Drive - is making a second career as a technological consultant and strategic adviser to large US corporations.

...

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 8:59pm

Danni Ashe developed new streaming technology

Why sex still leads the net
Sara Gaines
guardian.co.uk, Thursday February 28 200

When Ashe is not posing naked on her site, Danni's Hard Drive, she has a growing list of business engagements. Last year these included speeches at the Streaming Media Asia seminar in Hong Kong and the Internet World Conference in Sydney, and Ashe has twice testified before US congressional committees on child protection and internet-related issues.

Among other sites queueing up for her advice are medical, film and wine companies, as well as other porn sites. This work, hived off through subsidiary company DHD Media, is expected to account for 50% of Ashe's revenue within three years. Still smarting from Napster, the music industry is also keen to replicate Ashe's subscription model.

Ashe has also developed her own streaming technology, DanniVision, which eliminates the need for RealPlayer or any other plug-in. Ashe said she started the business after teaching herself HTML and, after six years, she expects to make $7m or $8m profit this year.

"There has been a shift in attitudes in the business community and we are being recognised as a serious player," she says. "Companies are still wary of overt links with porn sites and I couldn't name any of the ones I have been a consultant for, but there are more and more of them."

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 9:06pm

Much as you'd like to

Much as you'd like to believe that porn drives technology, you're wrong. Porn uses technology, it doesn't develop it. They're great users because they make money. That doesn't mean they develop it. They are first on the bandwagon users because they see the opportunity to make lots of money. They aren't into innovation, they're into making money off inovation.

By MichtouNovember 29, 2008 - 9:11pm

By MichtouNovember 29, 2008 - 9:11pm

porn takes new technology and develops it more which brings it into the mainstream.

Porn is responsible for early improvements to photography and the internet because of high demand and money available to pay for the improvements. Without porn the new technology would not make the impact it does.

And yes they do innovate. As an example I posted Danni Ashe who developed her own streaming technology which at the time was top notch. She didn't invent streaming video but she contributed to its development.

And as the article i posted points out, it was the porn industry that decided the VHS/Beta format battle.

Let me add that "porn" encompasses all types in my point of view. From the blatant visuals of sexual acts by paid models to more artistic but pornographic writings to the more intimate pictures of an individual's significant other.

Civil war troops were receiving "pornographic" pictures of their naked spouses by mail. This was the dawn of personal photography,

By f u bush2November 29, 2008 - 9:24pm

oregon civil war

oregon 65-38

By aaazzz111November 29, 2008 - 10:54pm

By aaazzz111 November 29, 2008 - 10:54pm

GO DUCKS!!

By roadgoddessNovember 30, 2008 - 7:00am

Lieberman Contributed to GOP Senate, House Candidates

Lieberman Contributed to GOP Senate, House Candidates
By Paul Kane

When Democrats gathered last week to decide the fate of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a pair of senators-elect, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, stepped up to offer symbolically important speeches.

Having ridden the wave of support for President-elect Barack Obama, Udall and Merkley spoke out in favor of the spirit of reconciliation and moving on from the campaign, in which Lieberman was one of the highest profile supporters of the Republican presidential ticket.

But no one in the room knew, as Merkley spoke, that Lieberman had supported Merkley's opponent, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith's reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Lieberman's support of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the presidency was well known, punctuated by his nationally televised speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul criticizing Obama as not prepared to be president. His endorsement of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has served as the top Republican beside him at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also was well known in Democratic circles.

But not even Merkley knew of Lieberman's backing of Smith in their critical Senate race, until Capitol Briefing alerted his staff today.

...

Lieberman's support of Smith came the same weekend he wrote an op-ed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press defending Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) for his work as chairman of an investigative subcommittee on Lieberman's homeland security committee. The same day he wrote a check to Smith, Lieberman's ROC PAC gave $5,000 to Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican. In radio and TV appearances the final days of the campaign, Lieberman also frequently said that a Democratic majority of 60 votes, a filibuster-proof level, would be a bad thing.

...

By f u bush2November 30, 2008 - 12:52am

Let LIEberman have his committees now

but the first time he supports a filibuster, STRIP HIM! And do it publicly.

By gt6November 30, 2008 - 10:22am

By gt6 November 30, 2008 - 10:22am

Let LIEberman have his committees now but the first time he supports a filibuster, STRIP HIM! And do it publicly.
---------------------
Thing is, they can't.
Removing him and replacing him would have to go through the Senate. Which is why Evan Bayh's donkeyshit about removing him if he works against Obama's interests was nothing but that: donkeyshit.

Show of hands: how many think Republicans in the Senate will push through the removal and replacement of their newest Zell Miller?

Anyone? Anyone?
Didn't think so.
And if Evan Bayh really thought/thinks so, he's a dumber mother fucker than I had originally thought...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 1, 2008 - 5:40pm

Hitmen charge $100 a victim as Basra honour killings rise

Hitmen charge $100 a victim as Basra honour killings rise
Afif Sarhan
guardian.co.uk, Sunday November 30 2008

Authorities in the southern Iraqi city of Basra have admitted they are powerless to prevent 'honour killings' in the city following a 70 per cent increase in religious murders during the past year.

There has been no improvement in conviction rates for these killings. So far this year, 81 women in the city have been murdered for allegedly bringing shame on their families. Only five people have been convicted.

During 2007 the Basra security committee recorded 47 'honour killings' and three convictions. One lawyer in the city described how police were actively protecting perpetrators and said that a woman in Basra could now be murdered by hired hitmen for as little as $100 (£65).

The figures come despite international outrage which followed The Observer's coverage of the death of 17-year-old Rand Abdel-Qader, who was murdered by her father last April in an 'honour killing' after falling in love with a British soldier in Basra. The 4,000 British troops stationed in the city since the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003 withdrew to the airport last September.

Rand Abdel-Qader was killed after her family discovered that she had formed a friendship with a 22-year-old infantryman whom she knew as Paul. She was suffocated by her father then hacked at with a knife. Abdel-Qader Ali was subsequently arrested and released without charge.

...

By f u bush2November 30, 2008 - 11:37am

Comments

(39)