• Goto NetFuture main page
  •                                  NETFUTURE
                        Technology and Human Responsibility
    Issue #119     A Publication of The Nature Institute        March 27, 2001
                Editor:  Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@netfuture.org)
                      On the Web: http://www.netfuture.org/
         You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.
    NetFuture is a reader-supported publication.
    Editor's Note
    Quotes and Provocations
       The Reality of Appearances
       Brief Notes from All Over
       Diagnosing Lady Hamilton's Portrait
       Nurses Surfing the Web
    About this newsletter
                                  EDITOR'S NOTE
    If you've wondered about The Nature Institute, publisher of NetFuture, you
    can now find out about us by going to www.natureinstitute.org.  There are
    many articles and papers there that have never appeared in NetFuture.
    Among the pieces of my own that may interest you, I'd like to mention
    ** "Are Animals Robots?"  I argue that it is far easier to represent
       aspects of the human being in a computer program than it is to
       represent a beetle -- this despite all the talk about programs
       achieving the level of sophistication of insects or other animals.
    ** "Toward a Final Theory of the Sloth".  This is a response to a reader's
       objection to Craig Holdrege's article about the sloth in NetFuture #97.
       What does it mean to understand an organism scientifically?
    ** "The Straitening of Science".  Do physical objects, by nature, really
       move in straight lines unless subjected to outside forces?
    By the way, if you were interested in that original article on the sloth,
    you may want to look at other studies in "whole-organism biology" by
    Craig.  Go to http://natureinstitute.org/subj/nature/index.htm.
    Goto table of contents
                             QUOTES AND PROVOCATIONS
    The Reality of Appearances
    Two vicious crimes by teenagers have recently made the news.  Elkech Leon,
    who has acknowledged beating and raping a sixteen-year-old girl in Queens,
    New York, in 1999, has now pleaded guilty.  He had told law enforcement
    officials after the assault:  "It was all so real.  I wanted to feel how
    it felt to be a rapist".
    Lionel Tate, a fourteen-year-old Floridian, has been sentenced to life in
    prison without possibility of parole for beating six-year-old Tiffany
    Eunick to death.  He committed the murderous act when he was twelve.
    According to the New York Times, "Lionel testified that he was emulating
    the wrestlers he regarded as heroes when he kicked and body-slammed
    Tiffany".  You can imagine Lionel's perplexity at the outcome; don't the
    wrestlers always get up and walk away?
    If you are looking for a thesis topic in sociology or psychology, I
    suggest something like this:  "How has our sense of reality been changing
    during the era of electronic media?"  Anyone who takes up this challenge
    will, in the first place, have to get beyond the commonplace observation
    that young people obviously know the difference between a video screen and
    the real world.  Of course they can tell you the difference between
    what is a video image and what is not, and of course they will deny
    any confusion in the matter.  But this correct logical judgment hardly
    gets us very far.
    Here's an analogy.  A toddler quickly learns to distinguish himself from
    others.  He can use the word "I" correctly.  But if you look deeply into
    what the concept means to him at this highly imitative age, you will
    notice that everything "out there" has, at the same time, a powerful and
    almost magical existence "in here".  The line between self and other is
    not as sharply drawn as it will be in later years.  This, of course, is
    quite as it should be.  Even in many adults, what psychologists refer to
    as "ego boundaries" can at times be exceptionally porous -- despite these
    same adults' ability to tell you quite definitely that they are themselves
    and not someone else.
    So any attempt to sort out the contemporary "sense for reality" will have
    to dig beneath surface judgments of the intellect.  I'm convinced that one
    of the first conclusions any such digging will lead us to is that the
    usual distinction between appearance and reality is misleading, if not
    altogether useless.  Our experience of a video image is as real as our
    experience of anything else.  The question is only, "What sort of
    experience is it?" -- a question that is immediately downplayed when we
    derogate the experience as mere appearance.
    Once we do take all experiences seriously, we will probably be less
    concerned about children thinking video images are "real" than we are
    about their beginning to experience the rest of their world with some of
    the qualities of a video image.  After all, there is no possibility of
    arguing that images are innocent in this regard.  The truth here has long
    been recognized with respect to art.  Oscar Wilde once asked, "Have you
    noticed that nature has recently begun to look like Corot's landscapes?"
