alexandraerin: (Default)
Finally wrote my sleep schedule has been, Wednesday's update progress - Something on my brain's slowing.

Other up to be finished late tonight. Okay, you need to be finished out the grace to write. Ack.

Chapter 2 chapter 5 construction here: I not half the real this time. : I wrote 2,000+ words today.

Was abducted for reptilefolk to write. Just posted first chapter finished, posting soon.

Another snippet of view coming up the sleep. is updated - Today is back into, and then back into, and all.

Above are the first five results I got using the My Next Tweet, an awesome "service" that blends your Twitter feed and regurgitates a random tweet based on your previous postings.

The one I've bolded is my favorite. If I hadn't just had new business cards made, I'd put "Was abducted for reptilefolk to write." put on my business cards.


For extra fun, you can put in other people's names. I was going to make a sample list of the output for the celebrities I follow, but I don't think I could ever top the first result I got for the first person I tried it with -

@GeorgeTakei: "I am a comedy about prune juice."
alexandraerin: (Default)
An established writer who blogs on the business side of writing makes a strong case for why new authors might want to self-publish rather than seeking success through Big Publishing.

She seems entertainingly reluctant to come to this conclusion. There are some points I wasn't aware of/hadn't considered in my previous spiels on this subject, including the fact that publishers will use the electronic rights to keep a book "in print" indefinitely at a low cost with the result that the rights never revert back to the author.

I've been of the opinion that most authors who never hit the mid tier and even many who do are better off taking control of their back catalog and marketing their out of print books directly to the audience as e-books... seems publishers agree that this is where the easy money is.

Look at this quote:

Once a book sells into traditional publishing, it will remain a part of traditional publishing. Which means that, eventually, the writer will earn out his advance, and will make $10, $20 or $30 extra dollars per year on that book.

$10, $20, or $30 dollars a year from a book. Yeah, that's after you've earned your advance so it's not like it's the only profit the book gives you, but what kind of recurring income is that? People enjoy books for years, shouldn't they earn money for you for years?

One needs a big publishing house to produce thousands and thousands of dead tree copies and distribute them across the country, but there's absolutely no reason to be giving the lion's share of e-book profits to an army of middlemen. Is the publisher shouldering the hefty cost of electrons? No. And any talk about the big publisher having resources that we don't for promoting and getting the book into stores is just that... the whole point of these kind of slow lingering death deals is that most books will never bring in the big bucks that justify that kind of individual attention.

These are catalog fillers we're talking about, as most books are. Joe Blow's Self-Published E-Book #11 won't stand out from the crowd any less than Joe's Blow Generic Never-Broke-Out Non-Hit Book.

Now the thing that seems like a major blindspot in the post... and maybe somewhere in the series of posts preceding it this is addressed or explained... is that there seems to be a bit of a false dilemma between succumbing to the allure of Big Publishing or self-publishing with no examination of the options in between. If a weight loss company could figure out how to make an expansive middle region disappear as quickly as this post does, they could print their own money.

This blog series has actually been nominated for a Rose And Bay Award in the "Other Project" category. I'm probably going to check out the rest of it, by and by.
alexandraerin: (Question)
...on my "where to find me post." I also have a formspring account, which is a great place to put the random questions I otherwise get as Facebook wall comments or "off topic, but...?" comments here. (Not that I mind those, as long as they're not on Serious Business type posts.)
alexandraerin: (Default)
I'd planned on doing this last of my tasks for the day, but as I'm riding out waves of headache pain (I think it's just tension/stress, but having identified that isn't make it go away) I'm finding it easier to knock out the smaller jobs. Anyway, a few times over the years people have expressed interest in getting to know me better, aside from what comes through from my writing. I'm not the easiest person to form a connection with... as I've said before, I've been a big fan of keeping my life compartmentalized... but I'm finding that the life of a hermit doesn't actually appeal to me as much as I thought it would.

So, here's a brief list of windows into my world. A lot of people know about this journal, especially now that its RSS feed is displayed on the side of the MU site, but whereas I consider this to be my personal space, there are other places I go to be halfway sociable. Note that I'm not actually terribly active in any of these places right now... high activity levels online tend to coincide with high productivity, because the same things can effect me in both areas.

My Twitter:

I think most people who read my work know about this, since I've had my Twitter feeding into the sidebar of Tales of MU for as long as I've had it. I mainly use it to broadcast updates, but it does get used for side conversations and occasional feedback solicitations... I've tried keeping a separate Twitter for personal stuff and it was just horribly redundant. If you just want to know when stuff gets updated, watch [ profile] ae_stories. There is an RSS feed for that, too.

My Facebook:

I don't have anything private on my Facebook, so I tend to accept friend requests whether they're from actual friends, casual contacts, or readers. A lot of the time my Facebook status attracts a lot more personal declarations than my Twitter does, if only because I don't want to knock story updates off the top spot on my Twitter page too quickly. My Livejournal feeds there and my Twitter will again (I don't think it's doing it at the moment but I mean to fix that), so it's a good one-stop shop for people who want to keep up on my non-fiction activities.

My station:

My emotional buttons are large, clearly labeled, and about as well-protected from anybody stumbling right into them as the self-destruct switch in an archvillain's incredibly obvious secret lair, so music has a pretty profound ability to affect my mood. Accordingly, a lot of what I play is intended to give myself a shot in the arm one way or another. Some of it's just fun or pretty, though.

My Fetlife Profile:

I almost didn't include this one because it's not as much an "of general interest" site as the others, but I decided that the chance to do a bit of a service for everybody out there who's at least a little bit kinked and doesn't know about FetLife (or as Jack calls it, "the scary site") is not something I could pass up. I haven't been very active there at all yet, but I'm looking forward to exploring it more. As with Facebook, I'm open to friendings.

If you're not only not the kinky sort but are easily shocked, offended, or made uncomfortable then I really strongly suggest not registering just to take a peek around. You'll have no one to blame but yourself... it's not like anyone's hiding what the site's about.

My favorite blog: Shapely Prose and its discussion site.

Well, it's actually tied favorite with Fred Clarke's blog (slacktivist), but the "fifty comments per page/hundreds to thousands of comments per entry" style his site has is not very conducive to drop-in/drive-by commentary... so while I read his blog, I don't comment very often and thus it's not really a place to find me on the web.

But, anyway... Shapely Prose. I'm going to put an even stronger "don't go looking if..." warning on this than I did for FetLife. If you find yourself rolling your eyes or arguing when I blog about feminism (or just about any other -ism) or fat acceptance, your words of wisdom will probably not be any better received over there than they would be here. It was, in fact, Kate Harding's comment policy and her frequent assertions of modly dominion that inspired me to stop letting people use my comment space to champion that perennial underdog, the status quo.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people would benefit from perusing the archives there. Just read the comment policy and the FAQ before reacting to anything.

My favorite Livejournal community:

I was first lured into [ profile] statements back when Tales of MU was brand new, because one of the more interesting commentators, [ profile] popelizbet, hung out there. The appeal of the community... which is based around making posts consisting of one single declarative sentence at a time... might be elusive to some, but I like it because it scratches the same itch as a chatroom would, only it doesn't require constant attention and I can go back and look at things later, which is useful for figuring out who the hell other people are. Some of my favorite people on the internet are there... notably, it's the place where I saw Jack the most before we got together.

The rules are few and simple, but important. If you want to join the community, make sure you read the profile.

My formspring account:

I knew I'd forget something. For those who don't know, is a Q&A site where you can ask people questions and see what answers they've given to other questions. No account creation/personal details are necessary. Feel free to ask personal questions, story-related questions, random questions... if I don't want to answer something, I just won't.


That's what I can think of off the top of my head. As I've said, feel free to friend/follow/whatever. Just bear in mind that I'm not that great at remembering people. I predict that I'll get at least one person going "OMG HOW DARE YOU DO ALL THIS STUFF ONLINE WHEN YOU COULD BE WRITING", but I'll let everybody in on a little secret: when you have--for instance--a Facebook profile, you don't actually have to hand-render the page yourself every time somebody loads it. They can do that with computers now.
alexandraerin: (Default)
I just got linked to a fun new web toy right at the moment I really needed it: It's kind of like Twitter and had a baby and then that baby grew up and invented a website that aggregates music searches and lets you share your favorites with people social-networking style.

