| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 |
 |
Another Objectivist at Ford Hall Forum?
By Greg Perkins @ 1:01 AM   
The Ford Hall Forum is a longstanding and prestigious platform for speakers with interesting things to say (like Objectivists Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and Yaron Brook). The Forum sent out an announcement that Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales of Wikipedia fame will be speaking on September 11 in Boston. This caught my eye, not only because I fondly remember Jimbo from Objectivisty circles many years back, but also because it advertises that he is going to talk about how "Objectivist philosophy guides his vision":
Free Speech, Free Minds, Free Markets: Competition and Collaboration
Across the globe we are building, editing, and contributing to a growing body of knowledge and tools at everyone's fingertips. Volunteers in leaderless organizations contribute to online initiatives and articles. Software developers spend their free time collaborating with complete strangers. Amazingly, these efforts are creating products of extraordinary quality, sometimes better than that of large for-profit organizations. Why do we do it? Why does it work? Join us tonight as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales joins journalist Christopher Lydon to address these questions, where "web 2.0" will take us next, and how Objectivist philosophy guides his vision. I would love to ask some questions about how Objectivism guides his vision, but I can't be there. Maybe someone in the NoodleCaboodle could go and ask questions for us and report back! Here are the ones I am curious to hear addressed:
- You refer to Wikipedia as a way to give people free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Yet Wikipedia doesn't even aim to express what is true—it is focused on documenting what people believe, carefully including all the patently silly and downright vicious things people think. That is, Wikipedia strives for neutrality rather than objectivity with regard to the truth of what is claimed. Wouldn't Objectivism inspire you to characterize Wikipedia more accurately as a vast snapshot of what people currently think, good and bad?
- When you ask for contributions to Wikipedia, you seem to frame or at least decorate the appeal in altruistic terms. How does that square with the ethical egoism of Objectivism, which flatly rejects altruism as immoral?
- In your appeal for contributions, you wrote that "This is a radical strike at the heart of an increasingly shallow, proprietary and anti-intellectual culture. ... I hope [my daughter] will grow up in a world where culture is free, not proprietary... We're already taking back the Internet. With your help, we can take back the world." (Emphasis added.) Just what is bad about being proprietary? Wouldn't an Objectivist be supportive of the creator who chooses to profit from the sale of his work, rather than fight against him? And "taking back" seems to imply that something was unjustly taken. The Internet is physically composed of private property (computers, connections) and wasn't taken from you; the information communicated using it wasn't taken from you, either. Wouldn't Objectivism inspire clarifying and reinforcing the intellectual and physical property rights involved—including how they recognize and foster a deep harmony of interests—rather than this talk of "taking back" something that wasn't taken in the first place?
- You recently announced your launch of a Green Wiki. That site explains, "In light of the climate crisis and other ecological challenges increasingly facing us," that it hopes to serve the "people who want to inform themselves and live in a more sustainable way," because "the threats to our environment are real and that they require action." It will be "written from a green point of view," and will focus on detailing such helpful actions as "How to reduce your carbon footprint." How can this initiative of yours be informed by Objectivism, which repudiates the Environmentalist movement as epistemologically, morally, and politically corrupt?
Obviously, I don't understand how Jimbo's actions can be reconciled with Objectivist principles, so I'm surprised to hear that he thinks the philosophy guides his vision. It would be great to see how he addresses this.Labels: Objectivism, Technology, WTF
|
| |
 E-mail Greg Perkins
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [26] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, June 05, 2008 |
|
Property Rights in Outer Space
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:52 AM
There have been a couple of recent articles on extending the concept of private property into outer space. One is from the May 18, 2008 Boston Globe entitled "My Space", and one is from the June 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics entitled "Who Owns the Moon? The Case for Lunar Property Rights". (Both links via Instapundit.)
Here are a couple of noteworthy quotes from the Boston Globe article:There's a variety of opinion as to how extensive extraterrestrial property rights should be - whether to allow, for example, the outright buying and selling of land, or whether to forbid ownership and instead rely on leases, trusts, and easements - but there's nonetheless a growing consensus that some form of space property is inevitable and necessary.
..."Property rights will provide the only economic incentive that will possibly justify entrepreneurial space exploration," says Alan Wasser, chairman of the Space Settlement Institute and the former CEO of the National Space Society. One can legitimately debate the merits of the various proposals to apply the concept of "property rights" to this new realm. But I'm glad that the discussion is at last beginning.
