 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007Slow it down!
http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/world/2007/ 03/15/pleitgen.germany.speed.cnn It seems that some environmentalists want to force everyone to drive slower to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption. What they seem to be missing is that if everyone drives slower, it will reduce throughput, cause traffic congestion, and require that people spend more time in the car. I average a speed between 110 and 170 on most drives, because it's efficient and it keeps up with the traffic, not because some legislation suggested it. Traffic speed restrictions should be about safety, not environmental issues. Economics, not legislation, is the proper regulator. Petrol is expensive enough, and if some people want to drive at inefficient speeds for their particular cars, they can pay for it when they refuel. > http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if some people want to drive at inefficient speeds for their particular > cars, they can pay for it when they refuel. I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is double that at 80. Most people in Germany do not like the idea of general speed limits: something about the German identity. There are tons of factors that contribute to the alleged global warming problem much more than driving (such as air travel and deforestation), but the media and politicians are much more focused on the driving factor. We could have all people quit driving for a year or more, and it would not really affect the global warming rate. I've heard the "it's too late already" claims from both sides of the issue. > I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is > double that at 80. Well, you're almost going double the speed too, so it is not that much of a difference. Or did you mean the total trip fuel consumption is double? What car was this for? > There are tons of factors that contribute to the alleged global warming > problem much more than driving (such as air travel and deforestation), but the > media and politicians are much more focused on the driving factor. We > could have all people quit driving for a year or more, and it would > not really affect the global warming rate. If EU is really serious about lowering the amount of CO2 emissions, it could cut them off at the source by banning all fossil fuel extraction in the EU. Don't see that happening somehow... > > I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is > > double that at 80. > > Well, you're almost going double the speed too, so it is not that > much of a difference. Or did you mean the total trip fuel consumption > is double? What car was this for? <snip> Total trip. The time it takes to go point to point is not a factor in mileage. If you draw 30 mpg at 60 but only 25 at 80 it is the miles and speed you travel, not the time it takes that counts. Harry K > > > I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is > > > double that at 80. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mileage. If you draw 30 mpg at 60 but only 25 at 80 it is the miles > and speed you travel, not the time it takes that counts. OP didn't say that mileage at 140 was double that at 80. My post was to find out whether he meant fuel usage per unit distance, or fuel usage per unit time. > > > > I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is > > > > double that at 80. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was to find out whether he meant fuel usage per unit distance, or > fuel usage per unit time. I reviewed the video; it was fuel usage per unit distance. > > > > > I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is > > > > > double that at 80. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I must be missing something here. When fuel economy in vehicles is mentioned it is always useage per unit distance. Where lies the confusion? I have seen people in the past posting that you use more fuel driving slow than at speed because you are on the road longer. Pure bollocks. Harry K > I must be missing something here. When fuel economy in vehicles is > mentioned it is always useage per unit distance. Where lies the > confusion? In the USA it's measured as distance per unit of fuel volume. In Austraila it's volume per 100km or some such. > I have seen people in the past posting that you use more fuel driving > slow than at speed because you are on the road longer. Pure bollocks. Lower speeds result in more fuel use because the reduced throughput of the roads causes more congestion and more time idling going no where. On Mar 16, 5:41 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1174014790.645913.252...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > I must be missing something here. When fuel economy in vehicles is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Lower speeds result in more fuel use because the reduced throughput of > the roads causes more congestion and more time idling going no where. Now that is a point but it doesn't apply to the debate. Harry K "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> > > > > I saw that video earlier. Apparently the fuel usage at 140 mph is >> > > > > double that at 80. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I have seen people in the past posting that you use more fuel driving >slow than at speed because you are on the road longer. Pure bollocks. Hardly. If you are idling in stop-and-go traffic you are burning fuel but getting nowhere. If you can drive one mile at 60 MPH you can quite easily use less fuel than if you drive that same mile in stop-and-go traffic. But what we're really talking about in this thread is greenhouse gas emissions. What's the relationship between fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emission, and speed? For example, in general an engine will produce more pollution per milliliter of fuel consumed when the engine is not up to normal operating temperature. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but might there be other conditions which would make the relationship between fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emission nonlinear?  SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but might there be other conditions > which would make the relationship between fuel consumption and > greenhouse gas emission nonlinear? The point is moot, because the CO2 driven global warming theory is bunk. Completely bunk. So much science has to be ignored and then things have to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. Meanwhile the correlations to solar activity, sunspots, etc are damn near perfect. (I'll tie this back to driving at the end....) Also remember, that the amount of CO2 put into the air by humans burning fuel is trivial compared to the output from warming oceans, volcanos, animals, etc. Even the pro-man-made global warming report from the UN, once stripped of its political conclusions has been reported to actually state that the vast majority of warming (94%) is _NOT_ caused by man. Now try to find driving in all of that... now try to find that from 80+mph speeds on the autobahn... So even if they were correct and they aren't, it would be more effective to tell people to fart in bottles. While the media spreads the news far and wide that supposedly this winter (which isn't even over yet) is the warmest on record, left on the back pages is that the last solar minimum had the highest solar output on record of any minimum. This coming solar maximum should be rather high. Man made global warming is the new religon, the new morality. A mechanism for control. We can expect it to be tied to everything control freaks want to control. And that of course includes driving, especially the speed at which we drive. Remember, to the speed kills types it's about control or the morality of driving slow. Man made global warming just makes for another excuse to push the same agenda they've used everything else they can think of to push. The speed kills myth doesn't work on the autobahn. The German people worked to eliminate idiotcy behind the wheel instead of speed and achieved better results. Thusly, the control freaks need something else to point to.... 'it hurts the black forest', 'it burns too much fuel', whatever excuse they can come up with to try and control what speed people drive. If they thought they could successfully blame the decay of garden gnomes on the speed deresticted sections of the autobahn and it would get them towards their goal they would use it. On Mar 16, 8:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <69blv2t6qcnc7ts9atoqu94k0cbu6r6...@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but might there be other conditions [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > decay of garden gnomes on the speed deresticted sections of the autobahn > and it would get them towards their goal they would use it. Hardly 'bunk'. That there is a natural cycle working is beyond doubt IMO. That nature puts a lot of those gases in the atmosphere no one denies. The amount that man is _adding to it_ is far from trivial. IMO the true thing about GW is: We are in a natural warming cycle and man is making a contribution to it. Whether that contribution big or little is up for debate. To call it 'bunk' is... Harry K > On Mar 16, 8:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> decay of garden gnomes on the speed deresticted sections of the autobahn >> and it would get them towards their goal they would use it. > Hardly 'bunk'. That there is a natural cycle working is beyond doubt > IMO. That nature puts a lot of those gases in the atmosphere no one > denies. It's not CO2. The whole theory is faulty on its face. The data does not match the theory. > The amount that man is _adding to it_ is far from trivial. The amount of CO2 is trivial. > IMO the true thing about GW is: We are in a natural warming cycle and > man is making a contribution to it. Whether that contribution big or > little is up for debate. To call it 'bunk' is... It's now a thought crime to say it's bunk, I know, but it's BUNK just the same. The very core of man made global warming theory is faulty. Temperature increase occured FIRST, then later CO2 went up. Al Gore won't tell you that. The reason is likely that the oceans release CO2 as they warm up, so the warming occurs first because it takes a long time to warm the oceans. On top of that, the region of the atmosphere that is _supposed_ to warm first if CO2 drives temperature has NOT. Then there are problems with the temperature measurements used and how methods, not to mention the data anaylsis and curve fitting that have been uncovered. Add to that, most of the warming occured before 1940. This has all been out there in the last ten years since I started following it. The Great Global Warming Swindle puts it all in one place. The film had little that I didn't already know about, but it puts it all in one place and explains it well. It's a scam. It's on the level of 'for the children' and 'if it saves one life'. The same sort of scam like those that have been run on motorists for decades. On Mar 16, 7:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <69blv2t6qcnc7ts9atoqu94k0cbu6r6...@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but might there be other conditions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The point is moot, because the CO2 driven global warming theory is bunk. > Completely bunk. That cannot be stated unequivocally. There's not enough data either way on this issue. > So much science has to be ignored and then things have > to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. That's just propaganda. Mostly coming from pro-industry types. The real problem is that by the time there is enough data, either there will be an irreversible problem, or there won't be any problem. Make your bets. E.P. > On Mar 16, 7:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)wrote: >> In article <69blv2t6qcnc7ts9atoqu94k0cbu6r6...@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That cannot be stated unequivocally. There's not enough data either > way on this issue. If you take certain tennets of the theory, they have been shown wrong by data. The theory fails. It has not been modified, only declared truth. It is like staying with theory that large objects from space don't impact the earth (which was the theory for a very long time) when caters have been found. When the church is made from shock quartz..... >> So much science has to be ignored and then things have >> to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. > That's just propaganda. Mostly coming from pro-industry types. False. The solar system has to be ignored in analysis, the time scales on plots manipulated to make the coroelation look better, cherry picked pictures of the article or perfectly normal pictures of life nearer the poles used in a way to create a feeling that doom is occuring. Sometimes outright lies. The typical believer of man made global warming will accuse people who have done studies that don't support the theory as being pro-industry types by default yet overlook the fact of all the funding available to support the theory. > The real problem is that by the time there is enough data, either > there will be an irreversible problem, or there won't be any problem. You do know what man-made-global warming types are doing right? They do as you accuse me of, screaming the sky is falling. Not to mention that we must do something because if it's true the sky will fall. We must do as they say or the world as we know it will end. Hmm... it ends either way. On Mar 16, 9:40 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1174064629.329718.60...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Mar 16, 7:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you take certain tennets of the theory, they have been shown wrong by > data. The theory fails. Uhh, no. If the model is not perfect, the data will not match. Since we're talking about a system with a load of variables (some of which may be unknown), the model will never be perfect. There is not enough data to know either way. > >> So much science has to be ignored and then things have > >> to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > poles used in a way to create a feeling that doom is occuring. Sometimes > outright lies. Again, this is propaganda spread by the antis. If what you say is true, that means an entire planet of scientists has to be in conspiracy. This seems somewhat unlikely. > The typical believer of man made global warming will accuse people > who have done studies that don't support the theory as being pro-industry > types by default yet overlook the fact of all the funding available to > support the theory. That's not a rebuttal. Research done at the behest of industry, that comes out in favor of that industry, doesn't hold a lot of weight. Like the research showing nicotine is not addictive. The amount of non-industry dollars available for research vs. industry dollars is non-sequitur to the science. > > The real problem is that by the time there is enough data, either > > there will be an irreversible problem, or there won't be any problem. > > You do know what man-made-global warming types are doing right? They do > as you accuse me of, screaming the sky is falling. Except here's the thing - if the sky is actually falling, yelling about it is a good thing. When the sun is on the downside of it's 11-year cycle, and if the warming trend continues, then there may be some cause for discussion. Right now, I don't think any firm conclusions can be made either way. E.P. >> If you take certain tennets of the theory, they have been shown wrong by >> data. The theory fails. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > may be unknown), the model will never be perfect. > There is not enough data to know either way. Not a model, but basic principles of the theory. Theory states that CO2 rise creates a warming. They support this with a correlation between temperature and CO2 level from ice core data. The problem is that ice core data also allows a time measurement. (as do tree rings and other measures of past CO2) This time measurement breaks the foundation of the theory because the temperature rise occured first. >> >> So much science has to be ignored and then things have >> >> to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > conspiracy. > This seems somewhat unlikely. Ahh... the myth that all scientists believe unless they've been paid off by the oil and coal companies.... Sorry, but that is untrue. Scientists aren't in overwhelming agreement and those who disagree aren't all paid off. >> The typical believer of man made global warming will accuse people >> who have done studies that don't support the theory as being pro-industry >> types by default yet overlook the fact of all the funding available to >> support the theory. > That's not a rebuttal. Research done at the behest of industry, that > comes out in favor of that industry, doesn't hold a lot of weight. > Like the research showing nicotine is not addictive. Research done because it's what those providing the grant want to see doesn't hold a lot of weight. Much of the funding is to _SHOW_ man made global warming. To ignore this, to ingore the political consquences of not being politically correct is silly. I am only pointing out that it is being ignored. >> > The real problem is that by the time there is enough data, either >> > there will be an irreversible problem, or there won't be any problem. >> >> You do know what man-made-global warming types are doing right? They do >> as you accuse me of, screaming the sky is falling. > Except here's the thing - if the sky is actually falling, yelling > about it is a good thing. If government is actually going bad, yelling about it is a good thing. > When the sun is on the downside of it's 11-year cycle, and if the > warming trend continues, then there may be some cause for discussion. > Right now, I don't think any firm conclusions can be made either way. The highest solar minimum on record finished and we are on the upswing to what is being predicted as the highest solar maximum on record. There are also longer cycles of the sun where the minimums and maximums of the 11 year cycle rise and fall. If someone came with a severly modified man-caused global warming theory I could consider not enough data. The one being pushed, CO2 rise causes temperature rise, has failed tests of basic principle and should be discarded. On Mar 16, 10:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1174067737.988549.220...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> If you take certain tennets of the theory, they have been shown wrong by [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > measures of past CO2) This time measurement breaks the foundation of the > theory because the temperature rise occured first. You'd think then, with this bit of basic science known to a freshmen in college, that respected publications (whose reputations rest upon integrity) would have rejected such research. And yet they don't. I find this result quite odd. Can you explain it? > >> >> So much science has to be ignored and then things have > >> >> to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Ahh... the myth that all scientists believe unless they've been paid off > by the oil and coal companies.... Sorry, but that is untrue. I didn't say "all". Stay away from strawmen. The vast majority of climate scientists *do* agree. I suppose we could also cite the biologists that believe in intelligent design as reason to call the theory of evolution "bunk", right? > Scientists > aren't in overwhelming agreement and those who disagree aren't all paid > off. They actually are in overwhelming agreement on the basics. > >> The typical believer of man made global warming will accuse people > >> who have done studies that don't support the theory as being pro-industry [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Research done because it's what those providing the grant want to see > doesn't hold a lot of weight. This is a "I know you are, what am I" non-rebuttal. The granting agencies do not have a vested interest in the outcome. Industry types do. > Much of the funding is to _SHOW_ man made > global warming. For what gain? (Other than the nebulous, unproven 'control over our lives')? > >> > The real problem is that by the time there is enough data, either > >> > there will be an irreversible problem, or there won't be any problem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If government is actually going bad, yelling about it is a good thing. If. If not, then it's merely alarmism. GW is the same, IMO. > > When the sun is on the downside of it's 11-year cycle, and if the > > warming trend continues, then there may be some cause for discussion. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > also longer cycles of the sun where the minimums and maximums of the 11 > year cycle rise and fall. As I said, the data are not complete. > The one being pushed, CO2 rise causes > temperature rise, has failed tests of basic principle and should be > discarded. This assertion has nowhere been proven. In any case, using this subject as a springboard for political ranting is rude. Please, have the last word, or move this discussion to a sci.* newsgroup. E.P. > On Mar 16, 10:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in college, that respected publications (whose reputations rest upon > integrity) would have rejected such research. What 'basic science' would that be? That CO2 is actually a very poor 'green house' gas? That it's theortical behavior just hasn't been measured as where it should cause initial warming in the atmosphere hasn't warmed? Theories are tought, some are taken as truth, as fact. But in the end, it comes down to testing the theory, and the theory has failed the basic tests. The theory either needs to be modifed or dumped entirely. > And yet they don't. > I find this result quite odd. Can you explain it? The belief was once that the earth was the center of the universe. The data stated otherwise, but for quite a long time that initial belief held on as dominate. This is the political side of science that is very much part of science and has been for centuries. Another example is meteor impacts on earth. At one time, it was thought large ones just didn't hit the planet. Meteor creator out west was volcanic... etc and so on. Eventually data won out over initial theories that were just wrong. The data is not fitting the theory of CO2 driven global warming. What is presented is usually imcomplete and some years ago, before we had the data we have now it looked like it could be. More complete data shows it just doesn't work that way. However that doesn't mean the political side of science where people have come to depend on the theory being real for their livelyhood is just going to roll over instantly. I just doesn't happen that way in real life. People are entrenched. Plus, CO2 based global warming is great for many outside the world of science to achieve political and social engineering goals. That makes it all the more difficult. >> > Again, this is propaganda spread by the antis. If what you say is >> > true, that means an entire planet of scientists has to be in >> > conspiracy. >> > This seems somewhat unlikely. >> Ahh... the myth that all scientists believe unless they've been paid off >> by the oil and coal companies.... Sorry, but that is untrue. > I didn't say "all". Stay away from strawmen. "an entire planet of scientists". I wasn't aware that we had contact with scientists from other planets. Unless we do, that would be all the scientists, or at least all that we know of. Where are these scientists from other worlds come from? Are they grey with big almond shaped eyes? > The vast majority of climate scientists *do* agree. You mean the IPCC political organization does. You're sounding like Dr. Parker. > They actually are in overwhelming agreement on the basics. So the religous leaders tell us. >> > That's not a rebuttal. Research done at the behest of industry, that >> > comes out in favor of that industry, doesn't hold a lot of weight. >> > Like the research showing nicotine is not addictive. >> Research done because it's what those providing the grant want to see >> doesn't hold a lot of weight. > This is a "I know you are, what am I" non-rebuttal. The granting > agencies do not have a vested interest in the outcome. Industry types > do. That's like saying because consumer reports doesn't take ads they can't be biased. >> Much of the funding is to _SHOW_ man made global warming. > For what gain? Since when does bias need a gain? Anyway... where does unbiased funding come from? Why would say, a group that provides research funding decide to fund a study of climate history instead of oh, a study of the life of squirrels on the south side of chicago? Both are pretty boring on their face. But, if the squirrels were the carriers of a horrible plague that would kill half the people in the city, well then, we must fund it right? Now if the squirrels just turn out to be harmless, having eaten too many peanuts dropped by white sox fans what would happen to further funding? > (Other than the nebulous, unproven 'control over our lives')? You read the articles of what governments and political groups want to use it for.... Maybe you don't have a problem with government inspections to make sure you aren't using any banned lightbulbs..... >> > When the sun is on the downside of it's 11-year cycle, and if the >> > warming trend continues, then there may be some cause for discussion. >> > Right now, I don't think any firm conclusions can be made either way. >> The highest solar minimum on record finished and we are on the upswing to >> what is being predicted as the highest solar maximum on record. There are >> also longer cycles of the sun where the minimums and maximums of the 11 >> year cycle rise and fall. > As I said, the data are not complete. What we have shows the basic theory of CO2 driven warming to be faulty. Yet it is preached as fact. Steps very damaging to people's lives are being considered that take it as a fact. >> The one being pushed, CO2 rise causes >> temperature rise, has failed tests of basic principle and should be >> discarded. > This assertion has nowhere been proven. See the film. Or do I have go googling the articles for you? They are several years old now. > In any case, using this subject as a springboard for political ranting > is rude. Then why the hell didn't you just ignore it? > Please, have the last word, or move this discussion to a sci.* > newsgroup. You think they'd want a discussion of the autobahn speed limit? Oh wait, you cut that all out.... >On Mar 16, 7:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >That cannot be stated unequivocally. There's not enough data either >way on this issue. Really? Usually global warming advocates claim it's an open and shut case, that there's consensus and no debate is necessary and it's far past time to begin micromanaging everyone's life to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. >> So much science has to be ignored and then things have >> to be manipulated and force-fit to support it. > >That's just propaganda. Mostly coming from pro-industry types. No. That's fact. There's the famous "hockey stick" study, which used an analysis techique which would produce exponential increase (the hockey stick) at the end even when fed random noise. And there's the irritating and often ignored point that CO2 and temperature data often show CO2 lagging temperature increases, not the other way around. Despite this, the correlation is often used to "prove" that CO2 causes temperature increases and that therefore man is in big trouble if we don't adopt the environmentalist asceticism measures. >The real problem is that by the time there is enough data, either >there will be an irreversible problem, or there won't be any problem. Or the problem will be the other way, the "fear the coming Ice Age" theories of the 70s could be right. That's the problem with "not enough data"; no conclusion at all can be drawn. The climate problem is even worse, as it probably isn't possible to collect enough data to make a reasonable model. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Mar 16, 10:29 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1174064629.329718.60...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Really? Yes, really. The fact that the research gets published in journals whose reputations are build on scientific integrity gives me pause when the antis play the politics and conspiracy cards. But accurate data gathering just hasn't been possible for long enough to establish a particular trend, nor to account for all possible feedback loops (positive and negative). Declaring it "bunk" without any qualifier, from completely outside the field, is funny, in it's way. And, it's OT for r.a.d., so off to sci.*, or EOT. E.P. > "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nothing was mentioned about congestion, idling, etc. Just a pure 'more gas used driving slow as it takes longer to get there'. That your point is valid is true but has nothing to do with the statement. Harry K > http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/wo > rld/2007/03/15/pleitgen.germany.speed.cnn [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > if some people want to drive at inefficient speeds for their > particular cars, they can pay for it when they refuel. HAHAHA. You speed in the interests of safety??? HAHAHA. You pedalphiles are too much. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.