This is my dynamic, frequently updated homepage. This is a NewsLog, also known as a WebLog or Blog.
Everything is evolving, so don't assume too much.
People to watch:
Adina Levin
Andrius Kulikauskas
Britt Blaser
Catherine Austin Fitts
Chris Corrigan
Clay Shirky
Dan Gillmor
Dave Pollard
David Allen
David Weinberger
Dewayne Mikkelson
Dina Mehta
Doc Searls
Elisabet Sahtouris
Elizabeth Lawley
Euan Semple
Florian Brody
Frank Patrick
Gen Kenai
George Dafermos
George Por
Graham Hancock
Greg Elin
Hazel Henderson
Heiner Benking
Inspector Lohman
Jean Houston
Jerry Michalski
Jim McGee
Jim Moore
John Abbe
John Perry Barlow
John Robb
Joi Ito
Jon Husband
Jon Lebkowsky
Jon Udell
Jonathan Peterson
Judith Meskill
Julian Elvé
Julie Solheim
Kevin Marks
Lawrence Lessig
Leif Smith
Letecia Layson
Lilia Efimova
Lisa Rein
Marc Canter
Mark Oeltjenbruns
Mark Pilgrim
Mark Woods
Martin Dugage
Martin Roell
Mary Forest
Matt Mower
Max Sandor
Michael Fagan
Mike Owens
Mikel Maron
Mitch Kapor
Mitch Ratcliffe
Nathalie dArbeloff
Netron
Noam Chomsky
Paul Hughes
Peter Kaminski
Phil Wolff
Philippe Beaudoin
Ray Ozzie
Raymond Powers
Rebecca Blood
Roger Eaton
Roland Tanglao
Ross Mayfield
Scott Lemon
Sebastian Fiedler
Sebastien Paquet
Skip Lancaster
Spike Hall
Steven Johnson
Stuart Henshall
Thomas Burg
Thomas Madsen-Mygdal
Thomas Nicholls
Timothy Wilken
Todd Suomela
Tom Atlee
Tom Munnecke
Tom Tomorrow
Ton Zijlstra
Lionel Bruel
Loic Le Meur
Nancy White
Mark Frazier
Merlin Silk
Robert Paterson
Colby Stuart
Nova Spivack
Dan Brickley
Ariane Kiss
Vanessa Miemis
Bernd Nurnberger
Sites to watch:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Co-intelligence Institute
Free Expression Network
Collective Intelligence
Action without borders
Manufacturing Dissent
Explorers Foundation
Disclosure Project
ThoughtsOnThinking
Forbidden Science
Emergent by Design
Greater Democracy
Global Ideas Bank
Independent Media
Space Collective
Friendly Favors
Escape Velocity
Disinformation
Collective Web
WorldChanging
YES Magazine
Disinfopedia
NotThisBody
MetaFilter
Webcamorama
BoingBoing
Smart Mobs
Do No Harm
Imaginify
FutureHi
Openworld
Nanodot
HeadMap
Rhizome
Absara
Edge
Junto
French:
Emmanuelle
Manur
Elanceur
Loeil de Mouche
IokanaaN
Blog d'Or
Le Petit Calepin
GeeBlog
Absara
Guillaume Beuvelot
Ming Chau
Serge Levan
Jean Michel Billaut
C'est pas Mécanique
I live in Toulouse, France where the time now is:
01:04
Unique Readers:
Primarily
Public Domain
Everything I've written here is dedicated to the
Public Domain.
The quotes from other people's writings, and the pictures used might or might not be copyrighted, but are considered fair use. Thus, overall, this weblog could best be described as being:
Primarily Public Domain. |
Syndication:
 
|
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 | |
|
|
I finally saw the movie The Corporation. I mentioned it previously here. It is a documentary about, well, corporations. Very well researched, about the history of the concept of the corporation, and about how (badly) corporations often end up behaving, following quite naturally from their foundation, from what they're defined as. In brief, a corporation is a legal person, but a person with often huge amounts of resources, and no need to answer to the same standards as regular humans. The obligation of the people who run a corporation is to make large and increasing amounts of money for the people who own it. They might be nice enough people on their own, but their job is simply to acquire as large profits as possible. It is quite harmonious with that aim to use child slave labor in foreign countries, or to let foreign armies eliminate protesters who object to the environmental record of their factories. Maybe not right, maybe not moral, but a corporation has no conscience. It luckily has some people running it, who sometimes have a conscience. But in itself it doesn't. So, if we evaluate a typical multi-national corporation as if it were a person, it would fit every criterion for being a psychopath. It can continously get away with all sorts of irresponsible and destructive behavior. Yes, it might get fined, somebody might get fired, somebody might even go to jail, but those are just expenses and minor inconveniences. The corporation itself typically goes on. Unless it somehow fails to make profits.
Another enlightening aspect is the economic concept of externality. It is basically when a business makes a decision that causes costs (or possibly benefits) to be incurred outside that particular organization. You make it somebody else's problem, essentially. For example, a corporation might cause heavy wear and tear on certain public roads, but might let the local city government bear the costs of that. Or it might pollute, and let somebody else worry about that. Or it might let some army clear the way for its oil business, or remove people who were standing in the way of their business. Externalities can be great for a company's bottom line, making great profits, but at high costs elsewhere. So that when we add up the total accounting, it is anything but a beneficial and profitable activity. I.e. it causes much more damange or uses many more resources than what good comes out of it.
It doesn't have to be that way. The movie provided some bright spots, although not all that many. Business leaders might start thinking differently, and some do. Thinking about how to run a sustainable business, where what they do actually is beneficial, also when we count the external influences.
Interestingly I saw the movie in a local business college. One of the professors had persuaded the school to purchase the movie, so she could show it to students. Which obviously would be rather controversial, as that's a place where students are taught to do exactly the kinds of things the movie warns against. But change starts by being conscious of what is going on, of course. And, most likely, corporations will change to the degree that somebody figures out a way for it to be profitable to be sustainable and ethical. [ Organization | 2005-10-04 01:33 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Sunday, October 2, 2005 | |
|
|
I'm tired of writing postings about how difficult it is to blog when I haven't done it a while, so I'll try to refrain from that.
In the meantime, my blog is still the command center for a bunch of Philippine treasure hunters, it seems. More than 30 comments a day on that one post. They seem to be busy. If they'd just give me a percentage of all the gold they seem to be close to digging up, I'd be fine.
Anyway, I've just been busy. And a bit more introverted, I suppose.
One thing that has happened since last post is that Google seems to want to give me a job. Which is sort of unexpected, and a bit ironic, after I had a bit of problem with one of my sites disappearing from Google recently. So, getting a job in the Google engineering department that handles that kind of thing would be intriguing. I don't know. A Google headhunter guy contacted me out of the blue, and they seemed to like my broad background. I'm going through their series of interviews and tests, etc, and we'll see what happens. I didn't really have in mind having a job job, but if it should be, then Google certainly wouldn't be the worst place to work. Except for that they don't exactly have an office in Toulouse. Dublin or Zürich are their EU locations. None of which are places I particularly was attracted to.
Otherwise life is pretty normal. My daughter Nadia started in first grade. CP, Cours Préparatoire, it is called here. She already knew most of the kids and speaks fluent French, so no problem there. My son Zachery has started in a new high school, geared towards civil engineering, which is 100km from here, so he stays there during the week, and comes back in the weekend. Which was a bit traumatic for him at first, but it seems it will work out well for him. My daughter Marie-Therese starts on the second year of her cooking school education this week. [ Diary | 2005-10-02 19:08 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, August 26, 2005 | |
|
|
Tom Atlee mentions The Great Story and the work of Connie Barlow and Michael Dowd in integrating science and religion into a bigger view of life, the universe and everything, where there's no conflict between evolution and consciousness. He's a former evangelical preacher and she's a science writer. Here's an article called "No more trivializing God!".
Do you believe in life?
Well, do you?
This is an absurd question, yes? Of course! It simply doesn't matter whether we "believe in" life or not. Life is all around us, and in us. We're part of it. Life is, period. What we say about life, however, is another story. If I say, "Life is wonderful," or "Life's a bitch," or "Life's a jungle," you may or may not believe me, depending on your own experience and the stories you've heard from others. What we say about life - its nature, its essence, its purpose, its patterns - along with the metaphors and analogies we choose to describe it, are all open for discussion and debate. But the reality of life is indisputable.
This is exactly the way that God can be understood, and is understood from the perspective of The Great Story - that is, from the perspective of those who see the science-based history of cosmos, Earth, life, and humanity in a sacred, meaningful way. And this is precisely why the question, "Do you believe in God?", is a non-starter. [ Patterns | 2005-08-26 21:50 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, August 19, 2005 | |
|
|
Yesterday I was at the launch event for 23 in Copenhagen. I'm on vacation in Denmark at the moment. "23", spearheaded by Thomas Madsen-Mygdal, is a photo storage and sharing website. Well, there are several of those already, but these guys seem to have gone a good deal further and really created a system that does what most people actually need and want. It seems quite suited to replace whatever local program you store your digital photos in. I use iPhoto. 23 does most of what iPhoto does, and most of what Flickr does, and some things none of them do. While still appearing very simple. You can add photos a number of ways. By e-mail, by an upload, either individually or as a zip file, from a URL, or from plugins to iPhoto or similar programs. You can organize your photos in a number of ways, like tagging them and putting them in albums. You have finegrained control over who can look at the photos. They can be all private, they can be public, or you can give particular people access to particular photos or albums. You can subscribe to photos from certain people or with certain tags. Even with a free account you can upload lots of photos, and with a very cheap paid account you have unlimited storage. Doesn't scare them at all that lots of folks are going to upload the multiple gigabytes they have on their disks already. The system is very new so you might well run into quirks, or things that aren't there yet. And there are less than 100 users right now. But overall it seems very well designed. They've thought a lot about the usability, and interviewed many people about how they use photos and what they need. Anyway, be one of the first to check it out. [ News | 2005-08-19 20:20 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, August 18, 2005 | |
|
|
by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1873. Bigger here [ Culture | 2005-08-18 11:40 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Nice Wired article We are the Web by Kevin Kelly. In part speaking for how pivotal the invention of the web is likely to be perceived in the long view. Like, say, looking back 3000 years from now.There is only one time in the history of each planet when its inhabitants first wire up its innumerable parts to make one large Machine. Later that Machine may run faster, but there is only one time when it is born.
You and I are alive at this moment.
We should marvel, but people alive at such times usually don't. Every few centuries, the steady march of change meets a discontinuity, and history hinges on that moment. We look back on those pivotal eras and wonder what it would have been like to be alive then. Confucius, Zoroaster, Buddha, and the latter Jewish patriarchs lived in the same historical era, an inflection point known as the axial age of religion. Few world religions were born after this time. Similarly, the great personalities converging upon the American Revolution and the geniuses who commingled during the invention of modern science in the 17th century mark additional axial phases in the short history of our civilization.
Three thousand years from now, when keen minds review the past, I believe that our ancient time, here at the cusp of the third millennium, will be seen as another such era. In the years roughly coincidental with the Netscape IPO, humans began animating inert objects with tiny slivers of intelligence, connecting them into a global field, and linking their own minds into a single thing. This will be recognized as the largest, most complex, and most surprising event on the planet. Weaving nerves out of glass and radio waves, our species began wiring up all regions, all processes, all facts and notions into a grand network. From this embryonic neural net was born a collaborative interface for our civilization, a sensing, cognitive device with power that exceeded any previous invention. The Machine provided a new way of thinking (perfect search, total recall) and a new mind for an old species. It was the Beginning. [ Information | 2005-08-18 12:17 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Damn, we've been cheated. Where's the waterproof livingroom? [ Culture | 2005-08-18 12:20 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
There's a campaign website. Walken 2008. Unfortunately it seems to be a hoax. Or, rather, an elaborate marketing campaign for him playing a senator in a movie.
Disappointing. Although, I don't know what his political views are. But, indeed, he's known for odd and brilliant choices. After I heard that he rehearses his roles by reading only his own lines, in backwards order, without ever reading the other people's lines, I can't help having respect for him. I bet he would come up with an equally crazy, but workable way of being a president. [ Politics | 2005-08-18 12:47 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 | |
|
|
One weird thing with blog postings and google power is that sometimes one individual post becomes, like, THE place to go for a certain subject. Just because Google has made it show on the first page for that search term. I've had a few of those, where one post over many months attracted hundreds and hundreds of people, who think that this somehow is one of THE authoritative places to go. And they leave lots of comments, and a whole little community forms.
I did a post two years ago, which was just a few paragraphs about my own experience about almost falling for a Romanian e-bay scam in buying a non-existent computer. Still, today, if you search in Google for ebay scams, my article is number 5. And there are 255 comments so far. Lots of people have shared their experiences and tips there. Even the Romanian scammers have shown up, to occasionally taunt their victims, in Romanian.
And if you search for Yamashita Treasure, you'll see my post as number 2. Which was just a mention of a review of a book. But, there too, a whole little community has formed. 167 comments. Every day treasure hunters are sharing their tips, asking for help, etc. You know, they've found some interesting underground spot in the Philippines, and they need somebody with a ground radar, or explosives expertise, or whatever. And, hey, it was just one of my thousands of blog postings. I'm not even participating. Intriguing.
A blog posting is not particularly suited to this, even though it kind of works. The comments are one long thread, and it is easy to find out how to add a new comment. But, I mean, if one had known that that posting was going to be a central gathering place for that subject, maybe one would have put some more facilities there. Like, on my ebay scam page, it would make sense to list other resources that could be helpful. So, should I go back and change my original posting? Doesn't quite make sense to me either.
But maybe one could have some additional features available that might spring into action when a certain post transforms from being just a note written at some point in time into being a *place* that people go to as a resource. A beacon that gathers people around a certain subject. If it really is a gathering place then maybe it should be linked with more of a forum, or a wiki, or a bookmarking feature, and maybe it should display resources from other places on the same subject.
It is a little odd. Meeting in an old blog post is kind of like meeting on page 207 of "Moby Dick". Maybe everything ought to be a potential meeting place. [ Information | 2005-08-16 14:00 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
A famous Bucky Fuller quote. It somehow makes a quote more important when somebody makes a sign out of it, so here. How would you be? What would you do? If it really depended on you. [ Inspiration | 2005-08-16 15:56 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Saturday, August 13, 2005 | |
|
|
I don't know, it has a certain attraction. Here's a gallery of how somebody has arranged themselves in a cave. [ Culture | 2005-08-13 22:34 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, August 12, 2005 | |
|
|
It is sort of weird with a blog. It stays there even when you're not paying attention. I was busy the last few weeks, and didn't post anything, and didn't even check my comments. But still, about a thousand people are looking at it every day. OK, that's probably to a large degree because Google serves us a lot of my old postings, so it obviously isn't all folks who deliberately go and see what ming.tv has on today. But it is still a little strange, to have a lot of visitors when one is not there.
And that's where the organization of a blog is maybe not completely appropriate. You know, it shows your latest posts first on the front page. So, is it like I've been saying the same thing every day for the last month? Do my last couple of posts suddenly gain an unintended higher importance? Are thousands of people coming by, thinking, "Why did he post exactly that, and then nothing more?" I don't know.
On the other hands, there are aspects of how blogs are accessed that make it no big deal that you're not there for a while. A lot of people read blogs through blog aggregators. So, they don't lose any sleep over the fact that you haven't posted much. And the moment you post something again, they'll notice. They don't have to go checking everything day, wondering.
Likewise, this blog is part of a blog community in the New Civilization Network. Meaning, that a bunch of members watch the blogs there through a simple blog aggregator in the member area. So, they notice too right away when you post something again, and don't lose much sleep either, if I don't do it for a while.
But, still, I personally lose a bit a sleep about not blogging. A feeling like one is letting people down. That a lot of people go in vain and look for your postings, and there's nothing there. In reality, it is probably much fewer people than it feels like, but, well, it is just a feeling, not necessarily a fact.
Likewise, I'd also always have some mental obstacles to blogging again, if I haven't done it for a while. I've lost the thread, for one thing. And then I'm wondering if somehow my first posts would be particularly scrutinized. Why does he show up after a month and then post THAT? Well, the feeling goes away quickly, and I don't really worry about what anybody thinks. But the starting and stopping is a little difficult. [ Diary | 2005-08-12 23:00 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Well, Google likes some things I do A LOT. This blog has PageRank 7, which is fabulous. But another site which I'm more concerned about is my Opentopia site. That's a site that both is intended as a service, but also to be an income producing activity. It has an assortment of openly available collections of data, like Wikipedia's encyclopedia and the Open Directory. And some more unique pieces, like the gallery of Web Cams found in Google.
Recently the site had started to look rather promising. In terms of money, that means that a lot of people come by and click on the ads. The last two months to the tune of a little more than $30 per day, or $1000 per month. That is not huge, but it is big enough to imagine I could make a living from it, if I made it better and more people came by. And the ads that the money comes from are all from Google AdSense, as that just happens to be what works best, and what most people are comfortable with.
Lots of sites link to some part of Opentopia. 3-4000. So, people are coming in from those. But the majority of people come from Google itself, from having searched on one thing or another, which exists on the site. Google had indexed a great deal of the site, so there were many entries, and the main pages got a good PageRank as well.
But, suddenly, on the first of August, Opentopia disappeared without a trace on Google. Well, not entirely without a trace. I invented the word, and it didn't exist at all a few months ago. And, today, 49,200 webpages mention the word. But, what disappeared was everything at all in Google's index that is for the Opentopia site itself. If you ask for any pages on the site, you get:Your search - site:opentopia.com - did not match any documents.
So, zippo, zilch, nothing. Not even the home page. The site doesn't exist as far as Google is concerned. Never heard of it. No pages there. No search results. No traffic.
And, instantly, my traffic dropped, as did my Google AdSense income, to around $5 per day.
Now, normally Google is my friend. I think Google is a great company. But if they basically own the majority of the web, it is also a cause for alarm. Getting dropped from Google is a bit like having your ID card revoked by the government. You don't exist. Google entries and Google PageRank is to a large degree a currency. Something you invest in and use and spend. But your account might be emptied over night, and there's no bank teller you can go and talk to.
See, Google's operation is so huge that there isn't exactly anybody home to talk to about this kind of thing. They of course can't answer everybody's personal questions about 10 billion webpages. But how about MY website? Last month it was in the top 30,000 sites on the net in terms of traffic. That's not super-elite, but it does make me somebody a little bit. But that doesn't really make much difference.
If one has an issue with Google, there is a support form one fills in. It doesn't really matter what one fills in - one gets an automatic reply back, which refers to their FAQs, explaining the basic rules for how one needs to behave if one wants to be listed in Google. I've read all of that many times, and I think I'm following all the rules. But one of Google's algorithms must think otherwise. Mind you, one doesn't get any kind of indication about what exactly might have gotten one's site banned. Anyway, the next step is that one then writes to them again, pleading for one's case, hoping that some real person might answer, and then look at it. That might or might not happen. Depends a bit on what one writes. The best advice seems to be to write a brief message which explains that maybe one might accidentally have done something bad in the past, and one has taken steps to clean that up, and would they please, please look at the site again.
The problem is that I don't know exactly what I might have done wrong. Quite possibly nothing. But there's a lot of pages on Opentopia. More than 1 million. So it is entirely possible that Google's spider has concluded that it just goes on forever, and that it is some kind of trick, or a site filled with random junk, to attract search engine traffic.
I have indeed noticed more and more sites like that recently. Sites that include random excerpts from random other webpages. Obviously generated by some program, and obviously to get listed in search engines. And some of them have probably succeeded well. So my guess is that Google has changed something, to try to clamp down on sites with large numbers of phoney pages.
And, well, I have a lot of pages that aren't terribly original. Copies of Wikipedia and DMOZ. None of those folks have anything against other sites mirroring their content, and, for that matter, they make it relatively easy to do, by providing regular database dumps. But how does Google's spider know the difference between a mirror of Open Directory and a random content generator? I don't know. That's probably not an easy problem to solve.
One thing that might make a difference is Google SiteMaps. Essentially one generates a map of one's site and tells Google about it, and it might help their spider do a better job at indexing it. I haven't used that feature before. I'm thinking it might be helpful if they know exactly how many pages there are, so they don't think they're just beeing tricked by some auto-generated content.
Well, I don't really know. I thought I was pretty knowledgable about this kind of thing. But now I'm an outcast, pressing my nose against the window, trying to get a glimpse of what everybody else is doing inside in the warm Google livingroom.
Well, luckily I can write about it here on my Big Ass PageRank 7 WebLog. But it still isn't fair. [ Diary | 2005-08-12 23:48 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, August 11, 2005 | |
|
|
Scientists have apparently figured out that information can be negative. Article here and some news items here or here.What could negative information possibly mean? In short, after I send you negative information, you will know less. Such strange situations can occur because what it means to know something is very different in the quantum world. In the quantum world, we can know too much, and it is in these situations where one finds negative information. Negative information turns out to be precisely the right amount to cancel the fact that we know too much.
Now, if I didn't know anything else, I might guess that it would be something like this: If somebody had information about my name as "Fxlemyminxg Fxunzch" and I told them to take away the x, y and z's, they'd have the real name. But that's not really what they mean. They don't mean either that it is when people pass around false or confusing information. It is more like this:
Particles in a quantum state are uncertain. If they're isolated from everything else, one doesn't really know anything about them. They have to be observed somehow. So, if you have a quantum particle, and I have the knowledge of its state, then we have some information. We could ask somebody else to come and verify it. But if I give that knowledge to you, and forget about it, assuming that would be possible, then you would have both the thing and the information about it, and it is no longer as certain. Because you could decide that it is just about anything, and nobody could be quite sure what it is. So, there's less information.
Another piece of the idea is quantum entanglement. Two particles might be entangled, even though they're in different places. And then they can know things about each other without having to transfer any pieces of information. So, you can sort of have a credit, so you'll able to know stuff in the future, without any information having to be transferred. Information can just suddenly be there, and to make the information accounting add up, that is as if negative information had been transferred.
I can't say I entirely get that, but, as usual, quantum mechanics provide plenty of material for useful metaphors for daily life.
For us to know something with some certainty, we normally need to be separated from the process by which the object of attention is generated. I can be a knowledgable stamp collector if there's a limited number of agencies that can issue stamps, which can be listed in a book, and if it is kind of difficult to manufacture stamps. If anybody could make the stamps themselves, and nobody could see the difference, then my knowledge of the world's stamps would probably become less. Sufficiently high quality color copiers and printers might subtract information, because I might no longer know what is original and what isn't. A nano replicator would subtract information, because a lot of people suddenly wouldn't be sure what stuff really is, because anybody could make it or change it. Is it a real Van Gogh, or a $5 nano-generated replica? I suddenly don't know.
Might be a solution to information overload. There are potential technologies that suddenly, disruptively, would make it a whole lot less meaningful to keep track of certain kinds of information. [ Information | 2005-08-11 13:00 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
I mentioned Freecycle recently. A site and a network for gift giving. Which is great. But now they sent me an e-mail about having trademarked the name, and their need to protect it, and how they couldn't allow anybody to call themselves "freecyclers" because it would dillude their mark. And the site is now blemished with "Freecycle TM". Looks stupid. Changes the whole thing. Makes it look like somebody's money-making idea, rather than a grassroots network for giving. Seems a little self-contradictory that somebody's trying very hard to own the name, when they pretend that it is all about giving. [ Culture | 2005-08-11 13:48 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
A couple of art projects aimed at showing urban settings with all text removed from signs and billboards. Apparently several people got that idea. It has been done both by a little doctoring of images, and by actually covering the real signs with yellow plastic. Either way, it is interesting to notice how much text we're being bombarded with, and consider how it would be if it weren't there. [ Culture | 2005-08-11 14:27 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 | |
|
|
Upwinger, on FutureHi, via Bird on the Moon:In the end, evolution on this planet will have been the growth of an immortal spark of Divinity from an invisible evolutionary trigger to a hyperspatial Entity with complete mastery of Space and Time.
What began as an implicate order tightly knotted into the subquantum fabric of reality will end as a fully explicate architecture of dazzling supernatural complexity, an interplanetary flowering into Deity. [ Inspiration | 2005-07-26 00:03 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
<< Newer stories Page: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 97 Older stories >> |
|
This is a collage of things that catch my eye, things that need to be said, and stuff I really care about
TRUTH BEAUTY FREEDOM LOVE TECHNOLOGY
|
Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|