Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

How vulnerable is the US?

End of a dynasty  

145 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

We are going to f**k around and get Ebola over here.......

As predicted some dude tried to bring Ebola to the US......When are they going to close travel from that part of the world...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/health/ebola-outbreak-american-dies/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I wouldn't say he tried to bring it to the US.

how about accidentally and unknowingly tried?

Well we've decided to bring it here intentionally.....You know nothing bad can become of this.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to make DD mad again but not according to Charity Navigator. According to them 93.5% of all money taken in goes to programs and services DAV provides. Compare for yourself.. DAV and WWP .

Exactly... there's no way in hell folks should be giving to Wounded Warrior Project. Far better options where much more of your money will actually get used for what you intended. :thumbup:

I have no problem giving to WWP. They aren't a rip off but they aren't very efficient. I have read where they are working on that and I believe their hearts are in the right place. With that said to qualify as a top line charity at least 90 cents of every dollar raised needs to go to programs and services. I think they are a younger charity and were kind of running off growth. Now is when we find out how serious they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

When the internet started it was just some geeks setting up little one off type sites. You had to know the IP address of the site you wanted to go to. Now look at it. This tech is going to be revolutionary and it will be as economy altering as the internet has been within a decade of two. Just a matter of adoption causing price drops due to economy of scale. The materials are going to get cheaper, the printers are already way cheaper and the "recipes" will be largely free for most things. It is only a question of when not if IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

I agree that 3D printers aren't going to replace mass production of things in plastic or metal, etc.. What it could do, though, is make invention and innovation way easier and cheaper for those who have access to a printer. You have a brilliant idea for something without a 3D printer, some little gadget, and you either have to be an ace tinkerer/craftsman, or you have to go through the trouble and expense of having somebody else fabricate a prototype for you.

After that, we need do-it-youself patent applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

I agree that 3D printers aren't going to replace mass production of things in plastic or metal, etc.. What it could do, though, is make invention and innovation way easier and cheaper for those who have access to a printer. You have a brilliant idea for something without a 3D printer, some little gadget, and you either have to be an ace tinkerer/craftsman, or you have to go through the trouble and expense of having somebody else fabricate a prototype for you.

After that, we need do-it-youself patent applications.

You guys remind me of my father. I remember when cassettes first started. You could record but people weren't putting retail albums on them. According to him they'd never be any big deal and 8 tracks would continue on. Within a couple of years you couldn't find 8 tracks any more. I hate using buzz words but this is going to be completely disruptive at so many levels it will be breathtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

I agree that 3D printers aren't going to replace mass production of things in plastic or metal, etc.. What it could do, though, is make invention and innovation way easier and cheaper for those who have access to a printer. You have a brilliant idea for something without a 3D printer, some little gadget, and you either have to be an ace tinkerer/craftsman, or you have to go through the trouble and expense of having somebody else fabricate a prototype for you.

After that, we need do-it-youself patent applications.

You guys remind me of my father. I remember when cassettes first started. You could record but people weren't putting retail albums on them. According to him they'd never be any big deal and 8 tracks would continue on. Within a couple of years you couldn't find 8 tracks any more. I hate using buzz words but this is going to be completely disruptive at so many levels it will be breathtaking.

Thank you for using that word. It was at the tip of my tongue all day yesterday and it was ticking me off badly.

I'm in the camp that it will be a gradual process, that for many years to come it will be for exotic stuff, hobbyists, tinkerers, inventors and other early adapters. All the while with the price coming down for the printer and with new materials and with the ability to print in multiple materials in close layers as the technology advances.

Not sure it will ever replace everything we are getting produced here or overseas (the more parts the more the tolerance decreases) but it certainly could have a large impact. E.g. Skype was called a disruptive technology but has still some ways to go before the conquest of the telephone companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually maybe we should start another thread discussing the potential impact on the US of 3D printing - it's not necessarily bad so the discussion may not naturally belong here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1969, a guy named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book called "The Population Bomb". He raised some very real issues of concern, but he was also a fatalist much like Politician Spock and others in this thread; he believed a massive world wide famine was inevitable.

