Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Steam Top 10

Here's Valve's list of the 10 bestselling games on Steam for the week:

  1. BioShock Infinite
  2. Defiance
  3. Age of Empires II: HD Editions
  4. Torchlight II
  5. Arma III
  6. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
  7. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
  8. Kerbal Space Program
  9. Dead Island Riptide
  10. Grand Theft Auto Complete Pack

View
74 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

54. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 09:04 InBlack
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:38:
Just saying, but thank you.. I didn't expect you to actually explain it properly

I find this science field one of the most interesting of all and so I was sad that nobody ever takes time to explain things anymore. (I mean, things from a basic level upwards, which is what one needs when one learned the COMPLETELY WRONG PHYSICS (apparently) in school).

Can you let me ask 1 more random question?

wouldn't the Silver atom detector experiment be explained by the Higgs Field doing it's thing? Or is this another matter entirely...?

Yeah, that is the main problem with the modern school system in most developed countries. Basically they teach you all this shit thats 50-100 years out of date. Not that its necesarilly all wrong, many of those theories are simply incomplete usually because of lack of data, knowledge and technology that was available at the time. (For example Newtons theory of gravity or motion which works pretty well on our scale but fails when we go to slightly larger scales).

The thing is this though, you have to start somewhere and how do you teach this incredibly complex and difficult mathematics to high school students?

The Higgs Field is another thing entirely it is part of the Standard Model but it explains how or why particles have mass.

 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 09:04 Overon
 
Don't get me started on the 19th century physics that you learn in school in the USA...

May I suggest a Coursera course on quantum physics. I have not taken it but there are people on forums there that could help you answer your questions.
https://www.coursera.org/course/eqp

Also I find the dummies books are awesome introducing basic information:
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steven-Holzner/dp/0470381884
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 09:04 yuastnav
 
InBlack wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:21:
[...]
yuastnav explained it pretty well, dont be daunted by the wall of text. Quantum mechanics is very exact and it works, which is what is the most important part of a physics or any scientific theory.
[...]

Thanks, though I admit that it has been a while when it comes to quantum mechanics.
Though I think that science also has to ask why something works the way it works, because only then you get the full story on how the world works.


InBlack wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:26:
[...]
The next TES is indeed an MMO, but its NOT made by Bethesda (merely published by them) and has been in production waaay before Skyrim became the huge success that it has. Bethesda has hinted that it will definitely release a single player TES once again.

Really? Woah sweet! I knew that TES Online wasn't made by Bethesda but I didn't know that Bethesda planned on making a new TES single player game. That is good news indeed although still sad because I feel that I will miss a lot of lore by not playing TES Online (which then I'll have to read up on on uesp.net).


eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:38:
Just saying, but thank you.. I didn't expect you to actually explain it properly

I find this science field one of the most interesting of all and so I was sad that nobody ever takes time to explain things anymore. (I mean, things from a basic level upwards, which is what one needs when one learned the COMPLETELY WRONG PHYSICS (apparently) in school).

Can you let me ask 1 more random question?

wouldn't the Silver atom detector experiment be explained by the Higgs Field doing it's thing? Or is this another matter entirely...?

Yeah but that depends on the school. I barely learned anything when I was in the Oberstufe because half of my physics courses didn't take place since the teacher was missing half the time, which is a shame. But it really takes a lot of time to explain that stuff properly. There are of course people who find that stuff easy but they are few and far between.

Why you get that result in the Stern-Gerlach experiment is explained by spin. Spin is a quantum number which, unlike angular momentum and the sort, has no classical pendant. It is sort of an intrinsic angular momentum of a particle. In this case we take the outer most electron of the silver atom which can have a spin of either +1/2 or -1/2, it is a degenerate state and this determines ultimately whether the silver atoms goes up or down (because of the magnet).
The Higgs boson/field is a different matter altogether and the reason why it exists or why it is needed goes deeply into the quantum field theory and gauge invariance.
I am not sure whether its significance is as important as it is made out to be. One of the reasons it is needed is for the standard model to be correct, which is great because the standard model works but we already know that it is not the final answer since there are aspects even the standard model cannot explain.
The Higgs field itself is connected to the mass of sub-atomic, in this case the quarks and gluons. However most of a nucleon's (proton's or neutron's mass) doesn't come from the rest mass of the quarks. That means even if the Higgs boson didn't exist and the quarks therefore had zero rest mass the protons and neutrons would only be slightly lighter than they are, they would still retain most of their mass.
Therefore the Higgs field is not that relevant to that particular problem.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:45 eRe4s3r
 
Overon wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:14:
eRe4s3r for you: http://youtu.be/2rqd8Oa-sA4

It's done for a layman audience.


The problem I have with youtube videos is that when I have questions, nobody is there to answer them.... I find that is worse than just asking and getting a wall of text as reply. At least then I can ask a (probably) stupid question. Find out it is a stupid question, and thus understanding the matter properly by asking the right questions.

And far worse than a layman, I learned wrong particle physics in school. This is what caused basically ALL my confusions and misconceptions now.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:43 Overon
 
That's the problem, you have to ask the philosophers of science to see if it qualifies as science. Problem is that you have to be able to distinguish ideas that can be tested, even in principle only, from ones that cannot be tested even in principle. I think few would disagree that ideas that cannot even be tested in principle are science. At best I would call the ideas speculative and interesting mathematically but they got to come up with some predictions the ideas make and see if those predictions can be tested.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:38 eRe4s3r
 
Just saying, but thank you.. I didn't expect you to actually explain it properly

I find this science field one of the most interesting of all and so I was sad that nobody ever takes time to explain things anymore. (I mean, things from a basic level upwards, which is what one needs when one learned the COMPLETELY WRONG PHYSICS (apparently) in school).

Can you let me ask 1 more random question?

wouldn't the Silver atom detector experiment be explained by the Higgs Field doing it's thing? Or is this another matter entirely...?
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:26 InBlack
 
yuastnav wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:19:
Overon wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:04:
mag wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 23:05:
Overon wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 21:59:
*Minor spoiler* The gist of the plot is what is called "the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics." It's not exactly fantasy rubbish. Additionally there is meaning in almost everything in the game which supports the plot and this is what sets it apart from other games.

The MWI is totally fantasy rubbish. It doesn't deserve to be taught as physics.
Currently it occupies a weird space in science because it has not been tested and may not even be testable in principal . It's an interesting possibility, an idea, where the math can work somewhat, that's the way I understand it.

A theory that cannot be tested is not much of a scientific theory, no? I do not know whether it can be tested or not but being able to be tested is kinda important.


InBlack wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:12:
jdreyer wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 15:11:
Skyrim is the freakin' Energizer Bunny of PC games.

Yeah this. This gives me hope that the next ES game will be their best. (Right now Morrowind is king)

Sadly the next TES game is going to be a mmorpg.

The next TES is indeed an MMO, but its NOT made by Bethesda (merely published by them) and has been in production waaay before Skyrim became the huge success that it has. Bethesda has hinted that it will definitely release a single player TES once again.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:21 InBlack
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 07:25:
I don't understand this at all. A proper experimental proof has never multiple interpretations. Why don't they just test each interpretation for validity?

As long as you can't tell me "Quantum mechanics work EXACTLY like this -> ....." exactly that long I won't consider quantum mechanics as anything more than a science that nobody working in it so far has fully understood. I mean, if they had understood quantum science, why can't they explain to us in layman terms how quantum mechanic works?

And what impression does it give when quantum scientists can't even agree among themselves what scientific fact is, and what speculation/interpretation is.

Someone really needs to explain this properly. Please I don't wanna become a quantum scientist, just explain to me what is the scientific truth. Without interpretation. Raw, experimentally deduced facts.

yuastnav explained it pretty well, dont be daunted by the wall of text. Quantum mechanics is very exact and it works, which is what is the most important part of a physics or any scientific theory.

What I mean when I say that it works is that its testifiable in many examples and it explains a lot of cosmological phenomena very well. Lets take just one example, Chandrasikras combination of relativistic and quantum effects in certain aging stars beyond a certain mass correctly predicted the formation and existence of quantum singuarities or black holes 50 years before they were discovered. It won him the Noble prize for physics.

Remember that the questions science asks is What? and How? Not Why?

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 2013, 08:27.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:19 yuastnav
 
Overon wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:04:
mag wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 23:05:
Overon wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 21:59:
*Minor spoiler* The gist of the plot is what is called "the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics." It's not exactly fantasy rubbish. Additionally there is meaning in almost everything in the game which supports the plot and this is what sets it apart from other games.

The MWI is totally fantasy rubbish. It doesn't deserve to be taught as physics.
Currently it occupies a weird space in science because it has not been tested and may not even be testable in principal . It's an interesting possibility, an idea, where the math can work somewhat, that's the way I understand it.

A theory that cannot be tested is not much of a scientific theory, no? I do not know whether it can be tested or not but being able to be tested is kinda important.


InBlack wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 08:12:
jdreyer wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 15:11:
Skyrim is the freakin' Energizer Bunny of PC games.

Yeah this. This gives me hope that the next ES game will be their best. (Right now Morrowind is king)

Sadly the next TES game is going to be a mmorpg.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:14 Overon
 
eRe4s3r for you: http://youtu.be/2rqd8Oa-sA4

It's done for a layman audience.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:12 InBlack
 
jdreyer wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 15:11:
Skyrim is the freakin' Energizer Bunny of PC games.

Yeah this. This gives me hope that the next ES game will be their best. (Right now Morrowind is king)
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:08 yuastnav
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 07:25:
I don't understand this at all. A proper experimental proof has never multiple interpretations. Why don't they just test each interpretation for validity?

As long as you can't tell me "Quantum mechanics work EXACTLY like this -> ....." exactly that long I won't consider quantum mechanics as anything more than a science that nobody working in it so far has fully understood. I mean, if they had understood quantum science, why can't they explain to us in layman terms how quantum mechanic works?

And what impression does it give when quantum scientists can't even agree among themselves what scientific fact is, and what speculation/interpretation is.

Someone really needs to explain this properly. Please I don't wanna become a quantum scientist, just explain to me what is the scientific truth. Without interpretation. Raw, experimentally deduced facts.

Quantum mechanics are mathematically completely sound.
There is a mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics and it is rock solid. You can calculate probability amplitudes/densities, transition rates/probabilities etc. and then you can do experiments to verify that the calculations and the theoretical formulation is in accordance to what you can measure in your laboratory.

One of the big, not understood questions of quantum mechanics is why this is the case, i.e. why there is a 50% chance that a photon can go through either the left or through the right slit (when a particle detector is present), or why it behaves like a wave in the other case. That is open to interpretation. The question is not necessarily how quantum mechanics works (well, that is an important question, too, but not the one we are dealing with here) but why it works this way or rather why it seems to us humans that nature works in this way.

So the gist is: we can say how quantum mechanics works but not why. Although the many worlds theory, for example, doesn't necessarily answer that question. It answers it indirectly by saying "no, you got it all wrong, the wave function does not actually collapse, it branches off into different realities" but it does not give a reason for why this happens (or should happen) which is also a reason why it is highly questionable.

An important experiment in the history of quantum mechanics is the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
A source of silver atoms is positioned on one side of a magnet while the detector is on the other side.
The silver atoms are then shot at the detector with the magnetic field turned off and on. This is the result:
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SternGerlach.png
Figure 2 shows what happened when the magnetic field was turned off while figure 3 shows the results with the magnetic field turned on.
Since spin is quantised the silver atoms would be either in a spin +1/2 or spin -1/2 state which means that they accumulated either at the top end or the bottom end of the detector. There were no detections inbetween.
The same thing goes for other variables, like the angular momentum or the energy. They are all quantised.
Now the other thing is the probability.
You can have a particle or something which is in a state that consists of a superposition of various eigenstates of the particle. For each of these eigenstates there is a probability that the particle is in that particular state and until a measurement is made you cannot determine in which state the particle actually is. That is non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics.

We can take the hydrogen atom as an example. For the longest time people thought that the electron orbits the proton like a planet would do its sun but that is not true. There is actually a density cloud around the proton which is a distribution of positions in spacetime that the electron can occupy and until you make a measurement you cannot determine where it actually is, just that is is somewhere around the proton (though not too far because the orbital electron states around the atom are also quantised).


That's basically what all the fuss is about. I don't think that the discrete energy levels pose much of a problem, though it would be nice to understand why it is that way.
The non-deterministic of quantum mechanics is a much greater problem and it's difficult to say why this is the case.

On the other hand if you have an electron travelling through the spacetime it has a certain (let's say constant) momentum and a changing position. If you want to know something about that electron you need to make a measurement which would subsequently alter the properties of the electron because you need a probe to make a detection, another electron or a photon or something like that.
But since detecting it would mean they would need to interact the momentum of the electron would change and what you would get is only the momentum and/or position of the electron when it was in a certain state, i.e. at the time of detection.
That is not a problem with microscopic objects since probing them with something wouldn't alter its momentum in a considerable manner but when you are dealing with energy magnitudes of MeV or GeV (or smaller) it becomes a problem.

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 2013, 08:14.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 08:04 Overon
 
mag wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 23:05:
Overon wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 21:59:
*Minor spoiler* The gist of the plot is what is called "the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics." It's not exactly fantasy rubbish. Additionally there is meaning in almost everything in the game which supports the plot and this is what sets it apart from other games.

The MWI is totally fantasy rubbish. It doesn't deserve to be taught as physics.
Currently it occupies a weird space in science because it has not been tested and may not even be testable in principal . It's an interesting possibility, an idea, where the math can work somewhat, that's the way I understand it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 07:25 eRe4s3r
 
I don't understand this at all. A proper experimental proof has never multiple interpretations. Why don't they just test each interpretation for validity?

As long as you can't tell me "Quantum mechanics work EXACTLY like this -> ....." exactly that long I won't consider quantum mechanics as anything more than a science that nobody working in it so far has fully understood. I mean, if they had understood quantum science, why can't they explain to us in layman terms how quantum mechanic works?

And what impression does it give when quantum scientists can't even agree among themselves what scientific fact is, and what speculation/interpretation is.

Someone really needs to explain this properly. Please I don't wanna become a quantum scientist, just explain to me what is the scientific truth. Without interpretation. Raw, experimentally deduced facts.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 07:02 yuastnav
 
Overon wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 21:59:
*Minor spoiler* The gist of the plot is what is called "the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics." It's not exactly fantasy rubbish. Additionally there is meaning in almost everything in the game which supports the plot and this is what sets it apart from other games.

If that is the case then someone seriously misunderstood what the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is.
Instead of the collapse of a wave function it branches off into all the various states that it can be in, i.e. a photon can go through either one slit or the other. In this case it goes through both but each of the states now corresponds to its own reality.
From what I understand we then have a similar problem as in the Kopenhagen interpretation, there is no clear definition as to when that happens, e.g. when it becomes a quantum system.
[spoiler]
In the game it happens when Booker chooses to be baptised, or not. Not really a quantum system so there is no reason why it should branch here at all, at least in the quantum physical sense. So it's actually more fantasy than science because it is chosen completely arbitrary.
[/spoiler]
So yeah, the many worlds theory is, as already stated, not that scientific either because it has its own problems but what we have here is not even the many worlds theory but someone strange fantasy approach to it.
Also it's strange, you casually say that everything in Bioshock Infinite has a meaning and that it is not the case in ANY other game. I wouldn't dare to make such a broad generalisation, mostly because I have not played all games there are.


Jerykk wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 01:13:
[...]

Well, for me personally that is kind of a shame because the special powers weren't interesting to me in the first Bioshock, at all. I wanted to shoot because that is the only thing I am halfway decent at but the shooting wasn't that good either and the special powers just don't felt good.
The one time that I remember having fun with something like that was with the force powers in Jedi Outcast/Academy.
I'll just have to accept that Bioshock Infinite isn't for me.

I don't even mind that there aren't different ammo types but the alternative doesn't seem too appealing.

I also don't agree with him that Elizabeth is the best AI partner there ever was.
Again, I am rather out of place complaining/talking about that because I have not played the game but I still think that how Valve handled it in Episode 1/2 with Alyx was really, really good.


Cram wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 20:37:
Fibrocyte wrote on Apr 7, 2013, 20:12:
If the whiners that frequent this site give it mediocre reviews then it must be a really good game.

It is.

To the comment made that after reading about the plot and not being impressed, in this particular case reading the story and experiencing the story of Bioshock Infinite are two completely different things. That's my take on it, anyway. Discovering how it all fits together, on your own, is an experience all to it self.

*shrug*
I just have different standards. If a story is good it has to be able to stand up on its own. For Bioshock Infinite it wasn't the case.
On the other hand when I read the plot synopsis of Nier, a game that I really disliked before I saw a LP of it, I was really surprised by how good it is because it deals with more down to earth topics like the consciousness of an automaton, even if it still has unexplained fantasy rubbish stuff like the separation of body and soul.


eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 05:12:
None of the quantum mechanic interpretations are valid in the "physics" sense, they are mind-tricks to make quantum mechanical calculations work. They are not even trying to explain (with proof) what is actually happening.

Basically, nobody currently knows what Quantum Mechanics are. We know they are there, we can calculate them and we can use them. But we don't know why they do what they do.

Funny thing actually, but I am betting we are going to get an answer to that pretty soon.

That's not true. The basic, mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics is completely independent of its interpretations. You don't need to subscribe to any interpretation if you want to do calculations. In fact, as far as I know, most of the world's leading quantum physicists actually don't do that because they don't need it. And most of the physicists who do believe in an interpretation believe in the Kopenhagen interpretation which is based on the complementarity principle (thought this is also rather arbitrary because this is the interpretation that is the most taught of all).
And the interpretations are actually trying to explain what is happening, that's what they are there for, that's why they are called interpretations. But again, not needed for the actual calculations or experiments at all.
The de Broglie-Bohm theory (or Bohmsche Mechanik) is a theory that expands the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics as a means of interpreting it in a causal manner.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 05:12 eRe4s3r
 
None of the quantum mechanic interpretations are valid in the "physics" sense, they are mind-tricks to make quantum mechanical calculations work. They are not even trying to explain (with proof) what is actually happening.

Basically, nobody currently knows what Quantum Mechanics are. We know they are there, we can calculate them and we can use them. But we don't know why they do what they do.

Funny thing actually, but I am betting we are going to get an answer to that pretty soon.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 02:37 buzard
 
Age of Empires II HD in #3. Nice. Played AoE II today. Happy to see it is still popular. One of the nicest games to the eye ever made.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 02:01 Jerykk
 
That's disappointing to hear. Not much for "powers". That's what I think let down Wolfenstein 2009 for me was the focus on powers. It's kind of important for an FPS to you know... live up to the "shooter" part of the genre.

If the powers require you to aim and fire (as they do in Bioshock), they are effectively the same as guns, only with more interesting results.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 01:55 netnerd85
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 01:13:
If you're judging BI's combat based solely on the gunplay, you're missing the primary focus of it.
That's disappointing to hear. Not much for "powers". That's what I think let down Wolfenstein 2009 for me was the focus on powers. It's kind of important for an FPS to you know... live up to the "shooter" part of the genre.

2nd_floor wrote on Apr 8, 2013, 01:42:
If open-world games like Far Cry 2 and 3, GTA IV can run on console hardware, why are we getting linear games like Infinite still?
Because there is nothing wrong with linear games, in fact I think most linear games are much, much better than open world games. Everyone has their own preference though, don't be forcing yours on me though
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 8, 2013, 01:42 2nd_floor
 
What happened to Ken Levine saying he wanted Infinite to be about player choice. He wanted people to be able to compare how they beat the different parts of it with each other, like you might with Far Cry 2/3.

Infinite is very pretty to look at, and the history to it is great (clothes, racism, buildings, feeling, themes), but it's just a run and gun shooter. The sky lines add a little to it, but not much I think.

If open-world games like Far Cry 2 and 3, GTA IV can run on console hardware, why are we getting linear games like Infinite still?

Check-point-only saves cause you to rush through and for me anyway change my whole thinking about playing the game.

I love the idea of a city in the air, but add this as just another linear, check-point-only-save, run and gun, console to PC game. It starts out fun, I love the people, the city, the colours/graphics, but the AI is junk I think, and I think you could do much more with a city in the air.

The original Bioshock was fantastic, I can't think of any, maybe, negative aspects of it, it was incredible, everything about it worked!! Infinite is over-rated and over-hyped I think. Fun at times, but not as good as Bioshock 1 and 2. Infinite has lots of pretty visuals, but lacks in game-play I think.

A disappointment to me. Far Cry 3 is much more fun than this by a long shot. Far Cry 3 is an example of how fun gaming can be and what we can do with technology. Infinite has more depth to story and background maybe, but Far Cry 3 is more fun to play I think.
 
Avatar 57402
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo