Welcome to Our Website

Patch copy protect 1.5 full crack internet

Wondershare DVD Creator 6.3.3 Crack Full Serial Key Code

Use FileGuru and find out why thousands of people each day use FileGuru to download software. NIH Grants Policy Statement (10/10) - Part II: Terms and discover more. Crack + Registration Code Full Version Free Download [LATEST] 5KPlayer Crack with Registration Code Full Version Free is the latest powerful an advanced Media player Which Supports the 4K.

Download Copy Protect 2.0.6 Free

In the HTTPS case, the server should have a valid. The Internet (or internet) is the global system of interconnected computer networks that uses the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to communicate between networks and devices. Copy Protect offers copy protection for your media files like photos, videos, The software comes with a special built-in picture and document.

DVD Copy Protect 3.0.6 Download

To know more you You copy and paste key as below image. New computers that come preinstalled with Windows 7 often have what is called a recovery partition. It has it pretty simple interface, which in my opinion made a little sloppy, but understand it is very easy, in fact you just have to insert into the drive carrier, then in front of you will have all the features you need, if it is.

Dllkit pro version Serial Key + Crack

Norton internet security 2020 download Norton Internet Security 2020 sits in the middle of Symantec's new line of premium. They might charge a small shipping and handling fee. ESET Internet Security [] Crack License Key.

Serial code cCleaner Professional Key 5.68.7820 with Crack

Windows 7 Build 7601 This Copy of Windows is not Genuine - Product Key Unable to Re-activate I bought my Toshiba laptop one year ago in South Korea with. In order to compile the sample, load the solution in Visual Studio and select the "Protected Release" build configuration. Description: Visual Protect is a solution based protection, e-commerce, and license management utilities.

FileMaker Pro Cracked [Latest] Version Download

Driver Toolkit 8.5 serial key 100% working. Contact the regional air show coordinator for a copy of last years package or obtain it from the FAA employees. Winzip Pro 22.5 Crack is best and newest windows zip utility for PC file compression, sharing of files, file encryption, and data backup.

Key winZip - Free download and software reviews - CNET Download

Advanced System Repair Pro Crack With License Key. Download Guardian 1.1.0 - Softpedia - Free Downloads go to this site.

Offline activation - Euro Truck Simulator 2

Copy Protect memungkinkan memproteksi data dan file Anda seperti audio, video, dokumen dan gambar sehingga orang lain tidak dapat mengcopy, menyalin atau didistribusikan dengan cara ilegal. Content Protection: The contents of your files and the files themselves are always protected. Advanced Office Password Recovery 6.50 Crack Plus Serial Key.

Keygen photodex ProShow Producer 9.0.3797 Full Cracked [Latest]

This new terminology reflects the fact that one copy of the data remains in IBM Spectrum Protect Plus, while another copy is stored in IBM Spectrum Protect. The C next to Boriek would remind the Chair not to ask about adding this application to the lower half, even though the preliminary votes suggest it might get. Encryption Tools - Copy Protect https://stroika64.ru/download/?file=719.

Fullsoft1: WTM Copy Protection 2.51 CRACK+SERIALKEY FULL

C 04 BORIEK, ALADIN 2 R01 HL046230-12A1 2.9 2.8 1.9. Copy protect 1.5 full crack internet. Copy Protect 1.5 0 Serial Key.

Kakasoft: USB Security, Copy protection, File/Folder

Shadow Defender with Serial browse this site. The program uses high-strength encryption algorithms to protect audio, video files, and. Copy Protect Serial Free Serial Number, key, crack, keygen click reference.

Disaster averted: How I would go about addressing climate change

There is a lot of despair surrounding climate change lately, because the future we had hoped for did not unfold. The despair is justified to a large degree, as a lot of things have gone terrible wrong. As an example, the Americans have decided to elect a president who doesn't want to commit to reducing carbon emissions and instead wants to subsidize the dying coal industry.
I don't feel like delving too much into the question of what causes this delusional mentality, nor do I feel like addressing the various arguments people have come up with to justify sticking their heads into the sand. Today I'd rather look at some of the things we can still do, to preserve a habitable planet. Even if the catastrophic predictions about positive feedback loops that go around turn out to be correct, it's unjustified to state that all hope is lost. There's a lot that can still be done, that people haven't adequately considered. I hope to cover some of those projects today.

Emergency interventions for threatened ecosystems

You might have seen some of the studies that came out, arguing that limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degree Celsius would be insufficient to save most of the world's coral reefs. The coral reefs seem to be the most urgently threatened ecosystems out there. However, there are a number of emergency measures we can take, that would help us to buy time to prevent the coral reefs from dying.
As an example, we can emit sulfates into the atmosphere, that block sunlight. It's estimated that one kilogram of well-placed sulfates, can offset the effects of hundreds of thousands of kilogram of carbon dioxide. Studies have been done on this subject, which found that placing sulphates into the atmosphere, would help us to prevent the coral reefs from dying. Other emergence measures for the coral reefs are discussed here.
Important of course to note is that the coral reefs aren't just at risk of extreme temperatures, they're threatened by ocean acification too. However, ocean acidification can also be addressed to some degree as well. Seaweed takes up carbon from the ocean when it grows, thus locally reducing the Ph of the ocean. Studies are being done, that look at protecting coral reefs, by building seaweed farms near the coral reefs. The seaweed farms are found to be able to buy us anywhere between 7 to 21 years.
Of course, it's important to note that we first need to ensure that seaweed cultivation becomes economically viable on such a large scale. A good start would be to start eating seaweed. Globally, seaweed cultivation is the fastest growing crop, growing by an estimated 8% per year. Billions of people worldwide receive too little iodine in their diet, including an estimated 70% of people in the United Kingdom. I personally try to eat a lot of seaweed. If the seaweed industry grows fast enough, costs may eventually drop down enough, to allow us to feed seaweed to our pets and to farm animals, before we will eventually use seaweed as a form of biomass for renewable energy.

The meat industry

The Japanese eat a third of the amount of meat Americans eat, but live four years longer on average, with far less obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. I think humans benefit from some animal products in their diet, but we certainly don't need as much meat in our diet as we eat in the Western world. The ideal scenario would be if we could eliminate the consumption of all domesticated vertebrates. Instead, the main meat we would continue to eat would be from shellfish.
We're approaching the point where we can grow meat in labs, at commercially viable prices. When this happens the amount of land needed to produce meat is reduced by 99%, while greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 78-96%. Globally, the vast majority of the land we use, is used to grow animals who end up as meat on our dinner plate.
It's clear that if lab-grown meat can be deployed on a large enough scale, large-scale reforestation of the planet becomes a viable objective to pursue. Many farms will go bankrupt, while massive migrations from the countryside towards the city will occur, as new jobs will emerge in cities, at the cost of rural lands. Governments can and should encourage this development. An easy way to encourage this development, would be to level the playing field. You don't need to subsidize lab-grown meat, we can easily stand on our own feed. Instead, get rid of your agricultural subsidies for meat production.
I'm all in favor of Britain withdrawing from the EU, because the EU pumps billions of dollars every year into an unsustainable form of agriculture that puts our planet on the path towards global annihilation while filling the pockets of blue-blooded aristocrats who happen to have inherited a lot of land, most of which was simply stolen over successive generations.

Renewable energy

I have long been skeptical, but it's clear to me now that an economy based on renewable energy can function. It might not be easy and it may take some adaptation, but we can sustain civilization without fossil fuels. The big argument generally brought up against renewable energy is that renewable energy is an intermittent form of energy.
However, this doesn't have to be a significant problem, if we consider the simple fact that our civilization can learn to use energy on an intermittent basis. As an example, a house that's well insulated can lose 1 degree Celsius of heat, when it goes four hours without being heated. Thus, if you're dealing with intermittent electricity, excess electricity could quite easily be used to heat the house.
How would you go about using excess electricity to heat your house? I can think of many ways, but here's an example: If your computer is using Boinc, it could quite easily be set up to start grinding once electricity prices are cheap and temperatures in your house are low. Once Gridcoin becomes a success, this will actually earn you money. Similarly, when your refrigerator is closed, like it generally is during the night, it can quite easily go a few hours without cooling. Appliances can quite easily be designed to work with the reality of intermittent electricity.
Of course I'm not suggesting here that we could cope with a world where everything runs on intermittent solar and wind, with zero storage. Fortunately, to some degree we will find ourselves able to store electricity. Electrical cars can be used to donate electricity to the grid, during moments of (looming) shortage. In addition to this, we will always maintain a source of electricity that's not intermittent: Biomass. In the ideal scenario, we will create giant seaweed farms, where seaweed is grown that's then burned in our current coal plants. The carbon that's emitted when the seaweed is burned can then be used for various purposes, rather than being dumped into the atmosphere.
I often see the argument proposed that some solution can't be scaled. There is not enough lithium for electrical cars, there is not enough lead for batteries, there is not enough land for biofuels, there are not enough empty roofs for solar panels, etcetera. What's forgotten in these arguments, is that none of these solutions will have to stand on their own. Climate change is not an easy problem, but it's a problem that's going to be solved by applying many different solutions. Some societies will be successful at this and succeed, others will fail and become failed states. America under Trump is likely to join the latter category.
Another issue that's forgotten, is the fact that we're really spoiled, to a degree that it harms us. What would happen if Americans would suddenly have their electricity supply drop by fifty percent? If they can't learn to use electricity more efficiently, they would have to return to the standard of living they had in the 1960's. Did people die of hunger in the streets back then? As far as I can tell, they played more card and board games and went out more, rather than staring at screens. I think if we lost fifty percent of our electricity supply, we would be miserable for a few months, before we would breathe a sigh of relief and learn to deal with it. To me, the real question is whether we have the willpower to do what needs to be done, not whether it can be done or not.

Carbon sequestration

I've already shown that we can free large amounts of land through lab-grown meat, that can then be used to grow enormous forests that will sequester carbon dioxide. The Amazon rainforest can be restored to its original extent, if we play our cards right.
However, it doesn't stop here. We have alternative methods of carbon sequestration available to us too. If we covered 9% of the world's oceans with seaweed, we could sequester all the carbon dioxide we emit per year today. The reality remains that most of the ocean consists of deserts, where nothing can live because seaweed, corals and shellfish don't have the attachment points to grow and develop a rich ecosystem.
You might have seen some of the nature documentaries, where an old ship is dumped at the right location, to make an artificial coral reef. This can be done in many ways, for many different organisms. Wind farms in the North Sea were discovered a few months ago to serve as perfect places for oysters to attach to. These oysters grow there now and attract other animals, that live off the oysters.
In a similar manner, humans can grow seaweed in places, simply by creating attachment points for these plants. We're used to destroying ecosystems, turning giant forests into deserts as we have done around the world. What we're capable of doing too, is turning oceanic deserts into giant underwater forests. It doesn't require intense effort, we're already doing it by accident, as the wind turbines in the North Sea have demonstrated.
When we grow biomass, we think of it as a carbon-neutral form of energy production. We can easily turn it into a carbon-negative form of energy production however, simply by using the carbon dioxide. There are many different forms of carbon sequestration. The most promising perhaps, is to build with carbon-negative concrete, which is concrete that's built using carbon dioxide.
Concrete production currently causes 5% of all global CO2 emissions. It's thought however, that we can produce concrete that sequesters twice as much carbon as regular concrete emits. We would thus be able to reduce CO2 emisisons by 15%, simply by replacing all of our current concrete with this new carbon-negative concrete.
The curve of technology adaptation is becoming steeper. Whereas it took a century before most people in Western nations had cars, it took ten years before most of us had internet. How fast do you think we can transition to 100% carbon-negative concrete? I think this can be accomplished within a few years, if we're willing to make the transition.
Similarly, in Iceland, power plants are being developed that sequester carbon dioxide while generating energy. Of course the amount sequestered is not enormous yet, the equivalent of 150 Bitcoin transactions, but it's a first step in the right direction.

