OK, so he didn't exactly.
Today I heard Mario Runco, a former NASA astronaut give a talk at his undergraduate alma matter. It was a fluff talk (ie, not technical) but he tried explaining various things about space flight to us. The first thing he explained was an orbit. To explain orbits he drew a picture of a square Earth, and then explained what happens when you increase the number of sides of a square to the limit - you get a circle. Thus the concept was simplified.
It was actually a fun talk. He showed us great pictures of interesting stuff, including lake Chad, Madagascar, typhoons, and Israel. You can see the boundary between Israel and her neighbors because of the change in vegetation.
Overall it was a fun talk.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Hate Crime
This is a hate crime. Framing white people (like me) for racism. If there is not enought racism on campus for some people to complain about, hey, why not invent some?
I bet she spends most of her day blaming Bush for decieving the public.
Geeze, as if there were not enough crazies out there giving academics a bad name, we now have Tawana Brawley with a PhD in Psychology. To think she teaches other people about how to solve their emotional prblems.
I bet she spends most of her day blaming Bush for decieving the public.
Geeze, as if there were not enough crazies out there giving academics a bad name, we now have Tawana Brawley with a PhD in Psychology. To think she teaches other people about how to solve their emotional prblems.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Yassin's assassination
It is not entirely clear to me why Israel decided to assassinate Yassin. It is not that I doubt that he really deserved it, I have little sympathy with spiritual leaders of terrorist organizations. However he was kind of old, and it is not clear that the gains outnumber the losses. Won't someone else just fill in to do the job that he is doing, and this will generate more immediate threats, while having the long-term threats stay level? Perhaps Israel's goal is to force Palestinian unity? Perhaps Sharon wants to intensify the conflict to justify the security fence, or to make Israel's position stronger? Maybe, and this is the official reason, a power and leadership vacuum in Hamas will emerge that cannot easily be filled. If this happens (and here is my prediction) there will typically be a number of groups all claiming to be the real Hamas, and various splinter factions. They will fight amongst themselves, compete for funds, and people. Each will be forced to start its own terror campaign, with varying degrees of success.
Apparently there was some dissention in the Israeli cabinet. I hope the choice was wise.
Apparently there was some dissention in the Israeli cabinet. I hope the choice was wise.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Baruch Dayan Emet
This morning I was at "Y"'s father's funeral.
Hamakom yenacem otah betoch shaar aveilei zion v'Yerushalaim.
Hamakom yenacem otah betoch shaar aveilei zion v'Yerushalaim.
Saw Doctors
Tonight I went with "J" to hear the Saw Doctors in the Hammerstein Ballroom. The show was OK. Almost everyone there was Irish. I was not. I felt like an outsider. I was rather self-conscious of my non-Irish lineage. She Actually just won the tickets, so even though I never hear of the band, I went. It was good.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Review of Hanley's The Metaphysics of Star Trek
First of all, you will not want to read this book if you are not a least somewhat of a Star Trek fan.
Star Trek is a great way to introduce these issues because there are so many questions raised by the show, and so much of the show's coherence depends on the answer to some interesting metaphysical issues.
For those familiar with and interested in Star Trek, the book is a good introduction to some of the standard issues that are of concern to philosophers who study metaphysics. The First questions are about the nature of life, humans and rationality. What is reason, how do we know when we have encountered it? What is life and how do we know when we find something alive, or sentient? In Star Trek there are often in-between or ambiguous cases, that are worth Hanley's analysis. Data is one classic case. What is he? (It is a shame that the book was written before the Voyager series was sufficiently underway or the Enterprise series started. The EMH would provide lots more interesting cases.)
Another question dealt with is one of personal identity. This was a rather popular metaphysical topic. Dax, Tuvix, Kirk/Lester, are just the tip of the iceberg. Questions like who you are after you beam are legitimate. (Jaegwon Kim one claimed in class that he would think that he would be a different person after beaming.) There are also plenty of cases of mind-transfers, mind melds, and insanities.
Finally, there are all sorts of time questions. Time travel is a favorite question of philosophers too, and again, Star Trek is great for that.
I would recommend this to any Star Trek fan who is curious about how a real philosophical analysis of the problems obviously raised in the various series and movies. The analyses are rarely novel, and they stick with the standard philosophical party lines (eg, Nozick's closest continuer scheme of personal identity). Toward the end he also accuses the writers of just not making sense, but that is rare, and when he does it is clear that the writers deserve it. He is quite charitable though, and fans will appreciate the seriousness with which all this is taken.
Star Trek is a great way to introduce these issues because there are so many questions raised by the show, and so much of the show's coherence depends on the answer to some interesting metaphysical issues.
For those familiar with and interested in Star Trek, the book is a good introduction to some of the standard issues that are of concern to philosophers who study metaphysics. The First questions are about the nature of life, humans and rationality. What is reason, how do we know when we have encountered it? What is life and how do we know when we find something alive, or sentient? In Star Trek there are often in-between or ambiguous cases, that are worth Hanley's analysis. Data is one classic case. What is he? (It is a shame that the book was written before the Voyager series was sufficiently underway or the Enterprise series started. The EMH would provide lots more interesting cases.)
Another question dealt with is one of personal identity. This was a rather popular metaphysical topic. Dax, Tuvix, Kirk/Lester, are just the tip of the iceberg. Questions like who you are after you beam are legitimate. (Jaegwon Kim one claimed in class that he would think that he would be a different person after beaming.) There are also plenty of cases of mind-transfers, mind melds, and insanities.
Finally, there are all sorts of time questions. Time travel is a favorite question of philosophers too, and again, Star Trek is great for that.
I would recommend this to any Star Trek fan who is curious about how a real philosophical analysis of the problems obviously raised in the various series and movies. The analyses are rarely novel, and they stick with the standard philosophical party lines (eg, Nozick's closest continuer scheme of personal identity). Toward the end he also accuses the writers of just not making sense, but that is rare, and when he does it is clear that the writers deserve it. He is quite charitable though, and fans will appreciate the seriousness with which all this is taken.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Review of Douglas Copeland's Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture
Generation X is a classic. It actually is responsible for naming a generation, and thus it has earned a place in literary history.
Personally I thought the book was OK. It did speak to me on some level, and I do see a lot of myself there. I do have more ambition than the characters in the story, but I can really identify with them.
The book revolves around the lives of a few characters who have really tried to drop out of society in so many ways. There is a complete lethargy about the characters. Not in the sense that they are lazy, but that they feel like there is nothing out there really worth doing. They do not have real relationships or real jobs. They have no deep interests, nor do they even scorn those who do too much. There is a lot of apathy. I feel like that a lot. There is not too much that I think is really important to me. The characters tell each other stories, and act all non-judgmental. I do find that appealing.
The book reminded me, and this is a cliche, but really accurate, as an updated Catcher in the Rye. This has been said before, but it does seem to resemble it, in the way it classifies the generation. I am also reminded of Kafka's "Hunger Artist" where the main character starts out doing something interesting by not eating. At the end the character confesses that he simply found nothing that he really liked to eat.
The book is important. Read it. It is OK. It goes nicely with the his Microserfs in taking a look at another segment of Generation X.
Personally I thought the book was OK. It did speak to me on some level, and I do see a lot of myself there. I do have more ambition than the characters in the story, but I can really identify with them.
The book revolves around the lives of a few characters who have really tried to drop out of society in so many ways. There is a complete lethargy about the characters. Not in the sense that they are lazy, but that they feel like there is nothing out there really worth doing. They do not have real relationships or real jobs. They have no deep interests, nor do they even scorn those who do too much. There is a lot of apathy. I feel like that a lot. There is not too much that I think is really important to me. The characters tell each other stories, and act all non-judgmental. I do find that appealing.
The book reminded me, and this is a cliche, but really accurate, as an updated Catcher in the Rye. This has been said before, but it does seem to resemble it, in the way it classifies the generation. I am also reminded of Kafka's "Hunger Artist" where the main character starts out doing something interesting by not eating. At the end the character confesses that he simply found nothing that he really liked to eat.
The book is important. Read it. It is OK. It goes nicely with the his Microserfs in taking a look at another segment of Generation X.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Review of Rabih Alameddine's Koolaids
Man, this writer is pretentious.
Koolaids focuses on two events mainly in the 1980's. The first is the AIDS crisis, and the second is the civil war in Lebanon. The book has no real plot, nor is the writing all that great. But surprisingly I did not hate it.
The writing is odd. There are no chapters, just short sections. There is a lot of self-reference for self-reference's sake. There are these interludes that have little point but to try to be artsy, and add nothing either to the writing or to the plot.
The cover has no art, but a lengthy quote from Amy Tan which is about as full of oneself as can get. It is a bit pathetic.
The plot itself was just this gay guy who is a successful Lebanese painter/homosexual ex-pat in the US. He laments about how screwed up his home country is. Mostly he blames the Israelis, for all the bad things in the civil war (somehow) but there is plenty of blame heaped on the Americans, the Christians, and the Syrians. Just about the only group who is not blamed is the Palestinians/Moslems. (The origin of the narrator should not surprise you.)
The book seems again, very self-referentially autobiographical. There is a lot about love and loss, and loss to AIDS and questioning about the meaning of life and loss and death. Nothing deep.
It is an interesting perspective both on the AIDS crisis and the Lebanese civil war. The perspective is very Lebanese, and very homosexual (to the extent either of those two groups, qua groups, have a unique perspective). Its main virtue, I suppose is that it was a quick and non-painful read about AIDS and Lebanon for those interested.
Koolaids focuses on two events mainly in the 1980's. The first is the AIDS crisis, and the second is the civil war in Lebanon. The book has no real plot, nor is the writing all that great. But surprisingly I did not hate it.
The writing is odd. There are no chapters, just short sections. There is a lot of self-reference for self-reference's sake. There are these interludes that have little point but to try to be artsy, and add nothing either to the writing or to the plot.
The cover has no art, but a lengthy quote from Amy Tan which is about as full of oneself as can get. It is a bit pathetic.
The plot itself was just this gay guy who is a successful Lebanese painter/homosexual ex-pat in the US. He laments about how screwed up his home country is. Mostly he blames the Israelis, for all the bad things in the civil war (somehow) but there is plenty of blame heaped on the Americans, the Christians, and the Syrians. Just about the only group who is not blamed is the Palestinians/Moslems. (The origin of the narrator should not surprise you.)
The book seems again, very self-referentially autobiographical. There is a lot about love and loss, and loss to AIDS and questioning about the meaning of life and loss and death. Nothing deep.
It is an interesting perspective both on the AIDS crisis and the Lebanese civil war. The perspective is very Lebanese, and very homosexual (to the extent either of those two groups, qua groups, have a unique perspective). Its main virtue, I suppose is that it was a quick and non-painful read about AIDS and Lebanon for those interested.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Spain and the aftermath
It is a well studied fact by now that terrorists do what they do because it works. Almost all the recent acts of suicide terrorism, say of the past 20 years, have been geared toward cooercing modern liberal democracies to do their bidding. The terrorists almost always win. Israel's giving back Gaza and Jericho initially followed suicide campaigns, same with the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the Palestinians in Lebanon. Turkey alone was the sole victim of terrorism that did not did not make terretorial concessions to terrorists. (Spain of course was not a case of suicide terrorism though.)
Political terrorism seems interesting too. Once in a while a country doesn't get it and just lets the terrorists win. In Israel after Rabin was shot by right winger, Yigal Amir, the country voted for Netanyahu on the right. In Spain now when the country was bombed by terrorists, the country voted to capitulate to their demands by voting in the party that promised to give in. (Maybe they are just too close to France.)
Psychologically, one would predict that when faced with such death and grief the country would vote right. It is odd.
Political terrorism seems interesting too. Once in a while a country doesn't get it and just lets the terrorists win. In Israel after Rabin was shot by right winger, Yigal Amir, the country voted for Netanyahu on the right. In Spain now when the country was bombed by terrorists, the country voted to capitulate to their demands by voting in the party that promised to give in. (Maybe they are just too close to France.)
Psychologically, one would predict that when faced with such death and grief the country would vote right. It is odd.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Do you think that George W. Bush will go down in history as the president who opened the door to gay marriage in the US?
After all, he was president when it started. The fact that he had nothing to do with it, will likely be irrelevant.
The economy improved with Clinton, and he got credit for the internet. We left Vietnam under Nixon, and he signed title IX. Whoever was there would have to have done it, but the only ones who mention that are people who blindly hate Nixon. Bush gets blamed for the pre-9/11 intelligence failures. He was in office less than a year and inherited both the economy and the intelligence infrastructure from Clinton. But no one ever mentions that.
So Bush's being in office will likely earn him historical credit for gay marriages, even though he still wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.
How is that for irony.
After all, he was president when it started. The fact that he had nothing to do with it, will likely be irrelevant.
The economy improved with Clinton, and he got credit for the internet. We left Vietnam under Nixon, and he signed title IX. Whoever was there would have to have done it, but the only ones who mention that are people who blindly hate Nixon. Bush gets blamed for the pre-9/11 intelligence failures. He was in office less than a year and inherited both the economy and the intelligence infrastructure from Clinton. But no one ever mentions that.
So Bush's being in office will likely earn him historical credit for gay marriages, even though he still wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.
How is that for irony.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Rushkoff
It is official. Douglas Rushkoff is now Jewish in my book. Qua Jew, the only thing he really has to say is that everyone is out to get him.
I really generally do like Rushkoff, but his Jewish stuff is really way off. With the exception of really fringe groups, no one thinks he is not Jewish for 1) not believing in God, 2) not unconditionally supporting Israel, 3) doing Yoga (if he does) 4) wanting to talk about Judaism. . .
The persecution complex is not becoming. There is no UJA/reform movement/Jerusalem Post/Zionist conspiracy against him.
Move on, Doug. Accept the criticism of your book, not as a personal attack on you, but rather on the fact that you need to look more closely at what Judaism is really like, and how the vast majority of Jews see Judaism. Then adjust your critique accordingly.
Most Jews, myself included, do not think that The Satmar Rebbi, Anne Roiphe, or Ariel Sharon speak for us on Jewish matters. They may not like what you say, but so what? For the most part their (and anyone else's criticism of you (as was mine)was fairly substantial. It was not "Hey, what do you know, your not really Jewish!" This is not the type of criticism one take seriously enough to respond to. So you don't liek bagles. That is not the point.
Telling someone that you have "the Truth" about something is hardly (as inthe book's title) compatible with your professed willingness to "talk". Can we talk? Sure, but talking needs to be both ways. Calling us all racist, and telling us that we must think poorly of you for this reason or that, is not the way to open dialogue.
Deal with your real critics, not with the straw men who just don't like you.
I really generally do like Rushkoff, but his Jewish stuff is really way off. With the exception of really fringe groups, no one thinks he is not Jewish for 1) not believing in God, 2) not unconditionally supporting Israel, 3) doing Yoga (if he does) 4) wanting to talk about Judaism. . .
The persecution complex is not becoming. There is no UJA/reform movement/Jerusalem Post/Zionist conspiracy against him.
Move on, Doug. Accept the criticism of your book, not as a personal attack on you, but rather on the fact that you need to look more closely at what Judaism is really like, and how the vast majority of Jews see Judaism. Then adjust your critique accordingly.
Most Jews, myself included, do not think that The Satmar Rebbi, Anne Roiphe, or Ariel Sharon speak for us on Jewish matters. They may not like what you say, but so what? For the most part their (and anyone else's criticism of you (as was mine)was fairly substantial. It was not "Hey, what do you know, your not really Jewish!" This is not the type of criticism one take seriously enough to respond to. So you don't liek bagles. That is not the point.
Telling someone that you have "the Truth" about something is hardly (as inthe book's title) compatible with your professed willingness to "talk". Can we talk? Sure, but talking needs to be both ways. Calling us all racist, and telling us that we must think poorly of you for this reason or that, is not the way to open dialogue.
Deal with your real critics, not with the straw men who just don't like you.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Review of Nelson and Nelson's On Quine
Nelson and Nelson's On Quine is one title in the ever growing Wadsworth's Philosophers Series. It is a rather typical volume. It is about 100 pages long and covers the basic ideas that Quine has made popular during his career. Quine was arguably the most significant post-positivist philosopher. He became famous for a few things, all of which are spelled out nicely and clearly in the book.
Quine's most interesting achievement was his eradication of the analytic/synthetic distinction which has been vital for philosophers from Kant through the positivists. The distinction, and Quine's dissolution of it is still controversial. Quine's main interest was in naturalism though. Quine taught us that philosophy was just science being "self conscience". Science was supposed to be continuous with philosophy, not above it. Epistemology was to be reduced to psychology, for example. Our ontological commitments are to be determined by what our best science commits us to. Our science, like our language, is meaningless when taken one fact or one word at a time. We need to be holistic about both. All of our scientific beliefs are are well intertwined, and no word in our language has meaning when taken in isolation. It is only when we consider it as a whole can we determine meaning.
The book goes through all of this and a few other important views of Quine. It can serve as a good introduction to Quine. If you know Quine's main work, you will find this generally uninformative. If you want to get a grip on some of the central views of contemporary philosophy without going through Quine himself, this is a good place to start.
Quine's most interesting achievement was his eradication of the analytic/synthetic distinction which has been vital for philosophers from Kant through the positivists. The distinction, and Quine's dissolution of it is still controversial. Quine's main interest was in naturalism though. Quine taught us that philosophy was just science being "self conscience". Science was supposed to be continuous with philosophy, not above it. Epistemology was to be reduced to psychology, for example. Our ontological commitments are to be determined by what our best science commits us to. Our science, like our language, is meaningless when taken one fact or one word at a time. We need to be holistic about both. All of our scientific beliefs are are well intertwined, and no word in our language has meaning when taken in isolation. It is only when we consider it as a whole can we determine meaning.
The book goes through all of this and a few other important views of Quine. It can serve as a good introduction to Quine. If you know Quine's main work, you will find this generally uninformative. If you want to get a grip on some of the central views of contemporary philosophy without going through Quine himself, this is a good place to start.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Bush's Political Ads - why they work
Apparently George Bush's new political ads are causing some controversy. Many of us have already seen the ads. They seem fairly tasteful, but there are depictions of a piece of the twin towers, and other images reminiscent of 9/11/01. The Bush campaign people are claiming that it is a big part of what defined his presidency, so it is natural and expected that some of it be shown to remind people that he lead the country thorough that. The Democrats feel that it is inappropriate and insensitive to exploit this tragedy for political gain.
Now, every psychologist who studied at all in college is aware of a few interesting experimental results in psychology. Here is a description of one of these famous experiments: Psychologists show a number of subjects a film and ask them to answer a number of questions about their country, religion and the like. Then we asses their answers for attitudes toward these institutions. When the film that was shown was about death, and contained scenes that evoked images of death, the subjects were much more likely to exhibit and profess feelings of xenophobia, patriotism, groupishness, and the like. In other words, it is a demonstrated psychological fact that thinking about death triggers feelings of national pride and patriotism, and general rallying around the flag. This is well studied. Any good intro book on psychology will explain this in greater detail.
Psychologically astute (read: successful) advertisers know this too.
They also know that Bush is associated with war, patriotism, strength, and nationalism. He is the right-wing candidate. The right is always associated with stronger ties to nationalism.
It follows that they also realize that making people think of death, will make them think of a strong leader, and will make people crave stability. It will make people feel the need for a familiar government, ie, not changing president.
(An additional illustration of all this might be the sudden spontaneous surge of patriotism and immediate flag waving in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy. Death there made us all be patriotic and love Bush, as polls then showed.)
So, while I am not morally opposed to the ads, (it's still a free country, after all) I do think that people should realize how they are manipulated by advertising each and every day of their lives. (You may also remember that Bush had another advertising scandal in his first campaign with the "rats" frames and the subliminal messages.)Advertisers are not at all above manipulating you in any way they can get away with. A good education about the media and your own psychology will go a long way toward immunizing you from the media's pernicious influence.
Now, every psychologist who studied at all in college is aware of a few interesting experimental results in psychology. Here is a description of one of these famous experiments: Psychologists show a number of subjects a film and ask them to answer a number of questions about their country, religion and the like. Then we asses their answers for attitudes toward these institutions. When the film that was shown was about death, and contained scenes that evoked images of death, the subjects were much more likely to exhibit and profess feelings of xenophobia, patriotism, groupishness, and the like. In other words, it is a demonstrated psychological fact that thinking about death triggers feelings of national pride and patriotism, and general rallying around the flag. This is well studied. Any good intro book on psychology will explain this in greater detail.
Psychologically astute (read: successful) advertisers know this too.
They also know that Bush is associated with war, patriotism, strength, and nationalism. He is the right-wing candidate. The right is always associated with stronger ties to nationalism.
It follows that they also realize that making people think of death, will make them think of a strong leader, and will make people crave stability. It will make people feel the need for a familiar government, ie, not changing president.
(An additional illustration of all this might be the sudden spontaneous surge of patriotism and immediate flag waving in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy. Death there made us all be patriotic and love Bush, as polls then showed.)
So, while I am not morally opposed to the ads, (it's still a free country, after all) I do think that people should realize how they are manipulated by advertising each and every day of their lives. (You may also remember that Bush had another advertising scandal in his first campaign with the "rats" frames and the subliminal messages.)Advertisers are not at all above manipulating you in any way they can get away with. A good education about the media and your own psychology will go a long way toward immunizing you from the media's pernicious influence.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
The hunt for OBL
I'd be willing to bet that bin Laden will turn up just before the elections. Anyone taking bets?
My meals this week
Geeze, life has been so busy this past week. Here is a tiny recap of the highlights.
Friday night I had dinner in Soho Steakhouse. It was good, albeit not that filling dinner.
I then went to a birthday party (where I had breast-shaped birthday cake). Fun.
On Saturday I passed an anti-Kerry demonstration on Lexingtron Ave at around 26th street. Apparently they were challenging some of his war claims. Apparently, if I read their flyers correctly, he got a few purple hearts without ever having to spend any time in the hospital. A purple heart is supposed to be issued for receiving injuries in combat. Of course, anyone who knows the military knows how much they like giving out ribbons and medals. They look for any excuse to hand out trinkets to the soldiers. (It is like giving "producer credits", it is a way to give people something and not have to pay them.)
Then I had lunch in Chennai Garden right there. It was a good Indian lunch. I particularly thought the bread there was good.
Saturday night saw me the the UWS. I met some nice people there.
Monday night I met some friends in Times Square in Ruby Foo. It was good Pan-Asian cusine, though a bit pricer than I am accustomed to. (I think that was a theme this week for me.)
Tuesday night I was in my office when I felt like getting dinner. So I went out and I walking down 23rd Street, and I paused in front of a pizza store. I was trying to decide whether to fill up on greasy carbs or to look for somehting healthier. So I was taking a moment to contemplate when I hear cheering behind me. These three guys were saying "go in, you know you want to" and stuff like that. There was mild chanting too. It was a real New York moment. So I went in and had 2 mediocre vegetable slices.
Friday night I had dinner in Soho Steakhouse. It was good, albeit not that filling dinner.
I then went to a birthday party (where I had breast-shaped birthday cake). Fun.
On Saturday I passed an anti-Kerry demonstration on Lexingtron Ave at around 26th street. Apparently they were challenging some of his war claims. Apparently, if I read their flyers correctly, he got a few purple hearts without ever having to spend any time in the hospital. A purple heart is supposed to be issued for receiving injuries in combat. Of course, anyone who knows the military knows how much they like giving out ribbons and medals. They look for any excuse to hand out trinkets to the soldiers. (It is like giving "producer credits", it is a way to give people something and not have to pay them.)
Then I had lunch in Chennai Garden right there. It was a good Indian lunch. I particularly thought the bread there was good.
Saturday night saw me the the UWS. I met some nice people there.
Monday night I met some friends in Times Square in Ruby Foo. It was good Pan-Asian cusine, though a bit pricer than I am accustomed to. (I think that was a theme this week for me.)
Tuesday night I was in my office when I felt like getting dinner. So I went out and I walking down 23rd Street, and I paused in front of a pizza store. I was trying to decide whether to fill up on greasy carbs or to look for somehting healthier. So I was taking a moment to contemplate when I hear cheering behind me. These three guys were saying "go in, you know you want to" and stuff like that. There was mild chanting too. It was a real New York moment. So I went in and had 2 mediocre vegetable slices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