Then along came Norman Bourlag and millions of lives were saved thanks to him, and there was no famine. My point is that whenever people predict a doomed future, they never seem to take innovation and new technology into account.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

I agree that 3D printers aren't going to replace mass production of things in plastic or metal, etc.. What it could do, though, is make invention and innovation way easier and cheaper for those who have access to a printer. You have a brilliant idea for something without a 3D printer, some little gadget, and you either have to be an ace tinkerer/craftsman, or you have to go through the trouble and expense of having somebody else fabricate a prototype for you.

After that, we need do-it-youself patent applications.

You guys remind me of my father. I remember when cassettes first started. You could record but people weren't putting retail albums on them. According to him they'd never be any big deal and 8 tracks would continue on. Within a couple of years you couldn't find 8 tracks any more. I hate using buzz words but this is going to be completely disruptive at so many levels it will be breathtaking.

Thank you for using that word. It was at the tip of my tongue all day yesterday and it was ticking me off badly.

I'm in the camp that it will be a gradual process, that for many years to come it will be for exotic stuff, hobbyists, tinkerers, inventors and other early adapters. All the while with the price coming down for the printer and with new materials and with the ability to print in multiple materials in close layers as the technology advances.

Not sure it will ever replace everything we are getting produced here or overseas (the more parts the more the tolerance decreases) but it certainly could have a large impact. E.g. Skype was called a disruptive technology but has still some ways to go before the conquest of the telephone companies.

Yeah I don't think it will replace all heavy manufacturing with home printing. Like you probably won't print your own car. But GM might print it. While you can print some of the parts. I mean the more you think about it the more applications you can come up with. And it will take time. It took the internet a couple of decades to go from DARPANET to what it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1969, a guy named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book called "The Population Bomb". He raised some very real issues of concern, but he was also a fatalist much like Politician Spock and others in this thread; he believed a massive world wide famine was inevitable.

Then along came Norman Bourlag and millions of lives were saved thanks to him, and there was no famine. My point is that whenever people predict a doomed future, they never seem to take innovation and new technology into account.

True

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

I agree that 3D printers aren't going to replace mass production of things in plastic or metal, etc.. What it could do, though, is make invention and innovation way easier and cheaper for those who have access to a printer. You have a brilliant idea for something without a 3D printer, some little gadget, and you either have to be an ace tinkerer/craftsman, or you have to go through the trouble and expense of having somebody else fabricate a prototype for you.

After that, we need do-it-youself patent applications.

You guys remind me of my father. I remember when cassettes first started. You could record but people weren't putting retail albums on them. According to him they'd never be any big deal and 8 tracks would continue on. Within a couple of years you couldn't find 8 tracks any more. I hate using buzz words but this is going to be completely disruptive at so many levels it will be breathtaking.

Yeah, it's going to be great, but as far as taking the place of normal mass production, there are some real hurdles to consider. The economics of scale, first of all. How much would it cost to print up, say, a bike - including the materials, which may or may not be ideal - compared with the cost to produce a bike in a bike factory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1969, a guy named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book called "The Population Bomb". He raised some very real issues of concern, but he was also a fatalist much like Politician Spock and others in this thread; he believed a massive world wide famine was inevitable.

Then along came Norman Bourlag and millions of lives were saved thanks to him, and there was no famine. My point is that whenever people predict a doomed future, they never seem to take innovation and new technology into account.

True

Glad you agree. It's a fundamental premise of the woman you consider to be worse than Ebola.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1969, a guy named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book called "The Population Bomb". He raised some very real issues of concern, but he was also a fatalist much like Politician Spock and others in this thread; he believed a massive world wide famine was inevitable.

Then along came Norman Bourlag and millions of lives were saved thanks to him, and there was no famine. My point is that whenever people predict a doomed future, they never seem to take innovation and new technology into account.

Other times you get stupid ideas like no-documentation loans, and the doom that is predicted does come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of Chinese production is rising already, and as they run out of either migrant workers or space close to ports it will continue to rise even more.

In fact the Chinese government wants to boost production in the interior, not to serve the rest of the world but to serve the 500m +/- rural inhabitants that 'progress' has left behind. They want to do this not out of social altruism but to remain in power.

If you want to talk long term then something like 3D printing might be a technology that could really shake things up, in manufacturing, in transport and logistics, in IT/networks. Everybody could produce everything - assuming the technology advances sufficiently.

Your new bicycle might be 3D printed in carbonfiber or titanium. You might rent the specs for a new set of plates, kitchen knives etc from Amazon and print them in your garage (or rent time on your neighborhood 3D printer). etc.

That would be a radically different world, a much more local world. Would that spell the end of the US - or the nation state in general?

Who knows. We may not live to see it, anyway

no. 3D printing is not the answer. I've been over this many times, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. 3D printing is cool, it has it's place, but the days of a Star-Trek type replicator that can make anything is more fiction than science.

I would disagree. In fact as 3D printing gets cheaper we will see more innovation. I was just reading about a college engineering class that used a 3D printer and 300 dollars in parts to build a bionic arm for a 9 year old boy. 3D printing is going to be as revolutionary as the internet.

that's great and all, but making one-off, highly customized parts is not going to revolutionize any economies.

I agree that 3D printers aren't going to replace mass production of things in plastic or metal, etc.. What it could do, though, is make invention and innovation way easier and cheaper for those who have access to a printer. You have a brilliant idea for something without a 3D printer, some little gadget, and you either have to be an ace tinkerer/craftsman, or you have to go through the trouble and expense of having somebody else fabricate a prototype for you.

After that, we need do-it-youself patent applications.

You guys remind me of my father. I remember when cassettes first started. You could record but people weren't putting retail albums on them. According to him they'd never be any big deal and 8 tracks would continue on. Within a couple of years you couldn't find 8 tracks any more. I hate using buzz words but this is going to be completely disruptive at so many levels it will be breathtaking.

Yeah, it's going to be great, but as far as taking the place of normal mass production, there are some real hurdles to consider. The economics of scale, first of all. How much would it cost to print up, say, a bike - including the materials, which may or may not be ideal - compared with the cost to produce a bike in a bike factory?

These guys would know:

http://oregonmanifest.com/vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1969, a guy named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book called "The Population Bomb". He raised some very real issues of concern, but he was also a fatalist much like Politician Spock and others in this thread; he believed a massive world wide famine was inevitable.

Then along came Norman Bourlag and millions of lives were saved thanks to him, and there was no famine. My point is that whenever people predict a doomed future, they never seem to take innovation and new technology into account.

Probably because innovation and new technology are difficult to predict. Also, it isn't all positive. People who don't account for it at all aren't all that different from people who say everything will be fine because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both China and N. Korea have the ability to deliver EMP to N. America via N-S orbiting satellite (unable to be intercepted) - game... set... match...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both China and N. Korea have the ability to deliver EMP to N. America via N-S orbiting satellite (unable to be intercepted) - game... set... match...

Of course our own sun can deliver the same via solar flare at virtually any time - and we got lucky with a near miss back in 2012.

Edited by geoff8695

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but he was also a fatalist much like Politician Spock

This is why I hate you.

#### you!

To be fair, you're pretty pessimistic.

True. But I don't believe in fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually maybe we should start another thread discussing the potential impact on the US of 3D printing - it's not necessarily bad so the discussion may not naturally belong here...

Id love to discuss it in another thread. Maybe later i'll set one up. Im waiting for a check to clear as part of closing on a new house, so posting from my phone right now; dont have time to get into it as deep as we should.

Let me say this: I have had free access to a 3D printer for 8 years, and I have 15+ years experience in designing 3D widgets. Over the past 8 years, I have never printed anything for personal use. (1) quality of material kind of sucks, and (2) my widget needs are met by mass marketed stuff and/or traditional fabrication methods.

(1) will be incrementally improved, I have no doubt. But, I have serious reservations that material/cost can approach what one would expect from traditional methods.

(2) probably will not change. Your needs for widgets are no different than literally millions of other peoples, so why would a distributed manufacturing system make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're living on borrowed time, aren't we?  Internal decay was our downfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

We're living on borrowed time, aren't we?  Internal decay was our downfall.

"We" as in the U.S. specifically or people in general? At another board someone posted that in absolute terms we're (the US) doing ok but losing ground in relational terms. We came roaring out of WWII as pretty much the lone undamaged superpower, which gave us an inordinate edge over our competitors, friend and foe alike. But 1945 is almost three quarters of a century behind us and things change. And maybe the worst thing that came out of that scenario was an unfounded belief that we were something special instead of something mostly lucky.

So I don't think failing from within is impossible for us at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

We're living on borrowed time, aren't we?  Internal decay was our downfall.

was it the ebolas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.