Ever had a wank ever had a wank ever had a Wankle Engine.Technology, Opportunity cost. Ideas whose time may have come again. Post Scarcity or Degrowth? Energy COst of Energy. Opportunity Cost of Energy. Part 2 More Notes

213px-Atkinson_Opposed_Piston_Engine

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

Other uses

UEL UAV-741 Wankel engine for a UAV
Small Wankel engines are being found increasingly in other applications, such as go-karts,[156][157] personal water craft, and auxiliary power units for aircraft.[158][159] Kawasaki patented mixture-cooled rotary engine (US patent 3991722). Japanese diesel engine manufacturer Yanmar and Dolmar-Sachs of Germany had a rotary-engined chain saw (SAE paper 760642) and outboard boat engines, and the French Outils Wolf, made lawnmower (Rotondor) powered by a Wankel rotary engine. To save on production costs, the rotor was in a horizontal position and there were no seals in the down side. The Graupner/O.S. 49-PI is a 1.27 hp (950 W) 5 cc Wankel engine for model airplane use, which has been in production essentially unchanged since 1970. Even with a large muffler, the entire package weighs only 380 grams (13 oz).[160][161]

The simplicity of the Wankel engine makes it well-suited for mini, micro, and micro-mini engine designs. The Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) Rotary Engine Lab at the University of California, Berkeley, has previously undertaken research towards the development of Wankel engines of down to 1 mm in diameter, with displacements less than 0.1 cc. Materials include silicon and motive power includes compressed air. The goal of such research was to eventually develop an internal combustion engine with the ability to deliver 100 milliwatts of electrical power; with the engine itself serving as the rotor of the generator, with magnets built into the engine rotor itself.[162][163] Development of the miniature Wankel engine stopped at UC Berkeley at the end of the DARPA contract. Miniature Wankel engines struggled to maintain compression due to sealing problems, similar to problems observed in the large scale versions. In addition, miniature engines suffer from an adverse surface to volume ratio causing excess heat losses; the relatively large surface area of the combustion chamber walls transfers away what little heat is generated in the small combustion volume resulting in quenching and low efficiency.

Ingersoll-Rand built the largest-ever Wankel engine, with two rotors, which was available between 1975 and 1985, producing 1,100 hp (820 kW). A one rotor version was available producing 550 hp (410 kW). The displacement per rotor was 41 liters, with each rotor being approximately one meter in diameter. The engine was derived from a previous, unsuccessful Curtiss-Wright design, which failed because of a well-known problem with all internal combustion engines: the fixed speed at which the flame front travels limits the distance combustion can travel from the point of ignition in a given time, thereby limiting the maximum size of the cylinder or rotor chamber which can be used. This problem was solved by limiting the engine speed to only 1200 rpm and the use of natural gas as fuel. That was particularly well chosen, since one of the major uses of the engine was to drive compressors on natural gas pipelines.[164]

Yanmar of Japan produced some small, charge-cooled rotory engines for chainsaws and outboard engines.[165] One of its products is the LDR (rotor recess in the leading edge of combustion chamber) engine, which has better exhaust emissions profiles, and reed-valve controlled intake ports, which improve part-load and low rpm performance.[166]

In 1971 and 1972, Arctic Cat produced snowmobiles powered by Sachs KM 914 303 cc and KC-24 294 cc Wankel engines made in Germany.

In the early 1970s Outboard Marine Corporation sold snowmobiles under the Johnson and other brands, which were powered by 35 or 45 hp (26 or 34 kW) OMC engines.

Aixro of Germany produces and sells a go-kart engine, with a 294 cc-per-chamber charge-cooled rotor and liquid-cooled housings. Other makers are: Wankel AG, Cubewano, Rotron and Precision Technology USA.

