Mingle 2
Welcome to the best free dating site on the web.
Also, put away your credit card, our site is totally free (and always will be)
We know online dating can be frustrating, so we built our site with one goal in mind: Make online dating free, easy, and fun for everyone.
Finding a date with Mingle2 has never been simpler. Our singles community is massive, and you're only a couple of clicks away from finding a date.
Don't take our word for it, read what these people are saying:
Bob - Seattle, WA
Mingle2 is amazing! It's totally free and mutual match facility is clever and brilliant. I have made loads of penpals and found romance
Christina - Chicago, IL
5 minutes after signing up for Mingle2, I had a date! I've never been on a site like this before. Simply incredible
Jessica - Honolulu, HI
I love this site. IT REALLY WORKS!
I'm now in a wonderful relationship, thank you Mingle2! The site is so easy to use and there are tons of people who want to chat.
Quite Simply: It really works. So why wait?
Up Next
You probably have seen or read news stories about fascinating ancient artifacts. At an archaeological dig, a piece of wooden tool is unearthed and the archaeologist finds it to be 5,000 years old. A child mummy is found high in the Andes and the archaeologist says the child lived more than 2,000 years ago. How do scientists know how old an object or human remains are? What methods do they use and how do these methods work? In this article, we will examine the methods by which scientists use radioactivity to determine the age of objects, most notably carbon-14 dating .
WHO'S ON FIRST?
A RELATIVE DATING ACTIVITY
MARSHA BARBER and DIANA SCHEIDLE BARTOS
INTRODUCTION
PALEONTOLOGY, AND in particular the study of dinosaurs, is an exciting topic to people of all ages. Although most attention in today's world focuses on dinosaurs and why they became extinct, the world of paleontology includes many other interesting organisms which tell us about Earth's past history. The study of fossils and the exploration of what they tell scientists about past climates and environments on Earth can be an interesting study for students of all ages.
Teaching about Earth's history is a challenge for all teachers. Time factors of millions and billions of years is difficult even for adults to comprehend. However, "relative" dating or time can be an easy concept for students to learn.
In this activity, students begin a sequencing activity with familiar items — letters written on cards. Once they are able to manipulate the cards into the correct sequence, they are asked to do a similar sequencing activity using fossil pictures printed on "rock layer" cards. Sequencing the rock layers will show students how paleontologists use fossils to give relative dates to rock strata.
Once students begin to grasp "relative" dating, they can extend their knowledge of geologic time by exploring radiometric dating and developing a timeline of Earth's history. These major concepts are part of the Denver Earth Science Project's "Paleontology and Dinosaurs" module written for students in grades 7-10. The module is an integrated unit which addresses the following National Science Education Standards:
*Science as Inquiry: Students develop the abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry — identify questions, design and conduct scientific investigations, use appropriate tools and technologies to gather, analyze and interpret data, think critically and logically to make the relationships between evidence and explanations, communicate results, and use mathematics in all aspects of scientific inquiry. *Life Science: Fossils indicate that many organisms that lived long ago are extinct. Extinction of species is common; most of the species that have lived on the earth no longer exist. *Earth and Space Science: Fossils provide important evidence of how life and environmental conditions have changed.
The complete "Paleontology and Dinosaurs" module takes approximately four weeks to teach. The "Who's On First?" activity is a 30-minute introduction to geologic time.
WHO'S ON FIRST? RELATIVE DATING (Student Activity)
INTRODUCTION
Scientists have good evidence that the earth is very old, approximately four and one-half billion years old. Scientific measurements such as radiometric dating use the natural radioactivity of certain elements found in rocks to help determine their age. Scientists also use direct evidence from observations of the rock layers themselves to help determine the relative age of rock layers. Specific rock formations are indicative of a particular type of environment existing when the rock was being formed. For example, most limestones represent marine environments, whereas, sandstones with ripple marks might indicate a shoreline habitat or a riverbed.
