Apple board member Al Gore inaugurated into Internet Hall Of Fame

98 Comments

“Former Vice President Al Gore (D) is among the inaugural inductees in the Internet Hall of Fame,” Mark Memmott reports for NPR.

“He’s been lauded by the Internet Society for being “a key proponent [as a senator and vice president] of sponsoring legislation that funded the expansion of and greater public access to the Internet,'” Memmott reports. “In an interview [in 1999] with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, according to a transcript posted by the cable news network, Gore said that ‘during my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: The full list of inductees

Pioneers:
• Paul Baran
• Vint Cerf
• Danny Cohen
• Steve Crocker
• Donald Davies
• Elizabeth Feinler
• Charles Herzfeld
• Robert Kahn
• Peter Kirstein
• Leonard Kleinrock
• John Klensin
• Jon Postel
• Louis Pouzin
• Lawrence Roberts

Global Connectors:
• Randy Bush
• Kilnam Chon
• Al Gore
• Nancy Hafkin
• Geoff Huston
• Brewster Kahle
• Daniel Karrenberg
• Toru Takahashi
• Tan Tin Wee

Innovators:
• Mitchell Baker
• Tim Berners-Lee
• Robert Cailliau
• Van Jacobson
• Larry Landweber
• Paul Mockapetris
• Craig Newmark
• Raymond Tomlinson
• Linus Torvalds
• Philip Zimmermann

98 Comments

    1. “…according to a transcript posted by the cable news network, Gore said that ‘during my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.’ ”

      And he did.

      Reply

      1. Without this man things would be quite different. Gore is sham and an Embarrassment. Below is a true hero:

        Thomas Jefferson

        This is amazing. There are two parts. Be sure to read the 2nd part (in RED).

        Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

        At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.
        At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
        At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
        At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
        At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
        At 23, started his own law practice.
        At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
        At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America ï¿1Ž2 and retired from his law practice.
        At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
        At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence ..
        At 33, took three years to revise Virginia’s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
        At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
        At 40, served in Congress for two years.
        At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
        At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
        At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
        At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
        At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
        At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation’s size.
        At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
        At 65, retired to Monticello.
        At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
        At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
        At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
        Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

        John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

        “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .” — Thomas Jefferson

        “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

        — Thomas Jefferson

        “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”

        — Thomas Jefferson

        “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

        “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” — Thomas Jefferson

        “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

        “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

        — Thomas Jefferson

        “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson

        “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

        — Thomas Jefferson

        Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

        “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

        If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

        Reply

        4. Why would anyone defend that bullshit, you psycho? You are truly a pathetic, anonymous cretin of a loser. Just swallow your tongue and stop using my oxygen.

        8. “At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.”

          That would be the Democratic -Republican Party, in NO WAY related to today’s knuckle draggers. The D-R Party of that time is the ancestor of today’s Democratic Party.
          Today’s Republican Party is a direct descendant of the Whigs, but the act more like Know-Nothings.

  4. ‘Gaia’ Scientist Admits Mispredicting Rate of Climate Change

    “James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the ‘Gaia Theory’ and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing ‘before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.’ Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: ‘”The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.’ Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace.”

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/04/25/1325241/gaia-scientist-admits-mispredicting-rate-of-climate-change

    I am prepared for the hate. Bring it. (I love you though 🙂 )

    Reply

    1. Much like other scientists who dispute the majority, Lovelock has recently become a recipient of a generous “grant” that is fairly easily traced to the oil and coal lobby.

      When i doubt, just follow the money. And massively disproportionate amounts of money have been spent on “funding” (greasing?) the “scientific” studies that would cast doubt on the prevailing scientific data regarding the climate change.

      Of course, none of this matters in America, where the opinion regarding scientific matters (regardless of topic) are almost precisely divided across the political party affiliation.

      Reply

      1. Ya know… that’s exactly what I say about pro climate change scientists, and you are absolutely right. I did not know about the Lovelock grant, but I’m not surprised. I will dig into it. This however makes my point. The entire climate change debate is politics, not science.

        At the same time, Lovelock isn’t making up the relatively static global temperature readings over the last decade. While the greenhouse theory makes sense, none of the big proponents ever want to answer questions about contrary evidence.

        My feeling is that while I distrust the climate change religion, I do see the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It’s not an unlimited resource (to the best of my knowledge). Because it is scarce, it causes wars. People die, and people I regard as evil have leverage over us.

        So I personally dumped my car a 2 years ago, and haven’t missed it. (Much). I don’t need a bunch of climate alarmists to spread FUD to cause me to make rational decisions.

        Reply

        1. Even if we disregard the whole climate change debate, we could still have powerful arguments against fossil fuels, one of which you already mentioned (limited supply). The other, for me more significant, is the pollution of the air we breathe. While the governments of the world have been able to push back just a tiny bit against auto and oil lobbies of the world, and get them to build more efficient, less polluting engines, the fact remains that ALL energy derived from fossil fuel releases pollutants into the air we all breathe, and these necessarily end up in our bodies (causing health damage).

          Eventually (perhaps 100 years from now), all energy sources will be renewable (hydro, wind, tide, solar, something else) and none would cause pollution. I would be thrilled just knowing that my kids might have a chance to live in such a world.

        2. Tell me again how CO2 and H2O, the products of combusting hydrocarbons, are pollutants.

          Don’t say your answer out loud, wouldn’t want you polluting the atmosphere.

        4. I’m looking up and down and can’t find the comment where it says that CO2 (or H2O) are pollutants.

          Obviously, anyone who knows anything about internal combustion engines knows that CO2 (or H2O) aren’t the problem.

        5. Since when has speech ever involved the combustion of hydrocarbons? And when have we ever had a case of an engine capable of complete combustion? If you want to make a point, please try to make an informed, intelligent one … you’re hardly helping your cause.

        6. “I’m looking up and down and can’t find the comment where it says that CO2 (or H2O) are pollutants.”

          It wasn’t specifically made here.. but if you paid any attention to politics, you’d understand where he was coming from.
          the EPA declared it a pollutant a few years back.

          http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/

          I don’t believe in the whole GW BS myself, it’s been disproved more and more over the years.
          But on the other hand I don’t run around polluting for no reason. People that drive around in a beat up old POS car with blue or black smoke coming out the back.. bug the hell out of me.

          Our ATV/MC “club” if you will, paid out of our own pockets to clean up almost 100 miles of former train tracks and convert them into riding trails, approved by the state. for 10-15 years we had these trails kept clean and safe. Tunnels through mountains, huge bridges, absolutely beautiful views…

          Environmentalist bicyclists came along and bitched to the state about these nice trails that ATV/MC users are on and look down upon us bicyclists…
          guess what happened? the trails were STOLEN from us, we are banned from being on them and they are 100% bicyclist only now.

          WE made them, WE maintained them… and now the state taxes us (Off Road tab money goes to them) and we are not allowed to ride them anymore.

          THIS kind of crap by those on the left (mostly) really piss those on the right off. We build something up, they come along and demand the fruits of OUR labor… in the name of “equality” and so many times lately “For the Environment”

    2. Until mankind can figure out the mechanisms behind the creation of the great ice ages and how the hell an ice sheet about 2 km thick, over most of the northern hemisphere, just melted away with no human use of fossil fuels, there is no man made global warming.

      Reply

      1. keep your eyes on the sun – not literally. and monitor the current status of the reversal of the earth’s magnetic polarity.

        as the polarity shifts and the strength of the earth’s magnetic field weakens it is less able to deflect the punishing solar winds and the stream of radiation/debris fom the cosmos.

        those would be two excellent starting points…

        Reply

    4. Twelve years is very little time in the processes of the Earth. It is a large system, and a large system generally takes a while to significantly respond to perturbations.

      Some of the climate change talk was alarmist in nature. But that does not give you the right or the rationale to attempt to debunk the entire field of study and dismiss all of the scientific experts.

      We do not understand all of the nuances of the Earth’s weather and climate. We cannot adequately model all of its complexity (although the models are improving), so there is a substantial range of error in the extrapolation of the behavior of the system. The Earth clearly has a well-damped climate. But even a well-damped system can diverge substantially from its reference equilibrium state before returning to it.

      It is true that there have been shifts in global climate in the past. But it is also true that the physics behind the greenhouse effect are indisputable – increased levels of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases, such as methane, trap a greater percentage of the sun’s energy after it is absorbed and re-emitted as long wave radiation. One fact does not obviate the other. The human-induced effect blends with the natural cycles and variations, and we do not have data over a sufficient time span to clearly separate the two effects.

      If we are lucky, then the human-induced effects will be small and we survive another roll of the dice. If we are unlucky, then the climate will change substantially over the coming decades or centuries, which will stress an already overpopulated and increasingly polluted world and its failing ecosystems.

      But, apparently, the temperature has stayed almost constant for twelve whole years, so why worry? For instance, it couldn’t possibly be due to a favorable variation in the Earth/Sun energy balance that is temporarily offsetting the effects of the human input, could it?

      I certainly don’t love you, TMac. I don’t actually hate you, either. I am just disgusted by your smug stupidity and willingness to blindly disregard the the risk that we are potentially forging a very poor future for our children. But hey, if one “prominent herald of climate change” says he was wrong, then they all must be wrong…

      Reply

        1. Same tired, idiotic reply as always. Do you *really* think that I am bothered by a 12-year old mentality calling me “Queen Smell?” You got nothing…absolutely friggin’ nothing in your head that holds any interest for me whatsoever. You could not reason your way along one side of a Möbius strip.

          Let’s put it in simpler terms. If humanity takes steps towards cleaner energy and you are right, then no harm done. If humanity continues to burn fossil fuels and you are right, then we live in a more polluted world, but avoid disaster through sheer luck. If humanity continues to burn fossil fuels and you are wrong, then we are courting catastrophe. Why gamble on the future of the planet. It is foolish to do so when we have viable alternatives that will ultimately improve the quality of life for everyone on Earth, and possibly save some other species, as well.

          If that is too complex for you to comprehend, then you must be the missing link.

  5. Regarding climate change, I don’t really care. As long as the population increase keeps occurring, anything being done to control environmental problems is only a short term solution. When the earth is done with humans, we will just be gone, like the dinosaurs and so many other species before us. But regarding Gore, it is about time he is rightly recognized for his foresightedness as a Senator. Perhaps his words could have been better selected, but unlike so many in DC now, he did have vision and we are all benefitting from that vision.

    Reply

    2. OMG, you have to be freaking kidding. Al Gore is the laughing stock of the world. He should be kicked off of Apple’s board and disappear back to his massive carbon footprint mansion and spare us his disgusting presence in the news.

      Reply

    2. I still think the best use of an electric car i have seen, is when Rush was on Leno and drove one.

      http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909250001

      it’s on MM site… surprised it’s still up there. Warning you up front… it’s Flash….

      (And remember, Rush has a cochlear implant, with the crowd he can’t hear Leno at all…)

      I am so jealous of Leno’s car collection… 99% of the cars/bike she has i want. the Volt… nah, i don’t want the risk of having my house burn down. Electric may be viable at some point.. but it’s not even close now.

      Reply

    1. Stop already with the phony claims that “Gore invented the internet” . That was never claimed. What was said and was reported by NPR is that as a Senator and later as VP he promoted legislation, and funding that went towards creation of the internet. as we know it. The true originators were Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, among many others that did work for DARPA and at other Universites and Colleges.

      Reply

  9. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. That was right-wing FUD. . . . You’ve heard of FUD, haven’t you?

    You won’t mind me reminding you that in the final Florida recount, Al Gore actually won the election. But that happened after the non-activist, right-wing Supreme Court reached out and stole the election.

    Reply

    1. FUD means Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. I am trying as hard as I can to understand how it relates to the story of ‘Al Gore inventing internet’.

      A more appropriate word would have probably been a ‘right-wing cannard’; or a ‘right-wing fabrication’. FUD it definitely ain’t.

      Reply

      1. You’re technically very correct as to origin of the term, but simply put, FUD is trash-talk, meant to belittle someone or some thing. “I invented the internet.” was repeated loudly and often to ridicule Gore.

        Reply

    2. 5 Republican Justices stuck their noses where they had no standing and appointed Bush.

      Each state has the right to determine it’s own method of elections as long as they do not violate the civil rights or other protected rights of citizen voters. Since civil rights were not the complaint the findings of the Florida Supreme Court legally were the final word. They said recount all of the votes.

      After the ballots were released they were audited by a consortium of news organizations who just happened to find that Al Gore won Florida by any and every possible counting methodology that was consistently applied.

      The 2000 election was stolen- from the Supremes to the Brooks Brothers riot. Just know that. The G.O.P. was so desperate to attain power that they stripped the bark off of the fallacy that the current Supreme Court is not partisan.

      Reply

  10. The Internet needed a champion in the political arena in its infancy to become what it is today. Al Gore was that guy.

    Did he “invent” the Internet? No. Then again, if you actually pay attention to what he said about his role rather than twist it into some sort of cliched political joke, he never claimed to.

    Reply

    1. No, he wasn’t “that guy”, you jack ass! He was immediately ridiculed for saying that he invented the internet. The guy is a fraud and so is Maobama and so are all Lemming-Tard-DemoTurds!!!!!

      Reply

  14. There is a special place in hell for hypocrite and snake oil salesman Gore. He can choke on his apple stock let alone millions swindled from agw scam. Tipper knows. Al knows. There is no global warming and even if there was al gore could not prove it is a bad thing. Or that the money he collects would curb a thing. Scumbag.

    Reply

  15. As several people helpfully pointed out, Gore never said he “invented” the internet. That was a fabrication spread originally by dishonest right-wingers, but it would have stayed there except for the “war on Gore” done by almost the entire liberal establishment, particularly the NY Times, but the Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, etc., are about equally culpable. Without their dishonest reporting about almost EVERYTHING Gore said, the extremely unqualified GW Bush would never have gotten close enough to winning the election for the Supreme Court to steal it for him. Many of these jerks are still around, like Kit Seelye, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and on and on.

    Reply

  16. OH yes, about that “global warming” so many here are in denial about. Perhaps you’d understand the science better if you realized it doesn’t necessarily mean “warming,” as it does that our weather patterns are being disrupted, causing extremes greater than would be normal, and far more often than without all the pollutants and more pumped into our atmosphere.

    Reply

    2. Careful ron. The actual source theory is called ‘The Greenhouse Effect’. Carbon dioxide is called a ‘Greenhouse Gas’. Obviously, the point of using the term ‘Greenhouse’ is to indicate that the effect of an over-concentration of greenhouse gasses is the WARMING of the planet.

      Where the term ‘Climate Change’ comes in is when describing the effect of this warming. It is NOT simply an overall warming of the planet. The actual result is a gradually increasing climactic upheaval whereby there is an increase in weather CHANGE over time with an inevitable OVERALL effect of world climate warming.

      There is science, the realm of proving what is fact. Then there are politics, the realm of proving what is propaganda.

      The Greenhouse Effect is NOT a proven fact. It remains a THEORY, which means that the factual data indicates that it MAY be a fact, but we do NOT know for sure. IOW: There remains room for skepticism among those who seek to know what is fact.

      Political propagandists have zero interest in seeking to know what is fact. Politics is only the realm of opinions, be they informed or ignorant.

      Reply

      2. The Greenhouse Effect is a fact of physics. That is, increased levels of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases, such as methane, trap a greater percentage of the sun’s energy after it is absorbed and then re-emitted as long wave radiation. It works *quite* well on Venus. What is *not* fully understood are the details and interactions of all of the climate-related factors, such as changes in cloud cover and the recent reductions in glaciers and polar ice caps. The Earth’s climate is extremely complex and difficult to model. That is the reason for the range of uncertainty in the predictions. We cannot say with certainty what the ultimate impact of the additional CO2 will be. However, the preponderance of data from reputable sources predict an unfavorable effect on weather extremes and some level of net global warming.. We can only hope that the impact is on the low side.

        The Earth clearly has a well-damped climate. But even a well-damped system can diverge substantially from its reference equilibrium state before returning to it. You don’t poke a bear with a stick for a reason – you might not like the result. We have viable alternatives and, for multiple reasons, we need to make a stronger effort towards developing a more balanced and diverse energy economy. Anyone who disputes that is irrational, in my opinion.

        Reply

        1. One clear fact is that the excess C02 in the air has detrimentally lowered the pH of the world’s oceans. C02 is in an equilibrium with carbonic acid. When the C02 tips in a higher concentration in the air, and subsequently the water into which it is naturally absorbed, carbonic acid is made, the pH drops, and everything in the ocean made of calcium carbonate dissolves.

          Therefore, at long freaking last, we know the main reason why coral reefs are having catastrophic die-offs, aka ‘coral bleaching’. THAT effect is for real, proven and ruining our world. The effect of dying coral reefs is vast because they are the third most productive part of our oceans (after coastal marshes and phytoplankton in the upper ocean).

          Then there are the plankton that rely on calcium carbonate for protection. And the clams, oysters, snails and other molluscs that rely on calcium carbonate…

          Anyone still thinking that mankind is not ruining our miracle planet Earth with irresponsible abandon is deliberately making themselves blind and deaf. That’s really dumb.

        2. Agreed. Carbonic acidification of the ocean is impacting the coral in combination with the gradual increase in temperature. Many biological functions have evolved to work only within a narrow range of temperatures, and even just a few degrees of change could be catastrophic to some species. Humanity is in for a rude awakening.

          Thanks to “all people are created equal,” dumb gets an equal vote. When dumb becomes a majority, then the U.S. will be in real trouble.

        3. That is one reason I teach tech to newbies in my spare time. It’s not so much people being ‘dumb’ as people being ignorant. If all you know is the propaganda garbage and urban legends, you can’t help but be ignorant. Education enables the best of the USA.

  18. The mean-spirited, small-mindedness just keeps growing more and more fierce as November nears. I wonder if it’ll reach critical mass before then and destroy itself. One can only hope…

    Reply

    2. The mean-spirited, small-mindedness just keeps growing more and more fierce as November nears

      As I posted earlier today:
      The Psychopathic Protocol:
      ‘If you can’t win, CHEAT’.

      I find that this protocol becomes more prevalent as peoples’ circumstances become more desperate. And oh look: The Republicans can’t get elected by stating their actual intentions for the USA (IOW: Neo-Feudalism). Therefore, they have to go all ballistic and maniacal with their propaganda.

      Most amusing is when the Neo-Con-Jobs running the show pretend to be ‘Christians’ while being the vehemently HATEFUL. Oops. Please read what Yeshua actually said, such as the section where he teaches which are the greatest of God’s Commandments. (Mark 12:28-31)

      IOW: Politics is the occupation of the damned. Or at least that’s how we currently play it here in the USA. Bleh.

      Reply

      1. As usual, the lunatic-lemming, Dereck, has everything backwards.

        You see it’s the Lib-Tards that lie about everything they are up to. They would never get elected if they admitted openly that they are socialists in training to get us to their end goal of commie-dictatorship. Only a brain-dead-idiot like Decreck and comrades wouldn’t be able to see that true fact.

        http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

        http://townhall.com/columnists/susanbrown/2012/04/17/is_progressivism_the_new_communism/page/full/

        Reply

        1. So let’s have a FASCIST DICTATORSHIP! And let’s make the USA into a FEUDAL STATE with a fake ‘Christian’ theocracy! It’s LOTS more fun than democracy! Who needs capitalism! RahRahRah for unregulated GREED and ABUSE and PROPAGANDA!

          Really STALKER, I can only laugh at your ditto-head sheeple-ness. Need I also point out that my own personal STALKER is only able to think in 0 dimensions. ‘You’re either wid us or agin us!’

          And every fascist needs a scapegoat. So what’s yours going to be STALKER? Imaginary ‘commies’ coming to get you? And then that difficult question: What will be your new anonymous coward fake nick today?

          Coward coward coward coward coward…. Meanwhile, I’m real. Doesn’t that tell you something of critical importance, my own personal STALKER?!

  19. I took the initiative in creating the Internet

    Sadly, Mr. Gore has not been the greatest expert on semantics. It hasn’t been difficult for his haters to take this quotation to be one of ridiculous self-aggrandizement. Such are the perils of public life and public scrutiny.

    Reply

  20. When everyone in congress was laughing at the internet (arpanet) and Reagan wanted to shut down the project, gore, who was friends with Steve jobs at the time, saw the vision and sold the Internet to congress. Congress decided to continue funding and later put the project in the hands of the public sector, while retaining some control.

    Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , , ,