How Phone Addiction Keeps You from Achieving a Productive “Flow State”

If you have an iPhone, try push­ing its side but­ton three times in a row. Just like mag­ic, the screen should turn from col­or into black-and-white, or rather grayscale. (To do the same on an Android phone, you’ll have to dive into set­tings, then “acces­si­bil­i­ty,” “vision enhance­ments,” and “col­or cor­rec­tion.”) Why would you want that in the first place? As Har­vard Kennedy School and Har­vard Busi­ness School pro­fes­sor Arthur C. Brooks explains in the Big Think video above, “one of the ways that you can actu­al­ly get less hooked by social media, or any screen-based tech­nol­o­gy, is by turn­ing off the col­or.” When you get only black, white, and the shades of gray in between, “you will care less about your screen, and you will look at it less.”

This may ring true to those of us who remem­ber pure­ly mono­chro­mat­ic cell­phones, and how lit­tle time we spent star­ing at them. But no mat­ter your gen­er­a­tion, Brooks has plen­ty of use­ful advice about how to break the depen­den­cy on your phone from which, as a twen­ty-first-cen­tu­ry inter­net user, you almost cer­tain­ly suf­fer.

“You notice when some­body is addict­ed to hero­in, because it’s not that com­mon for ordi­nary peo­ple,” he says. “You don’t notice when some­body’s addict­ed to their phone, because lit­er­al­ly every­body is addict­ed to their phones.” There­fore, we could all ben­e­fit from turn­ing off noti­fi­ca­tions, set­ting defined “tech times,” exer­cis­ing with­out our devices, and going on mul­ti-day med­i­ta­tion retreats — though we may have to work up to that last one.

The func­tion­al phone addict may believe that all his dai­ly scrolling may not have that much of a neg­a­tive impact on his life, and even that it helps him unwind. What he does­n’t real­ize, in Brooks’ view, is the extent to which dig­i­tal dis­trac­tions keep him out of what psy­chol­o­gist Mihaly Csik­szent­mi­ha­lyi called “flow.” (These com­ments come around the 27:06 mark.) Flow hap­pens “when you’re involved immer­sive­ly in some­thing, and hours turn to min­utes. You lose track of time. It’s intense­ly plea­sur­able,” almost “like a state of Bud­dhist med­i­ta­tion.” Con­scious­ly or uncon­scious­ly, we use our phones and oth­er dig­i­tal devices in a way that pre­vents flow, “mul­ti­task­ing” between numer­ous tasks and dis­trac­tions, nev­er pay­ing sus­tained atten­tion to any one thing. At the root of this impulse is a fear of bore­dom, which must be endured in order to accom­plish any­thing mean­ing­ful. The irony of our new­found abil­i­ty to evade bore­dom every moment is that, if we do so, the whole of life turns out to be pret­ty bor­ing.

Relat­ed con­tent:

How to Enter a ‘Flow State’ on Com­mand: Peak Per­for­mance Mind Hack Explained in 7 Min­utes

The Sur­pris­ing Pow­er of Bore­dom: It Lets You Con­front Big Ques­tions & Give Life Mean­ing

How to Enter Flow State, Increase Your Abil­i­ty to Con­cen­trate, and Let Your Ego Fall Away : An Ani­mat­ed Primer

Why Smart Peo­ple Feel Like Frauds: The Psy­chol­o­gy of Impos­tor Syn­drome and Its Hid­den Ben­e­fits

How to Get into a Cre­ative “Flow State”: A Short Mas­ter­class

Lyn­da Bar­ry on How the Smart­phone Is Endan­ger­ing Three Ingre­di­ents of Cre­ativ­i­ty: Lone­li­ness, Uncer­tain­ty & Bore­dom

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Milton Glaser’s 10 Rules for Life & Work: The Celebrated Designer Dispenses Wisdom Gained Over His Long Life & Career

“None of us has real­ly the abil­i­ty to under­stand our path until it’s over,” the cel­e­brat­ed graph­ic design­er Mil­ton Glaser mused less than a minute into the above video.

The late Mil­ton Glaser’s many con­tri­bu­tions to pop culture—the I ❤ NY logo, the psy­che­del­ic por­trait of a rain­bow-haired Bob Dylan, DC Comics’ clas­sic bul­let logo—con­ferred unde­ni­able author­i­ty. To the out­side eye, he seemed to have a pret­ty firm han­dle on the path he trav­eled for lo those many decades. Aspi­rant design­ers would do well to give extra con­sid­er­a­tion to any advice he might have shared.

As would the rest of us.

His “Ten Things I Have Learned,” orig­i­nal­ly deliv­ered as part of a talk to the AIGA—a ven­er­a­ble mem­ber­ship orga­ni­za­tion for design professionals—qualifies as sol­id life advice of gen­er­al inter­est.

Yes, the Inter­net spawns bul­let-point­ed tips for bet­ter liv­ing the way spring rains yield mush­rooms, but Glaser, a self-described “child of mod­ernism,” did not truck in pithy Insta­gram-friend­ly apho­risms. Instead, his list was born of reflec­tion on the var­i­ous turns of a long and most­ly sat­is­fy­ing cre­ative career.

We’ve excerpt­ed some of his most essen­tial points below, and sug­gest that those read­ers who are still in train­ing give spe­cial empha­sis to num­ber sev­en. Don’t place too much weight on num­ber nine until you’ve estab­lished a sol­id work eth­ic. (See num­ber four for more on that.)

MILTON GLASER”S TEN RULES FOR WORK AND LIFE (& A BONUS JOKE ABOUT A RABBIT).

1. YOU CAN ONLY WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU LIKE

Some years ago I real­ized that… all the work I had done that was mean­ing­ful and sig­nif­i­cant came out of an affec­tion­ate rela­tion­ship with a client.

2. IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE NEVER HAVE A JOB

Here, Glaser quotes com­pos­er John CageNev­er have a job, because if you have a job some­day some­one will take it away from you and then you will be unpre­pared for your old age. 

3. SOME PEOPLE ARE TOXIC AVOID THEM.

Glaser rec­om­mends putting a ques­tion­able com­pan­ion to a gestalt ther­a­py test. If, after spend­ing time with that per­son “you are more tired, then you have been poi­soned. If you have more ener­gy, you have been nour­ished. The test is almost infal­li­ble and I sug­gest that you use it for the rest of your life.”

4. PROFESSIONALISM IS NOT ENOUGH (or THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT)

Glaser con­cedes that a record of depend­able excel­lence is some­thing to look for in a brain sur­geon or auto mechan­ic, but for those in the arts, “con­tin­u­ous trans­gres­sion” is the qual­i­ty to cul­ti­vate. Pro­fes­sion­al­ism does not allow for that because trans­gres­sion has to encom­pass the pos­si­bil­i­ty of fail­ure and if you are pro­fes­sion­al your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat suc­cess. 

5. LESS IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE

I have an alter­na­tive to the propo­si­tion that I believe is more appro­pri­ate. ‘Just enough is more.’

6. STYLE IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED

Style change is usu­al­ly linked to eco­nom­ic fac­tors, as all of you know who have read Marx. Also fatigue occurs when peo­ple see too much of the same thing too often.

7. HOW YOU LIVE CHANGES YOUR BRAIN

The brain is the most respon­sive organ of the body…. Thought changes our life and our behav­ior. I also believe that draw­ing works in the same way…. Draw­ing also makes you atten­tive. It makes you pay atten­tion to what you are look­ing at, which is not so easy.

8. DOUBT IS BETTER THAN CERTAINTY

One of the signs of a dam­aged ego is absolute cer­tain­ty. Schools encour­age the idea of not com­pro­mis­ing and defend­ing your work at all costs. Well, the issue at work is usu­al­ly all about the nature of com­pro­mise…. Ide­al­ly, mak­ing every­one win through acts of accom­mo­da­tion is desir­able.

9. IT DOESN’T MATTER

Glaser cred­its essay­ist Roger Rosenblatt’s Rules for Aging (misiden­ti­fy­ing the title as Aging Grace­ful­ly) with help­ing him artic­u­late his phi­los­o­phy here.  It doesn’t mat­ter what you think. It does not mat­ter if you are late or ear­ly, if you are here or there, if you said it or didn’t say it, if you are clever or if you were stu­pid. If you were hav­ing a bad hair day or a no hair day or if your boss looks at you cock­eyed or your boyfriend or girl­friend looks at you cock­eyed, if you are cock­eyed. If you don’t get that pro­mo­tion or prize or house or if you do – it doesn’t mat­ter.

10. TELL THE TRUTH

It’s inter­est­ing to observe that in the new AIGA’s code of ethics there is a sig­nif­i­cant amount of use­ful infor­ma­tion about appro­pri­ate behav­ior towards clients and oth­er design­ers, but not a word about a designer’s rela­tion­ship to the pub­lic. If we were licensed, telling the truth might become more cen­tral to what we do.

BONUS JOKE

A butch­er was open­ing his mar­ket one morn­ing and as he did a rab­bit popped his head through the door. The butch­er was sur­prised when the rab­bit inquired ‘Got any cab­bage?’ The butch­er said ‘This is a meat mar­ket – we sell meat, not veg­eta­bles.’ The rab­bit hopped off. The next day the butch­er is open­ing the shop and sure enough the rab­bit pops his head round and says ‘You got any cab­bage?’ The butch­er now irri­tat­ed says ‘Lis­ten you lit­tle rodent, I told you yes­ter­day we sell meat, we do not sell veg­eta­bles and the next time you come here I am going to grab you by the throat and nail those flop­py ears to the floor.’ The rab­bit dis­ap­peared hasti­ly and noth­ing hap­pened for a week. Then one morn­ing the rab­bit popped his head around the cor­ner and said ‘Got any nails?’ The butch­er said ‘No.’ The rab­bit said ‘Ok. Got any cab­bage?’’

Read Mil­ton Glaser’s “Ten Things I Have Learned” in its entire­ty here.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2017.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mil­ton Glaser Draws Shake­speare & Explains Why Draw­ing is the Key to Under­stand­ing Life

Mick­ey Mouse In Viet­nam: The Under­ground Anti-War Ani­ma­tion from 1968, Co-Cre­at­ed by Mil­ton Glaser

Mil­ton Glaser (RIP) Explains Why We Must Over­come the Fear of Fail­ure, Take Risks & Dis­cov­er Our True Poten­tial

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and the­ater mak­er in NYC.

Tim Curry (RIP) Breaks Down His Most Iconic Roles: Rocky Horror, Clue, Muppet Treasure Island & More

Upon hear­ing of Tim Cur­ry’s death last week, some of us could recall hav­ing seen him on stage: in Amadeus or Spa­malot on Broad­way, per­haps, though he also drew acclaim in the work of Stop­pard, Brecht, and Shake­speare. For many more of us — per­haps all of us — it was his most mem­o­rable film and tele­vi­sion per­for­mances that sprang to mind. To an extent, which ones are most mem­o­rable depends on the view­er. Some will for­ev­er remem­ber Cur­ry as DJ John­ny LaGuardia in Times Square, the deceit­ful Roman­ian phil­an­thropist in Con­go, the arch-neme­sis King Chick­en on Duck­man, or even as the Bard him­self in the series Will Shake­speare.

More will remem­ber him as Dr. Frank-N-Furter, the cross-dress­ing mad sci­en­tist from the plan­et Trans­sex­u­al at the cen­ter of the stage musi­cal The Rocky Hor­ror Show as well as its film adap­ta­tion The Rocky Hor­ror Pic­ture Show. The lat­ter end­ed up becom­ing the much larg­er-scale cul­tur­al phe­nom­e­non, still screened at mid­night to this day, more than half a cen­tu­ry after its the­atri­cal release.

In that time, the audi­ence-par­tic­i­pa­tion rit­u­als have grown elab­o­rate enough to over­shad­ow the con­tent. Still, if you real­ly try to focus on the action onscreen, you’ll notice the remark­able extent to which — even now that all the tropes of sci­ence-fic­tion B movies, nine­teen-fifties teen cul­ture, and delib­er­ate glam-rock excess have become bare­ly rec­og­niz­able — Cur­ry’s per­for­mance remains vital.

Just six months ago, the Acad­e­my of Motion Pic­ture Arts and Sci­ences put up a video in which Cur­ry looks back at his defin­ing roles. The list begins, nat­u­ral­ly, with Rocky Hor­ror, but also includes his turns as the Lord of Dark­ness in Leg­end (which he was offered after Rid­ley Scott saw him as Dr. Frank-N-Furter), Pen­ny­wise in Stephen King’s It (now regard­ed as the ne plus ultra of evil clown char­ac­ters), and Long John Sil­ver in Mup­pet Trea­sure Island (his per­son­al favorite of his movies). We’re also told of parts he did­n’t get, like Ian Mal­colm in Juras­sic Park, for which he was con­sid­ered, or — more tan­ta­liz­ing­ly — Han­ni­bal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs, whom he “des­per­ate­ly want­ed to play.” He also offhand­ed­ly men­tions that, in addi­tion to Clue’s three exist­ing end­ings, he also shot a fourth in which his but­ler is revealed to have com­mit­ted all the mur­ders. “Of course, that was my favorite,” he says. Alas, “they nev­er released that end­ing, because they thought it was too obvi­ous.”

via Laugh­ing Squid

Relat­ed con­tent:

How Rocky Hor­ror Became a Cult Phe­nom­e­non

Rare Inter­view: Tim Cur­ry Dis­cuss­es The Rocky Hor­ror Pic­ture Show, Dur­ing the Week of Its Release (1975)

1978 News Report on the Rocky Hor­ror Craze Cap­tures a Teenage Michael Stipe in Drag

The Rocky Hor­ror Pic­ture Show Is Now a Retro Video Game

Ray Liot­ta (RIP) Talks About His Most Mem­o­rable Per­for­mances: Some­thing Wild, Good­fel­las, Field of Dreams, and More

“I Saw the Future”: Rut­ger Hauer (RIP) Remem­bers His Most Mem­o­rable Role in Blade Run­ner

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Periodic Table of Endangered Elements: Visualizing the Chemical Elements That Could Vanish Before You Know It

The Peri­od­ic Table of Ele­ments lists the 118 chem­i­cal ele­ments that make up every­thing in our world. Some you’re famil­iar with—Hydrogen, Oxy­gen, Nitro­gen, etc. Oth­ers maybe less so—Vanadium, Ger­ma­ni­um, and Yttri­um.

Accord­ing to the Amer­i­can Chem­i­cal Soci­ety, 44 of those 118 ele­ments might dis­ap­pear by cen­tu­ry’s end. Enter the Peri­od­ic Table of Endan­gered Ele­ments (shown above). The most endan­gered ones, high­light­ed in red, are Zinc, Gal­li­um, Ger­ma­ni­um, Arsenic (is this a good or very bad thing?), Sil­ver, Indi­um, Tel­luri­um, and Hafni­um. Made avail­able under a Cre­ative Com­mons license, the Peri­od­ic Table of Endan­gered Ele­ments can be viewed in a larg­er for­mat here.

The orig­i­nal image (top of the page), cre­at­ed in 2015, was updat­ed by EuChemS in 2023 (above). The updat­ed table fea­tures the cur­rent-day avail­abil­i­ty of all 90 ele­ments, rather than just the endan­gered 44 ele­ments, adds an axis for sus­tain­abil­i­ty, and flags ele­ments used in smart­phone pro­duc­tion.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Inter­ac­tive Peri­od­ic Table of Ele­ments Shows How the Ele­ments Actu­al­ly Get Used in Mak­ing Every­day Things

The Peri­od­ic Table of Ele­ments Scaled to Show The Ele­ments’ Actu­al Abun­dance on Earth

Peri­od­ic Table Bat­tle­ship!: A Fun Way To Learn the Ele­ments

“The Peri­od­ic Table Table” — All The Ele­ments in Hand-Carved Wood

World’s Small­est Peri­od­ic Table on a Human Hair

“The Peri­od­ic Table of Sto­ry­telling” Reveals the Ele­ments of Telling a Good Sto­ry

Chem­istry on YouTube: “Peri­od­ic Table of Videos” Wins SPORE Prize

Free Online Chem­istry Cours­es

Why AI Companies Are Buying—And Then Destroying—Old Books

We’ve long joked about delay­ing bed­time in order to read the entire inter­net, but the prospect of actu­al­ly doing so does­n’t sound as appeal­ing as it used to. An ever-grow­ing pro­por­tion of text online, we may sense, has­n’t been writ­ten by humans, but gen­er­at­ed by arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence. One solu­tion is to return to read­ing on paper, and beyond that, spend­ing our time only with books pub­lished before the advent — and thus uncor­rupt­ed by the out­put — of large lan­guage mod­els. Iron­i­cal­ly, that’s what large lan­guage mod­els them­selves have had to do, and in order to ensure them a steady diet of man­made text, their own­ers are resort­ing to con­tro­ver­sial­ly destruc­tive meth­ods.

Sus­pi­cions first arose when book deal­ers noticed a spike in their income due to large orders from mys­te­ri­ous buy­ers for titles they assumed they’d nev­er unload. Books on home oxy­gen treat­ment in Italy, mar­riage lit­i­ga­tion in medieval Eng­land, Texas civ­il pro­ce­dure in the twen­ty-tens, Swedish com­e­dy in the six­ties: these enti­ties bought them all, and for what­ev­er price the sell­er hap­pened to be ask­ing.

404 Media reporter Emanuel Maiberg tracked the path of one such book, which even­tu­al­ly wound up at a Las Vegas scan­ning facil­i­ty run by Ama­zon. Though under­gird­ed by advanced tech­nol­o­gy, the work done there is sim­ple: dig­i­tize as many books as pos­si­ble, then destroy them.

“In order to scan them real­ly fast, they cut the spines off the books and fed the pages to the scan­ner,” Maiberg explained to NPR. Many are tech­ni­cal­ly rare, albeit eso­teric obscu­ri­ties like van­i­ty pub­li­ca­tions and old instruc­tion man­u­als rather than first-edi­tion clas­sics. Humans may not val­ue them, but LLMs do: their con­sump­tion fore­stalls “a prob­lem called mod­el col­lapse, where if an AI trains on AI train­ing data, it gets worse.” Ama­zon and Anthrop­ic have both been found to use the book-sac­ri­fic­ing method to har­vest text, but every com­pa­ny with mod­els to train needs a solu­tion. All this makes for “an unusu­al­ly on-the-nose exam­ple of dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy devour­ing lit­er­ary cul­ture,” as the Wall Street Jour­nal’s Melis­sa Korn puts it. But when you real­ly have read the entire inter­net, per­haps extreme mea­sures are inevitable.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How the Inter­net Archive Dig­i­tizes 3,500 Books a Day–the Hard Way, One Page at a Time

Libraries & Archivists Are Dig­i­tiz­ing 480,000 Books Pub­lished in 20th Cen­tu­ry That Are Secret­ly in the Pub­lic Domain

How Will AI Change the World?: A Cap­ti­vat­ing Ani­ma­tion Explores the Promise & Per­ils of Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence

How to Read Many More Books in a Year: Watch a Short Doc­u­men­tary Fea­tur­ing Some of the World’s Most Beau­ti­ful Book­stores

How 99% of Ancient Lit­er­a­ture Was Lost

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Art of Splendor Solis, the Most Glorious Illuminated Alchemical Manuscript of Them All

When it was pub­lished in the Unit­ed States in 1998, Har­ry Pot­ter and the Philoso­pher’s Stone was reti­tled Har­ry Pot­ter and the Sor­cer­er’s Stone. The jokes about the Amer­i­can read­ing pub­lic’s appar­ent aller­gy to the very word philoso­pher write them­selves, but the change was also unfor­tu­nate for more sub­stan­tial rea­sons. A “sor­cer­er’s stone” had no cul­tur­al res­o­nance at all, where­as the philoso­pher’s stone had been sought after since, at the very lat­est, the dawn of the fourth cen­tu­ry. Some sources claim that human knowl­edge of it goes all the way back to Adam, who got the word direct­ly from God. In any case, it’s no mys­tery why the philoso­pher’s stone has long cap­tured the col­lec­tive imag­i­na­tion of human­i­ty, giv­en that it’s reput­ed to turn lead into gold.

Among the rumored pos­ses­sors of the philoso­pher’s stone through­out his­to­ry is Salomon Tris­mosin, a six­teenth-cen­tu­ry Renais­sance alchemist who taught the influ­en­tial physi­cian Paracel­sus. He’s also cred­it­ed, at least in leg­ends, with writ­ing Splen­dor Solis, a book once no less desir­able than the next Har­ry Pot­ter vol­ume in that series’ hey­day.

Noth­ing so mun­dane as “a list of instruc­tions for whip­ping up a lit­tle alchem­i­cal soup in the hope of find­ing a nugget of arti­fi­cial gold in the pot at the end,” writes Jörg Völl­nagel at Medievalists.net, it rather “sets forth the phi­los­o­phy of alche­my, a world view accord­ing to which the human being (the alchemist) exists and acts in har­mo­ny with nature, respect­ing divine cre­ation and at the same time inter­ven­ing in the process­es under­ly­ing that cre­ation, all the while sup­port­ing its growth with the help of alche­my.”

As “a — or rather the – prime exam­ple of an illu­mi­nat­ed alchem­i­cal man­u­script,” Splen­dor Solis has drawn the fas­ci­na­tion of even such mod­ern fig­ures as William But­ler Yeats, James Joyce, and Umber­to Eco. It also became an impor­tant work in the sym­bol­ic-cul­tur­al uni­verse of Carl Jung, who, accord­ing to the Asso­ci­a­tion of Jun­gian Ana­lysts, “rec­og­nized the alchem­i­cal motifs and sym­bols as expres­sions of the indi­vid­u­a­tion process, the trans­for­ma­tion and inte­gra­tion of the psy­che. Splen­dor Solis, with its rich sym­bol­ism and pro­found alle­gories, res­onat­ed with Jung’s under­stand­ing of the arche­typ­al imagery and the trans­for­ma­tive nature of the human psy­che, con­tribut­ing to his the­o­ries on ana­lyt­i­cal psy­chol­o­gy.”

None of this is to say that Jung, or many oth­er esteemed intel­lec­tu­als of the past cou­ple of cen­turies, believed that base met­als real­ly could be trans­mut­ed to gold and sil­ver. But they did under­stand that the phe­nom­e­non of alche­my has much to reveal about the irre­solv­able exis­ten­tial nego­ti­a­tion between man and the world he inhab­its. It res­onates so deeply that it’s even worked in chil­dren’s lit­er­a­ture, and to great com­mer­cial suc­cess at that. You can even feel some of it just by gaz­ing upon Splen­dor Solis’ 22 gold-high­light­ed, book-of-hours-style illus­tra­tions at the web site of M. Moleiro, pub­lish­er of one fac­sim­i­le edi­tion. And who knows? If, as in the world of Har­ry Pot­ter, the philoso­pher’s stone also grants immor­tal­i­ty, per­haps Salomon Tris­mosin still walks some­where among us.

You can view pages of Splen­dor Solis on Wikipedia. Enter the image gallery here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A Gallery of Fan­tas­ti­cal Alchem­i­cal Draw­ings

Isaac Newton’s Recipe for the Myth­i­cal ‘Philosopher’s Stone’ Is Being Dig­i­tized & Put Online (Along with His Oth­er Alche­my Man­u­scripts)

How the Bril­liant Col­ors of Medieval Illu­mi­nat­ed Man­u­scripts Were Made with Alche­my

Videos Recre­ate Isaac Newton’s Neat Alche­my Exper­i­ments: Watch Sil­ver Get Turned Into Gold

Hun­dreds of Medieval Med­ical Man­u­scripts with Strange Cures Get Dig­i­tized & Put Online: From Leech­es to Crushed Weasel Tes­ti­cles

The Vision­ary Mys­ti­cal Art of Carl Jung: See Illus­trat­ed Pages from the Red Book

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Isaac Asimov Explains His Three Laws of Robots: Do No Harm, Follow Orders, Survive, in That Order

A num­ber of futur­ists, philoso­phers, and technophiles believe we are approach­ing what they call the “sin­gu­lar­i­ty”: a point in time when smart machines become much smarter, stronger, and faster than their cre­ators, and then become self-con­scious. What­ev­er the chance of this occur­ring, it’s worth­while to pon­der the con­se­quences. But we do already, all the time—in exis­ten­tial­ly bleak sce­nar­ios like Blade Run­ner, the Ter­mi­na­tor series, the reboot­ed Bat­tlestar Galac­ti­ca (and its failed pre­quel Capri­ca).

The prospects are nev­er pleas­ant. Robot­ic engi­neers in these worlds hard­ly seem to both­er teach­ing their machines the kind of moral code that would keep them from turn­ing and destroy­ing us (that is, when they aren’t explic­it­ly designed to do so).

I won­der about this con­cep­tu­al gap—convenient as it may be in nar­ra­tive terms—given that Isaac Asi­mov, one of the fore­fa­thers of robot fic­tion invent­ed just such a moral code. In the video above, he out­lines it (with his odd pro­nun­ci­a­tion of “robot”). The code con­sists of three laws; in his fic­tion these are hard­wired into each robot’s “positron­ic brain,” a fic­tion­al com­put­er that gives robots some­thing of a human-like con­scious­ness.

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inac­tion, allow a human being to come to harm.

Sec­ond Law: A robot must obey the orders giv­en it by human beings except where such orders would con­flict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must pro­tect its own exis­tence as long as such pro­tec­tion does not con­flict with the First or Sec­ond Law.

Isaac Asi­mov devot­ed a good deal of his writ­ing career to the sub­ject of robots, so it’s safe to say, he’d done quite a bit of think­ing about how they would fit into the worlds he invent­ed. In doing so, Asi­mov had to solve the prob­lem of how robots would inter­act with humans once they had some degree of free will. But are his three laws suf­fi­cient? Many of Asimov’s sto­ries—I, Robot, for example—turn on some fail­ure or con­fu­sion between them. And even for their chase scenes, explo­sions, and melo­dra­ma, the three screen explo­rations of arti­fi­cial life men­tioned above thought­ful­ly exploit philo­soph­i­cal ambi­gu­i­ties and insuf­fi­cien­cies in Asimov’s sim­ple sys­tem.

For one thing, while Asimov’s robots were hunks of met­al, tak­ing only vague­ly humanoid form, the robots of our cur­rent imag­in­ings emerge from an uncan­ny val­ley with real­is­tic skin and hair or even a genet­ic code and cir­cu­la­to­ry sys­tem. They are pos­si­ble sex­u­al part­ners, friends and lovers, co-work­ers and supe­ri­ors. They can deceive us as to their nature (a fourth law by Bul­gar­i­an nov­el­ist Lyuben Dilov states that a robot “must estab­lish its iden­ti­ty as a robot in all cas­es”); they can con­ceive chil­dren or desires their cre­ators nev­er intend­ed. These dif­fer­ences beg impor­tant ques­tions: how eth­i­cal are these laws? How fea­si­ble? When the sin­gu­lar­i­ty occurs, will Skynet become aware of itself and destroy us?

Unlike Asi­mov, we now live in a time where the ques­tions have direct applic­a­bil­i­ty to robots liv­ing among us, out­side the pages of sci-fi. As Japan­ese and South Kore­an roboti­cists have found, the three laws can­not address what they call “open tex­ture risk”— unpre­dictable inter­ac­tions in unstruc­tured envi­ron­ments. Humans rely on nuanced and often pre­con­scious read­ings of com­plex social codes and the fine shades of mean­ing embed­ded in nat­ur­al lan­guage; despite many advances, machines are still catch­ing up. Whether or not they can suc­cess­ful­ly devel­op it is an open ques­tion, mak­ing humanoid robots with arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence an “open tex­ture risk.” But as you can see from the video below, we’re per­haps much clos­er to Blade Run­ner or, of course, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence than to the clunky, inter­stel­lar min­ing machines in Asi­mov’s fic­tion.

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2012.

Relat­ed Con­tent

Isaac Asi­mov Laments the Cult of Igno­rance

200-Year-Old Robots That Play Music, Shoot Arrows & Even Write Poems: Watch Automa­tons in Action

Isaac Asi­mov Reviews George Orwell’s Nine­teen Eighty-Four and Calls It “Not Sci­ence Fic­tion, But a Dis­tort­ed Nos­tal­gia for a Past that Nev­er Was”

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Why Reading Egyptian Hieroglyphics Is Easier Than You Think

We’ve fea­tured Egyp­tol­o­gist Ilona Regul­s­ki here on Open Cul­ture a few times before. Once, she explained how to read ancient Egypt­ian hiero­glyphs; anoth­er time, she told us what the Roset­ta Stone actu­al­ly says. It was, per­haps, inevitable that she would cross paths with Rob Watts, cre­ator of the YouTube chan­nel Rob­Words, whose videos we often post. When he made the jour­ney to Berlin’s Neues Muse­um, and specif­i­cal­ly to its Egypt­ian Muse­um, Regul­s­ki was the expert he sought out to tell him — and us — all about how hiero­glyphs, lit­er­al­ly “sacred carv­ings,” actu­al­ly make words.

Faced with a stone chis­eled full of hiero­glyphs, where do we start? Ancient Egypt­ian texts are all read from top to bot­tom, but some go left to right, and oth­ers right to left. To know which way, Regul­s­ki says, we must first look for sym­bols with a clear front and back, such as those in human or ani­mal shapes.

Some names are writ­ten in blocks, them­selves read from top to bot­tom — unless they con­tain a sign refer­ring to a god, which, of course, gets cus­tom­ar­i­ly ele­vat­ed to the top. But even if we under­stand the exact order in which we should read a giv­en string of hiero­glyphs, the ques­tion remains: how do we actu­al­ly do that read­ing?

Though many hiero­glyphs do appear to be fig­u­ra­tive, with their rec­og­niz­able forms of birds, bugs, arms, legs, and such, only some­times are they meant to rep­re­sent what they look like. Regul­s­ki explains that some of these signs are let­ters, and can be pro­nounced in much the same way as our own alpha­bet. What looks like a mouth sounds like an r; a high­ly abstract­ed bread loaf, t; a horned viper, ph; an owl, m. There is, of course, more to it. Signs can be com­bined not just to indi­cate sound, but also to dis­am­biguate mean­ing. As you may have noticed, hiero­glyph­ic writ­ing is also what Watts calls a “vow­el-free zone.” Exact­ly which of those sounds go where is, like cer­tain oth­er unre­solved aspects of hiero­glyphs, a mat­ter of ongo­ing expert inquiry. But Egyp­tol­o­gists, as see­ing Regul­s­ki in action reminds us, are a ded­i­cat­ed bunch.

Relat­ed con­tent:

How to Read Ancient Egypt­ian Hiero­glyphs: A British Muse­um Cura­tor Explains

How to Carve Hiero­glyphs Just Like the Ancient Egyp­tians Did

You Could Soon Be Able to Text with 2,000 Ancient Egypt­ian Hiero­glyphs

An Ani­mat­ed Intro­duc­tion to the Roset­ta Stone, and How It Unlocked Our Under­stand­ing of Egypt­ian Hiero­glyphs

What the Roset­ta Stone Actu­al­ly Says

What Ancient Egypt­ian Sound­ed Like & How We Know It

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Dolly Parton’s “Jolene” Slowed Down to 33 RPM Sounds Great and Takes on New, Unexpected Meanings (RIP)

Note: We were sad to see the news that Dol­ly Par­ton passed away. Today we are bring­ing back one of our favorite Dol­ly Par­ton posts. She will be missed.

The Wal­rus isDol­ly Par­ton?

Not every record yields gold when played back­wards or spun more slow­ly than rec­om­mend­ed, but a 45 of Parton’s 1973 hit “Jolene” played at 33 RPM not only sounds won­der­ful, it also man­ages to reframe the nar­ra­tive.

As Andrea Den­Hoed notes in The New York­er, “Slow Ass Jolene,” above, trans­forms Parton’s “baby-high sopra­no” into some­thing deep, soul­ful and seem­ing­ly, male.

In its orig­i­nal ver­sion, the much-cov­ered “Jolene” is a straight up woman-to-woman chest-bar­ing. Our nar­ra­tor knows her man is obsessed with the sexy, auburn-haired Jolene, to the point where he talks about her in his sleep.

Appar­ent­ly she also knows bet­ter than to raise the sub­ject with him. Instead, she appeals to Jolene’s sense of mer­cy:

You could have your choice of men

But I could nev­er love again

He’s the only one for me, Jolene

The song is some­what auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal, though the sit­u­a­tion was nowhere near as dire as lis­ten­ers might assume. In an inter­view with NPR, Par­ton recalled a red-haired bank teller who devel­oped a big crush on her hus­band when she was a young bride:

And he just loved going to the bank because she paid him so much atten­tion. It was kin­da like a run­ning joke between us — when I was say­ing, ‘Hell, you’re spend­ing a lot of time at the bank. I don’t believe we’ve got that kind of mon­ey.’ So it’s real­ly an inno­cent song all around, but sounds like a dread­ful one. 

For the record, the teller’s name wasn’t Jolene.

Jolene was a pret­ty lit­tle girl who attend­ed an ear­ly Par­ton con­cert. Par­ton was so tak­en with the child, and her unusu­al name, that she resolved to write a song about her.

Yes, the kid had red hair and green eyes.

Wouldn’t it be wild if she grew up to be a bank teller?

I digress…

In the orig­i­nal ver­sion, the irre­sistible cho­rus where­in the soon-to-be-spurned par­ty invokes Jolene’s name again and again is plain­tive and fierce.

In the slow ass ver­sion, it’s plain­tive and sad.

The pain is the same, but the sit­u­a­tion is much less straight­for­ward, thanks to blur­ri­er gen­der lines.

Par­ton told NPR that women are “always threat­ened by oth­er women, peri­od.”

Jolene’s prodi­gious fem­i­nine assets could also prove wor­ri­some to a gay man whose bisex­u­al lover’s eye is prone to wan­der.

Or maybe the singer and his man live in a place where same-sex unions are frowned on. Per­haps the singer’s man craves the com­fort of a more social­ly accept­able domes­tic sit­u­a­tion.

Or per­haps Jolene is one hot female-iden­ti­fied toma­to, and as far as the singer’s man’s con­cerned, his pas­tor and his granny can go to hell! Jolene’s the only one for him.

Or, as one wag­gish Youtube com­menter suc­cinct­ly put it, “Jolene bet­ter stay the hell away from Roy Orbi­son’s man!”

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

I’m beg­ging of you please don’t take my man

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

Please don’t take him just because you can

Your beau­ty is beyond com­pare

With flam­ing locks of auburn hair

With ivory skin and eyes of emer­ald green

Your smile is like a breath of spring

Your voice is soft like sum­mer rain

And I can­not com­pete with you, Jolene

He talks about you in his sleep

There’s noth­ing I can do to keep

From cry­ing when he calls your name, Jolene

And I can eas­i­ly under­stand

How you could eas­i­ly take my man

But you don’t know what he means to me, Jolene

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

I’m beg­ging of you please don’t take my man

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

Please don’t take him just because you can

You could have your choice of men

But I could nev­er love again

He’s the only one for me, Jolene

I had to have this talk with you

My hap­pi­ness depends on you

And what­ev­er you decide to do, Jolene

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

I’m beg­ging of you please don’t take my man

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

Please don’t take him even though you can

Jolene, Jolene

via @WFMU

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2018.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Feel Strange­ly Nos­tal­gic as You Hear Clas­sic Songs Reworked to Sound as If They’re Play­ing in an Emp­ty Shop­ping Mall: David Bowie, Toto, Ah-ha & More

Hear Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spir­it” Shift­ed from Minor to Major Key, and Radiohead’s “Creep” Moved from Major to Minor

R.E.M.’s “Los­ing My Reli­gion” Reworked from Minor to Major Scale

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and the­ater mak­er in NYC.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

The Wisdom of David Bowie: On Art, Religion, Technology and More

It does­n’t quite ring true to call David Bowie a rock star. Zig­gy Star­dust, the neon syn­thet­ic-clad alien alter ego he both cre­at­ed and retired in the ear­ly sev­en­ties, was, of course, rock star­dom out­landish­ly per­son­i­fied. But then, that was the con­cept of what turned out to be just one of many per­son­ae he delib­er­ate­ly craft­ed through­out the course of his career. That career was in music, pri­mar­i­ly, but look­ing back on it today, more than a decade after Bowie’s death, it looks more like his medi­um was cul­ture itself. That’s under­scored by his inter­views, clips from a vari­ety of which appear in the new video above from YouTube chan­nel T&H Inspi­ra­tion.

Most of T&H’s most pop­u­lar videos add visu­als to speech­es by the pop­u­lar­iz­er of East­ern phi­los­o­phy Alan Watts, who’s been fea­tured here on Open Cul­ture before. He and Bowie had more in com­mon than it may seem at first, begin­ning with an Eng­lish­ness that remained thor­ough­go­ing no mat­ter how far out they ven­tured into the world.

Though Watts’ inter­est in Bud­dhism hard­ly needs stat­ing, it’s worth remem­ber­ing that he chose to be ordained as an Epis­co­palian priest rather than as a Bud­dhist monk. The young Bowie, for his part, very near­ly took the lat­ter path, study­ing under the late Lama Chime Rin­poche, who even­tu­al­ly told him he’d be bet­ter off going into the music busi­ness.

Bowie did so, of course, but with a new “sense of tran­sience and change, which actu­al­ly became fun­da­men­tal to my life and my approach to it,” as he put it decades lat­er. That sense man­i­fests even in his ear­ly work, but embrac­ing and even pur­su­ing imper­ma­nence — the imper­ma­nence of sounds, of fash­ions, of hit records, of life itself — also kept him from get­ting mired in the irrel­e­vance or auto-kitsch that threat­ens every super­star. Giv­en the belief that noth­ing lasts for­ev­er, “look­ing for the source of one’s own being becomes much more impor­tant,” as does attempt­ing artis­tic or intel­lec­tu­al chal­lenges at the very edge of one’s abil­i­ties. Alan Watts would prob­a­bly have agreed. The big­ger ques­tion is, did he ever hear “Changes”?

Relat­ed Con­tent:

David Bowie Offers Advice for Aspir­ing Artists: “Go a Lit­tle Out of Your Depth,” “Nev­er Ful­fill Oth­er People’s Expec­ta­tions”

David Bowie on Why It’s Crazy to Make Art — and We Do It Any­way (1998)

The Art Col­lec­tion of David Bowie: An Intro­duc­tion

David Bowie Pre­dicts the Good & Bad of the Inter­net in 1999: “We’re on the Cusp of Some­thing Exhil­a­rat­ing and Ter­ri­fy­ing”

How Leonard Cohen & David Bowie Faced Death Through Their Art: A Look at Their Final Albums

Stream David Bowie’s Com­plete Discog­ra­phy in a 19-Hour Playlist: From His Very First Record­ings to His Last

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Very First Film Adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a Thomas Edison Production (1910)

The sto­ry of humans cre­at­ing mon­strous beings in their image may have peren­ni­al rel­e­vance, even if it seems spe­cif­ic to our con­tem­po­rary cul­tur­al moment. What, after all, is Oscar Isaac’s AI inven­tor in Ex Machi­na but a 21st-cen­tu­ry update of Vic­tor Franken­stein? (Before Isaac went on to por­tray Vic­tor him­self in Guiller­mo del Toro’s 2025 film adap­ta­tion.) And what is Frankenstein’s mon­ster but a Goth­ic recre­ation of the Golem, or any num­ber of folk­loric automa­tons in cul­tures far and wide? It’s an age-old arche­typ­al sto­ry that seems to get an update every year.

Peo­ple have imag­ined mak­ing arti­fi­cial peo­ple, per­haps for as long as peo­ple have told sto­ries. But each iter­a­tion of that sto­ry emerges from a his­tor­i­cal matrix of par­tic­u­lar tech­no­log­i­cal, philo­soph­i­cal, and meta­phys­i­cal anx­i­eties. In the case of Ex Machi­na, we have not only a think­ing, feel­ing humanoid, but one cre­at­ed out of mass data col­lec­tion and designed to serve the pruri­ent inter­ests of a Niet­zschean ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist engi­neer.

In the orig­i­nal Franken­stein, a nov­el writ­ten by a woman, Mary Shel­ley, we have a very dif­fer­ent kind of mon­ster, born out of a Roman­tic con­ver­gence of inter­est in alche­my and the occult—the orig­i­nal domains of ear­ly mod­ern sci­en­tists like Isaac Newton—and more mod­ern, indus­tri­al sci­en­tif­ic meth­ods (hence the novel’s sub­ti­tle, The Mod­ern Prometheus). Many crit­ics have called the nov­el the first work of sci­ence fic­tion, and many, like Mau­rice Hin­dle in the intro­duc­tion to the Pen­guin Clas­sics edi­tion, have described its main theme as “the aspi­ra­tion of mod­ern mas­culin­ist sci­en­tists to be tech­ni­cal­ly cre­ative divini­ties.”

And yet, writes Ruth Franklin at the New Repub­lic—draw­ing con­vinc­ing­ly on Shelley’s own trau­mat­ic expe­ri­ences with birth—Franken­stein might “also be a sto­ry about preg­nan­cy.” Intrigu­ing as this pos­si­bil­i­ty may be, most inter­pre­ta­tions of the nov­el have seen it as “a fable of mas­cu­line repro­duc­tion, in which a man cre­ates life asex­u­al­ly.” That tra­di­tion con­tin­ues in the movies with the first film adap­ta­tion of Franken­stein, made by Edi­son stu­dios just over 100 years after the novel’s 1818 pub­li­ca­tion.

The 1910 short silent film, which you can watch above, bills itself as “a lib­er­al adap­ta­tion from Mrs. Shel­ley’s famous sto­ry,” and opens in its first scene with Vic­tor Franken­stein leav­ing home for col­lege. Two years lat­er, the Faus­t­ian mad sci­en­tist dis­cov­ers the mys­tery of life, uses the knowl­edge to make his “creature”—a sur­pris­ing­ly grotesque scene—and, appalled at the sight of it, rejects the thing in hor­ror. The rest of the sto­ry pro­ceeds along the usu­al lines, as the mon­ster, in rags and fright wig, seeks recog­ni­tion from his creator/parent and wreaks hav­oc when he does not receive it.

This first Franken­stein film, direct­ed by J. Sear­le Daw­ley, arrived two years after Edis­on’s Bronx, New York stu­dios began full and very lucra­tive oper­a­tions, and, by this time, writes Rich Drees, motion pic­tures had begun to receive unwel­come atten­tion from “moral cru­saders and reform groups, who decried the new medi­um as being dan­ger­ous and encour­ag­ing of immoral­i­ty.” Edi­son respond­ed quick­ly, fear­ing “a seri­ous threat to his bot­tom line,” and ordered that his films’ pro­duc­tion qual­i­ty and “moral tone” be improved.

Franken­stein, writes Drees, “was the per­fect choice to kick off pro­duc­tion under this new moral ban­ner. It’s a sto­ry that deals with the extremes of the human con­di­tion, life and death, and the dan­gers of tam­per­ing in God’s realm.” Edi­son released the film with the fol­low­ing dis­claimer:

To those famil­iar with Mrs. Shelley’s sto­ry it will be evi­dent that we have care­ful­ly omit­ted any­thing which might be any pos­si­bil­i­ty shock any por­tion of the audi­ence. In mak­ing the film the Edi­son Co. has care­ful­ly tried to elim­i­nate all actu­al repul­sive sit­u­a­tions and to con­cen­trate its endeav­ors upon the mys­tic and psy­cho­log­i­cal prob­lems that are to be found in this weird tale. Wher­ev­er, there­fore, the film dif­fers from the orig­i­nal sto­ry it is pure­ly with the idea of elim­i­nat­ing what would be repul­sive to a mov­ing pic­ture audi­ence. 

Five years after the Edi­son stu­dio’s short, anoth­er silent adap­ta­tion, Life With­out Soul, appeared. Made by the Ocean Film Cor­po­ra­tion, this film is now lost to his­to­ry, but it qual­i­fies as the first fea­ture-length adap­ta­tion at 70 min­utes. A review of the film, writes the blog Franken­steinia, “reveals a sto­ry that hews fair­ly close to Mary Shel­ley’s nov­el,” mak­ing a “bold attempt at cap­tur­ing the world-span­ning sweep of the tale.”

Sev­er­al dozen film adap­ta­tions in the ensu­ing years have tracked more or less close­ly to Shel­ley’s narrative—giving Franken­stein’s mon­ster a bride and hav­ing Vic­tor Franken­stein rean­i­mate his dead lover with the mind of a wrong­ly exe­cut­ed man. But none of these films, so far as I know, has drawn out the sub­text of Franken­stein as a nov­el about preg­nan­cy and child­birth. Such an adap­ta­tion remains to be made—although Mag­gie Gyl­len­haal’s 2026 film The Bride! has become the first adap­ta­tion by a woman.

You can find Mary Shel­ley’s Franken­stein in our col­lec­tions of Free eBooks and Free Audio Books.

The film above will be added to our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2016.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The First Hor­ror Film, George Méliès’ The Manor of the Dev­il (1896)

Franken­wee­nie: Tim Bur­ton Turns Franken­stein Tale into Dis­ney Kids Film (1984)

Mary Shelley’s Hand­writ­ten Man­u­scripts of Franken­stein Now Online for the First Time

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC.


  • Great Lectures

  • About Us

    Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.


    Advertise With Us

  • Archives

  • Search

  • Quantcast