    According to the art historian, Sir Ernst Gombrich, the earlier,
    eighteenth-century search for beauty "that sent poets and painters to the
    Lakeland was a search for motifs that reminded the art lovers of
    paintings, preferably those of Claude and Poussin".
    Gombrich also cites the seventeenth-century artist, Roger de Piles, who
    observed that the bad habits of painters "even affect their organs, so
    that their eyes see the objects of nature colored as they are used to
    painting them".  We should, moreover, remember that the development of
    linear perspective in fifteenth-century art had a great deal to do with
    our ability to detach ourselves from the world, take up an individual
    point of view, and begin scientific observation.  In general, the images
    and meanings we have at our disposal, the ways of looking and seeing, not
    only shape our interaction with the world, but determine what sort of
    world is available to interact with.
    Anyone who persists in the belief that television, video games, computer
    images, and the cinema do not profoundly influence children is just
    willfully blind.  The qualities of the images we bathe in are at the same
    time qualities of our inner life -- that's what it means for us to
    experience them.  The only question is how we work with and assimilate
    these qualities.  And our answer to this question helps to determine the
    qualities of the objective world we share with each other.
    Moreover, if there's one general truth about young children, it's that
    their natural tendency is to assimilate what comes to them with great
    simplicity and trust.  The world we give them in images becomes their
    world, overly facile distinctions between appearance and reality
    notwithstanding.  These distinctions are much less useful for
    comprehending their world than is the fact, for example, that the peculiar
    reality of video images does little to ground the child in a coherent
    order of things where actions have understandable consequences -- the kind
    that can land you in prison for life without parole.
    In general, we deprive our children of any stable orientation to the
    world.  It is our daily work, above all else, that gives meaning and
    substance to our lives, and yet (unlike in earlier times) the world of
    adult work is almost completely hidden from the child today.  It is hidden
    behind the brick walls of the factory; it goes on within steel and glass
    office towers many miles from where the child lives; or it disappears into
    a digital interface that re-presents the whole world of human effort as a
    few incomprehensible abstractions upon a square foot or two of glass.
    Likewise with social action and politics, which might have helped to
    orient the child to life in community.  As political activity, even at the
    local level, was sucked into the television in the living room, it became
    remote, cosmetic, charisma-centered, advertising-driven.  Voter apathy
    increased.  Of the entire political process, little is "there" in any
    practical sense for the child except a chaotic collage of images bearing
    subliminal messages and reflecting all the demonic sophistication of
    Madison Avenue.
    How can the child, growing up in our society, find anything to orient
    himself by, anything to encourage him in the conviction that there is a
    stable and coherent order of things to which he can make a meaningful
    contribution?  The world we present to him is all too accurately
    symbolized for him by the anti-reality of the music video.
    The tortured relations between "appearance" and "reality" have vexed our
    culture for several hundred years, and continue to be a source of great
    confusion.  (Have you ever wondered why many of the same people who assure
    us that children do not experience gruesomely violent video images as
    "real" also assure us that video images are an excellent way to teach
    children about the natural world?)  The only solution is for us to cease
    dismissing some things as empty appearance and instead begin to enter into
    the particular qualities of each different kind of experience, seeing it
    for what it is.  The images vomited from the studios of Hollywood and
    Madison Avenue may be fantasies, but they are at the same time among the
    most powerful realities of our culture.
    A class of school children was recently reported to have laughed when
    informed of the shootings in Santee, California.  I don't know the
    particulars of that incident, but I would be loathe to say up front that
    those children's laughter had nothing in common with the frequent laughter
    at violent scenes in movie theaters.  If you really knew a single child
    and went through such experiences with him, you'd find yourself staring
    the answer in the face quickly enough.
    But, of course, knowing children in this direct way is not exactly the
    wave of the electronically enlightened, distance-educated future.  So, in
    the absence of direct understanding, we can look forward to more reams of
    survey data -- which can themselves be a way of dismissing the world as
    mere appearance compared to the bedrock reality of "hard numbers".
    It may be that the decisive challenge facing children today is to find
    some kind of stable, grounding coherence within the various sorts of
    reality assaulting them.  The current prognosis for these kids is not
    encouraging, and can be summed up in a simple question:  if we are
    stumbling around in a confused dialectic between appearance and reality,
    should we wonder that our children are doing the same?
    Related articles:
    ** "Virtuality and the Atomization of Experience" in NF #87.
    ** "Mona Lisa's Smile", a chapter in The Future Does Not Compute.
    ** "Seeing in Perspective", another chapter in The Future Does Not Compute.
    Brief Notes from All Over
    ** Regarding the article, "Golden Genes and World Hunger: Let Them Eat
    Transgenic Rice?" by Craig Holdrege and me (NF #108),
    you will recall that the
    golden rice work was partially funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.  Now
    Gordon Conway, president of the foundation, has written a letter to
    Greenpeace acknowledging that "the public-relations uses of golden rice
    have gone too far", and also that, while he believes golden rice can make
    an important nutritional contribution, "We do not consider golden rice the
    solution to the vitamin-A deficiency problem".
    ** Indian scientist-activist, Vandana Shiva, delivered last year's BBC
    Reith lecture.  One of her observations:  "In spite of all empirical
    evidence showing that genetic engineering does not produce more food and
    in fact often leads to a yield decline, it is constantly promoted as the
    only alternative available for feeding the hungry".  She goes on:
       Recently, the McKinsey corporation said:  "American food giants
       recognize that Indian agro-business has lots of room to grow,
       especially in food processing.  India processes a minuscule one percent
       of the food it grows compared to seventy percent for the U.S."
       It is not that we Indians eat our food raw.  Global consultants fail to
       see the ninety-nine percent food processing done by women at household
       level or by the small cottage industry because it is not controlled by
       global agribusiness.  Ninety-nine percent of India's agroprocessing has
       been intentionally kept at the small level.  Now, under the pressure of
       globalization, things are changing.  Pseudo-hygiene laws are being used
       to shut down local economies and small-scale processing.
       In August, 1998, small-scale local processing of edible oil was banned
       in India through a "packaging order" which made sale of open oil
       illegal and required all oil to be packaged in plastic or aluminum.
       This shut down tiny "ghanis" or cold-pressed mills.  It destroyed the
       market for our diverse oilseeds -- mustard, linseed, sesame, groundnut,
       And the take-over of the edible oil industry has affected ten million
       livelihoods.  The take-over of flour or "atta" by packaged, branded
       flour will cost one hundred million livelihoods.  And these millions
       are being pushed into new poverty....
       The globalization of the food system is destroying the diversity of
       local food cultures and local food economies.  A global monoculture is
       being forced on people by defining everything that is fresh, local and
       handmade as a health hazard.  Human hands are being defined as the
       worst contaminants, and work for human hands is being outlawed, to be
       replaced by machines and chemicals bought from global corporations.
       These are not recipes for feeding the world, but stealing livelihoods
       from the poor to create markets for the powerful.
    Much of Shiva's lecture was a fleshing out of this point:  "The most
    efficient means of [destroying] nature, local economies, and small
    autonomous producers is by rendering their production invisible".  As she
    makes vividly clear, this is largely a matter of rendering women invisible
    -- the women who contribute so massively to much of the world's economy.
    ** In her lecture, Shiva also offered this stinging commentary on the
    patenting of life forms:
       Patents and intellectual property rights are supposed to be granted for
       novel inventions.  But patents are being claimed for rice varieties
       such as the basmati for which my valley, where I was born, is famous,
       or pesticides derived from the Neem [tree] which our mothers and
       grandmothers have been using.
       Rice Tec, a U.S.-based company, has been granted Patent no. 5,663,484
       for basmati rice lines and grains.
       Basmati, neem, pepper, bitter gourd, turmeric ... every aspect of the
       innovation embodied in our indigenous food and medicinal systems is now
       being pirated and patented.  The knowledge of the poor is being
       converted into the property of global corporations, creating a
       situation where the poor will have to pay for the seeds and medicines
       they have evolved and have used to meet their own needs for nutrition
       and health care.
       Such false claims to creation are now the global norm, with the Trade-
       Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of the World Trade
       Organization forcing countries to introduce regimes that allow
       patenting of life forms and indigenous knowledge.
       Instead of recognizing that commercial interests build on nature and on
       the contribution of other cultures, global law has enshrined the
       patriarchal myth of creation to create new property rights to life
       forms just as colonialism used the myth of discovery as the basis of
       the take-over of the land of others as colonies.
    ** In the Winter, 2001 issue of Orion, Wendell Berry writes about
    "The Idea of a Local Economy".  One of the things he does is to criticize
    the notion that a corporation should be regarded, legally, as a person.
    Much that is destructive about the peculiar form the corporation has taken
    today arises precisely because the corporation is not a person:
       A corporation, essentially, is a pile of money to which a number of
       persons have sold their moral allegiance.  As such, unlike a person, a
       corporation does not age.  It does not arrive, as most persons finally
       do, at a realization of the shortness and smallness of human lives; it
       does not come to see the future as the lifetimes of the children and
       grandchildren of anybody in particular.  It can experience no personal
       hope or remorse, no change of heart.  It cannot humble itself.  It goes
       about its business as if it were immortal, with the single purpose of
       becoming a bigger pile of money.
    ** Back in September ecologists David S. Wilcove (Environmental Defense)
    and Thomas Eisner (Cornell University) wrote about "the Impending
    Extinction of Natural History".  They pointed out that "a knowledge of, or
    even an avowed interest in, natural history is no longer a prerequisite
    for admission to a graduate program in ecology or any other branch of
    biology .... Even the field trip ... has become increasingly uncommon".
    The authors view the demise of natural history as "one of the biggest
    scientific mistakes of our time".
    The lopsided shift toward molecular biology and genetic engineering
    reflects a preference for theoretical explanation and mechanical
    manipulation of a sort that can proceed without much reference to the
    organisms we began by trying to understand.  Who needs the complicating
    presence of organisms and natural habitats when you can pursue molecular-
    level mechanisms that are such well-behaved artifacts of your theory?
    The result of the shift is a lot of lost opportunity in the classroom.  As
    Wilcove and Eisner remark, "For the price of a stereo microscope, now less
    than $250, a science teacher can turn a pinch of soil into a bustling
    world of springtails, oribatid mites, and nematodes, creatures as bizarre
    and engaging as anything to appear in a Star Wars movie".  They conclude
    their essay (which appeared in the Sept. 15, 2000 issue of The
    Chronicle of Higher Education) with this:
       The current push to connect every classroom in America to the Internet
       demonstrates how quickly elected leaders and the public can be
       galvanized to address what is rightly perceived to be a critical
       educational need.  Meanwhile, the demise of natural history goes
       unnoticed, increasing the likelihood that future generations of
       schoolchildren will spend even more time indoors, clicking away on
       their plastic mice, happily viewing images of the very plants and
       animals they could be finding in the woods, streams, and meadows they
       no longer visit.
    ** As a follow-up to Lowell Monke's article on factory-farmed hogs in NF
    #114:  John F. Kennedy, Jr., and a group of lawyers are filing hundreds of
    lawsuits against hog operations nationwide, beginning in North Carolina.
    That state's nineteen million tons per year of swinish waste notoriously
    finds its way to places where it doesn't belong.  In June, 1995, twenty-
    two million gallons of hog manure spilled into tributaries of the New
    River, and 1999's Hurricane Floyd washed hog waste into the Tar, Neuse,
    and Cape Fear tributaries.  One of the lawsuits charges the giant
    Smithfield Foods (responsible for hogs on 1500 factory farms) with
    violating federal racketeering statutes, due to the serial nature of the
    company's polluting activities.  According to one news story
    (unfortunately, I have misplaced the source),
       In 1997 a U.S. District Court judge fined Smithfield $12.6 million for
       thousands of Clean Water Act violations; in another case, a manager
       pleaded guilty to illegally dumping toxic wastewater into the Pagan
       river; the state of Virginia also has a suit pending against the
       company alleging more than 22,000 discharge and pollution violations
       from the mid-'80s to the mid-'90s.
    If the astonishing charges in these government lawsuits are even
    fractionally true, then we see here a perfect illustration of a point made
    in NF #114:  anyone who can treat a community of animals with arrogant
    disdain will very likely find it also possible to treat a community of
    people with arrogant disdain.
    ** Andrew Kimbrell, director of the International Center for Technology
    Assessment in Washington, D.C., delivered one of the annual E.F.
    Schumacher Lectures last October.  He included this remark:
       Instead of changing technology so it fits life, the breathtaking
       attempt of genetic engineering is to change life so it fits technology.
       [For example,] to genetically engineer plants and animals so they will
       fit with global warming, so they can survive those temperatures.  To
       genetically engineer our farm animals so they can survive in the
       factory farm system.  And, yes, even to genetically engineer us, so
       that we can survive in the technological world to come.
    ** This came from the San Jose Mercury News (March 1) via NewsScan
       One of the findings of the just-published Social Capital Community
       Benchmark Survey, http://www.cfsv.org, is that Silicon Valley is a
       community that is relatively backward socially compared to national
       statistics:  people in the Valley are twenty-seven percent less likely
       than people elsewhere to visit with relatives, and are not very
       inclined to serve as community leaders, join clubs, or even attend
       public meetings.
       But even nationally, says survey director Robert Putnam, "there has
       been a serious erosion in American connectedness".  James Koch of the
       Center for Science, Technology and Society at Santa Clara University
       says of Silicon Valley:  "This is a region that is enigmatic.  We have
       tremendous prowess when it comes to innovation and commercialization of
       technologies.  That's often attributed to the robust networks that
       exist in this region.  But we are remarkably weak in social ties.  We
       are like a very, very well-trained athlete who can do one thing
       especially well.  But we haven't cultivated this larger capacity for
       civic engagement".
    Meanwhile, I just saw mention of a new study (co-sponsored by America
    Online) claiming to show that the Net has strengthened social ties.  The
    warring surveys, you can be sure, will go on, and on, and on....
    Diagnosing Lady Hamilton's Portrait
    A wonderful pilot program at Weill Cornell Medical College has future
    doctors spending time at the nearby Frick Collection studying famous
    portraits.  It's part of an effort to train the students in the art of
    observation.  The idea, novel as it is in today's medical environment, is
    for them to learn to see the person in front of them as an essential part
    of the diagnostic effort.  For example, the enlarged pupils in the
    portrait of Lady Hamilton (mistress of Admiral Nelson) suggest the use of
    belladonna, a potentially fatal herb often taken in Lady Hamilton's time
    to lend the eyes an erotic quality.
    Students quickly become interested in the challenge of assessing the
    patient through direct observation.  One of the creators of the Cornell-
    Frick program said, "Already I've had students tell me that when they walk
    into a hospital room they don't go right for the chart".
    The Cornell program was modeled after one at Yale, where art curator Linda
       recalled visiting her friend in the hospital the day before her
       operation.  It was obvious the woman was extremely nervous and needed
       some reassurance.  Yet when a resident stopped by to check on the
       patient, Ms. Friedlaender said, he barely lifted his eyes from the
       chart, remained standing in the doorway, and took her lack of questions
       as permission to quickly leave.
    Now Yale requires every first-year medical student to take a course
    entitled "A Rash in a Frame: Enhancing Observational Skills".  Other
    schools around the country have indicated an interest in starting such a
    All this is extremely encouraging.  I very much hope these schools can
    raise their courses to a minimal level of philosophical sophistication,
    since a fundamental question about the nature of scientific knowledge
    underlies the doctor's decision whether to "go straight for the chart" or
    instead to look at the patient.  This decision can be understood as a
    choice between seeing a particular illness as the essential thing (the
    illness just happens to be "doing this particular patient") or else seeing
    the patient as the essential thing (the patient just happens to be "doing
    this particular illness").
    But this still doesn't state the matter forcefully enough, since what
    "this particular illness" is cannot even be defined apart from the
    individuality of the patient.  We've been taught to think in terms of
    perfectly discrete, nameable illnesses, as if each one had a kind of
    fixed, atomic identity independent of the person who is "doing it".  But
    this is hardly the case.  No two pneumonias are the same disease, and the
    profusion of vaguely defined syndromes in our day (such as chronic fatigue
    syndrome, "environmental illness", and lyme disease) underscores the need
    to see the illness as a function of the person rather than the person as a
    function of the illness.
    Of course, there is not really a strict line between these two approaches.
    The problem today is that the willingness to see the person has largely
    vanished from medicine, replaced by a focus on symptom clusters regarded
    as essences in their own right.  Putting it a little differently:  we are
    much more inclined to think we understand patient A when we have
    established what he has in common with cases B, C, D ... , all of whom
    form a neat diagnostic class, than to believe we understand A only when we
    grasp his uniqueness -- what he does not have in common with B, C,
    and D, and what he is distinctively "doing" with his illness.  This
    distinctive doing, and not the nameable illness, may be the more important
    thing when it comes to diagnosis and treatment.
    Such a focus upon the qualitative uniqueness of what we observe is foreign
    to mainstream science, with its ultimate, explanatory urge to see only
    featureless, indistinguishable particles.  A medicine grounded in such
    science is hardly predisposed to recognize the patient as an individual,
    and we can only hope that courses such as the ones at Cornell and Yale
    will, over time, nudge young researchers toward the quest for a new kind
    of science.
    Related articles:
    ** "Notes on Health and Medicine" in NF #88.
    Goto table of contents
    Nurses Surfing the Web
    From:  Name withheld by request
    My four year old daughter was born with a cleft lip and palate and has
    required a series of (standard) reconstructive surgical procedures.  Her
    fourth such procedure was last week.
    Needless to say, everything in the hospital where she receives her care is
    computerized.  There are obvious problems that come up in this.  For
    instance, our in-processing was delayed while one of the receptionists was
    on the phone with tech support describing the blue screen of death facing
    her on her desktop machine.  However, there were some experiences we had
    that were much more subtle and much more troubling.
    The computerization of the hospital really does extend everywhere.  When
    we met our daughter in post-op recovery, I noticed immediately that the
    room was filled with computerized equipment of all kinds.  Our daughter
    was completely connected to one piece of monitoring equipment and her
    vital signs (heart, respiration, blood pressure, blood oxygen) were
    displayed on a screen above her bed.  Right next to that screen was a
    screen connected to a PC.  It was displaying a login screen for some kind
    of program that I was not familiar with.
    The post-op room was fairly large with a number of patient bays
    distributed around its perimeter.  As I looked around the room I noticed
    that the pair of monitors (vital signs plus PC) was standard in all the
    bays.  I also noticed that the PC monitors were variously displaying the
    same login screen that we were faced with or, alternatively, the Microsoft
    Windows (TM) logo.  None of the PCs actually seemed to be used for
    anything, at least not where the patients were.
    I did see one PC in use as we walked with our daughter as she was being
    transferred to her ward for her overnight observation stay.  We passed by
    a bay (empty of any patient) where one of the medical personnel was
    carefully working with the PC in that bay.  She was dressed in surgical
    scrubs (as were all the on-duty personnel in post-op).  She was in the
    mode of computer interaction we all see everywhere: type a little, read a
    little, move the mouse, click, read some more.  I knew right away what she
    was doing without even looking at the screen but a glance over my shoulder
    as we passed by confirmed it.
    The screen was displaying a page from the JC Penney web site.
    She was shopping on line.
    I don't know what is more troubling, the fact that the post-op computers
    were being used for on-line shopping or that on-line shopping was the only
    thing they were being used for.
    This scene was replayed multiple times (if not so dramatically) in the
    ward where our daughter spent the next 24 hours for observation.  There
    was a PC in the hallway outside her door with a big sign on it that said
    "Web RN" -- I assume it had some official nursing purpose.  However,
    everyone I saw using it -- nursing staff, doctors, visitors -- used it to
    surf the web in various ways.  I suppose I have committed some breach of
    etiquette by noticing what people were doing with this computer, but the
    screen was directly facing our room, and the fact that on-duty medical
    personnel were surfing when they were supposed to be caring for my
    daughter (and, of course, others on the ward) was so troubling that I did
    glance over some shoulders.
    I am still trying to digest all of this and understand what it means as
    well as what it might portend.  In the meantime I thought I would share
    this with you and see what you might make of it.
    Name withheld upon request
    Goto table of contents
                              ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER
    Copyright 2001 by The Nature Institute.  You may redistribute this
    newsletter for noncommercial purposes.  You may also redistribute
    individual articles in their entirety, provided the NetFuture url and this
    paragraph are attached.
    NetFuture is supported by freely given reader contributions, and could not
    survive without them.  For details and special offers, see
    http://netfuture.org/support.html .
    Current and past issues of NetFuture are available on the Web:
    To subscribe or unsubscribe to NetFuture:
    Steve Talbott :: NetFuture #119 :: March 27, 2001
    Goto table of contents

  • Goto NetFuture main page