The study and comparison of exposed rock layers or strata in various parts of the earth led scientists in the early 19th century to propose that the rock layers could be correlated from place to place. Locally, physical characteristics of rocks can be compared and correlated. On a larger scale, even between continents, fossil evidence can help in correlating rock layers. The Law of Superposition, which states that in an undisturbed horizontal sequence of rocks, the oldest rock layers will be on the bottom, with successively younger rocks on top of these, helps geologists correlate rock layers around the world. This also means that fossils found in the lowest levels in a sequence of layered rocks represent the oldest record of life there. By matching partial sequences, the truly oldest layers with fossils can be worked out.
By correlating fossils from various parts of the world, scientists are able to give relative ages to particular strata. This is called relative dating. Relative dating tells scientists if a rock layer is "older" or "younger" than another. This would also mean that fossils found in the deepest layer of rocks in an area would represent the oldest forms of life in that particular rock formation. In reading earth history, these layers would be "read" from bottom to top or oldest to most recent. If certain fossils are typically found only in a particular rock unit and are found in many places worldwide, they may be useful as index or guide fossils in determining the age of undated strata. By using this information from rock formations in various parts of the world and correlating the studies, scientists have been able to establish the geologic time scale. This relative time scale divides the vast amount of earth history into various sections based on geological events (sea encroachments, mountain-building, and depositional events), and notable biological events (appearance, relative abundance, or extinction of certain life forms).
Objectives: When you complete this activity, you will be able to: (1) sequence information using items which overlap specific sets; (2) relate sequencing to the Law of Superposition; and (3) show how fossils can be used to give relative dates to rock layers.
Materials: two sets of sequence cards in random order (set A. nonsense syllables; set B. sketches of fossils), pencil, paper
Procedure Set A:
1) Spread the cards with the nonsense syllables on the table and determine the correct sequence of the eight cards by comparing letters that are common to individual cards and, therefore, overlap. The first card in the sequence has "Card 1, Set A" in the lower left-hand corner and represents the bottom of the sequence. If the letters "T" and "C" represent fossils in the oldest rock layer, they are the oldest fossils, or the first fossils formed in the past for this sequence of rock layers.
2. Now, look for a card that has either a "T" or "C" written on it. Since this card has a common letter with the first card, it must go on top of the "TC" card. The fossils represented by the letters on this card are "younger" than the "T" or "C" fossils on the "TC" card which represents fossils in the oldest rock layer. Sequence the remaining cards by using the same process. When you finish, you should have a vertical stack of cards with the top card representing the youngest fossils of this rock sequence and the "TC" card at the bottom of the stack representing the oldest fossils.
Interpretation Questions:
1) After you have arranged the cards in order, write your sequence of letters (using each letter only once) on a separate piece of paper. Starting with the top card, the letters should be in order from youngest to oldest.
2) How do you know that "X" is older than "M"?
3) Explain why "D" in the rock layer represented by DM is the same age as "M."
4) Explain why "D" in the rock layer represented by OXD is older than "D" in the rock layer represented by DM.
Procedure Set B:
1) Carefully examine the second set of cards which have sketches of fossils on them. Each card represents a particular rock layer with a collection of fossils that are found in that particular rock stratum. All of the fossils represented would be found in sedimentary rocks of marine origin. Figure 2-A gives some background information on the individual fossils.
2) The oldest rock layer is marked with the letter "M" in the lower left-hand corner. The letters on the other cards have no significance to the sequencing procedure and should be ignored at this time. Find a rock layer that has at least one of the fossils you found in the oldest rock layer. This rock layer would be younger as indicated by the appearance of new fossils in the rock stratum. Keep in mind that extinction is forever. Once an organism disappears from the sequence it cannot reappear later. Use this information to sequence the cards in a vertical stack of fossils in rock strata. Arrange them from oldest to youngest with the oldest layer on the bottom and the youngest on top.
Interpretation Questions:
1) Using the letters printed in the lower left-hand corner of each card, write the sequence of letters from the youngest layer to the oldest layer (i. e. from the top of the vertical stack to the bottom). This will enable your teacher to quickly check whether you have the correct sequence.
2) Which fossil organisms could possibly be used as index fossils?
3) Name three organisms represented that probably could not be used as index fossils and explain why.
4) In what kinds of rocks might you find the fossils from this activity?
5) State the Law of Superposition and explain how this activity illustrates this law.
Figure 2-A. Sketches of Marine Fossil Organisms (Not to Scale)
Radiometric dating
Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating ) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates. [ 1 ] The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood [ 2 ] and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Together with stratigraphic principles. radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale. [ 3 ] Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating. potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.
Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.
Radioactive decay [ edit ]
Example of a radioactive decay chain from lead-212 ( 212 Pb) to lead-208 ( 208 Pb). Each parent nuclide spontaneously decays into a daughter nuclide (the decay product ) via an ? decay or a ? ? decay. The final decay product, lead-208 ( 208 Pb), is stable and can no longer undergo spontaneous radioactive decay.
All ordinary matter is made up of combinations of chemical elements. each with its own atomic number. indicating the number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Additionally, elements may exist in different isotopes. with each isotope of an element differing in the number of neutrons in the nucleus. A particular isotope of a particular element is called a nuclide. Some nuclides are inherently unstable. That is, at some point in time, an atom of such a nuclide will undergo radioactive decay and spontaneously transform into a different nuclide. This transformation may be accomplished in a number of different ways, including alpha decay (emission of alpha particles ) and beta decay (electron emission, positron emission, or electron capture ). Another possibility is spontaneous fission into two or more nuclides.
For most radioactive nuclides, the half-life depends solely on nuclear properties and is essentially a constant. It is not affected by external factors such as temperature. pressure. chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] The only exceptions are nuclides that decay by the process of electron capture. such as beryllium-7. strontium-85. and zirconium-89. whose decay rate may be affected by local electron density. For all other nuclides, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay products changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock to measure the time from the incorporation of the original nuclides into a material to the present.
Age of the Earth
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 ? 10 9 years ± 1%). [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples .
Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. [ 4 ] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old. [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars. it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, [ 8 ] [ 9 ] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth .
It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.
Your Choices Matter: Citizen Action Alerts
Stand in solidarity with Pacific Islanders blocking coal trains
Quote of the week
"The word for stone, asin, is animate, Stones are called grandfathers and grandmothers and are extremely important in Ojibwe philosophy. Once I began to think of stones as animate, I started to wonder whether I was picking up a stone or it was putting itself into my hand. Stones are not the same in English. I can't write about a stone without considering it in Ojibwe and acknowledging that the Anishinabe universe began with a conversation between stones."
Ask the River
Ask the river how to see this world
With a mind of water,
Holding the sky in your eyes,
Declaration of Interdependence
Misusing Darwin: How Misunderstanding “Survival of the Fittest” Makes us Unfit for Survival
Posted on February 22, 2009 by Madronna Holden
Updated 4.26.2014
“Never use the words higher and lower”.
“Perhaps there is no coincidence that amoeba, insects, animals, the human culture and society, generally follow innate rules of cooperation. Darwin’s explanation of evolution as a struggle for existence needs to be tempered with an acknowledgment of the importance of cooperation in the evolution of complexity.”
–Thomas P. Zwaka, cellular biologist
“To decide that people are the highest, most evolved species… reflects more the strongman logic of human beings than the true state of nature.”
“Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life; few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope by a limit imposed from without [by science misused].”
Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man
“Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring.”
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
—————
Charles Darwin was a meticulous observer of the natural world in his seminal Origin of the Species. But he left a problematic legacy when he turned to the analysis of human society in his Descent of Man. On the one hand, we see his emphasis on the importance of cooperation in the development of human societies in the quote above. On the other hand, he violated his own scientific precepts, such as “never use the words higher or lower” in his analysis of particular societies as being “below” those of Europeans in development.
As Japanese “natural farmer” Masanobu Fukuoka, observed, an essential question in the hierarchical notion “survival of the fittest” is who decides what is “higher and lower”– and by what criteria. Humans who decide they are the highest and best products of evolution use criteria like human intelligence to come to this conclusion.
But as Darwin himself noted, the bee would undoubtedly use a very different critierion.
Darwin also noted that cooperation is far more important than competition in the working of natural systems, whereas social Darwinism – in the guise of Manifest Destiny, for instance, emphasizes competition and thus justifies conquest.
More troubling even than its sloppy science is how social Darwinism asserts that societies on the side of “progress” are destined to overcome and replace others as a matter of natural (or divine) law. It also asserts that impoverished classes are responsible for their own problems. In this theory, even the children of the poor become “less fit”– and thus their hunger or poor schooling can be ignored. This view contorts the idea of natural selection for sake of what Val Plumwood termed “dominator” societies.
Indeed, it misuses the scientific understanding of natural evolution to refurbish a notion rooted in ancient colonial history-in Aristotle’s declaration that slaves are slaves by nature, just as masters are masters. And “civilizations” or “advanced” societies have the natural license to take over the lands of others and impose their way of life on them. Darwin himself is complicit in this misunderstanding, since his own social conclusions (as opposed to his natural science investigations) included the unsupported statement that “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females” .
Such hierarchical dualism–dividing the world into male and female, poor and rich, civilization and “savage” as the higher and lower Darwin cautions himself to avoid, describes much of the history of modern nation states. But it is not the narrative that describes natural selection. Indeed, human societies that behave in this fashion are comparatively short lived.
The untold part of this story is the way in which the overrun and eliminate idea of “survival of the fittest” makes those who hold it unfit for survival.
Ignoring Natural Limits
The historical experience of exploiting other lands and societies sets up the general practice of living beyond one’s limits. The cataclysmic result is indicated in Overshoot, reviewed in Rachel’s Environmental Weekly for February 12, 2009-a fitting essay with which to commemorate Darwin’s 200 th birthday. Overshoot details the ways in which humans have temporarily increased the carrying capacity of the land (its ability to support human populations) by using up past resources (such as oil that takes millions of years to produce and minerals that will never be replaced) and future resources (ones necessary to the lives of our children).
Colonialism and certain dynamics of modern globalization encourage such “overshooting”, when some nations exploit the resources of others in order to survive, rather than living on their own natural budgets.
Ultimately however, an overshooting society runs out of “ghost acreage” on which to rely-and must face the dilemma of supporting an overblown population on ravaged natural systems.
In short, it inevitably crashes.
Social violence and unrest
Societies with beliefs in heroic conquest and legitimized oppression are fraught with internal dissension. As a result, they are the most short-lived societies in human history. They are fortunate to eke out a few hundred years before their collapse, as opposed to tens of thousands of years of longevity of certain indigenous societies.
Decreasing natural and cultural diversity
The thrust of natural evolution is to increase diversity–as Herbert Spengler, modern author of the theory of “social Darwinism”, acknowledged– though he failed to address how Manifest Destiny itself ran counter to such diversity in replacing hundreds of other human cultures with colonial ones on the North American and African continents.
In the modern industrial era, globalization directed by”mal-developed” nations (as Vandana Shiva has called them) use technological fixes unresponsive to unique ecological landscapes. Modern global development too often directly counters diversity in its emphasis on mono-technology (as in mono-cropping), as it attempts to adapt all landscapes to such one-size-fits-all subsistence strategies.
But diversification is necessary to natural selection. More choices allow more opportunities for natural selection and diverse systems are more resilient in the face of stress than homogenous ones. Place-sensitive small farming is more resilient to drought and disease than large scale industrial farming, for instance.
But modern globalization homogenizes both culture and place. No McDonald’s is different from any other-no matter what the landscape on which it sits. Modern development results in the replacement of perhaps millions of other species with the human one. As Murray Bookchin argues, this is not progress but reverse evolution.
Ignorance of adaptive processes
Darwin’s theory tells us that natural selection operates through the adaptation of species to their environments. But this is hardly the same thing as the simple elimination of physically (or militarily) weak by those who are physically stronger.
Adaptation is a far different thing from seizure or reshaping of the land or control of its life systems. Adaptation is a two-way process. In order for there to be successful adaptation of the land to human needs, there must also be successful adaptation of humans to the land.
Physical power, that is, is not commensurate with adaptation. If the predator wipes out all its prey, it wipes out its own means of survival. Predators must have a complementary relationship with their prey in order for that relationship to be adaptive.
Ultimately, as Bookchin and Val Plumwood both observe, the sustainable predator-prey relationship is a balanced or egalitarian one. In any ecological system, even the “top predator” is eventually eaten as well as eater. In this way energy and resources are recirculated: the life that we borrow from the natural system, as Plumwood puts it, goes back to the pool of life from whence it came.
In modern society, we try to avoid consciousness of the reciprocal natural of this process, Plumwood also notes, by embalming human bodies as if we could lift them out of the natural cycle. But we aren’t doing either nature or ourselves any favor here. We thus enforce ignorance of the systems upon which we rely for survival-and turning cemeteries into toxic waste dumps, since the only way to stop decomposition of a human body is to fill it with poison.
An added irony here is that top predators are more vulnerable to the toxics we release in our environment today than are those lower on the food chain. Such toxics concentrate as they move up the food chain. If, as the saying goes, it’s lonely at the top, it’s dangerous there too. This is only one way in which top predators are more fragile than their complements who live lower on the food chain.
Denied dependency on sources of survival
In any system based on domination, those at the top deny their dependency on the ones at the bottom, as Plumwood has also analyzed in detail. Thus the slave owners in the Old South devalued the real contribution of slaves to their “civilization”. And the household labor of women is not financially compensated-as if it were worth nothing.
In worldviews marked by hierarchy and domination, humans also ignore and render invisible their dependency on the natural life that they deemed “lower” than humanity. The ignorance of our dependency on natural systems allows us to blithely undermine our means of survival.
Denied vulnerability and bonding
There are other ways in which the overrun and overcome model of “survival of the fittest” blinds its holder to the actual workings of social and ecological relationships. In terms of this model, there is no benefit in being vulnerable to others. But in human societies, the links between vulnerability and bonding bring us culture itself. Just as the long dependency period of human children allows them to learn their culture, the physical vulnerability of elders puts them in a position to pass on cultural information.
As an added note to those who would link survival of the fittest to the sociobiological perspective that sees natural behavior primarily motivated by passing one’s genes around, there is the fact that in some societies social fathering is more important than genetic fathering. That is, identifying the actual genetic father of a child is of little consequence, and the man who nurtures a child and passes on personal has the real status as “father”.
Humans are not the only ones to whom things other than physical strength count in the social arena. Dog and wolf packs will often defer to an older, more experienced animal in spite of its relative physical weakness or smaller stature.
Loss of achievement through competition
Contrary to the competitive notion of survival of the fittest, competition does not always breed achievement-including the transmission of genes. Take the case of the red deer of Ireland. Their fight to the death amidst clashing of antlers embodies our myth of the young stag who replaces the older and weaker one. But observation of the actual breeding habits of these deer indicates that while the more aggressive stags are fighting (often to the death), the other deer are breeding.
Similarly, in a recent study on biso n University of California researchers found that the bulls with the quietest calls are the ones most likely to breed. Megan Wyman, the study’s lead author, speculates that these bulls keep a “low profile” in order to avoid a fight that would cause them to lose access to females.