Cognitive enhancement

I think this solution is important to note, even if it will seem like far-fetched science-fiction to some of you. This is ultimately a solution on which every above solution will come to depend. We're used to problems that have a singular unified solution. Climate change is not such a problem, it requires reconfiguring our entire carbon-based economy. We will find ourselves faced with a situation that may require hundreds of small solutions, rather than one single big solution. This requires intelligent people, who are capable of discovering and implementing such solutions.
What we need right now is a cultural transition, that will lead people to take this problem seriously. When people take the problem seriously, they'll take the solutions seriously and move towards implementing them. One important thing we've noted, is that people's environmental attitude, is strongly linked to their ability to delay gratification. People who are able to delay gratification, desire to take care of the environment they inhabit. Delayed gratification in turn, is a product of intelligence.
When we look at societies where people try to take care of the environment they inhabit, we find that the people there tend to be relatively intelligent. Consider for example, the two nations where the highest percentage of the population considers climate change to be caused by human activity: South Korea and Japan. South Koreans and Japanese people are among the most intelligent people on the planet. Similarly, Chinese people score at the top of the list.
Why do Americans stick their heads into the sand? Why do they vote for leaders who pretend the problem isn't real? Why are you guaranteed to have some American numbnuts show up in the comment section of any article about climate change, insisting that we'll soon have a solar minimum that will somehow end the problem, that the climate has always changed, that volcanoes actually emit more CO2 than humans, that carbon dioxide makes plants grow, that climate change is actually caused by poor Indians and Africans who have too many children rather than by Americans, or that it only seems like the Earth is warming because of measuring stations located near cities?
The answer is, that on average Americans are simply not very intelligent people. Keep in mind, that 41% of Americans genuinely believe that Jesus will return to Earth before the year 2050. Besides lacking intelligence, they lack the ability to think critically. They're good at selectively seeking out information they already want to believe. Like a bunch of parrots in a tree they'll blindly copy whatever they're hearing and amplify each other's stupidity to soothe their nerves. We can discuss all of the various reasons why Americans are not very intelligent and poorly capable of critical thought in a later essay. It's worth noting however, that most Americans suffer from very poor health, which diminishes their innate cognitive potential.
Imagine if the whole world had the level of intelligence of Japanese or South Korean people. People there have birth rates and immigration policies that ensure their population is gradually declining. Japanese people eat a third of the meat American people eat. In addition, Japanese people emit 70% less CO2 in transportation, than Americans.
The reality we're dealing with, is that our problem would be relatively easy to solve, if we lived on a planet with seven billion people with a level of intelligence equivalent to that of East Asians. The global overpopulation crisis we face is almost entirely caused by religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism in turn, is caused by people who lack intelligence. Intelligent people, capable of critical thinking, don't force children to carry out suicide bombings. A society with sufficient intelligent people, is one where dumb people adjust themselves to the culture of intelligent people, whereas in most societies the opposite occurs.
The solution we're looking for, is thus ultimately a form of cognitive enhancement. There are many different ways to go about this. It's possible for people to select the smartest embryo to implant, to ensure children have a genetic potential that far outweighs their parents.
There are however, far simpler probably more cost-effective methods we can already use right now. Millions of people, even in Western nations, suffer from iodine deficiency during pregnancy. This permanently stunts the IQ of their children. Similarly, we can feed people a healthy diet with sufficient Omega 3 fatty acids, encourage breastfeeding and eliminate gestational diabetes, while reducing exposure to fluoride which competitively displaces iodine in the human body.
If these solutions are genuinely pursued, we will raise the average IQ of the world's population, which should be sufficient to create the kind of conditions where people vote for leaders who take climate change seriously and pursue serious effort to preserve a habitable planet. We don't have to be like deer on an island, because we will have the cognitive potential to plan ahead for the crisis that looms ahead of us.
submitted by sourdoughsauerkraut to accountt1234

"Blizzard of Lies"

Edward Jay Epstein is scrabbling in the dirt to find anything he can find to smear Snowden.
No clicks for you, Mr. Murdoch!

Edward Snowden’s blizzard of lies add up to one huge snow job


Edward Snowden’s blizzard of lies add up to one huge snow job
Poster boy of whistleblowers, Edward Snowden, came in from the cold to a warm reception in Moscow after his massive theft of NSA secrets amid an unravelling tissue of lies. Of all the lies Edward Snowden has told since his massive theft of secrets from the National Security Agency and his journey to Russia via Hong Kong in 2013, none is more provocative than the claim that he never intended to engage in espionage, and was only a “whistleblower” seeking to expose the overreach of the NSA’s information gathering.
With the clock ticking on Snowden’s chance of a pardon, now is a good time to review what we have learned about his real mission.
Snowden’s theft of America’s most closely guarded communication secrets occurred in May 2013, according to the criminal complaint filed against him by federal prosecutors the following month. At the time Snowden was a 29-year-old technologist working as an analyst-in-training for the consulting firm of Booz Allen Hamilton at the regional base of the NSA in Oahu, Hawaii.
On May 20, about six weeks after his job began, he failed to show up for work, telling his supervisor he was being tested for ­epilepsy in hospital. Snowden was not even in Hawaii. He was in Hong Kong, where he had flown with a cache of secret data stolen from the NSA.
As became clear during my ­investigation over three years, nearly every element of the narrative Snowden has provided, reiterated in Oliver Stone’s 2016 movie, Snowden, is demonstrably false.
This narrative began soon after Snowden arrived in Hong Kong, where he arranged to meet with documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, a Brazil-based blogger for The Guardian. Both journalists were longtime critics of NSA surveillance with whom Snowden had been in contact for four months.
To provide them with scoops discrediting NSA operations, Snowden culled several thousand documents out of his huge cache of stolen material, including two explosive documents he asked them to use in their initial stories. One was the secret order from America’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court requiring Verizon to turn over to the NSA billing records for its phone users in the US. The other was an NSA slide presentation detailing its ability to intercept communications of non-American users of the internet via a joint program with the FBI codenamed Prism.
These documents were published in 2013 on June 5 and 6, ­followed by a video in which Snowden identified himself as the leaker and a whistleblower.
At the heart of Snowden’s narrative was his claim that while he may have incidentally “touched” other data in his search of NSA files, he took only documents that exposed NSA malfeasance and gave them all to journalists.
A secret damage assessment done by the NSA and Pentagon told a very different story. According to a unanimous report declassified on December 22 by the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the investigation showed Snowden had “removed” 1.5 million documents. That huge number was based on, among other evidence, electronic logs that recorded the selection, copying and moving of files.
The number of purloined documents is more than NSA officials were willing to say in 2013 about the removal of data. But even just taking into account the material Snowden handed over to journalists, the December House report concluded that he compromised “secrets that protect American troops overseas and secrets that provide vital defences against ­terrorists and nation-states”. These were, the report said, “merely the tip of the iceberg”.
The Pentagon’s 2013-14 investigation employed hundreds of military intelligence officers, working around the clock to ­review all 1.5 million documents. Most had nothing to do with domestic surveillance or whistle ­blowing.
They were mainly military ­secrets, as general Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on March 6, 2014.
It was not the quantity of Snowden’s theft but the quality that was most telling. Snowden’s theft put documents at risk that could ­reveal the NSA’s Level 3 tool kit — a reference to documents containing the agency’s most important sources and methods. Since the NSA was created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been trying to penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success.
Yet it was precisely those secrets Snowden changed jobs to steal. In an interview with Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post on June 15, 2013, he said he sought to work on a Booz Allen contract at the CIA, even at reduced pay, because it gave him access to secret lists of computers that the NSA was tapping into around the world.
He evidently succeeded. In a 2014 Vanity Fair interview, Richard Ledgett, the NSA executive who headed the damage-­assessment team, said one file taken by Snowden, if it fell into the wrong hands, provided a “road map” to what were the NSA’s ­targets abroad. It contained the ­requests made by the 17 US services in the intelligence community for NSA interceptions abroad.
On June 23, less than two weeks after Snowden released the video that helped present his ­narrative, he left Hong Kong and flew to Moscow, where he received protection by the Russian government. In much of the media coverage that followed, the ultimate destination of these stolen secrets was fogged over by unverified claims Snowden was spoon­feeding to handpicked journalists.
Snowden always claimed he was a conscientious whistleblower who turned over all the stolen NSA material to journalists in Hong Kong. He has insisted he had no intention of defecting to Russia but was on his way to Latin America when he was trapped in Russia by the US government ­attempting to demonise him.
In October 2014, he told the editor of the Nation, “I’m in exile. My government revoked my passport intentionally to leave me ­exiled” and “chose to keep me in Russia”. According to Snowden, the US government accomplished this entrapment by suspending his passport while he was in midair after he departed Hong Kong on June 23, thus forcing him into the hands of President Vladimir Putin’s regime.
None of this is true. The State Department invalidated Snowden’s passport while he was still in Hong Kong, not after he left for Moscow on June 23. The “Consul- General Hong Kong confirmed that Hong Kong authorities were notified that Mr Snowden’s passport was revoked June 22,” according to the State Department’s senior watch officer.
Snowden could not have been unaware of the government’s pursuit of him, since the criminal complaint against him, which was filed June 14, had been headline news in Hong Kong. That the US acted against him while he was still in Hong Kong is of great importance to the timeline because it points to the direct involvement of Aeroflot, an airline the Russian government effectively controls.
Aeroflot bypassed its normal procedures to allow Snowden to board the Moscow flight — even though he had neither a valid passport nor a Russian visa, as his lawyer Anatoly Kucherena said on July 12, 2013.
By falsely claiming his passport was invalidated after the plane ­departed Hong Kong Snowden hoped to conceal this extraordinary waiver. The Russian government further revealed its helping hand, judging by a report in the ­Izvestia newspaper, when Snowden was taken off the plane by a ­security team in a “special operation”. Putin authorised this assistance after Snowden met with Russian officials in Hong Kong, as Putin admitted in a televised press conference on September 2, 2013.
To provide a smokescreen for Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong, WikiLeaks booked a dozen or more diversionary flights to other destinations for him.
WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange dispatched his deputy Sarah Harrison to Hong Kong to pay Snowden’s expenses and ­escort him to Moscow. In short, Snowden’s arrival in Moscow was neither accidental nor the work of the US government.
Snowden asserts he came to Russia not only empty-handed but without access to any of the stolen material. He wrote in Vanity Fair in 2014 that he had destroyed all of it before arriving in Moscow.
This claim is also untrue. It is belied by two Kremlin insiders who were in a position to know what Snowden actually brought with him to Moscow. One of them, Frants Klintsevich, was the first deputy chairman of the defence and security committee of the Duma (Russia’s parliament) at the time of Snowden’s defection. “Let’s be frank,” Klintsevich said in a taped interview with NPR in June last year, “Mr Snowden did share intelligence. This is what ­security services do.”
The other insider was Anatoly Kucherena, a Moscow lawyer and Putin’s friend. Kucherena served as the intermediary between Snowden and Russian authorities. On September 23, 2013, Kucherena gave a long interview to Sophie Shevardnadze, a journalist for Russia Today television.
Kucherena said Snowden had only given “some” of the NSA’s documents in his possession to journalists in Hong Kong. “So he (Snowden) does have some materials that haven’t been made public yet?” Shevardnadze asked. “Certainly,” Kucherena replied.
This disclosure filled in a crucial piece of the puzzle. It explained why NSA files Snowden had ­copied, but had not given to the journalists in Hong Kong — such as the revelation about the NSA targeting the mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel — continued to surface after Snowden arrived in Moscow, along with NSA files released via WikiLeaks.
Snowden claims he was neither debriefed by nor even met with any Russian government official after he arrived in Moscow. But ­according to the US House ­Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report, Snowden “has had, and continues to have, ­contact with Russian intelligence services”. This finding is consistent with Russian debriefing practices, as described by the former KGB officers I spoke to in Moscow
Snowden also claimed in Moscow in December 2013 to have ­secrets in his head, including “access to every target, every active operation. Full lists of them.” Could Snowden’s Russian hosts ignore such an opportunity after Putin had authorised his exfiltration to Moscow? Snowden, with no exit options, was in the palm of their hands. Under such circumstances, as Klintsevich said in his NPR interview: “If there’s a possibility to get information, they (the Russian intelligence services) will get it.”
Russian intelligence uses a single umbrella term to cover anyone who delivers it secret intelligence. Whether a person acted out of idealistic motives, sold information for money or remained clueless of the role he or she played in the transfer of secrets — the provider of secret data is considered an “espionage source”. By any measure, it is a job description that fits Snowden.
Edward Jay Epstein’s book, “How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft”, will be published this month.
The Wall Street Journal
submitted by cojoco to snowden

0 thoughts on “Cool edit pro 2.0 full crack vn-zoom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *