JARON LANIER
Image: © JONATHAN SPRAGUE
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
To virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier, nothing less than our culture and highest moral values are at stake thanks to the World Wide Web and certain destructive online behavior it facilitates. As evidence, he points out that during the 17 years since the Web took off, those who live off their brains—most writers, illustrators and musicians, for example—have experienced a worsening economic situation. In Lanier's view, content originators are only the first to feel the pain—their plight eventually will afflict everyone in the middle class, hampering their ability to earn money.
"Since more livelihoods should depend on brainpower as technology gets better, the direction we're going in is universal impoverishment," he tells Scientific American.
The disenchanted Lanier presents his views on Web-induced intellectual poverty, weighs in on whether information on the Web should be free (it shouldn't, he thinks), identifies several more areas of the Web that he believes are deficient, and explores what it means to be a person in the digital age in his new book You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (Knopf, 2010). He is hardly a Luddite and is renowned for creating innovative interfaces, including head-mounted displays that extended virtual reality's use in medicine, physics and neuroscience. Lanier is still a big fan of the Internet; it is the way Web technology is designed and being used that dismays him.
Groupthink
Lanier claims ideology and the Web's design—user interfaces and logins for example—marginalize individuals as "sources of fragments to be exploited by others." Of particular concern is "hive thinking," whereby personal expression counts for little and the creative process is harmed. Instead, he wrote, the hive mind esteems networked technologies and holds information stored in those networks—often referred to as "the cloud"—in higher regard than the people who create the information. Lanier worries that valuing the aggregate more than individuals will "leach" people of empathy and humanity.
Lanier, who is also a musician, is, for example, highly critical of "mashups," montages of borrowed bits of works by musicians, artists and journalists. Mashers (the people who create mashups) ultimately do broad damage because they rarely understand the originators' intents, according to Lanier; meanwhile artists can barely survive because they get no residuals for their work. In this way little original material is created and, consequently, our culture stagnates, Lanier wrote. "We can make culture and journalism into second-rate activities and spend centuries remixing the detritus of the 1960s and other eras from before individual creativity went out of fashion," he wrote, "or we can believe in ourselves."
Metaphorically misspeaking
"Information wants to be free," the unofficial motto of the free content movement, anthropomorphizes data and leads people to believe the cloud is an intelligent, evolving life-form, even a "superhuman creature," Lanier argued in his book. He characterizes "the Singularity"—a hypothesis posed by futurist and author Ray Kurzweil and others that technology will advance to the point that humans and machines essentially become one—as a new religion, and objects to its position that people will become immortal by uploading their thoughts and memories into a computer. He claims that the Singularity's adherents and "cybernetic totalists," who mistakenly apply computer science metaphors to people and reality, have lowered their standards for what counts as intelligence. When Lanier wrote that "information doesn't deserve to be free," he was emphasizing his counterclaim that information is not something to which human traits such as wants and needs should be attributed.
A staunch defender of the Singularity, Kurzweil insists that he is not underestimating the brain's capabilities, but rather that Lanier underestimates the amount of progress technology has enabled and will enable people to make. Kurzweil is satisfied that open-source and proprietary information will continue to coexist. And he contends that the open commons allows owners of information and intellectual property to license their contributions in different ways, and that people are free to develop their own pricing methods for the content they produce.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentI agree on the point of what passes for intelligence now. I remember the good old days, when you had to know how to spell. But all that aside, the social networking sites have become a safe-haven for bad behavior and mob mentality. I no longer express any opinions about anything online because of the onslaught of pure hatred that comes through from people who don't want anyone to express feelings about certain subjects or relate experiences so that someone might glean some insight. well, I suppose I am preaching to the choir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow ironic that this piece appeared in Slate today:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both "confusing and harmful" to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an "always on" digital environment. It's worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565. His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.
http://www.slate.com/id/2244198/
How ironic that this piece appeared in Slate today......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both "confusing and harmful" to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an "always on" digital environment. It's worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565. His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.
http://www.slate.com/id/2244198/
I think Lanier is being misquoted here, by selective extraction. At the same time, I appreciate that I have a wider field to glean for my particular individual take on life. It's ideological, a trait Lanier seems to have developed lately, to be prescribing for those with less intelligence, perhaps innate, perhaps undeveloped. Those of us with less brain power than Lanier might appreciate the cybrarian aspect of current internet access. Perhaps Lanier should charge for his insights and music. I won't be buying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think he is wrong. People will still pay for high quality content that is beneficial to them or their surroundings. If you have a higher quality content or equal to top magazines or news journals, people will pay to read it. Free news and information articles are usually poorly written and liken in content. I also believe that when technology improves and comes down in price, people will even start buying, and reading, high quality e-books...and there are a lot of high quality e-books on the market. I will buy and read them when Apple's slate comes down in price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter you have read enough of these poorly written articles from high quality news magazines and news papers, you will understand all the anger it creates on the web. There is no way people will pay to read garbage like that.
Everything morphs, the our changing business model is a new and unprecedented situation. Things are still working themselves out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with Kurzweil here, Lanier is underestimating our abilities. No wonder he thinks there's no individual creativity.
Before the Internet, people who wanted to engage in public creative activity had to get lucky. they had to get an agent, get a break, find a publisher, and endure endless frustration until - or if - that happened. In the case of John Kennedy Toole, author of "A Confederacy of Dunces," it didn't happen until 11 years after he committed suicide. I notice that all those who are complaining about how the Internet dilutes quality are those who made it under the monopolistic system and now see their uniqueness threatened.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't kid yourself, artists. You were lucky, nothing more, not exceptional. As American Idol shows every year, there are myriad amateurs out there just as talented as any established star. There are countless writers just as good as published authors, countless artists as good as anyone whose works hang in galleries. At least 90 per cent of what we call "quality" is position in a pecking order, nothing more. For Lanier to denounce wikis in science as "politically correct" is hilarious; if anything stifles creativity and fosters a hive mentality and mediocrity, it is the peer review process.
So how will we reward creativity? I suspect we will evolve a way to monetize it, because the Internet has only been around for a few years, and capitalism is very ingenious. But even if we don't, here's a radical plan. You have a job, something that people are willing to pay you to do because it is useful to them. It will probably not be intrinsically fun, because people are willing to do fun things for themselves. And you do your creative work as a sideline, a second job, or a hobby. After all, that's what all the unknown authors and artists do, all the people Lanier is willing to consign to anonymity so his "content providers" can continue to be rewarded.
As a college professor, I am constantly amazed at the academics I meet who forget that they are not paid to be beautiful people, but are being paid to do a job. There is no such thing as a right to earn a living being creative.
However, I also have a suggestion for reducing the garbage load on the Internet. Go back to paying by the minute for access. Internet providers, in turn, pay Web authors for content. Pay one cent a minute for access, and the authors whose pages are accessed get ten per cent (since they are bringing the provider business). If we develop workable micro-transaction technology, this process can be automatic.
JamesDavis is describing how people will still aspire to quality content and that is true. Much more money is spent on the Brittanys and Beyonces and hip hop than is spent on what I would call quality, but maybe it's always been that way and I'm just showing my age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe worrying part of the internet is separate from this effect. People with extreme viewpoints or believes that are fundamentally flawed find a breeding ground in the internet. A person who knows he can't walk down the street espousing belief in Arian supremacy can find all sorts of sites on the internet that might support this misguided belief. And people like this flock to these sites, thereby allowing beliefs that are demonstrably wrong to become entrenched because they are affirmed by other misguided people.
Try searching on the net for info about global warming. You'll find as much info denying it exists when the theory of climate change is an almost universally accepted principle. Individuals who cannot hold their own in scientific debate are bypassing any attempt at science and due procedure and are flooding the net with misinformation. Rather than spending a career testing a hypothesis it's much easier just to forego all of this and just blog away. The best that they can hope for is to misinform as many as possible and then turn the debate into a popularity contest where facts have no place.
So people will pay for quality that they aspire to but they will also accept without any screening positive reinforcement of private beliefs if it's free. This has a net negative affect on society I would say.
If you are on the computer so much that you are bothered be the enormity of how stupid people can be when given the chance, I'm afraid that you are the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoy this guy. A friend of mine said Kurzweil predicted when the cellphone would reach a specific saturation point, and also predicted when a desktop puter could think (imitate, reproduce, having been reverse engineered blank blank semantics) as well as a human or better for $1000. It strikes me as odd that there is argument in anyone or group that God or any human spiritual concept has a role in this, except maybe "super smart homie has too much ego to just chill about all these morons talking about God, I haven't met him and have scoured the known Universe and this very complex and esoteric" (in homies view anyway, ... maybe? yeah right like the fact that she or he is pushing the envelope on the cutting edge of a science and possibly thought itself, and is a member of small%/(us 7e9) common folk doesn't go to her or his head and isn't a part of their self identity) "machine algorithm is proof that... Good God I'm smart".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTied particles may soon repair tissue, through a radically advanced shifting lattice of material tied to sentinels guiding guts of and tissue boundaries.