The link above takes you to my feed, which as of this moment has all of one song on it, a [ profile] s00j video. Bookmark/follow it to see what I'm listening to.
alexandraerin: (Default)
So, there's this crazy study out that says that obese teenagers' metabolisms aren't affected by moderate amounts of aerobic exercise in the same way that thin teenagers' metabolisms are... that while the obese teenagers gain important health benefits from exercising, their metabolisms don't kick into high fat-burning gear and thus they don't tend to lose weight from it.

It's almost like two people could eat the same things, exercise the same, and have the same habits and yet have entirely differently shaped bodies based on uncontrollable inherited conditions! And to get even crazier, it's almost as though those habits have a bigger impact on one's health than what size and shape one's skin is in!


Usually when somebody brings up the immutability of obesity in a conversation like this, someone chimes in with "Maybe there are some people who are fat because of a gland problem or something but that's super rare and it doesn't account for most people who are fat." That's a Conversation We Won't Be Having Here, but just to be clear: I'm not saying that most fat people have a problem. I'm saying most fat people have a different metabolism than skinny people do.

Not a worse metabolism. A different one.

One that seems to be shared by a large proportion of the population, which suggests that it's not entirely inimical to the survival of individuals or the species as a whole.

What a world, what a world.
alexandraerin: (Default)
There's a great post up today on Feminists With Disabilities/Forward about the whys and wherefores of pop culture critiques. If it had been written before my Glee-critique post, I probably would have linked to it there... and if I hadn't thought to link to it in the body, I definitely would have sent it to the commenter who wanted to know why I cared so much.
alexandraerin: (Default)
I love this news story. A couple buys a hot springs resort, discovers that it uses 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel every month to heat its swimming pool, go "LOLWTF?" and then invent an efficient low-temperature geothermal power process.

Geothermal power's already big in places like Iceland that are volcanically active and have obvious heat sources to tap, but it's not like you need an actual magma flow to find warmth inside the earth. A way of tapping the relatively small difference in temperatures at ground level and far below it might just be the biggest idea in renewable energy ever. Why? Because you could generate power anywhere that you could sink a deep enough well... or anywhere that a well already exists. I can imagine the petrochemical cartels getting behind this in a way that they won't other alternative energy schemes because they hold the resources needed to take advantage of it, in the forms of existing wells and the equipment and expertise to sink new ones. Investing in it now would allow them to maintain some wealth and power as the supply of fossil fuels dwindles and the demand for alternatives increases.

At the same time, the fact that the technology is not tied to a finite resource and could be used to generate power from a greater range of locations means that it would ultimately become easier for people and groups to live "off the grid", for communities to address their own power needs locally. No high tension towers trailing wires across fragile desert habitats, no pipelines over the tundra.


On the other hand, I'm less crazy about this story. If you think the justice of the peace has a point either in his reasoning or his claim that this isn't racist, feel free to say so on your own Livejournal because I'm not going to entertain you here. A much higher authority than him decided this matter in 1967... any higher authority than that probably threw up its hands long before that and said, "No, wait, seriously... why is this even a question?"

It's not his place to set odds on the success or failure of a prospective marriage, nor is it his place to make decisions for a couple based on what may or may not happen to children they may or may not have... and it's certainly not his place to make those judgments based solely on the race of the participants.

As much smug fun as it is to look at stories of horrible and irresponsible parenting and say "You should need a license to have children.", cases like this... and laws that attempt to regulate who has access to what, historically, has been viewed as a license to have children... and experiments with eugenics and forced sterilizations... demonstrate pretty well how such a licensing system would work in actuality.
alexandraerin: (Default)

A friend of mine works for the Meriden Humane Society in Meriden, Connecticut. This is a no-kill shelter that works hard to provide food, medical care, and ultimately (hopefully) homes for cats and dogs. This is not an easy job to do by any stretch of the imagination, and they struggle with getting the funds for their basic operations, much less getting information out there to the public.

My friend made this video using the tools she had available (a simple digital camera and the Windows movie making software, based on my market research which tells me that:

1) The internet is magic.
2) The internet loves kittens.

Maybe you don't live in Connecticut, maybe you don't have the money to spare for an animal shelter across the country when there are local ones whose needs are just as great. But if you've ever in your life forwarded/crossposted a picture or video of an adorable baby animal for any reason, please consider doing so now for great justice. If enough people see this little guy, some of them will be just the right junction of motive and opportunity for do-goodery. Some of them might be in the Meriden area and they might decide to give a home to a cat or dog from the shelter, instead of buying one from a backyard breeder or supporting efforts to import pets for adoption to regions that already have a pet population problem.

And some people everywhere might realize that there are underfunded and overcrowded shelters, and thus no need for their cats to keep producing litters. That's a win for shelters everywhere.
alexandraerin: (Default)
I had a post about Amanda Fucking-Palmer of the Boston Fucking-Palmers that I was working on the other day, which I accidentally closed out (and then bungled the "restore saved draft") thing. It was all about a blog post of hers that [ profile] ephant tipped me to, where she reproduced an email she sent someone about her experiences using Twitter to interact directly with her fans... and how she's made more money doing this than she made off her celebrity-produced studio-backed album.

(Her blog post is here, but you have to scroll way down to find the relevant passage.)

I don't follow Amanda Palmer's career that closely... I'm only one state away from Neil Gaiman and I can hear him just fine from here. But it really is amazing what she's done for herself.

At the moment I'm writing this, she's answering randomly tweeted questions to kill time while in flight to the west coast. Warren Ellis, observing the goings-on, had this to say:

The level of determination @amandapalmer shows to engage directly with her audience is fascinating me. Post-Mystique Pop Life.

That's a brilliant phrase. "Post-Mystique Pop Life". It's been a while since I bothered to engage with anyone who really feels this way, but I used to argue with people who had what my dad called the "High Priest" mentality about the writing and publishing industry... they wanted the mystique, they wanted the separation between author and audience, because layers of insulation come with the barriers to entry they had to surmount and the golden gates they had to gain admittance through in order to get where they are today.

Amanda Palmer had this to say, possibly intended as a response to Warren's tweet (and working well as a response even if that wasn't her intent):

... it's safer to run into it. like turning and accelerating into a curve when drag-racing. your audience should be a friend, not a foe.

De-mystification puts a lot of high priests out of jobs. It opens a lot of doors. It doesn't mean that everybody gets to be famous and successful but it means that anybody can be... it means that nobodies could be.

Amanda F. Palmer is somebody. She was able to make a relative killing on Twitter in a few hours selling t-shirts spontaneously because she's got a huge following as a result of her music. That's not a feat that could be easily replicated. Not everyone could just jump on the internet and do the same thing... but then, neither could Amanda have done so. She had to put in the work to get to where she is.

But I think a lot of her career has been driven by the following she gains through the internet, via word-of-mouth and word-of-mouse. I don't believe it's necessarily true that you have to have the record deal (or the book deal, or whatever) first and then you can go on the internet and start using your fans to make magic happen. I think you can find your fans that way in the first place.

It's not necessarily easy and it's not necessarily instantaneous, but achieving success never is.
alexandraerin: (Default)
Yesterday I was pretty sure I was going to buy Chris Anderson's book when it comes out on July 7th. (Or possibly the day after. Apparently there's a [ profile] s00j concert in Lincoln on the 7th, and working out the logistics of getting myself and my friends down to it may be a considerable undertaking.) Today, I'm not so sure.

Apparently, the book contains a hefty helping of plagiarism of web sources. I'm not sure if that's irony or just trying him to prove a point in a very clumsy fashion.

No, apparently, he was dissatisfied with the existing options for citing web sites as sources, given the fluid nature of the web (where even a document remains unchanged, the address from which it is retrieved can move around) and in particular on a dynamic site like a wiki, which is subject to edits by its user base.

So dissatisfied he decided it was okay not to do it.

Apparently, the editor of Wired somehow missed the fact that kipedia not only stores previous versions of a page but it comes with a "cite this" function that generates a citation for them that functions as a permanent link to that version. Well, as permanent as kipedia itself is. It could conceivably cease to exist at some point in the future. But so could any other cited source.

In his explanation, he says:

I think what we’ll do is publish those notes after all, online as they should have been to begin with. That way the links are live and we don’t have to wrestle with how to freeze them in time, which is what threw me in the first place…

That could have been interesting if done right. If he was dissatisfied with the results of citing a fluid source from within a fixed medium, he could have done something innovative, like a bibliographical footnote directing readers to a dynamic attribution page. But he'd still need to have the fixed in-print version, because what happens if the dynamic version goes offline, or stops being maintained? Back in the early day of the web era, lots of people bought equipment (like all those stripped-down computers intended to function as internet access gadgets for people who wanted the internet but didn't want to own a whole computer) that depended on web sites or online services that later ceased to exist.

Gah. This pisses me off. I can't help but think that at some level, this carelessness was a result of him thinking, "It's the web, it's a wiki, this stuff is not as important." A Wired editor should be beyond the middle school attitude of "LOL DUDE IT'S JUST PIXELS AND ELECTRONS, COPYWRITE WHAT?", but that's exactly what this reeks of. And what really bothers me about this is that content being repeated without attribution or with the wrong attribution undercuts the value the free flow of information has for producers of content.

And all of that is not even getting into speculation that he avoided citing kipedia so that the resulting contents would not be caught up in the terms of their Creative Commons license. Under the licensing terms for kipedia, you can reproduce their content under the following terms:

  • Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)

  • Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

The case could very easily be made that you're not enmeshed in the license if your use of the work is already covered by the doctrine of Fair Use, as by its very nature Fair Use means that the owner of the content doesn't have a say in what you're doing.

But What Mr. Anderson has done gives the impression that he was trying to get around the license. Circumventing the licensing requirements for distributing someone's content has a name. It starts with a "p" and ends with an "iracy". If Mr. Anderson had wanted to use some commercial product or service in the creation of his work and then found out that they charged a fee he would have found onerous to pay, I think we can assume he would have simply looked for an alternative instead of using it anyway. Setting up a webpage to cite kipedia instead of following their licensing terms is a lot like those disclaimers people put up on their download pages that say "I DON'T OWN ANY OF THIS AND I DON'T CLAIM OWNERSHIP SO PLZ DON'T SUE KTHXBAI".

Again, an editor of a magazine like Wired should know better.
alexandraerin: (Default)
Found via @agletsmycat's Twitter: Malcolm Gladwell reviewing a Chris Anderson book.

That description should be enough to get half my family reading it. For everybody else, though, Chris Anderson is the author of The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, which is about a phenomenon I've referred to in my previous blogs. It's all about how there are necessarily only a few "big winners" in most any field, but the implications of the internet and changes in how people shop for content and products means it's possible for those living within the "long tail" of a chart of demand can still make a living for themselves.

(See also what I've been saying about how the internet allows for more "modest successes" for authors than older models.)

His new book is intriguingly entitled Free: The Future of a Radical Price.

To quote Gladwell,

Anderson’s argument begins with a technological trend. The cost of the building blocks of all electronic activity—storage, processing, and bandwidth—has fallen so far that it is now approaching zero.


Anderson’s second point is that when prices hit zero extraordinary things happen.

The review goes on to cite some of the specific examples Anderson's book provided of the change in demand wrought by an offer of something free, but, really, that's one of the things that should be manifestly obvious. We've all experienced it. When something is free... especially when it's obviuosly well and truly free with no forms to fill out, no strings attached, and no requirements of personal information, we'll try things we'd never have otherwise given a second glance and pounce on things that would otherwise only have just barely piqued our curiosities.

I've spent so much time in the past few weeks talking to other authors (both directly and by proxy through my blog) and entreating them to be less miserly with free-ness, to be open and up front about any content they have that's free, to put it front and center and not hide it behind logins or anything else. As I put it to Matt Selznick in the comments on that io9 article, free can be the difference between a project that has legs and a project that has wings.

There is a colossal power in free product. You still have to figure out how to profit off it, but with the internet reducing overhead to an amount that approaches zero it doesn't have to be a huge profit, especially if you're a solo operator living in the long tail.

So, yeah, I will probably be checking this book out.

(And a tip o' the mitre to [ profile] popelizbet for pointing me at the tweet.)
alexandraerin: (Writing Dirty)
I'd like to welcome Circlet Press to the BlogAds slot on Tales of MU. This long-established adult speculative fiction publisher made the leap from being purely a traditional physical operation to an e-commerce outfit with an online presence, and I hope that they'll see growing success in reaching the often underrepresented niche markets that they serve.

They've started offering free tastes in the form of microfiction on their "Fiction Fridays" (in addition to the rather imaginatively labeled "Free Smut!" section)... they also have excerpts on some their book release announcements, including their latest, Up For Grabs: Exploring the Worlds of Gender.
alexandraerin: (Free Speech)
...for the times, they are a... you know the rest.

This Salon article popped up on Twitter, repeated dutifully by [ profile] shadesong who is spending her day echoing the revolution in Iran so that there will be one more voice to add to the volume and help carry it to further audiences.

The whole situation there is making Warren Ellis and Transmetropolitan seem very prescient: violent government crackdowns caught on camera and broadcast around the world, information slipping in and out of holes that move around the internet faster than they can be closed. AmazonFail showed us how quickly things can blow up on the internet when information spreads organically and virally across distributed clouds of people. Iran is showing us just how much difference this can make.

The article linked above has this to say, from someone on the ground:

Either way, have no doubt, the IRI, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is over. A leading cleric has already announced that we are no longer ruled by the Islamic "Republic" (jomhuri e Islami) but the Islamic government (hookoomat e Islami). Whether now or in a few months or years, the game is over.

The government of Iran can no longer claim to represent the people. The claim of Republic is thus no longer useful. But how well will the government be able to maintain its power now that this pretense has been cast aside, now that they're attacking their own people with electric batons and machetes with the whole world watching? It's that last part that's key, because this is far from the first time that people in power have done horrible things to people without it. The Islamic Republic is dead, but what will replace it is far for clear-cut.

The world is changing. The birthing cries of the internet have been interpreted as the deathknell sounding for many things: the profitability of music and movies, the proliferation of basic literacy, the skills of social interaction and human empathy, and... as someone noted on Twitter (there's so much ReTweeting right now I wouldn't know who to attribute it to originally)... civic involvement. [ profile] yuki_onna said something along these lines in one of her recent posts:

People say the internet alienates people, isolates them. I have no idea what they're talking about.

She was talking, of course, about the response she received to her announcement about her Fairyland project and the circumstances surrounding it.

The internet doesn't make people stop caring any more than it makes people stop reading or enjoying other entertainment media, and it doesn't make people stop fighting for what's right. It just gives us new ways to do these things.

It's up to us to seize them.
alexandraerin: (Default)
Yesterday, I posted on Twitter the deep philosophical question, "Sure, the internet can help feed an artist, but could it ever possibly sate NOM-LAR, the beast with a thousand bellies?"

And today it seems I find my answer, as I stumble across Choconomicon: The Lovecraft Collection on an Etsy-powered candy shop site.

Flavors so inhumanly delicious, they could only have come from beyond the ken of mortal man.

Each box contains eight one-ounce truffles, made with exceptional dedication to quality from the finest ingredients available. Boxes come wrapped in paper stamped with our logo, and tied with twine -- an excellent gift, or a fine indulgence for yourself!

Choconomicon contains two each of the following:

Truffle Over Innsmouth – Behold the green tang of Key Lime as it clings to your tongue, followed by the briny essence of Sea Salt from the ancient, brackish depths!

Nyarlathotep – Horribly delicious, beyond anything you can imagine. A mesmerizing combination of Dark Chocolate ganache, curry from the mysterious East, and gobbets of chili-laced mango.

Elder Joy – This fabled treat coveted by the dark deities is a sinister cousin to a popular human confection -- an ambrosial amalgam of Coconut, white-chocolate Ganache, and Rum, enrobed in the darkest Chocolate and topped with a crisp, whole Almond.

Giant Albino Penguins of Leng – Indeed, you shall be clutched by a primitive dread almost sharper than the worst of your reasoned fears, all the while delighting in the chill of Mint as it infuses the creamiest White Chocolate.

alexandraerin: (Default)
I found an interesting gaming site via Twitter, and specifically found this article (edit: fixed URL, had a little copy/paste error), which outlines an interesting concept. I've said before that I have an abundance of ideas that aren't themselves stories: vehicles, gimmicks and gadgets, locations, characters... this could prove to be an outlet for them.


alexandraerin: (Default)

August 2017



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 06:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios