Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/27/20 in Posts

  1. 7 points
    Well, since Markus has expressed his desire to join a Monastery, I think that definitely answers the OP question. But, some words to Markus... ( no offence meant, just trying to lighten the mood ) A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies. The head monk, says, “You make a good point, my son.” He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held in a locked vault. Hours go by and nobody sees the head monk. The young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing. “We missed the R! We missed the R! We missed the R!” “Father!” cries the young monk. “What’s wrong?” The head monk with tears in his eyes replies, “The word is CELEBRATE!"
  2. 4 points
    Emphasis added. How fortunate the climate scientists provide an abundance of other information concerning temeprature variations in the oceans, the land and the atmosphere, locally and regionally, over the short term ( hours and days) to the long term (years, decades, millenia and beyond), relating it to such diverse issues as ocean currents, weather, atmospheric composition, albedo influences, etc. In short, you have erected a strawman upon which you are making a pointless and ill-informed attack.
  3. 4 points
    That's the problem with Religions ( aside from political commentary ) and reminds me of an Emo Philips joke Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over. ( reading it back to myself, it does seem much funnier in an Emo Philips voice )
  4. 4 points
  5. 4 points
  6. 4 points
    When someone tells me they’re a Christian, I ask: Classic Jesus, or Republican Jesus?
  7. 4 points
    I suggest some research, even Wiki, of the Greece-Turkey tensions and conflicts, especially the Cyprus situation. It has briefly turned 'hot' a few times, but it is exactly because both are members of NATO ( Turkey is NOT EU ) that pressure could be brought to bear and hostilities stopped ( but tensions remain ). Similarly if Canada were attacked, the UK is duty bound ( NATO treaty ) to come to our aid, along with the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the 30 odd member states, including Poland, Hungry, Greece, Turkey and all of the former Yugoslav states. And no, Hungary was not part of NATO in 56, but of the Warsaw Pact. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, belong to SEATO, to which the US and UK were also signatories, but it hasn't been as successful' as NATO; it doesn't have its own headquarters/command and member states like French Indochina and Pakistan have dissolved or left. I would stress that NATO ( and to a much lesser extent SEATO ) is the military alliance since shortly after WW2, while the EU grew out of economic ( strictly ) European alliances that were formed during the 50s, and which C DeGaulle tried desperately to keep the UK out of ( until the 70s IIR ). It is NATO that has contributed to the peace; an attack on any member state is an attack on all of them. You don't think it was the EU that stopped Russian expansion of the Warsaw Pact ( more accurately Warsaw Occupied Possessions ) westward, do you ? The UK, as an independent state, will continue its downward spiral to irrelevance ( along with the other former European Great Powers ) in the face of competition from other resource rich states, like Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the North America block. A United Europe, though, has clout, power, and can't be pushed around by anyone. The UK could have remained a part of SOMETHING, instead you guys voted to become irrelevant, and go begging to others for trade deals. I can't wait until Prometheus has an opportunity to vote on re-joining the EU; hopefully the rest of you come to your senses in sooner than 20 years.
  8. 3 points
    I recall when I was a teaching assistant there was a lab on Faraday's law. You had a coil with some number of turns, and you flipped it and looked at the induced current in a circuit. Students used it to deduce the earth's magnetic field. And it worked reasonably well. One fun part of this was that students on one corner of the room got a different answer because there was an NMR lab one floor up, and when that magnet was on, it was strong enough to affect the field in that corner of the room. So they got a number noticeably larger than students at the other side of the room.
  9. 3 points
  10. 3 points
    The age of bumper sticker level analysis.
  11. 3 points
    I find it really hard to get a coherent picture of the opening post. I see three different aspects that trigger different tones of response, some of which are pretty redundant with the replies given already. So maybe I'll just briefly touch all three aspects to show why at least I have problems with getting a clear picture of this thread. First, there is the relatively long explanation about sums or averages not giving the full information about the individual components that contribute to them. That is correct, mathematically trivial and well known to everyone working in any field of complex systems. It is also pretty banal, and applies to pretty much every science or society related number you ever hear in the TV news: the gross-domestic product, the number of Covid-19 infections, salaries in the IT sector, the time that kids spend on social media, ... . Now, admittedly, there are a lot of people who, for different reasons, appear to limit the discussion of a topic essentially to these numbers. So for this aspect of the opening post I am torn between a sarcastic "great work, Sherlock" and an honest "it is great that you are aware that this one number is not the full picture". I think the relative volume of the sub-optimal example pushed a few people towards the former reaction. Second, there is the aspect of the specific role of an average temperature in climate science, or more specifically its role in the climate change debate. For me, this would be a great topic of debate and learning. I worked as a scientist in a somewhat related field for several years, and still my understanding of it is very basic and with a lot of "that's how I imagine it is". I'll not formulate a coherent story for this post, but just throw in a few imho relevant pieces: In the context of the greenhouse gas effect the average temperature is a very sensible, experimentally-measurable observable with some weaknesses (energy stored in the oceans). Climate scientists don't model average temperatures but create sets of future scenarios for the evolution of complex systems. The evaluation of these scenarios cannot be reduced to a single number that tells you how good or bad the scenario is. What you can do is group your scenarios according to some meaningful parameter, see what typical scenario effects are for that parameter, and then have some delegates barter about how bad you want it. Remember: The problem with climate change is not the increase in the mean temperature, but increase in extreme weather conditions, change in habitability on the planet, the self-enforcing mechanism (loss of reflective ice, melting of permafrost, methane emissions from the oceans), and possibly a bit of land loss from rising sea waters. And finally, there is the third aspect of the opening post which really turns me off: The first half of the first sentence and the last sentence. Thanks to them, the post with potential for an interesting discussion comes in a wrapping that says "troll, ignorant or political agenda inside" to anyone with a bit of experience in social media. So despite giving the OP a huge benefit of doubt with the time I put into this post I don't want to leave them without comment: 1) "Climate scientists are concerned with deviations in the average global temperature": No, they are mostly not. Type "climate science" into Google and check out what they do. 2) "Has there been any research in this area [of what is really going on]?": Yes. There is a complete scientific discipline called Climate Science that is concerned with these questions.
  12. 3 points
    This is quite ridiculous ... If you have a ruler ( a one dimensional line with numbers on it ) all you need is one number to specify any position on it. If you have a sheet of graph paper ( 2 dimensional numbered grid lines ) you need two numbers to specify any position on it. It is a simple mental jump to imagine a height above that sheet of graph paper with the same grid lines. That is the third dimension, and you now need three numbers to specify a location in that space above the sheet of graph paper. And should you want to assign variables to a specified location, you can call them x, y, and z. Dimensions are simply the directions you can move in a given space. Back and forth, side to side, and up down for 3 dimensional space.
  13. 3 points
    Agree. This is absolute Borax! Especially from a mod! ...and I don't want to hear his next spin cycle!
  14. 3 points
    As you go through notes/textbooks write down key points, ideally in a heirarchical bullet point format. Write in your own words, but retaining technical terms. If you know what is on it envisage typical questions you might be asked, write them down and answer them.
  15. 3 points
    Yes this confuses many people and is not the only situation in Science where sign conventions differ. Here we have the situation that the original Laws of Thermodynamics were written by folks who worked with steam engines. They put coal or wood into the machine and took mechanical work out. To derive the First Law break the process down into two stages, so there is an intermediate stage. First add the heat put in from the coal, then subtract the work performed by the machine. The machine must have had some internal energy to start with add to this the heat energy from combustion of the fuel and you get the intermediate total internal energy as a sum [math]{U_{{\mathop{\rm int}} ermediate}} = {U_0} + Q[/math] Then we get the machine to perform some work - that is we extract work. This must come from the internal energy, which is now increased to Uintermediate , [math]{U_{final}} = {U_{start}} + Q - W[/math] Which means that we subtract the work [math]\Delta U = {U_{final}} - {U_{start}} = Q - W[/math] Which is the form you will find today in most engineering and many Physics texts. But if you look carefully you will note that the heat added is input and the work extracted or output. When other scientists started to widen thes scope of these laws they wanted to consider all forms of energy, not just heat and work. Furthermore they wanted them all to be additive (that is you could put work in as well as take it out etc) So they adopted the sign convention that all forms of energy are considered positive in themselves, and it is the input or output that carries the sign. So input is positive and output is negative for all forms of energy. This leads to the form of the First Law used by Chemists [math]\Delta U = Q + W[/math] Where Qis the heat added to the system and W is the work done on the system, So if heat is generated by the system or work done by the system they are negative.
  16. 3 points
    You're gonna have to re-phrase that. I haven't a clue what you mean to say.
  17. 3 points
    You have to apply them properly, and you need to allow for the relativity of simultaneity while also taking into account what frame you are measuring from. This is how events unfold according to Earth and Planet x. B and it clock are length contracted and B's clock is time dilated. The length contraction doesn't really play a role in the out come here. B leaves the Earth and take's 1 hr 15 min as measured by Earth's and planet X's clock to cross 1 Lh at 0.8c. B's clock is time dilated and only ticks of 45 min during the trip. Note that the animation pausing at the end is not meant to mean B stopping at X, only that the animation "freezes" at moment so that we can compare clock readings for that moment. If we now consider things from B's inertial frame of reference, you get this. B is at rest while the Earth and planet X move to the left at 0.8c. the Earth, planet X, their clocks, and the distance between them is length contracted. B is not. It take 45 min by B's clock for planet X to travel from being 0.6 lh away to B at 0.8c Earth and planet X's clocks are time dilated and only accumulate 27 min during this time. However, due to Relativity of Simultaneity, the Planet X clock already reads 48 min later than Earth's clock when B and the Earth are next to each other. Thus the 27 minutes it advances brings it to 1 hr 15 min, as it passes B. The times on Earth's clock and B's clock when they are next to each other agree with the first animation, and the Times shown on B's clock and Planet X's clock when they are next to each other also agree with the first animation.
  18. 3 points
    Oh, I thought this thread was literally about 'playing with yourself' ...
  19. 3 points
    You need to read this more carefully - it allows to determine position and momentum of the LIGO mirrors, which is a macroscopic and classical system. This does not work with quantum systems, since non-commuting observables are inherent in the very nature of such systems, and not due to measurement limitations. In fact, it is that very non-classicality which allows entanglement relationships in the first place.
  20. 3 points
    A part of the issue is that folks thinking that they are in the right tend to make intellectual shortcuts. In the early 2000s I was somewhat interested in various atheist movements, in part because I was worried about rising anti-intellectualism and creationism. But apparently once enough folks gather things go quickly to a self-congratulating group of folks who cannot stop emphasizing how rational and therefore superior they are (without actually putting in the work). There were plenty of folks, including academics who did a great job in outreach and educating. But some of their followers were sketchy and did not put in the intellectual work before succumbing to insufferable smugness (the result being attitudes that are way closer to religious organizations than folks would admit) .
  21. 3 points
    I actually did that. Finding issues in your device took a few seconds but from there I assumed your idea to be correct. Then I looked at the big picture; what profound consequences would your idea have on the current states of physics and the universe as we know it. The result of that outside the box thinking was that your claims seems incompatible with the universe and our models. That was the quick part and no math was used. My struggle now is to find a suitable explanation that fits your current level of understanding and/or helps raising understanding of physics to a required level. My first attempt at that was to look at the whole system and to use a simple formula; F=ma, unfortunately that seems to have failed to add clarity. You miss the big picture. Conservation of momentum (linear and angular) always holds. And when the device is from the outside you start with zero momentum p=0 and at a later time there is p>0. You need to explain the new physics that allows that. The big picture is that we already know that the current laws of physics makes your proposed device impossible. No amount of details about the device will ever change that. You need to present the new physics that supports the claims and allows total momentum to not be conserved. Compare to Einstein if you wish; Special relativity is not derived from within Newtonian physics. SR has separate postulates and applies to scenarios outside the applicability of Newton's laws. But Newton is a good approximation at low relative velocities. It sounds like you have a postulate something like "Total momentum is not conserved"?
  22. 3 points
  23. 3 points
    I don't understand why you asked... Why not just post reasonable question's and dialogue; I don't care who you were... 😉
  24. 3 points
    A lot of the topics in computer science is about getting help with programming or specific languages and implementations. Should we have a section for "programming help" or similar? Fictive examples to illustrate: Computer science existing section: Focus on the science and research aspects - Here is an interesting paper on the mathematics behind a new set of algorithms. - According to this paper cloud computing requires a paradigm shift for XYZ, what are your experiences of this? - Why does machine learning algorithm X outperform algorithm Y under these circumstances? - I have question regarding complexity theory and computability: ... Computer help section: general help with equipment and software, not so much about programming or systems design. - Have you used "specific Research/engineering software"? Do you have an opinion on suitable hardware? - I have an issue with installing this version of Linux Programming and software engineering help: (just and example name) - Why does this program fail? - In this language, any opinions on library X vs library Y? - How would I implement X in programming language y? - Why is it a good practice in to... In my opinion the general quality of content in the computer section not as high as in for instance physics. The above suggestion is an attempt at addressing that; maybe more science-related content will be contributed if discussions are not too diluted by basic programming issues?
  25. 3 points
    You have identified the major problem with the "Does God Exist ?" debates -- there are at least as many unstated concepts of God as there are debaters. I strongly doubt that any consensus on a definition could be reached. Ergo, the debate is pointless. When you address the question on a personal level you are free to formulate your own definition of God. It is on that definition that the outcome of your personal decision process hinges. If you define God as some sort of entity that not only can but with some regularity does intercede in natural physical processes, then there is a great deal of objective evidence that no such God exists. In fact, the existence of anything that regularly upsets what we have come to expect as the orderly processes of nature is antithetical to science, which seeks to uncover and explain that natural order in terms of predictive models. Without that order there can be no science. Science seems to work rather well. So any concept of God or any religious tenets that directly contradict science as buttressed by experimental evidence is clearly indistinguishable from superstition. Superstition is, essentially by definition, wrong. If you define God as some sort of entity that exists outside of the natural universe and does not regularly disrupt the operation of that universe according to the principles discovered by science, then science and religion are disconnected, and neither has anything to say about the other. In this situation neither science nor logic can be brought to bear on the question of the existence of God. The order of the universe could be mere happenstance or it could be the result of God. The question is logically undecidable. You are free to reach your own conclusion, or forego a final conclusion. But do not deceive yourself that whatever conclusion you reach is based on rigorous logic, unless you formulate a sufficiently narrow definition of God to be able to apply empirical data. In any case you should recognize that, despite the marvelous progress of science, there is a lot that we don't know. If we knew everything the satisfaction and outright fun of scientific discovery would be lost.
  26. 2 points
    I'm sure that would be a surprise to the Olympians who won gold medals back when competitors had to be amateurs.
  27. 2 points
    It's the age of the extravagant conservative, the age of informed ignorance, filled with wasteful exploiters and passive despoilers. An age of boring amazement. Clearly it is the age of the Oxymoron.
  28. 2 points
    Not ones that will work. We already looked at the end of the story. Newton wins. The ONLY way to refute an existing (i.e. experimentally tested and mathematically self-consistent) theory is with experimental evidence. Until such time as you build a device that moves on its own, you will not have shown Newtonian physics to be wrong. All you can offer is analysis that is flawed in some way, and all of your efforts have either been to try and hide the flaws, or by baldly asserting that they aren't flaws (which requires an experiment; see above) This is the playbook that we see over and over again. 1. Convince yourself that your idea is right. 2. Analyze your idea with physics 3. Contort the analysis to reach the conclusion you desire 4. If the flaw is obvious, obfuscate by making the example more complex Whereas in reality, if your analysis reaches a conclusion that violates laws of physics, you know you made a mistake someplace. The math is internally consistent, so this just points to a math error.
  29. 2 points
  30. 2 points
    That was my complaint to you. I suppose turnabout is fair play. Good for you. The pride might be better justified if your audience agree with you. Thus far, I'm not sure that has been achieved. It was an interesting take on the history of Chrisitianity, but contained nothing discernible, to me, concerning the "rational foundations of religion". I suggest you need to change the title, or the content of your post if you wish them to match. This doesn't parse. Do you want to try again? That's two more sentences that don't parse. (If you are, as you say you are, a university student you ought to be doing a better job of writing grammatically. )Even if the sentences did parse, I suspect they would make little sense, for I think you are using words with definitions of your own. Also note that many members here are not Americans. So your state flag references need a little more background.
  31. 2 points
    swansont if you want to talk about lye or detergent, open a new thread.
  32. 2 points
    I would not necessarily agree with this - I think as you get older you develop more wisdom, but not necessarily intelligence. Exactly how do you define 'smart'? I think it is context and experience, which is something that can only be developed with time (and circumstance). For example, a young medic fresh out of university may know everything there is to be found in medical textbooks - but standing on the bedside of someone with (let's say) unusual or non-standard symptoms, he may still not be able to diagnose them correctly, since he lacks the experience to put that knowledge into a wider context.
  33. 2 points
    Most people aren't experts in any particular thing, and if they are then their competence is limited to a specific area. Yet we have a need to make decisions related to many subjects we do not fully understand, and in those cases we often rely upon authoritative people and organizations to guide us in that process. But how can we decide who we should trust? Governments have been malevolent and dishonest in the past, and scientists have gotten things tragically wrong. How should we as laymen decide where to place our faith? Because that's what trusting an authority ultimately is, faith.
  34. 2 points
    Just to add my 2 cents: as a philosopher, I of course am aware of the many topics in philosophy. However, even philosophers should also be firmly rooted in practical life. And, as said, the philosophy forum is not the most busy one. If MSCs proposal would be implemented, I assume most of the subfora would stay empty, and indeed, the administrators would get the extra job to see if something is ethics or meta-ethics, social philosophy or philosophical anthropology, logic or meta-logic, cognitive philosophy or philosophy of science etc. etc. I am perfectly happy with the present categorisation, pure for practical reasons. On the other side, having a subforum in 'The Lounge' on Sculptures made of almonds is perfectly justified. 😋
  35. 2 points
  36. 2 points
    Do you know of any laws that are completely resistant to varying interpretations? Seriously asking because I'd say there are none, but you're welcome to try and change my mind.
  37. 2 points
    We’ve gotta make a decision. We leave tonight or live and die this way
  38. 2 points
  39. 2 points
    We are almost certainly limited this way, but that’s why we build instruments. They can be sensitive to signals that humans aren’t Science is not the search for truth. Science is our attempt to discern how nature behaves, because behavior is what we are able to test.
  40. 2 points
    Redlining and greenlining. Please explain. I grew up in what could be termed a ghetto or "hood" environment in Glasgow. I don't know what your background was, but we were all poor. The poverty was just a temporary shortage of funding as I understood when we grew up. Doctors, PhD's and scholars came out of that environment, yet a large portion of the people believe in the hype of the ghetto and what it is meant to represent - trying a little bit, failing and then giving up. That archetype is what dominates ghetto environments . The way out is to sell drugs and get rich quick, or die trying. The criminals offer young children a different role model of easy acquisition of wealth to surround oneself with wealth. This is an erroneous and dangerous mindset and philosophy passed on from father to son in my opinion. Please do elaborate on redlining and greenlining....
  41. 2 points
    I do not really wish to get involved in this discussion, as I believe that understanding the human condition should not become a partisan issue. But I do wish to offer two observations: 1. It seems that almost everyone here equates religion with theism, or (even more narrowly) with Christianity. This is misguided - all theistic world views are to some degree religious, but not all religions are theistic, or even supernatural. There are religious systems that are expressly empirical, right here and now in this lifetime. I think it is important to clarify what you all actually mean by 'religion', in the context of this debate. 2. For those of you who know me from here and other forums, you will probably agree that I am all about science - it's a huge part of my life, and I spend a lot of time researching and teaching myself physics, and that's not likely to ever change. Nonetheless, there is also a religious dimension to me - in fact, I live full-time in a monastery, and have plans to ordain as a monk in a contemplative order next year. This dimension is equally as important to me as is science. For me personally, there has never been a conflict between the scientific and the religious/spiritual sides of me. I understand them as complementary domains of enquiry, that ask different questions about the same human condition. My scientific enquiries have helped me gain insights on my spiritual path, and the spiritual practice has helped me gain new angles on scientific issues. So, for both the religionists who reject science, and the scientists who reject anything religious, you need to ask yourselves the question - why does this need to become/continue to be a partisan issue? The "us vs you" mentality isn't helpful, and can - if taken to the extreme - frequently be dangerous. But when approached with wisdom, the two sides have the potential to coexist harmoniously, and inform each other constructively. Just my humble opinion and experience
  42. 2 points
    When did the Bible become 'the word of God' ? It is simply an imperfect interpretation by men, sometimes centuries later, of events. Religions ( most ) have constantly changed through the ages; so has the interpretation. I am not a believer, myself, but don't look down on believers. Science is based on facts and observations. Religion relies on an entirely different thought process; it does not require explanations or experimental observations. It relies on FAITH. Science does NOT.
  43. 2 points
    Beware Skitt's Law. An ellipsis is three dots, not two. Also, there should be commas before "at" and "not", and you should be using double quote marks, not single.
  44. 2 points
    Paradoxically, it might help him. If he dies, more moderate Republicans planning right now to vote for Biden might come back home to the "replacement" Republican nominee. The RNC would have to choose a replacement candidate, but it's already too late to change ballots (also since voting has already begun in many states). The decision would be left to the electors of the electoral college in states where Trump won to pass those votes to the replacement chosen by the RNC or pass them to someone else. Nothing legally prevents them from deciding for themselves who to push votes to, but they would likely align behind the RNC choice. Pence would assume power at least until inauguration day January 17 This is very on-brand for 2020. I'm also not at all comfortable with the level of schadenfreude I'm feeling.
  45. 2 points
    Something a bit lighter. So good and so quickly done! Yes. The more they’re mentioned, the more it hurts him with voters. Almost 3M, actually. 2,864,974 more
  46. 2 points
  47. 2 points
    I was actually drinking with a cognitive science professor friend of mine tonight who explained it like this: "They can't articulate it but what they mean by "bullshit" is the democratic process - having to explain and argue your position to ideological opponent. The "bullshit" is a lack of authoritarianism. If they can simply dictate a worldview - "shut up snowflake this is how it is" into law and policy the Trump base has achieved its goals. While I think the choice between sexually harassing, mentally declining grandpas is unpalatable, especially given the field of dynamic and inspiring presidential contenders, I do think it is coming down to a choice between authoritarian populism and democracy, and I am genuinely scared at the proportion of US citizens who want an authoritarian leader, and don't understand what the actual implications of that are.
  48. 2 points
    I kind of did what in hindsight I feel should have been provided by you in your starting post: Created the plots you spoke about and posted them here. The code is f = function(x) x*x*x d3 = seq(-3, 3, 0.1) d5 = seq(-5, 5, 0.1) dx = seq(-3, 5, 0.1) plot(d3, f(d3)) grid() plot(d5, f(d5)) grid() plot(dx, f(dx)) grid() The created plots are attached. I see no problem with them. I am not aware of any technical problems that R has. While not the question: I do not recommend to get used to R just because it has the reputation of being the most common software used in statistical data analysis. The statement may actually be true. And R is not bad, either. But I feel that Python can already compete with R in terms of (advanced) functionality, and will be the future. And for just plotting functions, there should be much easier solutions / more comfortable solutions (I had used gnuplot with lots of success for a long time).
  49. 2 points
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.