It is possible soon there will be a system that will use a kind of Reverse Nuclear Mag Resonance (I'm not quite sure this is the right phrase, yes over my head but a vague idea formed) that uses simple fetch/execute cycles to image/push molecules, based on rear wheels of a r/c race car in a beach ball being so easy to steer, blah blah...
Maybe some tied smart particle systems could be used to make something useful like a bomb or beam that [insert mumbo here] and swallows a nuclear explosion.
Will any of these devices use a machine that thinks faster and better than us? Sure. Can something we create out-think us? Even if all 7e9 were tied together and consciousness and thought itself were (man this is goofy) a bizarre byproduct of God or not? I'm certain it will happen. Maybe manufacturing galaxies will happen, maybe we'll punch a whole into the next Universe before this one collapses or gets mind numbingly cold.
Can these things be predicted? Sure. Kurzweil would probably tell you himself some of the machines he thinks of could do it. I bet if we *make* the next Universe, it will have an on/off switch. And it will go "bing" when it's done. Oh, and it will have inter-universe twitter. And "New Universe" odor for a while.
I want to know if anyone can predict when we will stop making so much useless crap.
Yo, don't artists and writers go through cycles anyway? At least one being impressions weren't popular until they weri
I read his book, and attended a talk he gave. I didn't buy his book, but got it from the public library. I asked him if Andrew Carnegie was a Maoist, because of his suppport of public free lending libraries. He said no, libraries are OK, and maybe even encouraged writers by giving them a larger audience. I believe he is comfortable with libraries because he grew up with them, but if libraries didn't exist, and someone wanted to start such a system now, he, and publishers, would be opposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLo<cont>ng winded Impressionists were poor and unpopular until they weren't? And got rich and later were unpopular? And mob mentality? Yeah, that's only on the internet. I guess mobriotsinindia.org is offline due to lack of cheap iphone service there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this another case of someone with a plus 160 iq being freaking lonely because they can't really connect to anyone at their level, and masking it however they can because admitting you can design a neural network that can recognize a face, but are deeply disconnected is ... embarassing? Jaron's brain lights up everywhere extremely well. See Jaron's natural instinct to socialize (80 or so % of his brain exists for that) make him sanguine. Jaron writes beautiful music to pacify his angst. Good Jaron, well done. Another day on the farm done. But won't anyone watch young Lucy? She's in the barn loft hacking nueral networks of humans with cybermob.exe...
bigger fish to fry anyway, we're out of raw iron ore in 45 years, and good topsoil in 100
jjcii... is there anywhere on the net i can get a translation of your post into proper english?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjjcii... is there anywhere on the net i can get a translation of your post into proper english?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnology moves forward and some unfortunate people get hurt and lose jobs. New opportunities are created. Some people that flourished under the earlier model adapt, some don't. Many of the people that are left behind predict horrible consequences for society as a whole. Turn the page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt happened when the railroads were built and probably when the wheel was invented. Best course is to get on b oard because it can't be stoped.
<cont> Impressionists were unpopular, but extremely productive, until they weren't for a while. Some societal wave crashed and life went on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't what Jaron is talking about the same thing? A growth cycle on a grander scale? More people interacting means bigger Hive but still means similar cycles of repetition, like every country's history, some of which are growth?
And is he implying that mob mentality or mob rule is a small problem in real life but a large one on the net? Is riotsinindia.com down because of lack of iphone and cheap cell service? No. Real mobs, real killings, and these things have been here a while.
I hope if Ray or Jaron ever make something really cool and creative that thinks they hardwire faith in good things and a positive outlook on life.
Aren't there bigger fish than "Won't somebody think of the children" vs "Won't somebody think of the children using the web"?
Like we're going to be out of raw iron ore in half a century and good farming topsoil in one?
There were always stupid people, but the internet draws them out into the open. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking for myself, the internet has stimulated my creativity. I taught myself how to do web programming and I get so many cool ideas that I don't have time to implement all of them.
In my experience, when one provides quality content, the rewards follow naturally. Example: an old Nebraska cowboy friend of mine started publishing some simple little videos to youtube about his way of training horses. He has become a youtube phenomenon and youtube pays him to let them run ads with his videos.
Whatta ya mean lynch mob mentality? Let's string this guy up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismartineden, you made me laugh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjjcii.....WTF
I happen to agree with both Lanier and Kurzweil. Always have. This article reads like yin is not a part of yang. To me Lanier and Kurzweil are complimentary opposites, both expressing the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAHHAHAHAHA this is obviously written by someone who is still living in the 20th century and has no creativity to begin with. I, on the other hand, am overwhelmed by the possibilities (and knowledge) that the internet has brought me, oh, and i would like to mention that there is NOTHING you can do about it other than whine and bitch that your world is being turned upside down by the world wide web
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAHHAHAHAHA this is obviously written by someone who is still living in the 20th century and has no creativity to begin with. I, on the other hand, am overwhelmed by the possibilities (and knowledge) that the internet has brought me, oh, and i would like to mention that there is NOTHING you can do about it other than whine and bitch that your world is being turned upside down by the world wide web
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAHHAHAHAHA this is obviously written by someone who is still living in the 20th century and has no creativity to begin with. I, on the other hand, am overwhelmed by the possibilities (and knowledge) that the internet has brought me, oh, and i would like to mention that there is NOTHING you can do about it other than whine and bitch that your world is being turned upside down by the world wide web
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistLem seems to have a bad Net connection or does not understand that clicking once on 'submit' is a sufficient web page interface interaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I disagree. Who am I referring to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the past undetermined period of time, it could be argued that the higher (and sometimes lower) calling of humans has been to try to make it EASIER to exist, e.g., get more food/acre, cure more diseases, house more people, learn more faster/better. This, of course, must imply that less work or output is required from any given individual. The internet may be close to the final frontier of such an escalation, where knowledge (note not the same as wisdom) is obtainable at the click of a button.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo unfortunately, given that our moral and religious drive (we need to be productive and help our brethren) and biology (I will generally reproduce and consume excessively because that makes me and my family happy) are unlikely to change, the only brake on this vicious cycle appears to be Mother Earth and global warming. I don't know whether to thank God for that!
I might agree with you if so much of the internet's content wasn't bad knowledge. ie, wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found that if one's question is reasonable and not too technically demanding, the internet has a reasonable chance of getting you an answer, or at least a reference to an answer. The amount of work needed to get an approximate answer today than compared to the same question 20 years ago is simply much less. That, of course, is why I use the internet, rather than go the library for hours at a time! Your comment appears to cleave to the "anti-disestablishment" side of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever in spite of this, for specific questions, I agree with you that it is possible to be misled by internet info- in fact, over the last 6months there has been a rapid decay of avail. information-- for example 6mos ago, I was able to find a pretty good answer to a question "what is the thevenin equivalent circuit for mutual inductance" while I can no longer find this answer as of today.
Take that back... I found it again! so there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no such thing as a right to earn a living being creative. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrankly i think this is a ridiculous statement. i'm pretty sure people have been earning a living being creative since the dawn of time, with various degrees of success. people who believe that they are gifted enough to make a living off of their art and music do not rely completely on luck. they work to hone their craft, and then they are rewarded. perhaps their rewad came in a way that makes it look like luck, but i believe it has more to do with their dedication and belief that what they were doing was in fact meaningful. i hope you don't teach your students to settle because their creativity and dedication is not enough, and that some stupid job that takes up more of their time and brain space is necessary.
Rastaman vibration yeah, positive! (Bob Marley)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither Marshall Macluhan's "Global Village" nor Jorge Luis Borges "El Aleph" imagined such a thing as the web
There is a quite interesting book(freely available) by Harvard professor Yochai Benkler discussing the economic/moral benefits of networked information production...speaks to many of the issues discussed here from the opposite perspective. http://yupnet.org/benkler/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a quite interesting book(freely available) by Harvard professor Yochai Benkler discussing the economic/moral benefits of networked information production...speaks to many of the issues discussed here from the opposite perspective. http://yupnet.org/benkler/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe secret to originality is in mediating among many different hives. Rest assured, every different social media format contains unique individuals whom come together, and there are about 1 hive per 30 people, even within a larger hives there are sub-hives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn afterthought: Creativity does stem from individualism, ergo one must participate in hive activities as an observer or originater as opposed to as a follower. Let's not forget, also, that patent laws and copyrights were open source for years before the internet came about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNox, if you can't distinguish between doing something, and having a right to do something, you certainly have nothing worthwhile to say about creativity. These are two totally different things. You can paint or play music or write books, and if you can make a living at it, good for you. But that's talent (10%), hard work (20%) and luck (the rest). You don't have an inherent right to have people pay you just because you think you're creative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe online mob to which Lanier refers displays a strong populist bias. Online populism is rearranging legal and political power. The latest example of a Web populist underdog winning a measure of advantage over a powerful adversary is Hillary Machinery Inc. This mom-and-pop business is locked in a strange lawsuit with PlainsCapital Bank, a much larger business. What do you think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bit.ly/public-relations --Ben
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is well known that musicians suffer greatly due to illegal downloading of their music. And writers due to plagiarism. But the situation of artists and illustrators is rarely talked about, which is what I will concentrate on here.
For the past few years I have been thinking about these matters because they severely affect my income as an independent artist and freelance illustrator (art.eonworks.com). The article validates many of my own observations. Especially this quote:
"As evidence, he points out that during the 17 years since the Web took off, those who live off their brains ? most writers, illustrators and musicians, for example ? have experienced a worsening economic situation. In Lanier's view, content originators are only the first to feel the pain ? their plight eventually will afflict everyone in the middle class, hampering their ability to earn money."
The way I see it the problem is twofold: a widespread disregard for copyright laws, and proliferation of free content.
1) A widespread disregard for copyright laws
All too many (perhaps most) website or blog owners use others content, especially pictures, without the right to do so. They illegally use pictures to enhance their articles or blog posts and often earn money in the process. Yet publishers or the people who created those pictures - artists, photographers, designers, etc - get nothing in return. Often not even a name credit or a link back to the picture creator's site.
There are countless of so called "free" gallery, wallpaper and image stock websites which contain images that (I bet) are largely used without any legal permission. The owners of such sites typically earn money through ads and don't share any of it with the creators of the content they use to earn money with.
The problem boils down to that too many website owners use content, especially pictures (artwork, photographs, illustration, designs, etc), without paying for its use.
I wonder how big an impact all this has on the current economic crisis, and had leading into the crisis. After all, artists, musicians and writers have to buy food, pay bills, and have a little life. But when so many people use their work without paying, how can they?
2) Proliferation of free (or almost free) content
(Posted in another post due to post length constraints)
(Continued from my previous post)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) Proliferation of free (or almost free) content
The other main reason is the proliferation of legitimately free or very cheap pictorial content. This can be largely attributed to the emergence of cheap and easy to use image processing/generation tools and digital cameras. These tools are becoming increasingly powerful and enable people with little to no ability to quickly generate pictures with little effort.
Although largely created by amateurs just for fun, a great deal of these pictures ends up on either free or very low cost image stock sites, galleries, wallpaper sites, etc. And for many site owners such pictures seems of good enough quality to be used on their websites or other publications.
All this free content forces the majority of independent creative professionals to continually lower the prices of their services. Increasingly, the creative professionals are unable to compete.
Sometimes I wonder how long before the professions associated with the visual arts will largely die out and be replaced by free user generated content.
The www of Tim Berners Lee in 1993 was not the first public access informational retrieval system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1984 French Telecoms Engineers installed free 'minitel' computer terminals in French people's homes. You paid a small fee per unit of time connected.
Thousands of web-sites were available, but unfortunatelt the government soon allowed sites to demand user registration per site with an annual membership charge.
So rapid information searches became expensive, and the system lost its flexibility. Admittedly you had to search topics in a directory, but the system proved fairly popular and I used my terminal until recently.
Most people have a day job to earn their living. Science is supposed to do research and freely circulate knowledge for the common good. When you go on the internet, you are using the system free, (apart from your standard monthly access charge), so why all this talk about loss of intellectual property. If you are not happy with the current situation, don't use the web at all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://geniusbeauty.com" >gadgets for women</a>
This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://geniusbeauty.com" >gadgets for women</a>
I agree with what you are saying here. We are on the same page. I am so glad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://alterilinfo.com/">alteril</a>
I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post. Thanks for sharing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.moneymanagersuk.co.uk/debt/debt-management">Debt Management Program</a>
Most of the commentators arguing the same point of view again and again. I think, we must gather some secondary data in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisorder to get viwews of previous researchers.
<a href="http://www.urgentcustomessays.com">Custom Essay</a>
Most of the commentators arguing the same point of view again and again. I think, we must gather some secondary data in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisorder to get viwews of previous researchers
[url=http://www.urgentcustomessays.com]CUSTOM ESSAY[/url]