The American M1A3 Abrams tank will use an auxiliary rotary-engined power unit, developed by the TARDEC US Army lab. It has a high-power-density 330 cc rotary engine, modified to operate with various fuels such as high octane military grade jet fuel.[167]

Atkinson_Engine_with_Intake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_cycle

An Otto cycle is an idealized thermodynamic cycle that describes the functioning of a typical spark ignition piston engine. It is the thermodynamic cycle most commonly found in automobile engines.[1]

The Otto cycle is a description of what happens to a mass of gas as it is subjected to changes of pressure, temperature, volume, addition of heat, and removal of heat. The mass of gas that is subjected to those changes is called the system. The system, in this case, is defined to be the fluid (gas) within the cylinder. By describing the changes that take place within the system, it will also describe in inverse, the system’s effect on the environment. In the case of the Otto cycle, the effect will be to produce enough net work from the system so as to propel an automobile and its occupants in the environment.

The Otto cycle is constructed from:

Top and bottom of the loop: a pair of quasi-parallel and isentropic processes (frictionless, adiabatic reversible).
Left and right sides of the loop: a pair of parallel isochoric processes (constant volume).

The isentropic process of compression or expansion implies that there will be no inefficiency (loss of mechanical energy), and there be no transfer of heat into or out of the system during that process. The cylinder and piston are assumed to be impermeable to heat during that time. Work is performed on the system during the lower isentropic compression process. Heat flows into the Otto cycle through the left pressurizing process and some of it flows back out through the right depressurizing process. The summation of the work added to the system plus the heat added minus the heat removed yields the net mechanical work generated by the system.

Opportunity cost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

When an option is chosen from alternatives, the opportunity cost is the “cost” incurred by not enjoying the benefit associated with the best alternative choice.[1] The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as “the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.”[2] In simple terms, opportunity cost is the benefit not received as a result of not selecting the next best option. Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing “the basic relationship between scarcity and choice“. [3] The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in attempts to ensure that scarce resources are used efficiently.[4] Opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered an opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a product or service is the revenue that could be earned by its alternative use. In other words, opportunity cost is the cost of the next best alternative of a product or service. The meaning of the concept of opportunity cost can be explained with the help of following examples:

(1) The opportunity cost of the funds tied up in one’s own business is the interest (or profits corrected for differences in risk) that could be earned on those funds in other ventures.

(2) The opportunity cost of the time one puts into his own business is the salary he could earn in other occupations (with a correction for the relative psychic income in the two occupations).

(3) The opportunity cost of using a machine to produce one product is the earnings that would be possible from other products.

(4) The opportunity cost of using a machine that is useless for any other purpose is nil, since its use requires no sacrifice of other opportunities.

Thus opportunity cost requires sacrifices. If there is no sacrifice involved in a decision, there will be no opportunity cost. In this regard the opportunity costs not involving cash flows are not recorded in the books of accounts, but they are important considerations in business decisions.

Parable of the broken window

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Broken window fallacy)

Jump to navigationJump to search

When a child accidentally smashes a window, and then it has to be replaced, does this accident constitute a benefit to society, due to the economic activity of repairing and replacing the window?

The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas” (“That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See“) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.

The parable seeks to show how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are unseen or ignored. The belief that destruction is good for the economy is consequently known as the broken window fallacy or glazier’s fallacy.

Economic value added

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In corporate finance, as part of fundamental analysis, economic value added (EVA) is an estimate of a firm’s economic profit, or the value created in excess of the required return of the company’s shareholders. EVA is the net profit less the capital charge ($) for raising the firm’s capital. The idea is that value is created when the return on the firm’s economic capital employed exceeds the cost of that capital. This amount can be determined by making adjustments to GAAP accounting. There are potentially over 160 adjustments but in practice only several key ones are made, depending on the company and its industry. EVA is a service mark of Stern Value Management.[1]

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA (no deal option) refers to the most advantageous alternative course of action a party can take if negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. The exact opposite of this option is the WATNA (worst alternative to a negotiated agreement). The BATNA could include diverse situations, such as suspension of negotiations, transition to another negotiating partner, appeal to the court’s ruling, the execution of strikes, and the formation of other forms of alliances.[1] BATNA is the key focus and the driving force behind a successful negotiator. A party should generally not accept a worse resolution than its BATNA. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that deals are accurately valued, taking into account all considerations, such as relationship value, time value of money and the likelihood that the other party will live up to their side of the bargain. These other considerations are often difficult to value, since they are frequently based on uncertain or qualitative considerations, rather than easily measurable and quantifiable factors.

Oftentimes, it is even more difficult to determine the BATNA of the other party. However, the information is crucial as the BATNA determines the other side’s negotiation power. Sometimes, conclusions can be drawn by determining his/her main interests and the negotiation itself can be used to verify or falsify the assumptions. If, for example, it is assumed that a very early delivery date is of key importance to the negotiating partner, deliberately setting a later delivery date can be proposed. If this late delivery date is decidedly rejected, the desired delivery date is likely to be of great importance.[2]

Production–possibility frontier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Production-possibility frontier)

Jump to navigationJump to search

production–possibility frontier (PPF) or production possibility curve (PPC) is a curve which shows various combinations of the amounts of two goods which can be produced within the given resources and technology/a graphical representation showing all the possible options of output for two products that can be produced using all factors of production, where the given resources are fully and efficiently utilized per unit time. A PPF illustrates several economic concepts, such as allocative efficiencyeconomies of scaleopportunity cost (or marginal rate of transformation), productive efficiency, and scarcity of resources (the fundamental economic problem that all societies face).[1]

This tradeoff is usually considered for an economy, but also applies to each individual, household, and economic organization. One good can only be produced by diverting resources from other goods, and so by producing less of them.

Graphically bounding the production set for fixed input quantities, the PPF curve shows the maximum possible production level of one commodity for any given production level of the other, given the existing state of technology. By doing so, it defines productive efficiency in the context of that production set: a point on the frontier indicates efficient use of the available inputs (such as points B, D and C in the graph), a point beneath the curve (such as A) indicates inefficiency, and a point beyond the curve (such as X) indicates impossibility.

An example PPF with illustrative points marked

PPFs are normally drawn as bulging upwards or outwards from the origin (“concave” when viewed from the origin), but they can be represented as bulging downward (inwards) or linear (straight), depending on a number of assumptions.

An outward shift of the PPC results from growth of the availability of inputs, such as physical capital or labour, or from technological progress in knowledge of how to transform inputs into outputs. Such a shift reflects, for instance, economic growth of an economy already operating at its full productivity (on the PPF), which means that more of both outputs can now be produced during the specified period of time without sacrificing the output of either good. Conversely, the PPF will shift inward if the labour force shrinks, the supply of raw materials is depleted, or a natural disaster decreases the stock of physical capital.

However, most economic contractions reflect not that less can be produced but that the economy has started operating below the frontier, as typically, both labour and physical capital are underemployed, remaining therefore idle.

In microeconomics, the PPF shows the options open to an individual, household, or firm in a two good world. By definition, each point on the curve is productively efficient, but, given the nature of market demand, some points will be more profitable than others. Equilibrium for a firm will be the combination of outputs on the PPF that is most profitable.[2]

From a macroeconomic perspective, the PPF illustrates the production possibilities available to a nation or economy during a given period of time for broad categories of output. It is traditionally used to show the movement between committing all funds to consumption on the y-axis versus investment on the x-axis. However, an economy may achieve productive efficiency without necessarily being allocatively efficient. Market failure (such as imperfect competition or externalities) and some institutions of social decision-making (such as government and tradition) may lead to the wrong combination of goods being produced (hence the wrong mix of resources being allocated between producing the two goods) compared to what consumers would prefer, given what is feasible on the PPF.[3]

Economic problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The economic problem – sometimes called the basic or central economic problem – asserts that an economy’s finite resources are insufficient to satisfy all human wants and needs.[1] Economics involves the study of how to allocate resources in conditions of scarcity.[1] However, viewing economics as the study of how society allocates resources can lead to conflation of normative economic planning and empirical study of how economic agents operate in these conditions.[1]

In mainstream neoclassical economics, it is assumed that humans pursue their self-interest, and that the market mechanism best satisfies the various wants different individuals might have. These wants are often divided into individual wants (which depend on the individual’s preferences and purchasing power parity) and collective wants (which are the wants of entire groups of people). Things such as food and clothing can be classified as either wants or needs, depending on what type and how often a good is requested.

Economists have sometimes characterized “how” to produce as a “technological problem” of efficiency whereas the allocation of what is produced is an “economic problem”.[1] In a free market, the “how” of production and allocation of resources is distributed among economic agents. In a centrally planned economy, a principal decides how and what to produce on behalf of agents. Modern economies are often welfare capitalist with various regulations, which makes the economic system more equitable while retaining the distributed free market system.

Post-scarcity economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Post-scarcity)

Jump to navigationJump to search

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.[1][2] Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services, but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services.[3] Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.[4][5][6][7]

In the paper “The Post-Scarcity World of 2050–2075”[8] the authors assert that we are currently living an age of scarcity resulting from negligent behavior (as regards the future) of the 19th and 20th centuries. The period between 1975 and 2005 was characterized by relative abundance of resources (oil, water, energy, food, credit, among others) which boosted industrialization and development in the Western economies. An increased demand of resources combined with a rising population led to resource exhaustion.[8] In part, the ideas developed about post-scarcity are motivated by analyses that posit that capitalism leverages scarcity.

One of the main traces of the scarcity periods is the increase and fluctuation of prices. To deal with that situation, advances in technology come into play, driving an efficient use of resources to a certain extent that costs will be considerably reduced (almost everything will be free). Consequently, the authors claim that the period between 2050 and 2075 will be a post-scarcity age in which scarcity will no longer exist.[8]

An ideological contrast to the post-scarcity economy is formed by the concept of a steady-state economy.[citation needed]

Post-Scarcity Anarchism[edit]

Murray Bookchin, in his 1971 essay collection Post-Scarcity Anarchism, outlines an economy based on social ecologylibertarian municipalism, and an abundance of fundamental resources, arguing that post-industrial societies have the potential to be developed into post-scarcity societies. For Bookchin, such development would enable “the fulfillment of the social and cultural potentialities latent in a technology of abundance”.[32]

Bookchin claims that the expanded production made possible by the technological advances of the twentieth century were in the pursuit of market profit and at the expense of the needs of humans and of ecological sustainability. The accumulation of capital can no longer be considered a prerequisite for liberation, and the notion that obstructions such as the statesocial hierarchy, and vanguard political parties are necessary in the struggle for freedom of the working classes can be dispelled as a myth.[33]

Click to access The%20Post-Scarcity%20World%20of%202050-2075.pdf


The Post-Scarcity World of 2050–2075 Stephen Aguilar-Millan, Ann Feeney, Amy Oberg, and Elizabeth Rudd The deployment of long-range forecasts is an activity that is, in itself, hazardous in nature. There is a distinct possibility that the future may not unfold quite as originally anticipated. Our speculations about how we move into the future could be wrong. There may be unforeseen events that blow us off our path as we progress forward. However, just because it is difficult to engage in thinking for the long term does not mean that we ought not to try. There are many human activities that do require us to think about how the world will develop beyond our immediate horizon. For example, if we are to plan a road, or to lay out the foundations for a city, the decisions that we make today will have an impact far into the future. Much of the beauty of ancient cities lies in how they were planned at inception. When we engage in this type of activity we have a responsibility to future generations to give some consideration as to Stephen Aguilar-Millan is the director of research at the European Futures Observatory and a director of The Greenways Partnership, a firm of consulting futurists. E-mail stephena@eufo.org. Ann Feeney is research manager at the YMCA of the USA. E-mail ann.feeney@gmail.com. Amy Oberg is managing partner at Future-In-Sight LLC. E-mail Amy.Oberg@Future-In-Sight.com. Elizabeth Rudd is a consultant with more than 20 years of experience in a variety of senior management, strategy, and business development roles. She lives in Melbourne, Australia. how our decisions may impact upon them. One could argue that many of the problems of the twenty-first century result from a neglect of the future in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is with this in mind that we approach the issue of the “postscarcity world.” We take the view that the world between 2010 and 2050 is one that is likely to be characterized by scarcities. A scarcity of credit, a scarcity of food, a scarcity of energy, a scarcity of water, and a scarcity of mineral resources. We shall touch upon the nature of these scarcities, their causes, and their cures in the next section. However, that is not the main emphasis of this piece. Our main emphasis lies upon what comes after the period of scarcity. In developing our thinking about this issue, we have found it useful to develop a view from four perspectives—the post-scarcity company, post-scarcity society, post-scarcity geopolitics, and the postscarcity financial system. Together, they provide a view of what the world may look like between 2050 and 2075. It will not be a world without scarcity, but one that has learned to cope with constricted resources. From Scarcity to Post-Scarcity: 2010–2050

https://www.akpress.org/catalog/product/view/id/807/s/postscarcityanarchism/

postscarcityanarchism_72

Walkaway (Doctorow novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Walkaway (Cory Doctorow novel))

Jump to navigationJump to search

Walkaway
Walkaway (a Cory Doctorow novel) book cover.jpg
Author Cory Doctorow
Country United States
Language English
Subject DystopiaUtopiaoligarchysurveillancepost-scarcityalternative lifestylewar
Genre Adult Science Fiction
Publisher Head of Zeus, Tor Books
Publication date
April 25, 2017
Media type Book (Hardcover, Paperback and E-Book)
Pages 384
ISBN 0-7653-9276-3
Preceded by Homeland 
Website craphound.com/category/walkaway

Walkaway is an adult science fiction novel by Cory Doctorow, published by Head of Zeus and Tor Books in April 2017.

Set in our near-future, it is a story of walking away from “non-work“, and surveillance and control by a brutal, immensely rich oligarchical elite; love and romance; a post-scarcity gift economyrevolution and eventual war; and a means of finally ending death.[1][2][3]

The inequality of badly-run or corrupt states is boosted by the power of technology – but it’s also easier than ever to destabilise these states, thanks to technology. The question is: which future will prevail?

Eye in the (Dubai) sky: surveillance technology makes guarding the elites cheaper than ever.
 Eye in the (Dubai) sky: surveillance technology makes guarding the elites cheaper than ever. Photograph: Alamy

Here’s the bad news: technology – specifically, surveillance technology – makes it easier to police disaffected populations, and that gives badly run, corrupt states enough stability to get themselves into real trouble.

Here’s the good news: technology – specifically, networked technology – makes it easier for opposition movements to form and mobilise, even under conditions of surveillance, and to topple badly run, corrupt states.

Inequality creates instability, and not just because of the resentments the increasingly poor majority harbours against the increasingly rich minority. Everyone has a mix of good ideas and terrible ones, but for most of us, the harm from our terrible ideas is capped by our lack of political power and the checks that others – including the state – impose on us.

As rich people get richer, however, their wealth translates into political influence, and their ideas – especially their terrible ideas – take on outsized importance.

In Saudi Arabia, the delusional superstitions of a tiny, super-rich elite exclude nearly 45% of the population from full participation in civic life. This is unequivocally bad for the gulf state, whose next cure for cancer or post-oil economic transition may never emerge because its inventor was stuck indoors waiting for her “male guardian” to drive her somewhere.

But we needn’t only look to the Middle East to find rich people’s bad ideas making everyone worse off.

While Saudi hydrocarbonism denies humanity to women, American hydrocarbonism denies credibility to climate scientists. This is a much more democratically stupid idea in that it will kill rich people as well as poor: even the best-guarded McMansion is still epidemiologically linked to the people dying of tuberculosis outside its walls, and mosquito-borne Zika doesn’t care about your wealth.

In Britain we have the weaponisation of shelter, in which homes become a speculative investment instead of a human right, which massively unbalances the UK economy while distorting work, education and family life – even as our cities fill up with empty tower blocks laden with celestial safe-deposit boxes that may be money laundries for offshore criminals first, and only incidentally places where someone might live, someday.

St George Wharf Tower, London: foreign-owned beacon of a city where shelter has become ‘weaponised’.
Pinterest
 St George Wharf Tower, London: foreign-owned beacon of a city where shelter has become ‘weaponised’. Photograph: View Pictures/Rex/Shutterstockhttps://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1233750256556310534

https://craphound.com/

 

https://www.cyberpunks.com/interview-cory-doctorow-fights-for-the-internet/

INTERVIEW — Cory Doctorow Fights for the Internet

INTERVIEW — Cory Doctorow Fights for the Internet

The Hugo-nominated, Sunburst, Locus and Prometheus award-winning author Cory Doctorow was at Comicpalooza this weekend, and he graciously took some time out of his crowded schedule to talk to writer Cory De La Guardia for Cyberpunks.com.  Check out Doctorow’s newest book, Radicalized.

GROWING UP SCI-FI: CONCEPTUAL BUILDING BLOCKS

Upon meeting Doctorow, I found him to be a person of great calm and certainty regarding his writing:

I always wanted to write science fiction. I grew up in a great science fiction writer’s town. Judith Merril–who was an American feminist, science fiction writer, and critic and anthologist–moved to Canada, to Toronto where I’m from. . . and she took along her and Frederick Pohl’s book collection. . .  and donated it to the Toronto Public Library System where it was the basis, the nucleus of what’s become the largest science fiction reference collection in the world.

In what was fast-becoming a mecca of science fiction in an important era of technological growth, Doctor Who was on public television; Merril would explain the origins of these concepts in the world of science fiction literature.  From these promising beginnings developed a habit and consistency that becomes the basis of any writer’s great success, although for Doctorow it started earlier than most:

“As a teenager, I started sending stories to magazines and started selling them when I was, like, 17, and then I went away to the Clarion Science Fiction Writing Workshop and was mentored by great writers and made great friends there [like] Jeff VanderMeer and lots of other great writers.

What starts out as the journey of an artist aspiring to succeed becomes the groundwork for the belief that the sharing and building of ideas and concepts is what creates and strengthens the quality of stories.  These stories introduce concepts that become building blocks for later stories, thus allowing further refinement and iteration after readers are introduced to an idea.

This pattern holds especially true in science fiction, where concepts aren’t what make stories, but instead lay the backdrop for the genre with a long history of sharing:

CYBERPUNK TIMELINE

Cyberpunk Timeline

What is it, we ask, that lies ahead?

Is it perhaps a future without the utopian idealism and shiny, happy optimism of Star Trek? Is it perhaps also a future without the hopeless dystopian pessimism of Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World? A future that’s not so much idealistic, as realistic?

Cyberpunks.com endeavors to explore the technological future, and we find value in examining the timeline that shaped the cyberpunk genre, understanding the events surrounding the people that envisioned a world full of technological wonders and abundance, and yet also a world with enough individual freedom of expression that the potential horrors that come with these things aren’t completely wiped away clean?

Not Star Trek. But not Orwell.

Instead, Blade Runner, Neuromancer, A.D. Police, Ghost in the Shell, Altered Carbon, The Matrix…works that paint a picture of a future where human limitations have been surpassed. And yet as a result, what it means to be human in the first place may come into question.

PRESENT DAY

 

5 thoughts on “Ever had a wank ever had a wank ever had a Wankle Engine.Technology, Opportunity cost. Ideas whose time may have come again. Post Scarcity or Degrowth? Energy COst of Energy. Opportunity Cost of Energy. Part 2 More Notes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.