As Ayn Rand noted in her essay, "The Property Status of Airwaves", in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort. The precise and proper application of the concept of property rights to new areas may require some hard intellectual work. For instance, the guidelines for the airwaves are different than for real estate. Similarly, the rules for intellectual property in the era of easy internet dissemination of MP3's may be different than the rules for tangible objects. But as long as men need to think and use their minds in order to create the values necessary for life, the broad principles and justifications for property rights will always apply.Labels: Law, Technology
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [3] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, April 18, 2008 |
|
Elevators
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:09 AM
You'll learn more about elevators than you ever wanted to know in this New Yorker article: Up and Then Down. The article includes the story of Nicholas White, who was trapped for 41 hours without any food or water in an elevator. It's pretty horrific, if you concretely imagine what that would be like. You can even help your imagination by watching this time-lapse video of him stuck in the elevator.
I ride the elevators at CU Boulder pretty frequently. Kate accompanies me teach my classes at CU Boulder every Tuesday and Thursday. (She's perfectly well-behaved, she needs the exercise, and she loves to come with me.) She's too old and creaky to go up and down the stairs, so we take the elevators. After reading that article, though, I'll never ride an elevator again without a working cell phone!Labels: Personal, Technology
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, March 27, 2008 |
|
Long Distance Wi-Fi
By Paul Hsieh @ 6:42 AM
This is just friggin' awesome:Long-Distance Wi-Fi
Intel has found a way to stretch a Wi-Fi signal from one antenna to another located more than 60 miles away.
Intel has announced plans to sell a specialized Wi-Fi platform later this year that can send data from a city to outlying rural areas tens of miles away, connecting sparsely populated villages to the Internet. The wireless technology, called the rural connectivity platform (RCP), will be helpful to computer-equipped students in poor countries, says Jeff Galinovsky, a senior platform manager at Intel. And the data rates are high enough--up to about 6.5 megabits per second--that the connection could be used for video conferencing and telemedicine, he says.
The RCP, which essentially consists of a processor, radios, specialized software, and an antenna, is an appealing way to connect remote areas that otherwise would go without the Internet, says Galinovsky. Wireless satellite connections are expensive, he points out. And it's impractical to wire up some villages in Asian and African countries. "You can't lay cable," he says. "It's difficult, expensive, and someone is going to pull it up out of the ground to sell it."
...Importantly, the devices require relatively little power. Running two or three radios in a link, Galinvosky says, requires about five to six watts. This makes it possible to power the radios using solar energy. Labels: Technology
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, January 11, 2008 |
|
More Cool Nuclear Technology
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:17 AM
Who wouldn't want one of these?A Battery That Can Power a Whole Town
Nuclear "batteries" are nothing new. Energy from a fist-size lump of plutonium has powered the Voyager spacecraft for 25 years. And tiny specks of the stuff kept pacemakers ticking for decades. Now, Hyperion Power Generation (HPG) is developing a nuclear battery capable of powering a town. The size of a hot tub, it can put out more than 25 megawatts for five years, enough to run 25,000 homes.
Building on technology developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Santa Fe (N.M.) startup's battery runs on uranium hydride, which acts as fuel and also regulates power output, making it virtually impossible for the battery to suffer a meltdown. With no moving parts to break or corrode, HPG's batteries can be buried in the earth for added security and safety. Their small size makes them easy to install and, later, to remove and refuel, cutting out the need to handle radioactive materials on site.
HPG plans to sell its first units to towns and industrial operations not connected to the grid. The company estimates lifetime costs for its battery will be a fraction of the price to build and run a natural gas plant with the same capacity. Backed by venture capital from Altira, HPG could have its batteries ready in six years. (Via Transterrestrial Musings.)Labels: Environmentalism, Technology
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Tuesday, January 01, 2008 |
|
The Wrong Way to Defend Intellectual Property Rights
By Paul Hsieh @ 2:07 PM
Update: Newsfactor.com is reporting that the Washington Post has misreported part of their story, and that Jeffrey Howell is being sued for ripping his own CD's onto his computer hard drive and placing them onto his shared folder for distribution to the rest of the world through the Kazaa file sharing system.
Obviously this changes the merits of that particular lawsuit. (It doesn't change the error of the Sony lawyer Jennifer Pariser's statements also cited in the WaPo story.)
=====
I am a firm believer in intellectual property rights, including copyright. However, when the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) takes ridiculously wrong legal positions in their supposed "defense" of copyright, it merely confuses and alienates honest consumers. A recent article in the Washington Post summarizes some of the statements that recording industry lawyers have made condemning the entirely legitimate practice of taking a music CD that one has legally purchased and transferring a copy onto one's own home computer or MP3 player for personal use (i.e., not for widespread distribution to others):In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
...The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.
But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording. To make things worse, the RIAA used to explicitly endorse the practice they are now condemning. A few years ago, they stated on their official website (and still available via the Web Archive):If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But that language has since then been removed from their current website.
The danger is that when an organization like the RIAA overstates its case by making such egregiously bad claims about intellectual property rights, it merely undercuts the validity of the concept in the average readers' minds. An average consumer might easily (and with some partial justification) conclude, "If 'copyright' means that I can't listen to my own legally-purchased album on my own iPod, then screw it - I won't respect copyrights!"
Of course, the correct approach to combating illegal and immoral "file sharing" of copyrighted material is not to make a bogus defense of property rights, but to make a genuine principled defense that incorporates the relevant technological facts about these issues.
For instance Dr. Leonard Peikoff's briefly discusses this issue on his website (in the entry dated April 12, 2007), and arrives at a better conclusion, based on the distinction between form and content:Q: On Copyrights:
1. Under a proper capitalist government, if you buy CDs where the only contract term is "Copyright, All Rights Reserved," would it be legal--and moral--to copy those CDs, that one has already bought and paid for, to one's own iPod?
A: First, a caveat: I have not thought much about issues in the philosophy of law. So some of the following is only my best ideas given limited knowledge.
I agree with your earlier general statement that creators have a moral right to set whatever conditions they want, rational or otherwise, in regard to the use of their property. As you say: "copyright owners have the right to control the act of copying as such. In support of this is the idea that their property rights cannot be limited, and that the copyright owners created the value of the music in the first place."
However, if you ask me what is the rational policy in this issue, my answer involves a distinction between form and matter -- i.e., changing the medium or organization of a purchased work in order to make its content more conveniently accessible to the buyer; vs. duplicating the purchased work (which is what I myself call "copying"). E.g., scanning OPAR into your computer in order to adjust the font vs. making a copy of the purchased book, so that you have two of the very books on sale in the store. I regard the first as, in essence, a transfer of content already paid for, and thus justified; while the second is unjustified: if you buy a book, you are not and should not be authorized to become a manufacturer of it, whether of 1 or 1,000 more copies.
The same applies to CDs. I think you have a right to transfer the content to an iPod, or to transfer excerpts from different CDs onto one CD; but I do not think you have a right to "copy" them in the sense of manufacturing duplicates of the original CDs. I believe Dr. Peikoff's position is essentially correct, and that form-content distinction is an important one.
There are some interesting side issues that he didn't address that might be worthy of further analysis. For instance, does creating a physical backup copy of a CD of music or software that one has legitimately purchased (purely as a precaution in case that the original is accidentally damaged or destroyed) count as "manufacturing" in the sense that he means? Provided that one keeps that backup copy in a safe place unused (as opposed to giving/selling it to others for their use), I think this would be legitimate. Most software producers allow or even encourage this practice, and I think it would be a reasonable practice for musical content as well.
Similarly, does burning a duplicate physical copy of a music CD so that one can keep one copy in the upstairs music CD player and a second copy downstairs or in one's car (again purely for personal use as opposed to giving/selling to others) count as "manufacturing"? Also, is the intended user (i.e., personal use vs. giving/selling to others) the critical distinction as well? I freely admit that I don't have fully worked out positions on some of these questions of how best to apply the broad principle of copyright to specific scenarios in this era of easy digital duplication and dissemination.
Overall, I think Dr. Peikoff is on the right track with this type of analysis, and this is the correct approach to take, rather than the concrete-bound approach of the RIAA ("copying" = "stealing") which merely undercuts respect for property rights.
I would love to see more work by Objectivists on the nature and proper justification of intellectual property rights, such as Greg Perkins' essay, "Don't Steal This Article!" or Ayn Rand's own "Patents and Copyrights" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Michigan State law professor Adam Mossoff has also written a number of articles on intellectual property available on SSRN. More such work would be a welcome contribution to the often-contentious and confused discussions in the mainstream media about these important issues.Labels: Law, Technology
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [7] (New Page)
|
|
| Saturday, December 29, 2007 |
|
Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:52 AM
Here is an interesting list of failed predictions about future technology:1. "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.
2. "We will never make a 32 bit operating system." -- Bill Gates
3. "Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public ... has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company ..." -- a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.
4. "There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States." -- T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).
5. "To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." -- Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926
6. "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere." -- New York Times, 1936.
7. "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible." - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.
8. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.
9. "There will never be a bigger plane built." -- A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people
10. "Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years." -- Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.
11. "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy during World War II, advising President Truman on the atomic bomb, 1945.[6] Leahy admitted the error five years later in his memoirs
12. "The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." -- Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.
13. "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932
14. "The cinema is little more than a fad. It's canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage." -- Charlie Chaplin, actor, producer, director, and studio founder, 1916
15. "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad." -- The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903
16. "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." -- Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.
17. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876).
18. "The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most." -- IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959.
19. "I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea." -- HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901.
20. "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.
21. "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous." -- Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916.
22. "How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense." -- Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat, 1800s.
23. "Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).
24. "Home Taping Is Killing Music" -- A 1980s campaign by the BPI, claiming that people recording music off the radio onto cassette would destroy the music industry.
25. "Television won't last. It's a flash in the pan." -- Mary Somerville, pioneer of radio educational broadcasts, 1948.
26. "[Television] won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." -- Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.
27. "When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it." - Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson
28. "Dear Mr. President: The canal system of this country is being threatened by a new form of transportation known as 'railroads' ... As you may well know, Mr. President, 'railroad' carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by 'engines' which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed." -- Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York, 1830(?).
29. "Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." -- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
30. "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?" -- Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter's call for investment in the radio in 1921. (Via Fark.)Labels: Funny, Technology
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [6] (New Page)
|
|
|
| | |
Diana Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
Greg Perkins
Paula Hall
Guest NoodleFoodlers
Gina Liggett
Roderick Fitts
Brandon Byrd
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
Posts by E-Mail
NoodleFoodlers
Archives
Ask a Question
Blogger Trackbacks
Technorati Trackbacks
Reader Map
OActivists E-mail List
OBloggers E-mail List
OAcademics E-mail List
Ayn Rand Lexicon
False Objectivism Collection
The Objective Standard
The Undercurrent
Ayn Rand Institute
Ayn Rand Society
DC Objectivist Salon
Front Range Objectivism
Coalition for Secular Government
Vote No on 48
Vote No on 59
Repeal the Bailout
EPA Ruination
FIRM (Freedom and
Individual Rights in Medicine)
Diana's NetFlix Friends
Paul Hsieh's GeekPress
Meredith Brickell Ceramics
The Balboa Experiment
GeekPress
Politics without God
We Stand FIRM
Principles in Practice
The Undercurrent
Daily Improvisation
Flibbertigibbet
Gus Van Horn
Rule of Reason
Ari Armstrong
Free Colorado
Rational Jenn
Myrhaf
Ms. Think
Spark A Synapse
TUAW
Mac Gems
Mac OS X Tips
O'Reilly Mac Blog
Go Fug Yourself
waiterrant.net
Overheard at College
Overheard in New York
Whedonesque
Volokh Conspiracy
TheAgitator.com
Marginal Revolution
Little Green Footballs
Instapundit.com
Michael Eades
Free the Animal
Whole Health Source
Modern Forager
Art De Vany
Mark's Daily Apple
Heart Scan
IF Life
Go Frolic
My Paleo Kitchen
Artsy-Foodie
Fitness Fixation
Fitness Spotlight
CrossFit
Valhalla CrossFit
Travels with Daisy
Jamie's Travel Log
Lifehacker
43 Folders
Daytipper
3 Things Today
LifeHack
GTD in Academia
DIY Life
Steve Pavlina
Thrutch
The Hoondat Report
Software Nerd
The Edge of Reason
Patient Power
One Reality
Valzhalla
Galileo Blogs
3 Ring Binder
The Little Things
Optional Values
Aesthetic Capitalist
Wayne's Dirty Lab
Lyle's Blog
Robbservations
Making Progress
Applying Philosophy
The Eleutherian Laureate
Individualist Outlook
Kindredist
Born to Identify
Try Reason!
Erosophia
Pedagogically Correct
History At Our House
Non-Trivial Pursuit
Haight Speech
TalkObjectivism
Leitmotif
Shaving Leviathan
Personal Development
Philosopher Stone
Rhyme of the Day
Mudita Journal
Shawn Klein
Wall of Separation
The Torch
Capitalism Magazine
Dynamist Blog
Deep Glamour
Fly Bottle
Joanne Jacobs
Tim Sandefur
Tom G Palmer
Liberty and Power
Positive Liberty
Daily Dish
EconLog
Randex
Talking To Myself
Secular Foxhole
Acid Free Paper
Mike's Eyes
Capitalist Lion
The American Individualist
Armchair Intellectual
Literatrix
Witch Doctor Repellent
Benevolent Misanthropy
Truth, Justice...
Philosophical Detective
Classical Values
One Minute Case
Francisco Gutierrez
PhilosopherEagle
noumenalself
Ad Hoc
Alexander Marriott
KatieAllisonGranju.com
Tightly Wound
Cranky Professor
Discriminations
Leiter Reports
Wickens.ca
Stark Relief
Passing Thoughts
USS Clueless
Anger Management
Cox & Forkum
Semper Vigilo
Abandon Caution
Purr Se
Tom Rowland
American Individualist
peltz at hand
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
|
