If you were able to get through to yesterday’s column between server crashes perhaps you noticed the very first reader comment, which wasn’t about mobile phones or marathons at all, but about my promise to in this column discuss new anti-terrorism technology. Here, if you missed it, is his comment:
“Is yesterday going to be an excuse to ban pressure cookers? I’m fed up with the government. Money has been shoveled by the barge load onto the ‘security issue’ and we have nothing to show for it except the union thug goons that feel us up at the airport and a severe loss of personal and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. I suggest we disband these futile efforts and accept the fact that life has risk associated with it.”
Implicit in this comment, at least the way I read it, is some expectation that what I’ll propose in this column is something like the banning of pressure cookers. Readers who don’t know my work might expect that, but those who do know my work (and there’s a lot of it out there to be examined over the 25 years I’ve had this particular gig) probably believe otherwise. Remember my first column after 9/11 was about the abuse of power in the name of national security — that at a time when almost nobody was expressing such ideas.
You see I agree with much, though not all, of what the reader suggests.
If I had the power to just order things to be the way I think they should be I’d require some logical security responses like the armoring of cockpit doors that practically eliminated airliner hijacking as a threat then beyond that do little or nothing. A huge nation can absorb a blow or two and once it’s seen there’s no real impact on our culture the terrorists will go on to other, more compliant, targets.
But that’s not the way we seem to do things around here. Instead we throw trillions into byzantine security programs and overseas adventuring, most of it useless, then we try to blame others for the resultant debt. So any further suggestions I have for improving the peace must be mapped against that broader scene of government greed and stupidity.
What we celebrate in this column has always been the empowerment through technology of ordinary people. The personal computer changed our culture, pushing technology to the edges of society, changing forever the balance of power.
This can be seen in the decline of milspec. Remember that term? It referred to electronic components made to military specifications which were better than anything you or I could buy or could even afford to buy. The military got the good stuff and through industry being forced to build that good stuff the rest of us over time began to get better components and products, too. Milspec today is for most purposes gone, killed by an acceleration of technical progress that improved the quality of components faster than the military could revise its specifications. That and military applications ceased to be volume leaders for electronic components so the tail (the PC) eventually came to wag that semiconductor dog.
Intel today makes better parts for gaming computers than it does typically for the military.
Personal computing began in homes then migrated to business but technical leadership has for the most part remained in the home market. It’s in our homes where we typically have faster computers, more processing power, and greater bandwidth than most of us have at work. This is a trend that has continued with the Internet and now mobile where Bring Your Own Device is as much an announcement of the weakness of corporate IT as it is the strength of individual technology.
I expect this trend of personalization to continue and even to accelerate.
So let’s apply it to national security by applying it first to local security.
We are a nation of tinkerers and gadget enthusiasts. We adopt technical trends sometimes for almost no reason at all. Remember CB radio? In many ways the rise of CB radio made possible personal computing and the later demise of CB radios made personal computing commercially essential to keep many technology companies from going out of business.
Now here’s a radical idea: what if we took anti-terrorism technologies, miniaturized them, drove the cost out, then gave them not to the government but to everyone?
What I’m specifically thinking of here are scanning technologies based on non-ionizing terahertz electromagnetic waves, the very kind of waves that today look through your underwear at many airports. That same technology can be used for detection as easily as for imaging. Materials have submillimeter signatures that can be detected in very small amounts from distances up to 10 meters.
Think back to videos of the recent events in Boston. One of those bombs exploded directly in front of a Lenscrafters optical store. Why couldn’t that store aim out its front window one or more terahertz detectors tuned to read a broad list of submillimeter substance signatures including most common explosives?
Don’t carry a bomb on front of my store.
This isn’t some government program we’re talking about, it’s Lenscrafters or Starbucks. Insurance companies could come to require it, creating a veritable obstacle course down Main Street for terrorists and wackos.
It wouldn’t end terrorism but it would make terrorism more difficult. And since terrorism is typically a crime of opportunity, those who embraced such solutions could strongly encourage the bad guys to go elsewhere.
But what about constitutionality? What about cost?
I see these as passive systems that might be legal or might be able to be made legal through legislation, but that’s not my area of expertise so legal tests will have to be done.
As for cost, we’re right at the threshold of a renaissance in terahertz science. Yes, those peek-through-your undies machines at the airport cost up to $1 million, but it is important to realize they represent older science and were built for the Homeland Security pork trough: they are vastly more expensive than they need to be.
Your tax dollars at work.
Now here’s a fact that may startle you. A terahertz emitter can also be used as a detector and it is right now possible to build perfectly practical terahertz emitters as I’ve described for less than a dollar. These are devices that could be powered in every sense (both in terms of electricity and computation) by something along the lines of an iPod Touch. It’s a dongle and an app, both potentially available in volume for under $10.
What business owner wouldn’t invest in something like that, especially if it was required by the insurance company? Hell, it’s cheap enough to be provided by the insurance company.
Not in front of my store you don’t!
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Milpspec seldom means ultrahigh performance, it usually means a component which is rad-hardened, EMP resillient, Tempest rated and can operate anywhere from the South Pole to the Iraqi Deserts.
This often means odd or legacy technologies. For example magnetic core memory held on for decades in milspec systems as well as CRTs.
I am certian that there is bleeding edge stuff over at various three letter agencies but hardly what you are talking about.
As for private bomb detectors, how would this work? The odds of a bomb attack at any given location are infitesimally small, and hardly cost effective for a brick and mortar to install. On par with equipping every skyscraper dweller with a parachute.
How does such an arrangement distingush an ANFO bomb from the sack of fertilizer the gardener is using in front of the shop. And pray tell, what happens when a detector goes off? Call the bomb squad, go out and poke the bomb w/ a stick?
Half baked would be an overstatement.
Details, all details. Never mind about those, someone will figure all that out…
Bob, the trouble with being a Big Picture Guy is the details. For a supposedly pragmatic person you tend to get pretty far away from the prosaic aspects of your notions. False positives would crush any such program within weeks.
I agree with Monopole. There is an important distinction between MIL-SPEC and MIL-STD. Some of the MIL-STD’s are still around. In Bob’s write up about Sabre going off-line, he mentioned the single point of failure micro-switch in the nose wheel housing of American Airlines’ planes. The MIL-STD version would be tested to a failure confidence level across extreme conditions (-45 C to +81 C) to provide a 5 nines confidence level (or higher) for reliability.
Unfortunately, commercial systems aren’t made that way and the military market is too small. Don’t get me started on the issue of the manufacturing being pushed off shore so that production quality is less certain for the military.
The “important distinction” is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Standard . However after reading the Table of Acronyms, it’s not obvious which of the various standards and specs would be more stringent. It also has an interesting discussion of the drawbacks of standardization.
I’d be in favor of the $10 units over losing freedom and liberty to the Feds anyday. I think more to the point is the fact that people actually believe the Government, the President, or DHS can/will be able to protect us. That is impossible. The issues inside the US are more related to the degeneration of morals, and the generation of a dependency on the welfare state. When the government takes away freedom and liberty under the guise of security, most would presume the capability to protect is there – but it’s not. Our civil servants are ill equipped to do their jobs, let alone the added responsibilities that legislation dumps on them.
People need to be self-reliant, and prepared – not waiting on FEMA, DHS, FBI, etc… They can’t/won’t protect us when SHTF.
I 99% *disagree* with your comments. WTF does “the welfare state” have to do with *anything* here? No perpetrator of any acts of domestic terrorism have been involved with “the welfare system” in any way, as far as I know.
And the assertion that the government cannot protect us is also false. The government cannot protect us 100%, sure, but would you really posit that governmental actions and regulations over the past 10+ years have not made any difference whatsoever? And would you further posit that individuals apart from the government *can* protect themselves 100%?
I just don’t see any logic in your argument.
His point is that the government approach is not cost effective. It gives jobs to many people, paying them say, $1, of our tax dollars for every dime those people spend helping people in distress. There is no motivation to save tax dollars since the perception is the government is paying not me.
But aren’t the government’s efforts to protect us really more about control than they are about protection? I’m sure our leaders do not want to see people die, but, in my humble opinion, they use these events to grab more and more control of our lives. (for an obscure reference see Plato’s Republic where he suggests a government run by intellectual elites. Everyone else is in service to the rules those elites make.) Our current leaders fear the empowerment of individuals through technology because they see a time when there will be enough individually empowering technology that the government, as we know it now, will be obsolete. The leaders will be obsolete too because the sum of all individually empowering technology will be the government.
Interesting comment about milspec. I haven’t seen much in the last 15 – 20 years.
What about space vehicle spec? Last I heard, around ten years ago, the i386 was the latest cpu to be considered reliable in space for satellite use.
I do wonder if that’s still the case today.
I do hope we get THz tech, so that I get invited to underwear-scanner parties. (assumption of underwear is pure guesswork)
Bob, the comment made yesterday was probably not directed toward you, but toward the goons in Washington that will do whatever is necessary to strip us of every last right (one tragedy at a time). The president already declared it an act of terrorism. The point being that we will never be able to rid the world of every crime, and bad people will never go away… that doesn’t mean the rest of us should be punished for it, nor should we be stripped of our rights.
Great article as always, time will tell if this becomes a viable solution. But you are right, businesses and individuals would all do a better job protecting themselves and their financial interests, and they’d do it for far less then then feds.
An interesting idea. I think the closest analogy would be smoke or carbon monoxide detectors – a technology whose use (25?) years ago was limited by cost. Now, of course, most everyone’s got at least one at home. There are the occasional false positives (such as whenever I fry bacon) but the owner of the device generally can make the distinction. As for safety concerns, well, we seem to be willing to accept a miniscule amount of radiation in our smoke detectors, so what’s a little emf among friends? As for the legal aspect of privacy, nobody’s been able to stop the proliferation of webcams and speed cameras throughout the country.
Put a terrahertz emitter and detector on your Google Glasses and you’ve got the “X-ray vision” specs that were promised on the back of all comic books back in the 1950s and 60s – finally!
Next up – real Seamonkeys!
Made me laugh.
I was not aiming my comment at you Bobo. I wanted to put it out there that as a culture we need to grow up and realize that risk is inherent and omnipresent in life. Our culture has been severely infantalized and expectations for security are severely curtailing our freedoms of all types.
I believe you are wrong about the reasons so many businesses encourage work-at-home and bring-your-own-device. The real reason is MONEY.
Office space is expensive; your home office costs your employer, at most, the cost of the phone line and the internet connection. Many, including mine, do not fully reimburse either. So they can stuff many more people in the same space by giving them shared “guest space”.
Your own device costs your employer nothing. If the employer proivides and maintains the equipment you use to do your job, it costs real hard dollars.
As far as security is concerned, security theater provides jobs for the unemployable.
Security theater is big business:
– Manufacturers make big bucks on cseless custom devoces
– It provides employment for the unemployable
sb useless
Very interesting idea. Also, fully agree that much of the spending on “security” is wasted most likely. I would note though that absence of an exploding bomb, gun shot, etc. doesn’t mean that one wasn’t attempted. Has the TSA prevented an attack? I have no idea. Same question about FBI task forces, etc. etc. But the odds are some of these efforts have had some success. I would feel a lot better about our government if we could calculate some kind of ROI on all this spending. Your approach would very likely have a high benefit / cost ratio, which, if it really is practical, makes it such a cool idea. Even if the ROI wasn’t high, sure would be nice to know if some of these other programs had any kind of positive return.
Thanks to the NRA we have state after state permitting conceal and carry gun permits. Shortly after the laws are changed signs start appearing everywhere saying — do not bring your gun in here. You see these signs on stores, businesses, places of worship, and of course — schools. In our community we rarely have any gun related violence. The emergency room of our hospital now has bullet proof windows, doors, and walls as a result of our new gun laws.
As we’ve seen over and over again if someone wants to harm you, signs won’t slow them down. Arming everyone in a movie theater with a gun won’t slow them down either.
Now if an inexpensive device could detect a large chunk of metal and gun powder coming through the door, that would be a game changer. That would be much more effective at deterring and containing crime than arming everyone. Technology can also photograph the person, call the police, put the building on lock down, … and the bad guy may or may not know all this is happening.
“I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time. That’s why we’re on top of the world.” – John Dillinger
Your readers comment was correct. A minuscule percentage of senseless violence has to tolerated in any free society. Attempting to eliminate all violence is a fools errand that will only result in a totalitarian state. As horrible and reprehensible as scenes like the Boston Marathon bombing are, beyond simple due diligence, there’s nothing we can do and still live in a free and open society. The beginning of your column actually makes this argument. Consumer technology is always a little better than anything institutions can implement. Terrorists use consumer technology.
The forces championing zero tolerance are strong. The media loves a story and “milks” these events for every last scrap of entertainment value. The reporters ask the wrong questions, lose perspective, and shamelessly play to the uneducated masses, never mentioning that obvious fact that these events, while tragic, are relatively rare give the openness of our society.
Law enforcement wants more toys and resources. They often uses these events to lobby for expanded control, more legislation, and more funding.
I fear freedom is doomed.
B.J.
Interesting idea, Bob. However, would a terahertz emitter be able to detect explosives that were encased in metal, such as a pressure cooker? If not, then deploying detectors all over the place would probably not be very effective.
“Terahertz radiation has limited penetration through fog and clouds and cannot penetrate liquid water or metal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation#Introduction
So, how is this going to detect an explosive contained inside of a metal pressure cooker?
How many lives are going to be saved every year with this technology. Would gun detectors would save more by a factor of 10,000 ? A uniformed , armed sheriff’s deputy was unable to stop a high school massacre in Columbine.
Now here’s a radical idea: what if we took anti-BS technology, miniaturized it, drove the cost down, then gave it to everyone? There is a capable and easy-to-use BS detector called Tracker. You do need high school physics to be able to use it.
https://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
How many lives are going to be saved every year with this technology. Would gun detectors would save more by a factor of 10,000 ? A uniformed , armed sheriff’s deputy was unable to stop a high school massacre in Columbine.
Now here’s a radical idea: what if we took anti-BS technology, miniaturized it, drove the cost down, then gave it to everyone? There is a capable and easy-to-use BS detector called Tracker. You do need high school physics to be able to use it.
https://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
Does “BS” have the usual meaning here? Is the youtube video supposed to prove that the analysis of the WTC collapse that was published was BS? After looking at the Tracker website, I still don’t understand what it’s for or does. Was Tracker involved in the youtube analysis?
“the analysis of the WTC collapse that was published was BS?”
Yes – After 7 years , NIST did admit freefall of WTC7 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&list=UUxvGFyCUkbMk4pB0C-AUJwQ
Does “BS” have the usual meaning here? Is the youtube video supposed to prove that the analysis of the WTC collapse that was published was BS? After looking at the Tracker website, I still don’t understand what it’s for or does. Was Tracker involved in the youtube analysis?
Great comments – I think the idea is great, but poorly described. The problem is in reducing risk. The terahertz detector won’t detect chemicals inside a pressure cooker, and its impractical on every storefront in town. But give the detectors to every beat cop in town, and increase the number of those folks walking around, and you do a lot to deter (but not eliminate) the threat. You can never eliminate the threats, just reduce the risk of their occurence – just like a steel door on a cockpit won’t stop a bomber on the plane, so we have to do both secure the plane and guard the entrance to the plane in a sensible way.
Ricin detector
“Remember my first column after 9/11 was about the abuse of power in the name of national security ”
I remember white house pressuring the FBI to prove that the anthrax attacks were a second-wave assault by al-Qaeda. The FBI had troubles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Anthrax_archive_destroyed
Now here’s a radical idea: what if we took anti-ricin and anti-anthrax technologies, miniaturized them, drove the cost out, then gave them to everyone?
It’s possible we may get stuck at the “drive the cost down” part. Perhaps we could start with the cost of energy. 🙂
Apart from the garish red, the website is shaping up nicely. Good work.
I’m afraid the server issues are getting worse. The cosmetic changes have done nothing to fix that most important issue.
I haven’t seen as many problems since Wednesday’s major update.
Perhaps there are still browser compatibility problems to iron out. No surprises there, really.
If you set your browser to not use its cache and keep getting slow responses when clicking on a Cringely article, home page, “reply” , or “post comment” link, that usually indicates a server problem. Especially when the delay is long enough to produce the server timeout error. It doesn’t happen on any other major forum or blog either, just Cringely and just starting sometime this year. (Probably around the time we started seeing “WordPress” mentioned.)
When I posted the above, I got back a blank page with “Request Failed” in the tab title. When I went back and submitted it again, I got “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!” Then I refreshed the page, and got the page displayed with the comment. (Here we go again with this post.)
Today the comment count for this article went up to 41 on the index page but stayed at 40 on this page. This problem also started this year, the same time as the server problems, which correspond to the appearance of the “wp comment” phrase.
So where can we buy these “practical terahertz emitters… for less than a dollar” (or at a low/reasonable cost)?
Quick Google search didn’t turn up anything promising
Make a < $100 terahertz emitter/sensor available on makershed.com or adafruit.com, and I think you'd be amazed at what people start building. I definitely think there'd be interest in a DIY bomb detector. A whole niche industry might spring up… especially if insurance companies give a discount for having them
“we’re right at the threshold of a renaissance in terahertz science” – sweet!
TerraHertz detection issues aside, the behavior of individuals in crowds should be reason enough to elicit more camera activity on anomalous targets.
We’re not far from a point where image processing programs could be built to detect when someone leaves a significant package in a trash can or on the street and takes a decent hi-res picture of them.
It may also turn out that the Boston Marathon Bombing perpetrator may have betrayed himself with his own phone. Blue-tracking anyone?
So even if THz imaging can’t tell us much, intelligent cameras with appropriate image processing might be more than enough to make up for it.
This leaves frontal assaults by those who don’t care if they’re identified, or if they die in the attack. We still can’t do much about them.
We’ll have DIY bomb detectors and associated vigilantes that are supposed to only catch bad guys. But of course, the detectors will give false positives and then some poor schmuck will find themselves beaten to a pulp or ventilated by the shop owner’s shotgun before having themselves and their families interrogated by the men in dark glasses. Their lives will be disrupted or ended, and their names blackened. They may or may not be able to clear themselves.
The vigilantes will paint themselves as heroes doing what’s necessary to keep others safe, and too bad for the innocents accidentally snared. Think of the NRA every time there’s a mass shooting and you’ll catch my drift.
I see no good coming from this idea.
It is now Friday and the story of the Boston Marathon bombing continues to unfold. In the end I think we will find technology played a huge role in this case.
I was a kid when JFK was assassinated. To this day I am amazed how fast they found the shooter, and with minimal technology.
This doesn’t seem to adequately consider the problem of false positives when one is doing a high volume of samples for something which occurs only very rarely. Even very low rates of false positives (i.e. .0001%) will still result in 10 false positives for every true positive for something which as a 1:1,000,000 chance of occurring.
If this is as easy as Bob makes it sound … then every deli, pizza parlor, and bus driver in Israel needs to read this article. If ever there was someplace which needs this technology, I’d say they need it more than we.
I find it laughable so much time and energy discussing about reducing terrorist risks when you have a fertilizer pland blowing up near Waco Texas where they have not had a safety inspection in the last five years. Far more dead and injured resulted due to the blast, and this is an easily foreseeable consequence of businesses taking safety shortcuts.
I would strongly suggest spending time, energy and money to secure the public first where the requirements and means necessary are so blatantly obvious.
So instead of government intrusion of privacy, we have government mandated intrusion on privacy by corporations, who will then be free to profit off of the intrusion?
This comment is an attempt to refresh the page so the comment count will hopefully correspond to the index page which should be at 43, while this page is stuck at 40.
I think my one problem with this idea is the PATRIOT act. The implications of PATRIOT, as applied and as defended by the courts, is that when the FBI, the CIA, or any other group within DHS, shows up at a telco corporate HQ with a letter saying “give us everything you have regarding phone number 800-555-1212”, the corporations don’t hesitate to take our privacy and shove it. There is NEVER any counter-questioning that the data requested is actually for a terrorist research (like most things, it ends up being used in minor drug cases instead), and there is in fact an explicit requirement that they are not allowed to tell YOU that they took YOUR data and gave it to the feds, without an actual warrant.
Knowing there is a large database of cameras at Starbucks, and knowing that there is a Starbucks at every corner of every city in America (some, like Dupont Circle in DC, even have two), there is nothing to stop the feds from turning voluntary submission of such data into mandatory *and silent* submission. Again, there will end up being no counter-question as to warrant or relevance, and again likely no need to actually show proof that the request has anything to do with terrorism, leading once again to insane violations of our rights over mere cheap drug busts.
IF I could trust the feds and law enforcement to actually use the information to deal with potential terrorism, I’d be ok with it.
But I can’t. They, and local law enforcement, have repeatedly used every anti-terrorism privilege they have gained in the last 12 years to the pursuit of cracking down on generally harmless drug trafficking…and the courts have repeatedly let them do so.
So I’m done with that. Take this national surveillance network, whether owned by commercial enterprises or run by the government, and shove it up someone’s butt.
>against that broader scene of government greed and stupidity.
Simplistic (or simple-minded) throw-away lines like this further the idea that “government” is somehow a greedy, stupid enterprise in and of itself. It isn’t. It is as stupid and greedy as the people who run it / allow lobbyist to run it. You are a fool to think that government under Clinton / Gore was exactly as greedy and stupid (and corrupt) as under Bush / Cheney.
It feels good to slam “government” — you are so much smarter and purer than “government”! Bravo.
>You are a fool to think that government under Clinton / Gore was exactly as greedy and stupid (and corrupt) as under Bush / Cheney.
Exactly? Sounds reasonable – “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ycR36N68R8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I’d rather have a government based on sound fundamental principles even if some of the principals are flawed.
>You are a fool to think that government under Clinton / Gore was exactly as greedy and stupid (and corrupt) as under Bush / Cheney.
Exactly? Sounds reasonable – “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ycR36N68R8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
Technology doesn’t just empower individuals. It also dis-empowers governments. Wikileaks, for example. The Boston investigators did such a good job because they were aided by individuals. As for the West, TX explosion, I just saw an article at phys.org about mixing Nitrogen ferts at the point of manufacture with iron sulfate, a tonnage waste product of iron smelting. It makes a better fert, and it won’t explode. My faith in govt. will return when it shows a little competence in inspecting food and such, you know, govt. “of, by, and for the people.” If that should ever return, I’d support it, but til then, government is simply a bully that becomes more irrelevant every day.
Good site! I truly love how it is easy on my eyes and the data are well written. I am wondering how I could be notified whenever a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your feed which must do the trick! Have a nice day!
There’s a potential problem with this idea: terahertz radiation may not be as benign as people currently imagine. (Since DNA resonates at terahertz frequencies there’s reason to believe that it might be disruptive to biological processes.) If it turns out that it is dangerous, it probably won’t have made much difference for a few people to be irradiated occasionally as they go through an airport. But to have everyone irradiated everyday as they walk down the street? That might make a difference.
Once upon a time, X-rays were thought to be much more benign than they are now. Shoe-shops used X-ray machines to check that your children’s new shoes fit properly. They don’t do that any more, do they?
There’s a potential problem with this idea: terahertz radiation may not be as benign as people currently imagine. (Since DNA resonates at terahertz frequencies there’s reason to believe that it might be disruptive to biological processes.) If it turns out that it is dangerous, it probably won’t have made much difference for a few people to be irradiated occasionally as they go through an airport. But to have everyone irradiated everyday as they walk down the street? That might make a difference.
Once upon a time, X-rays were thought to be much more benign than they are now. Shoe-shops used X-ray machines to check that your children’s new shoes fit properly. They don’t do that any more, do they?
Hi there very nice website!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I will bookmark your site and take the feeds also…I am satisfied to search out a lot of helpful information right here within the publish, we need develop extra techniques in this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .