Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Does science have limits? It don't matter 'cause humans aren't intelligent enough to find out   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Interesting, cognitive sciences, speed limits, square roots, Pandora's box, calculus, matter  
•       •       •

2350 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Sep 2013 at 4:53 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-07 01:43:05 PM  
Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.

/perhaps even....god?
 
2013-09-07 01:45:25 PM  
Patricia Churchland calls people like Martin Gardner "anti-enlightenment." She's proud of the human brain, its reasoning ability, its resourcefulness, and given enough time, she suspects, no question is unanswerable, there are no permanent mysteries. In the end (and the end is a long, long time away), we will know it all.

This.

FarkinHostile: Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.


Love is just biochemistry.
 
2013-09-07 01:56:52 PM  

Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.



There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals. How it is interpreted by an individual is outside of the scope of Science.

Another example: Art.
 
2013-09-07 02:00:08 PM  
Also, just because science can't figure out something today, doesn't mean that it's forever unknowable.
 
2013-09-07 02:09:42 PM  

FarkinHostile: Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.

/perhaps even....god?


Beware, people that question that question science. It would be nice if science were confined to "things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. " Beware questioning the theories of the universe. Farkers will come down on you like an atheist at a Fundie Prayer Group.

For example, we have observed a galaxy at 13.3 billion light years years away, meaning something fully formed that was there relatively shortly after the big bang. Why not a leftover from the previous big bang?
Not enough mass in the Universe? Dark matter! Has it been proven to exist?
Not enough energy in the Universe? Dark energy! Has it been proven to exist?
Can't explain gravity? Gravitons! Anyone seen any?
 
2013-09-07 02:44:51 PM  
"If the brain were so simple that we cold understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't"
 
2013-09-07 02:52:24 PM  

simplicimus: FarkinHostile: Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.

/perhaps even....god?

Beware, people that question that question science. It would be nice if science were confined to "things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. " Beware questioning the theories of the universe. Farkers will come down on you like an atheist at a Fundie Prayer Group.

For example, we have observed a galaxy at 13.3 billion light years years away, meaning something fully formed that was there relatively shortly after the big bang. Why not a leftover from the previous big bang?
Not enough mass in the Universe? Dark matter! Has it been proven to exist?
Not enough energy in the Universe? Dark energy! Has it been proven to exist?
Can't explain gravity? Gravitons! Anyone seen any?


Not sure if serious, or ignorant.
 
2013-09-07 04:03:13 PM  

FarkinHostile: How it is interpreted by an individual is outside of the scope of Science.


Interpretation is also a biological process, however. From a general standpoint, we can, at least in principle, build models to describe the process of interpretation. While we would always have challenges mapping from the general to the specific and vice versa, it's wrong to say that interpretation is beyond the scope of science. It's also wrong to capitalize science, as it is not a proper noun. Nor is art.

And art is a ripe field for scientific exploration. The visual arts are the most obvious, as they're the most closely tied to a well understood biological system, but music is also something that can operate on well understood principles. Even with cultural variations, we can clearly see how human preferences for certain images and sounds arises from a common biological basis. Further, our drive to create art clearly has a biological basis as well, and again, is something not only open to study, but something that we  should study.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-09-07 04:41:09 PM  
There is a recurring theme in math and computer science which I will phrase as "a system can not understand itself." Gödel's theorem and the halting problem are examples. I consider it likely that there are truths about the universe that we can not prove. Also, I disagree with Penrose's speculation about the super ability of the human mind, not that he's necessarily wrong but he hasn't persuaded me that we aren't imperfect machines rather than beyond Turing equivalent.
 
2013-09-07 04:57:21 PM  
"Of course science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would stop."  - Dara O'Briain
 
2013-09-07 05:00:42 PM  
Intelligence as organized in its current supporting infrastructure.
 
2013-09-07 05:01:54 PM  
Here's a bigger mindfark:

Does size have limits?

Can an object be infinitely small or big?
 
2013-09-07 05:04:40 PM  

FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.


Nope. It's just chemicals.
 
2013-09-07 05:07:43 PM  

cman: Here's a bigger mindfark:

Does size have limits?


Yes.

Can an object be infinitely small or big?

Small? Yes. See black holes. Big? No. It turns into a black hole and becomes infinitely small.
 
2013-09-07 05:08:07 PM  

cman: Here's a bigger mindfark:

Does size have limits?

Can an object be infinitely small or big?


I don't think so.  For something to acquire infinite mass it would need to be a non-zero mass object traveling at the speed of light, which to the best of our knowledge is not possible.  Light doesn't have mass, thus gets around the rule.
 
2013-09-07 05:09:40 PM  

I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.


Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.


But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?

 
2013-09-07 05:11:57 PM  

pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?


And furthermore, how could we possibly be so arrogant to think that there is a God who created this universe just for us and didn't even give us the proper senses to fully understand it?
 
2013-09-07 05:12:32 PM  

pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?


Yup, that's a biologist alright.

The answer to your question is math.
 
2013-09-07 05:12:34 PM  

simplicimus: For example, we have observed a galaxy at 13.3 billion light years years away, meaning something fully formed that was there relatively shortly after the big bang. Why not a leftover from the previous big bang?


Because the Big Bang would have destroyed it, if it existed. As far as a galaxy that old, so what? Stars were around for millions of years by then.

Not enough mass in the Universe? Dark matter! Has it been proven to exist?

We don't even know what Dark Matter is yet. It's just a placeholder in the equations until we either fix our models or figure out what's actually going on.

Not enough energy in the Universe? Dark energy! Has it been proven to exist?

See above.

Can't explain gravity? Gravitons! Anyone seen any?

See above.

You've pointed out the gaps in our knowledge. Huzza for you. You're only decades behind the scientists trying to fill in those gaps.
 
2013-09-07 05:12:54 PM  

FarkinHostile: Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.

/perhaps even....god?


Justice and Mercy probably fall under game theory.
 
2013-09-07 05:13:15 PM  
I think it's more accurate to say that humans have limits. Science doesn't.
 
2013-09-07 05:13:43 PM  

pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?


So, Argument From Personal Incredulity?
 
2013-09-07 05:16:15 PM  
Boobies guy
ect =etc
there now all is good in the universe.
 
2013-09-07 05:20:14 PM  
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fair limit. (And not the basis for Walter White's decision making practices on Breaking Bad)
 
2013-09-07 05:22:39 PM  
All we have to do is be bright enough to invent an AI that can evolve and exceed our capacities - then have IT learn those secrets then dumb it down for us,  I think it's possible there are concepts we could not handle  creatingon our own (please note I said possible, calm down Francis) but I think given sufficient education by an appropriately advanced learner (AI) we could understand it as something being taught and not developed.
 
2013-09-07 05:23:29 PM  

alaric3: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fair limit. (And not the basis for Walter White's decision making practices on Breaking Bad)


The cat is just in Belize.
 
2013-09-07 05:25:50 PM  

Fizpez: All we have to do is be bright enough to invent an AI that can evolve and exceed our capacities - then have IT learn those secrets then dumb it down for us,  I think it's possible there are concepts we could not handle  creatingon our own (please note I said possible, calm down Francis) but I think given sufficient education by an appropriately advanced learner (AI) we could understand it as something being taught and not developed.


Or we just use our science to upgrade our brains with cybernetics and genetic engineering.

/And 3D print new organs so we can live forever.
 
2013-09-07 05:29:01 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Fizpez: All we have to do is be bright enough to invent an AI that can evolve and exceed our capacities - then have IT learn those secrets then dumb it down for us,  I think it's possible there are concepts we could not handle  creatingon our own (please note I said possible, calm down Francis) but I think given sufficient education by an appropriately advanced learner (AI) we could understand it as something being taught and not developed.

Or we just use our science to upgrade our brains with cybernetics and genetic engineering.

/And 3D print new organs so we can live forever.


I'd assume that at some point the AI and cybernetics will converge - I mean if you can make that level of sophistication in an AI AND you can make some kind of computer-brain interface eventually you combine A + B and get, well, probably the Borg, but yeah, I agree.
 
2013-09-07 05:41:40 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?

Yup, that's a biologist alright.

The answer to your question is math.




Yep. Math that generates untestable hypotheses. Not science
 
2013-09-07 05:43:08 PM  

Ed Grubermann: pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?

So, Argument From Personal Incredulity?


Hey man, same reason we can't teach orangutans how to do calculus. There are limits. This isn't nam
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-09-07 05:43:25 PM  
I think it's more accurate to say that humans have limits. Science doesn't.

The theorems I mentioned above say that certain mathematical systems have unavoidable limits on their expressive power. Basically, you can't fully understand certain systems unless you look at them from the outside. If we turn to science rather than pure math, consider the free parameters in the Standard Model of particle physics. The reason those numbers are what they are may not be knowable if we look only at the observable universe.
 
2013-09-07 05:43:55 PM  

Via Infinito: pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?

And furthermore, how could we possibly be so arrogant to think that there is a God who created this universe just for us and didn't even give us the proper senses to fully understand it?


Um... Ok? I didn't think this was a discussion about god
 
Skr
2013-09-07 05:50:11 PM  
That Mysterian mindset that Gardner was writing about sounds interesting. I wonder if that would work side by side with Nihilism

krypt3ia.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-07 05:52:29 PM  
Sure. I'll bite.

simplicimus: For example, we have observed a galaxy at 13.3 billion light years years away, meaning something fully formed that was there relatively shortly after the big bang. Why not a leftover from the previous big bang?


Because there is no evidence to corroborate the possibility of previous big bangs. The galaxy in question also exhibits characteristics of how galaxies looked in the early universe, rather than how a galaxy would look in an old universe.

Not enough mass in the Universe? Dark matter! Has it been proven to exist?

There needs to be a explanation for the fact that spiral galaxies don't fly apart at the speeds they rotate, and for why galactic clusters don't fly apart. There isn't enough visible matter - we'd be able to see it if that were the case. Is it MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), or perhaps some other model for gravity at large distances? Well, as time progresses, evidence has been discovered that discounts MOND and similar theories, such as a the fact that the Bullet cluster's center of mass is not where it should be, and this cannot be accounted for with modified theories of gravity.
Other studies have actually been able to determine where dark matter is and where it isn't - other results that can't be accounted for by other theories.

Not enough energy in the Universe? Dark energy! Has it been proven to exist?
Dark energy is merely a placeholder to explain why expansion of the galaxy is actually accelerating, not slowing (or shrinking) as it would normally be. Perhaps gravity has a repulsive act at distance? i can't remember off the top of my head, but there have been experiments to show that this isn't the case. Simulations of universe formation that account for dark matter and not repulsive gravity create universes that look like ours.

Can't explain gravity? Gravitons! Anyone seen any?

Gravitons are not widely accepted within the physics community. They are not predicted by the Standard Model, which has been completed by the discovery of the Higgs boson. The graviton is predicted by Super Symmestry, (and String Theory I believe) but Super Symmestry also predicts faster-than-light particles as well as, I believe, anti-gravity. None of these have been even been hinted at experimentally. And, yeah, we can't really explain gravity, but gravity is weird, so that may take a while.
 
2013-09-07 05:57:41 PM  

simplicimus: FarkinHostile: Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.

/perhaps even....god?

Beware, people that question that question science. It would be nice if science were confined to "things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. " Beware questioning the theories of the universe. Farkers will come down on you like an atheist at a Fundie Prayer Group.

For example, we have observed a galaxy at 13.3 billion light years years away, meaning something fully formed that was there relatively shortly after the big bang. Why not a leftover from the previous big bang?
Not enough mass in the Universe? Dark matter! Has it been proven to exist?
Not enough energy in the Universe? Dark energy! Has it been proven to exist?
Can't explain gravity? Gravitons! Anyone seen any?


It's always amusing to read a "scientists are so stupid" post that was written on a computer and sent around the planet with pulses of light.

If you want to educate yourself on the topics you mentioned, Wikipedia is a good place to start, although my guess is that you prefer to wallow in your smug ignorance.
 
2013-09-07 06:01:27 PM  

pivazena: LowbrowDeluxe: pivazena: I'm a biologist, and I totally think science has its limits.
Well, to be clear.  I think the scientific method is pretty rigorous and the best way we have to understand the world around us.
But our brains... We can't see most light.  We can't hear most sounds. We can't smell most scents.  How on earth can we be so arrogant as to think that we could understand everything when we can't even conceptualize more than four dimensions?

Yup, that's a biologist alright.

The answer to your question is math.

Yep. Math that generates untestable hypotheses. Not science


This is one of those green vs purple debates, or Bayesian/nonBayesian, or tastes great/less filling.
 
2013-09-07 06:03:12 PM  

FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals. How it is interpreted by an individual is outside of the scope of Science.

Another example: Art.


Art is what you can get away with.
 
2013-09-07 06:06:47 PM  

revrendjim: simplicimus: FarkinHostile: Of course Science has limits. It can only study things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. Concepts such as Love, Justice, Mercy, ect are beyond the scope of Science.

/perhaps even....god?

Beware, people that question that question science. It would be nice if science were confined to "things that exist in the physical Universe and is quantifiable, repeatable, and subject to peer review. " Beware questioning the theories of the universe. Farkers will come down on you like an atheist at a Fundie Prayer Group.

For example, we have observed a galaxy at 13.3 billion light years years away, meaning something fully formed that was there relatively shortly after the big bang. Why not a leftover from the previous big bang?
Not enough mass in the Universe? Dark matter! Has it been proven to exist?
Not enough energy in the Universe? Dark energy! Has it been proven to exist?
Can't explain gravity? Gravitons! Anyone seen any?

It's always amusing to read a "scientists are so stupid" post that was written on a computer and sent around the planet with pulses of light.

If you want to educate yourself on the topics you mentioned, Wikipedia is a good place to start, although my guess is that you prefer to wallow in your smug ignorance.


Just pointing out the placeholders. Like I said, atheist at a revival.
 
2013-09-07 06:12:14 PM  

Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.


Metaphysical reductionism (which is what you're doing) is not itself verifiable by scientific means.

Alternatively, if brain activity is nothing but chemicals, then the brain activity that generated your statement is nothing but chemicals, which means I have no good reason to agree with it any more than I would have to "agree" with a rising loaf of bread.
 
2013-09-07 07:10:25 PM  

Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.

Metaphysical reductionism (which is what you're doing) is not itself verifiable by scientific means.

Alternatively, if brain activity is nothing but chemicals, then the brain activity that generated your statement is nothing but chemicals, which means I have no good reason to agree with it any more than I would have to "agree" with a rising loaf of bread.


Sure, if you want to be stupid about it. As for "metaphysical reductionism", prove that there is any such thing as "metaphysics".
 
2013-09-07 07:12:07 PM  

Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.

Metaphysical reductionism (which is what you're doing) is not itself verifiable by scientific means.

Alternatively, if brain activity is nothing but chemicals, then the brain activity that generated your statement is nothing but chemicals, which means I have no good reason to agree with it any more than I would have to "agree" with a rising loaf of bread.


Is cocaine addiction more than just chemicals?  Depression?  Therapy is all about changing the chemicals in your brain.  Love is no different.
 
2013-09-07 07:14:46 PM  

Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.


Well, I hope their pure chemicals. I hate to wind up with tainted love.
 
2013-09-07 07:15:25 PM  

simplicimus: like an atheist at a Fundie Prayer Group


You mean beaten to death and set on fire to a cheering crowd?
 
2013-09-07 07:17:43 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.

Metaphysical reductionism (which is what you're doing) is not itself verifiable by scientific means.

Alternatively, if brain activity is nothing but chemicals, then the brain activity that generated your statement is nothing but chemicals, which means I have no good reason to agree with it any more than I would have to "agree" with a rising loaf of bread.

Sure, if you want to be stupid about it. As for "metaphysical reductionism", prove that there is any such thing as "metaphysics".


Okay.

You were doing metaphysics there.
Therefore metaphysics exists.
 
2013-09-07 07:19:53 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.

Metaphysical reductionism (which is what you're doing) is not itself verifiable by scientific means.

Alternatively, if brain activity is nothing but chemicals, then the brain activity that generated your statement is nothing but chemicals, which means I have no good reason to agree with it any more than I would have to "agree" with a rising loaf of bread.

Is cocaine addiction more than just chemicals?  Depression?  Therapy is all about changing the chemicals in your brain.  Love is no different.


Yes, addiction and depression are about more than just chemicals, and therapy is about more than just chemicals. Read up on the actual psychology going in in those fields.
 
2013-09-07 07:28:39 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: simplicimus: like an atheist at a Fundie Prayer Group

You mean beaten to death and set on fire to a cheering crowd?


Yep. I dare to question that there is one and only one true big bang. It's a matter of faith.
 
2013-09-07 07:28:46 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Sure, if you want to be stupid about it.


or consistent
 
2013-09-07 07:38:50 PM  
I suspect that science does indeed have its limits, but this does not necessarily mean that knowledge has its limits. It only requires an epistemological model which recognizes that science is not the only tool in the bag, and sometimes it's not even the right tool to be using.
 
2013-09-07 07:39:04 PM  
Every question answered just leads to more questions.

Doesn't mean that it's not worth trying to find these answers.

/just be sure to shun sociologists
//they are useless, and are not actual scientists
 
2013-09-07 07:41:13 PM  

Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: FarkinHostile: Mentat: Love is just biochemistry.


There is a biochemical aspect of Love, as there is with ALL brain function. That part can be studied, but Love is far more than just brain chemicals.

Nope. It's just chemicals.

Metaphysical reductionism (which is what you're doing) is not itself verifiable by scientific means.

Alternatively, if brain activity is nothing but chemicals, then the brain activity that generated your statement is nothing but chemicals, which means I have no good reason to agree with it any more than I would have to "agree" with a rising loaf of bread.

Sure, if you want to be stupid about it. As for "metaphysical reductionism", prove that there is any such thing as "metaphysics".

Okay.

You were doing metaphysics there.
Therefore metaphysics exists.


Oh, and when you launched an argument about whether metaphysics exists, you were doing ontology, which is a branch of metaphysics.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report