In yet another examples, a PBS documentary on the wolves of Yellowstone illustrates the breeding success of a wolf observers dubbed “Casanova” because he was so interested in breeding– but careful to avoid all fights with his peers. When the alpha wolves of his clan were killed by other aggressive wolves, he wound up being the only male to pass on his genes. A recent interview with a researcher on NPR revealed that DNA analysis verified that alpha baboons were passing on their genes far less frequently than baboons of less status that were “pals” with females.
These instances illustrate how natural selection may take more aggressive individuals out of the gene pool.
I am not saying this always happens– but I am saying the formula physical-dominance - equals-breeding is far too simplistic to explain what happens within a species, much less in whole ecological systems.
As for another wolf-related species with which we are intimately familiar, Temple Grandin, in her book Animals Make us Human has recently argued the scientific case that those who see dogs in the wild as having dominance hierarchies are decidedly wrong. She undercuts the notion of the “alpha” dog with considerable data. She does not dispute that those dogs living in human homes in contact with multiple other dogs in crowded conditions might express hierarchies as a method of maintaining order. She only insists that such cannot be attributed to the nature of dogs.
In the human arena, psychologist Alfie Kohn has written several books on the importance of altruism and cooperation. His findings are summed up in a popular article called “How to Succeed without even Vying”, in which he tells the story of his search for an experiment that indicated competition improved performance. He couldn’t find any-in spite of the fact that many experimenters set up their work to support the positive effects of competition.
Their results indicated that competition actually hampered performance. Kohn speculates that the energy siphoned off in worrying about getting the other guy subtracts from performance, whereas cooperation adds energy to groups endeavors.
Fostering Illness rather than Health
On the basis of their research, geneticists in a recent essay in Science proposed that we define health in the physical body, natural systems, and social systems as cooperation– and illness in those same arenas as competition.
Their research indicates that cells in the healthy mammal body operate on complex cooperative dynamics–but when a sick cell leaves the cooperative cycle– and begins competing with others on an individualistic basis– we get illnesses such as cancer.
The Alternative: Survival of those who fit in
There is an alternative model to competitive or aggressive interpretations of “survival of the fittest” expressed by long-lived societies who perceive human fitness for survival as “fitting into country”, in the words of indigenous Australians who explained this to anthropologist Deborah Rose. Longevity was directly linked to being “rooted to this ground” and acting with care before the “eyes” of the others who share it, as expressed by Chehalis elder Henry Cultee.
The article by Rose cites Tim Flannery’s analysis of the ecological operation of a particular Australian landscape and the resulting conclusion that “species that cooperate in large, complex systems have the best change for continuing life.”
Here is a quote from Rose, summing the knowledge she learned from her Aboriginal teachers: unlike the “theory of survival through competition, an indigenous concept of survival of the fittest denotes…[that] those who are most fit are those who know most about how to fit in… It offers a synergistic account of life in which fitness is a project shared amongst living things, rather than a scare resource to be competed for. And it brings people into country as participants rather than ‘winners’” (p. 120)
Societies who have linked survival with fitting in traditionally managed their landscapes for resilient biodiversity, based on reciprocity and mutual adaptation between humans and nature. Today these societies are in a special position to care for earth’s living systems in the face of stresses induced by industrialization, since modern indigenous peoples currently steward eighty per cent of the world’s biodiversity.
It is a misuse of the theories of a man who cautioned himself “never to use the words ‘higher’ and ‘lower” to perceive evolution as based on dominating hierarchies– especially human-established ones that falsely preach that survivors are those who wipe out and replace other natural lives.
———————-
This essay is under copyright protection as is all the material on this site, but please feel free to link to it, or to copy it, crediting its source. If you want to reproduce it any other way, please email me for permission at holdenma@comcast. net. Thanks for visiting this site.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий