Thursday, November 23, 2006
Never sleep again.
If you've read this blog long enough to know my feelings on sleep, then you'll easily predict my ecstatic reaction to the information found
in this news item on New Scientist.
Modafinil is just the first of a wave of new lifestyle drugs that promise to do for sleep what the contraceptive pill did for sex - unshackle it from nature. Since time immemorial, humans have structured their lives around sleep. In the near future, we will, for the first time, be able to significantly structure the way we sleep to suit our lifestyles.
"The more we understand about the body's 24-hour clock the more we will be able to override it," says Russell Foster, a circadian biologist at Imperial College London. "In 10 to 20 years we'll be able to pharmacologically turn sleep off. Mimicking sleep will take longer, but I can see it happening." Foster envisages a world where it's possible, or even routine, for people to be active for 22 hours a day and sleep for two.
They say this drug, and others being developed, are just perfect in every way. They let you sleep real sleep; not just the addictive, knock out drug junk on the market now. Other drugs will let you get less rest and still feel refreshed, and the future might even hold implanted knock out switches that would instantly put you to sleep or wake you up.
Sure, it would suck to be the slave laborer hooked up to one of these, as you’re made to work 22 hours a day, but let's just pretend it won't be misused and will actually work as hoped; what a joy it would be to have 20 or more hours a day to do stuff in? Yeah, these drugs will probably take 10 years off your life, but if you get 4-6 hours a day more activity now, in your prime, you'd still come out ahead on total waking time, eh?
The question though, is are they permanent? Can you go off the drugs and get good sleep; 8+ hours if you're on vacation or catching up over a holiday (like say Thanksgiving, as my 10 hours last night attest) or just want to luxuriate one day? Or would you sleep 5 hours and be wide awake at 4am without any chance of sleeping again for at least a day?
I'm certainly not counting on this sort of thing working in the immediate future, but I do love the idea, as much as I dislike the many wasted hours I spend sleeping. Hell, if I had another 2-4 hours every day of waking life, I'd actually find the time to play computer games, or update this blog regularly again!
Labels: sleep
Friday, November 17, 2006
Play Station 3 Fun.
Though the day when I have interest or time to play a new computer game, much less buy a console and play games on it, twinkles in the future like some distant, delictable, cheese-flavored star, I am vaguely aware of developments in the retail sector, and that the PS3 is new and just released. True, most of what I know about it comes from peripheral mentions on Penny Arcade, but
today's post there is full of amusing links. Far fewer PS3s in the market than promised, Sony doesn't care about technical problems with backwards compatibility, there are inexcusable display problems on 720i HD TVs, few decent titles at launch, most launch titles look worse than they do on the PC, and so on. Basically Sony rushed out an unfinished product that doesn't work right, with few games to play on it, and counted on American consumers' greed for something new to propell sales. And they were right to do it, as idiots line (
and get shot) up overnight nationwide.
The saddest part is that for every eager kid who wants to play on the new machine (and who would be far better off just playing computer games until about February, when more PS3s hit and some decent games are released), two are sold to speculating assholes who only want to turn a profit. How are they doing? Well, check out eBay and the endless list of
$3000 PS3 auctions, and you'll get an idea. I don't even know what the thing's suggested retail is; $500 or something like that, but the fact that people are willing to pay 4-6x store price rather than just waiting a month until more of them hit the market amazes me. Then again, I spent several days and hundreds of dollars driving down to E3 in LA to play HGL in pre-beta state, so who am I to criticize?
Labels: ps3
Friday, November 10, 2006
Jailhouse makeover?
Finally, a way to convince the teenaged girl in your life that maybe they shouldn't wear the exact same tacky raccoon eye makeup and hoop earrings as every other girl their age -- prison via mistaken identity!
The 17-year-old girl who was wrongly locked in jail for seven days might be feeling terribly lucky. Amanda Sylvester might still be in jail, facing criminal charges that included aiding and abetting a robbery, were it not for an anonymous tip to a Crimestopper hotline.Her arrest and arraignment stemmed from mistaken identity, according to Lieutenant Rick Ryan of the North Platte Police Department. One of the men involved in the recent robbery of a Kwik Shop identified Sylvester through a photograph, but said he didn't know her name.
Amanda Sylvester was not involved in the robbery," Ryan said. "We have no information or any reason to believe that Amanda is involved in drugs or any illegal activity. We are horribly sorry about what happened."
People are going to blame the police on this one, but really, can you blame them? They had an eyewitness, and even know the truth, can you tell those two apart? I read the article twice and I still have no idea which one's guilty of the crime. They're both guilty of bad eyeliner, but that's not currently a jailable offense, unfortunately.
Labels: criminals
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Republican-favoring polls?
Prior to Tuesday's election, many right wing commenters made claims that polls were wrong and skewed and that they favored Democrats and were just more evidence of the vast left wing media conspiracy. The media, they claimed, was exaggerating Democratic leads in an effort to discourage Republicans from voting. (Of course if the polls had had Repubs ahead, the same commentors could/would have said the liberal media was doing that in order to motivate Democrats to vote and to give Repubs complacency.)
The money quote from useful idiot Hugh Hewitt:
I get a lot of e-mail asking me why I point to polls like the one favoring Steele when I discount some polls favoring some Democrats.
Because this question comes mostly from lefties, I will pause to explain in as uncomplicated a fashion as possible.
Polling methodology and models favors Democrats.
So polls that show Republicans tied or ahead I see as indicating a race in which the Republican is in the lead.
Polls that show a Republican within striking distance I see as a poll indicating a dead heat.
It shouldn't be that hard to grasp, even for a lefty.
Now that the election is over and we've got actual voting totals to look at, who was correct? Unsurprisingly, not Hugh Hewit. As
Glenn Greenwald documents, the polls were quite accurate, and when they were wrong, the error was on the side of Republicans. In Rasmussen's closest 11 senate races, 2 were picked correctly, 2 were 1% and 2% off towards the Democrat, and the other 9 all erred towards the Republican, several by substantial amounts; 5%, 5%, and 7%. Real Clear Politics averages polls from across the country, and their results for these same 11 Senate races erred to the Repub side on 8 of the 11, and when they erred toward Democrat it was by just 1-3%.
Anyway, go read the whole post if you want more; I'm just restating at this point. It's fun to gloat now, but also reflect on the ever-increasing truth of Steven Colbert's immortal, "reality has a well-known liberal bias" line.
Labels: glenn greenwald, politics
Atheism in 2006
Good article on Wired I've been meaning to blog about for a while. It's about the "New Atheists" AKA The Church of the Non-Believers.
"There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," [Richard Dawkins] said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."
Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?
Basic principles of reality and disbelief aside, he makes some interesting comments about the number of people who are privately atheistic, but publicly devout, or at least secretive about their lack of faith.
"The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says. "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."
Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected."
When atheists finally begin to gain some power, what then? Here is where Dawkins' analogy breaks down. Gay politics is strictly civil rights: Live and let live. But the atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative. Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.
After starting off with the polarizing, take-no-prisoners guys who argue that not only is religion pointless, but that people who belive in it need to be corrected and ridiculed for their foolishness, the article moves a survey of more mainstream atheists, who correctly point out that the hardcore guys are political suicide. What would a world without religion look like? How best to advance non-belief amongst the uneducated horeds? Should it be advanced, with religion often needed to control restive populations? Check out the article, it goes on for some length and is an excellent and informative read.
Labels: atheism, richard dawkins, the flying spaghetti monster
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The American Taliban Goes Down
I didn't know what to post in my glee at the Republicans losing control of both the House and Senate, but I'll assume you've read about it elsewhere by now. Mixed in with the fun of an anti-Republican landslide election, there's
good news in the culture wars too.
From the country's heartland, voters sent messages that altered America's culture wars and dismayed the religious right - defending abortion rights in South Dakota, endorsing stem cell research in Missouri, and, in a national first, rejecting a same-sex marriage ban in Arizona.
As you might expect, the right wing nuts who back this midieval legislation aren't exactly taking defeat graciously.
"While South Dakotans fought valiantly to defend their babies, we once again witnessed an almost total lack of support from the national leadership," Euteneuer said.
The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue said the election results meant any legislation from Congress restricting abortion would be ``virtually impossible'' for the next two years.
"America has voted and the bloody results have placed the most vulnerable among us, the pre-born, in the crosshairs for continued extermination," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Wow, way to reach out to moderates, guys. Enjoy two years of diminshing influence and watching your criminal benefactors in government indicted and/or imprisoned. The new year is going to be damn near delightful, once the suponeas start flying and war profiteering/Republican donating heads start rolling.
Labels: abortion, politics
Monday, November 06, 2006
Borat Great Success. High Five! Make Sexy-Time Many Dollar!
Sorry about the title, but I wanted to get all the catch phrases we're all going to be sick of in two weeks out of the way right at the start. As I hinted at a few days ago, Malaya and me did get to the theater this weekend. We weren't the only ones either, as Borat opened to
a tremendous $26m from just 837 theaters. That's over $31k per theater, more than 6x the per-theater gross of any other film this weekend. We saw it early Saturday evening in a good-sized theater that was at least 75% full, and even with three theaters showing it in the megaplex we trafficked, I wouldn't be surprised if they sold out the prime time shows.
I'd been wondering how the box office would do. Borat's enjoyed tremendous publicity, both free and paid, but I thought it might be another Snakes on a Plane; all Internet hype that resulted in a shit movie that underperformed. Much of Borat's hype was based on rave reviews though, and apparently it translated into actual fannies in actual seats.
As for the film itself... it wasn't great. Malaya was amused but somewhat bored, and while I laughed out loud quite a bit, I wished there'd been more of a plot to tie everything together. Like most comedies, it's basically a bunch of wacky episodes that are stitched together in no particular order to form a final film. Most of them are funny, and you know where the film is going right from the start, but I greeted the climax and conclusion with an, "Okay, let's see what happens next." attitude, rather than any real anticipation or excitement. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't read so many previews and known half the jokes in advance. On the other hand, I enjoyed anticipating lots of the laughs since I knew some of what was coming. I laughed as much as anyone there, though, but I laugh out lout at lots of stupid things, and I'm not real shocked by things that had some other people staring in amazed silence, so anyway.
I was relieved that the film wasn't a bunch of long, painful candid camera scenes. It's amazing how fast things keep moving; most of the segments are literally 1-2 minutes long, and some are much shorter. I'd heard about the Alan Keyes interview and wondered/dreaded how Borat would get a rise out of that certified nutcase. And then I saw the film and Keyes was on screen for maybe 15 seconds. I still think Borat is funnier in concept and memory than actuality, but it was worth seeing, and I hope to have time to write a fuller review later this week.
Labels: borat, movies
Starving with style.
Want to lose weight, get healthier, and live to be oh... 160? Spit out that left over Halloween candy and start counting calories.
No, really.
"Michael's dinner is always 639 calories," April explains, eyes on the screen while her fingers dance across the keyboard, tweaking portions. She makes the job look easier than it can possibly be, like one of those kids who can solve a Rubik's Cube in under a minute. "I'm so used to doing this now. If I need more protein, I add more protein. If I need a little bit more carb, I add more strawberry. Ohhh, and I forgot the ricotta for the dessert... see? Now I have to mess with it. So 45 calories of nonfat ricotta, so I have to take out some protein, so I need to take out another scallop from the salad. Take out some strawberries from the dessert..."
This comes from a long and quite readable article about the Ultra Extreme Calorie-Restriction Diet, a sub-2000 calorie a day program the author of the piece, semi-famous
MMORPG econ guy Julian Dibbell lost twenty pounds on over the two months prior to the big dinner party detailed in the article. How do people on this diet look?
There's no mistaking the peculiarly lean little crowd gathered here, and the recognition is mutual. Paul, blue-blazered, gray-haired, with the face and gaze of a preppy Don Knotts and the approximate body-mass index of a Noguchi floor lamp (five foot eleven, 137 pounds), gives me a once-over and grins... Michael, stands beside her at the ready: a boyish-looking 35-year-old with brush-cut red hair, translucently pale skin, and-at six feet tall and 115 pounds-an eerily spare physique.
Divide Michael's weight by the square of his height and you get a body-mass index of 15.6. Compare that with the minimum BMI of 18 recently decreed by the organizers of the Madrid Fashion Week -- who cited the World Health Organization’s definition of 18.5 as the lower limit of healthy weight and offered medical assistance to any models who couldn't meet it -- and you might wonder how Michael can stand up in the morning, let alone jog twenty miles a week. But jog he does, and if the results of both his latest physical and the latest CR research are anything to go by, Michael is probably one of the healthiest 35-year-olds on the planet.
The diet is a highly scientific one, with nutrients measured to the percentage point, and it absolutely works. Everyone who sticks to it loses weight, cuts their cholesterol, improves their eyesight, ends other health problems, and so on. No one has stuck with it long enough to know how it works on human longevity, but it extends the life span of rats, mice, and numerous other lab animals by 50% or more, and there's no scientific reason that shouldn't apply to humans, even though one has yet figured out exactly why it extends life so much.
Sticking to it is obviously the hard part, and while Dibbell lasted two months and lost twenty pounds, the dinner party was a sort of sanity check that led him to immediate dietary insanity.
Late in the morning on the first day after my dinner party, I awaken hungry, go downstairs, walk into the first McDonald's I encounter, and consume, for breakfast, an entire Quarter Pounder with cheese and a 12-ounce chocolate triple-thick shake. Later, at the cocktail hour, I drink several Cuba Libres and eat cheese-laden canapes to my heart's content. For dinner, I stop in at Katz's Delicatessen on Houston Street and ingest one half of a two-inch-thick pastrami on rye, half a corned-beef sandwich just as massive, several pickled tomatoes, and a cream soda, and only after eating a slab of chocolate-coated Haagen-Dazs ice cream on a stick at bedtime do I begin to feel the first, light pangs of queasiness. For the first time in 63 days, I end the day without the slightest idea how many calories I ate or the least desire to know.
The diet is interesting, since it directly confronts the common human desire to live forever. How badly do you really want immortality, or at least another 40-50 years? Badly enough to never gorge again? To cut out all candy bars and sodas and beers and second helpings? To give up any intense physical activity? To measure out your every meal and portion precisely, both by weight and nutritional content? For most people, me included, the answer is definitely no. We're all much more comfortable living in denial, eating what we like, encouraging ourselves by looking at really unhealthy people, and hoping for some miracle scientific breakthrough not only in our lifetimes, but while we're young enough to appreciate it. Go go scientists!
Labels: diet, immortality
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Fill 'er up?
Earlier this week I stopped at a gas station in a pretty bougie part of town at around 10:30pm. Coming home from a thing, Malaya was not with me, and I had no cash so I used a credit card to pay at the pump. As I pull up and get out some random woman starts yelling at me from a bench near the gas station door. I couldn't really hear her with traffic going by, and I didn't really want to hear her, since she was sitting with some guy and I figured they were just weird homeless people. You know, the kind who hang around gas stations late at night and yell at motorists. I figured they were a couple and they were about to panhandle spare change, or say that their car was out of gas and they'd been robbed and that they needed a few bucks to get home, etc.
I was surprised when she got up and started walking over towards me, and the guy she was with detoured to the dumpster with a trash bag in his hand. He was the cashier, I could see, and she gave him a wave and said goodbye as he went back into the minimart and she closed in on me. The woman was relatively young, 20ish perhaps, very thin, white, long dark hair, wearing jeans and boots and some sort of white/gray sweater/wrap. Not unattractive, but she was smoking, which is a huge turn off for me, and she gave off a very dizzy, half-stoned vibe, which is another big turn off. Not that it matters, since I'm happy with Malaya, but just trying to give an honest appraisal of the woman. If I were single I'd have been interested in her in another situation, but never stumbling towards me at a gas station like that.
Once she was in ear range she said, "Do you know where any parties are? It's so boring here."
So you're a whore, I thought, as I replied. "I don't live around here, so I don't really know where anything is. The college that way must have something going on; there are dorms."
She had stopped a few feet away from me, blocked from further progress by my open car door, which was touching the gas pump. I was standing behind it, with my gas tank on the driver's side, so she was arm's reach from me, but my car door was between us.
"Oh yeah. I go to that college." she said, then kind of trailed off with a shrug. "It's boring though," she added after a moment, when I said nothing more and put the gas pump back once my tank was full, then tried again. "Do you know where any parties are?"
I said that I didn't and that I lived over in the East Bay, and wished her luck finding a party. As I put my gas cap back on and it became clear to her that I wasn't going to hit on her or ask her if she wanted a ride, she got a bit more animated and mumbled something along the lines of, "Well thanks. High five!"
She actually raised her right hand up over her head, Borat style. I gave her a high five as I got into my car, just on the principle that it's easier to humor crazy people than argue with them, and she met my hand with her surprisingly-warm palm, then gripped my fingers for a moment, until I pulled them away.
She tried one last time, with something along the lines of, "You're sure you don't know where any parties are?" and since my getaway seemed sure, I threw her a pity bone. "If I didn't have a girlfriend I might be able to show you." I mumbled as I slid into my seat, slammed the door, and zoomed away before she threw herself onto my hood or something. I saw her watching me go in my rear view mirror, and was glad when the first light was green and I was able to put a couple of blocks between me and the gas station, just in case.
When I got home I asked Malaya, "When a strange girl walks up to you at a gas station late at night and asks if you know where a party is, she want's to give you a blow job, right?" Malaya assured me that yes, it meant she did, and thusly reassured, I went about the remainder of my evening with a glad heart, and only a few fleeting thoughts of what sort of trucker/escaped con might currently be sodomizing that skinny girl's still-warm corpse.
On a more serious note, I wonder what was up with her. She wasn't dirty or homeless looking, and she said she went to college, and she wasn't ugly. So what was she doing roaming around the streets at that hour, trying to pick up gas station attendents, and then random guys in cars? And trying it in such a classless, yet non-slutty fashion? I got the impression she wanted someone, anyone, to keep her company and maybe buy her dinner, and that she was more than willing to pay for said company with vagina dollars. If so, why not just go all out and whip out her titties, or pantomime thumb-sucking, or straight out ask a guy if he wants to have sex? Not that "Do you want to party." is much of a euphenism.
She wasn't giving off a whore vibe, though. Maybe she was too stoned, or maybe she was a real woman who had recently decided on a career change and didn't quite now how to go about acting the part, or maybe she was just really unhappy and lonely and didn't know what else to do with herself, but her approach was a mess. At a bar she could have just thrown some smoldering looks and had plenty of guys working to pick her up, and at a truck stop she'd have been fine with her current approach. But at a gas station in a good part of town she was a fish out of water; so forward that non-sleazy guys would be suspicious. I certainly was, and even if I were single I wouldn't have tarried with her. I would have expected AIDS exposure at best and a bitten off penis or carjacking attempt at worst.
I am curious about how her evening ended, though. I almost wish I'd had time and money and interest enough to take her to a Denny's or something and put some pancakes in her emaciated frame while I asked her what the hell a cute, moneyed, white university student was doing all-but-turning tricks at a Arco at 10:30 on a Thursday night.
Labels: dating, odd social interactions
Borat!
You've undoubtedly heard about Borat by now. I've been following the movie's progress since I first read about preview audiences convulsing with hilarity at film festivals, and I think
the trailer is a masterpiece. I wasn't really planning on seeing it though, since I usually find that sort of Punked/candid camera stuff annoying. I hate dealing with idiots and their bullshit in real life, and when I see someone having to deal with it on film, I just want to kill the imposter and allow the victims to continue their lives unmolested.
Borat seems to take the concept to another level though, and the outrageously positive reviews (
96% 120/125 positive on RT), many of them saying it's one of/the funniest movie ever made, are swaying us. Damn near the whole movie can be seen in
clips in YouTube, and while she's not watched any of those, Malaya is getting interested in it, which means we might go see it this weekend.
Labels: borat
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Kerry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot
As we enter the homestretch (just one week to go, mercifully) towards an election that every indicator says will be an
historic Democratic victory, and the Republicans are crippled by Bush's horrible approval rating, general discontent over the quagmire in Iraq, and endless Republican financial and sex scandals, John Kerry mistates something in a speech that gives the right wing and mainstream media something to obsess over. Kerry's sin, as
reported by ABC News: Kerry said:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Kerry's office has released the following as what they claim are the actually lines prepared for the delivery of the Angelides speech:
"It's great to be here with college students. I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Kerry was trying to make a joke against Bush, and by leaving off a few words it sounds like he made a joke about our armed forces being full of people who slacked off in school and had to join the military since they couldn't afford college or get a real job. The right wing media and Republicans of course leapt all over this one, since they make a living being pro-war and pro-military (at least publicly, not so much when it comes to actual veterans benefits and such) and they've been dying for anything to change the subject from their own run of unpopularity.
I don't know if Kerry really meant to joke against Bush and screwed it up that badly, or if he meant what he said. What I find amusing is the elephant in the living room, which is that what Kerry said is both true, and conventional wisdom. Of course the
US military recruits heavily from poor and rural areas, and of course kids who don't have good job prospects or college options join up. This is news to exactly no one, but politicans in the US have to perpetually honor soldiers and veterans (with words, if not actions) and dance around the reality of who actually joins the military, and how often boot camps are full of guys who had the choice of army or jail, guys who couldn't get into college, guys fleeing bad home lives or pregnant girlfriends, etc. It's great that people have that option, and the military is an improvement in life for lots of young people in the US, but it's not like the experience is fun. You spend years living in a sort of drab green prison with little personal freedom, sleeping when you're told, rising when you're ordered, working at whatever shit job they order you to work on, and being paid horribly for the privilege. Yeah, four or six years in the Army saves you a decent nest egg, even at the slave wages the job earns, but that's only because soldiers have almost all of their living expenses covered, and they're so seldom free that they never get to spend any of their money.
Meeting enlistment goals has become especially difficult since Bush's Iraq war began, and military service became deadly, which is why recruit requirements have been steadily lowered, recruiting efforts have intensified, "stop/loss" rules have been changed to prevent soldiers from quitting when their tours are up, and so on. The fact that a shitstorm is whipped up when a US Senator and near President (and decorated veteran) like John Kerry even broadly hints at any of this reality is quite an indictment of the mentality of the US media and the eagerness of the current Republican power structure to use any personal issue for political gain.
Labels: military, politics
Archives
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
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2012
