Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Advanced Concepts Team
tvinko

Massively collaborative mathematics : Article : Nature - 26 views

  •  
    peer-to-peer theorem-proving
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    Or: mathematicians catch up with open-source software developers :)
  •  
    "Similar open-source techniques could be applied in fields such as [...] computer science, where the raw materials are informational and can be freely shared online."

    ... or we could reach the point, unthinkable only few years ago, of being able to exchange text messages in almost real time! OMG, think of the possibilities!

    Seriously, does the author even browse the internet?
  •  
    I do not agree with you F., you are citing out of context! Sharing messages does not make a collaboration, nor does a forum, ....
    You need a set of rules and a common objective. This is clearly observable in "some team", where these rules are lacking, making team work inexistent.
    The additional difficulties here are that it involves people that are almost strangers to each other, and the immateriality of the project. The support they are using (web, wiki) is only secondary.
    What they achieved is remarkable, disregarding the subject!
  •  
    I think we will just have to agree to disagree then :)

    Open source developers have been organizing themselves with emails since the early '90s, and most projects (e.g., the Linux kernel) still do not use anything else today. The Linux kernel mailing list gets around 400 messages per day, and they are managing just fine to scale as the number of contributors increases.

    I agree that what they achieved is remarkable, but it is more for "what" they achieved than "how". What they did does not remotely qualify as "massively" collaborative: again, many open source projects are managed collaboratively by thousands of people, and many of them are in the multi-million lines of code range.

    My personal opinion of why in the scientific world these open models are having so many difficulties is that the scientific community today is (globally, of course there are many exceptions) a closed, mostly conservative circle of people who are scared of changes. There is also the fact that the barrier of entry in a scientific community is very high, but I think that this should merely scale down the number of people involved and not change the community "qualitatively". I do not think that many research activities are so much more difficult than, e.g., writing an O(1) scheduler for an Operating System or writing a new balancing tree algorithm for efficiently storing files on a filesystem. Then there is the whole issue of scientific publishing, which, in its current form, is nothing more than a racket. No wonder traditional journals are scared to death by these open-science movements.
  •  
    here we go ... nice controversy!
    but maybe too many things mixed up together - open science journals vs traditional journals, conservatism of science community wrt programmers (to me one of the reasons for this might be the average age of both groups, which is probably more than 10 years apart ...) and then using emailing wrt other collaboration tools ....
    .... will have to look at the paper now more carefully ... (I am surprised to see no comment from José or Marek here :-)
  •  
    My point about your initial comment is that it is simplistic to infer that emails imply collaborative work. You actually use the word "organize", what does it mean indeed. In the case of Linux, what makes the project work is the rules they set and the management style (hierachy, meritocracy, review). Mailing is just a coordination mean.
    In collaborations and team work, it is about rules, not only about the technology you use to potentially collaborate. Otherwise, all projects would be successful, and we would noy learn management at school!
    They did not write they managed the colloboration exclusively because of wikipedia and emails (or other 2.0 technology)! You are missing the part that makes it successful and remarkable as a project.
    On his blog the guy put a list of 12 rules for this project. None are related to emails, wikipedia, forums ... because that would be lame and your comment would make sense.
    Following your argumentation, the tools would be sufficient for collaboration. In the ACT, we have plenty of tools, but no team work. QED
  •  
    the question on the ACT team work is one that is coming back continuously and it always so far has boiled down to the question of how much there need and should be a team project to which everybody inthe team contributes in his / her way or how much we should leave smaller, flexible teams within the team form and progress, more following a bottom-up initiative than imposing one from top-down. At this very moment, there are at least 4 to 5 teams with their own tools and mechanisms which are active and operating within the team. - but hey, if there is a real will for one larger project of the team to which all or most members want to contribute, lets go for it .... but in my view, it should be on a convince rather than oblige basis ...
  •  
    It is, though, indicative that some of the team member do not see all the collaboration and team work happening around them. We always leave the small and agile sub-teams to form and organize themselves spontaneously, but clearly this method leaves out some people (be it for their own personal attitude or be it for pure chance) For those cases which we could think to provide the possibility to participate in an alternative, more structured, team work where we actually manage the hierachy, meritocracy and perform the project review (to use Joris words).
  •  
    I am, and was, involved in "collaboration" but I can say from experience that we are mostly a sum of individuals. In the end, it is always one or two individuals doing the job, and other waiting. Sometimes even, some people don't do what they are supposed to do, so nothing happens ... this could not be defined as team work.
    Don't get me wrong, this is the dynamic of the team and I am OK with it ... in the end it is less work for me :)
    team = 3 members or more. I am personally not looking for a 15 member team work, and it is not what I meant.
    Anyway, this is not exactly the subject of the paper.
  •  
    My opinion about this is that a research team, like the ACT, is a group of _people_ and not only brains. What I mean is that people have feelings, hate, anger, envy, sympathy, love, etc about the others. Unfortunately(?), this could lead to situations, where, in theory, a group of brains could work together, but not the same group of people.
    As far as I am concerned, this happened many times during my ACT period.
    And this is happening now with me in Delft, where I have the chance to be in an even more international group than the ACT. I do efficient collaborations with those people who are "close" to me not only in scientific interest, but also in some private sense. And I have people around me who have interesting topics and they might need my help and knowledge, but somehow, it just does not work. Simply lack of sympathy.
    You know what I mean, don't you?

    About the article: there is nothing new, indeed. However, why it worked: only brains and not the people worked together on a very specific problem. Plus maybe they were motivated by the idea of e-collaboration. No revolution.
  •  
    Joris, maybe I made myself not clear enough, but my point was only tangentially related to the tools. Indeed, it is the original article mention of "development of new online tools" which prompted my reply about emails.

    Let me try to say it more clearly: my point is that what they accomplished is nothing new methodologically (i.e., online collaboration of a loosely knit group of people), it is something that has been done countless times before. Do you think that now that it is mathematicians who are doing it makes it somehow special or different? Personally, I don't. You should come over to some mailing lists of mathematical open-source software (e.g., SAGE, Pari, ...), there's plenty of online collaborative research going on there :)

    I also disagree that, as you say, "in the case of Linux, what makes the project work is the rules they set and the management style (hierachy, meritocracy, review)". First of all I think the main engine of any collaboration like this is the objective, i.e., wanting to get something done. Rules emerge from self-organization later on, and they may be completely different from project to project, ranging from almost anarchy to BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) style. Given this kind of variety that can be observed in open-source projects today, I am very skeptical that any kind of management rule can be said to be universal (and I am pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of project organizers never went to any "management school").

    Then there is the social aspect that Tamas mentions above. From my personal experience, communities that put technical merit above everything else tend to remain very small and generally become irrelevant. The ability to work and collaborate with others is the main asset the a participant of a community can bring. I've seen many times on the Linux kernel mailing list contributions deemed "technically superior" being disregarded and not considered for inclusion in the kernel because it was clear that
  •  
    hey, just catched up the discussion.

    For me what is very new is mainly the framework where this collaborative (open) work is applied. I haven't seen this kind of working openly in any other field of academic research (except for the Boinc type project which are very different, because relying on non specialists for the work to be done). This raise several problems, and mainly the one of the credit, which has not really been solved as I read in the wiki (is an article is written, who writes it, what are the names on the paper). They chose to refer to the project, and not to the individual researchers, as a temporary solution...

    It is not so surprising for me that this type of work has been first done in the domain of mathematics. Perhaps I have an ideal view of this community but it seems that the result obtained is more important than who obtained it... In many areas of research this is not the case, and one reason is how the research is financed. To obtain money you need to have (scientific) credit, and to have credit you need to have papers with your name on it... so this model of research does not fit in my opinion with the way research is governed.

    Anyway we had a discussion on the Ariadnet on how to use it, and one idea was to do this kind of collaborative research; idea that was quickly abandoned...
  •  
    I don't really see much the problem with giving credit. It is not the first time a group of researchers collectively take credit for a result under a group umbrella, e.g., see Nicolas Bourbaki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbaki

    Again, if the research process is completely transparent and publicly accessible there's no way to fake contributions or to give undue credit, and one could cite without problems a group paper in his/her CV, research grant application, etc.
  •  
    Well my point was more that it could be a problem with how the actual system works. Let say you want a grant or a position, then the jury will count the number of papers with you as a first author, and the other papers (at least in France)... and look at the impact factor of these journals. Then you would have to set up a rule for classifying the authors (endless and pointless discussions), and give an impact factor to the group...?
  •  
    it seems that i should visit you guys at estec... :-)
  •  
    urgently!! btw: we will have the ACT christmas dinner on the 9th in the evening ... are you coming?
Ma Ru

Probabilistic fluidic modular construction - 16 views

Looks cool... in simulation. And even there it seems to work terribly slow (note how much they have to speed it up).

Nicholas Lan

The Future… One Hundred Years Ago - 11 views

  •  
    one of these again. french illustrations from 1910 of life in the year 2000. some pleasingly close. a lot of flying and robots. some inexplicable (bunch of people staring at a horse). some bmi.
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    I like them again and again ....
  •  
    what would be todays equivalents?
  •  
    Ha! The one about the horse is that "in 100 years there will be people who've never seen a live horse in their lives" :-) Actually it's more than true now with children asking my mother who works in the school "so, do those kangaroos really exist"? Children are fed with so much realistic BS on TV (dinosaur parks etc.) that they can hardly tell the difference between fiction and reality. If you already have offspring: have they seen, say, a live cow or chicken already?

    (This is most probably a reference to the quote: "Horse is as everyone can see")
  •  
    >what would be todays equivalents?
    Hmmm... what about technology forecasts?
  •  
    ah. that makes sense. what about the one where they're having dinner then?
  •  
    No idea... another one I don't get is the one with the waiter presenting some small black-white thing to the white hair guy on a chair.
  •  
    love the clockwork orange one
jmlloren

3D Fractals - 6 views

  •  
    Amazing renderings.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    For all those who find solving differential equations boring...
  •  
    wow, amazing pictures !
  •  
    nice
Joris _

10 Business Models That Rocked 2010 - 10 views

  •  
    What did work in 2010.
    The Quirky model might be of interest to ACT...
  •  
    Some great ideas in there. I particularly like the Flattr micropayments system, and find the concept of PayWithaTweet a bit disturbing.
Joris _

What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation. - 5 views

  •  
    If I could write, this is exactly what I would write about rocket, GO, and so on... :)

    "we are decadent and tired. But none of the bright young up-and-coming economies seem to be interested in anything besides aping what the United States and the USSR did years ago. We may, in other words, need to look beyond strictly U.S.-centric explanations for such failures of imagination and initiative. ... Those are places we need to go if we are not to end up as the Ottoman Empire of the 21st century, and yet in spite of all of the lip service that is paid to innovation in such areas, it frequently seems as though we are trapped in a collective stasis."

    "But those who do concern themselves with the formal regulation of "technology" might wish to worry less about possible negative effects of innovation and more about the damage being done to our environment and our prosperity by the mid-20th-century technologies that no sane and responsible person would propose today, but in which we remain trapped by mysterious and ineffable forces."
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    Very interesting, though I'm amused how the author tends to (subconsciously?) shift the blame to non-US dictators :-) Suggestion that in absence of cold war US might have abandoned HB and ICBM programmes is ridiculous.
  •  
    Interesting, this was written by Neal Stephenson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson#Works ). Great article indeed.
    The videos of the event from which this arose might be equally interesting:

    Here Be Dragons: Governing a Technologically Uncertain Future
    http://newamerica.net/events/2011/here_be_dragons


    "To employ a commonly used metaphor, our current proficiency in rocket-building is the result of a hill-climbing approach; we started at one place on the technological landscape-which must be considered a random pick, given that it was chosen for dubious reasons by a maniac-and climbed the hill from there, looking for small steps that could be taken to increase the size and efficiency of the device."
  •  
    You know Luis, when I read this quote, I could help thinking about GO, which would be kind of ironic considering the context but not far from what happens in the field :p
  •  
    Fantastic!!!
  •  
    Would have been nice if it were historically more accurate and less polemic / superficial
  •  
    mmmh... the wheel is also an old invention...
    there is an idea behind but this article is not very deepfull, and I really don't think the problem is with innovation and lack of creative young people !!! look at what is done in the financial sector...
Luís F. Simões

Singularity University, class of 2010: projects that aim to impact a billion people wit... - 7 views

  •  
    At the link below you find additional information about the projects:

    Education: Ten weeks to save the world
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100915/full/467266a.html
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    this is the podcast I was listening to ...
  •  
    We can do it in nine :)
  •  
    why wait then?
  •  
    hmm, wonder how easy it is to get funding for that, 25k is a bit steep for 10weeks :)
  •  
    well, we wait for the same fundings they get and then we will do it in nine.... as we say in Rome "a mettece un cartello so bboni tutti". (italian check for Juxi)
  •  
    and what you think about the project subjects?
  •  
    I like the fact that there are quite a lot of space projects .... and these are not even bad in my view:
    The space project teams have developed imaginative new solutions for space and spinoffs for Earth. The AISynBio project team is working with leading NASA scientists to design bioengineered organisms that can use available resources to mitigate harsh living environments (such as lack of air, water, food, energy, atmosphere, and gravity) - on an asteroid, for example, and also on Earth .

    The SpaceBio Labs team plans to develop methods for doing low-cost biological research in space, such as 3D tissue engineering and protein crystallization.

    The Made in Space team plans to bring 3D printing to space to make space exploration cheaper, more reliable, and fail-safe ("send the bits, not the atoms"). For example, they hope to replace some of the $1 billion worth of spare parts and tools that are on the International Space Station.
  •  
    and all in only a three months summer graduate program!! that is impressive. God I feel so stupid!!!
  •  
    well, most good ideas probably take only a second to be formulated, it's the details that take years :-)
  •  
    I do not think the point of the SU is to formulate new ideas (infact there is nothing new in the projects chosen). Their mission is to build and maintain a network of contacts among who they believe will be the 'future leaders' of space ... very similar to our beloved ISU.
Francesco Biscani

Quadrocopters can now fly through thrown hoops, the end really is nigh (video) -- Engadget - 2 views

  •  
    Impressive video!
Marcus Maertens

Leap Motion - 6 views

  •  
    Very quick and accurate gesture interface. A bit like Kinect, but better. Watch the video, its neat!
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    where can I buy it?????
  •  
    ore-order just here ... shipping Feb 2013

    https://live.leapmotion.com/order.html
  •  
    just ordered it!
  •  
    Aww... new toy coming! Great Leo! :)
  •  
    they also have a developer program, the ACT should apply :)
Dario Izzo

Black Holes play drums - 8 views

  •  
    Another great presentation at this conference!! Plus I always wanted to enter the numerical computations of orbit around black holes.... with Luzi we had a project on formation flying around black holes .... revolutionary idea (of course we did not do it!!!)
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    formation flying around black holes... so practical...
  •  
    nice movie, and song :)
    we should definitely implement GR orbits in pagmo !
  •  
    I agree Marek, yet was it practical for Apollonio to study conic sections more than 1500 years before Kepler found his three laws?

    And here is a good paper to start with: http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v77/i10/e103005, making an analogy between the periodic table and the taxomony of all orbits around a black hole.
Christos Ampatzis

Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist - 4 views

  •  
    Who are the most ruthless capitalists in the western world? Whose monopolistic practices make Walmart look like a corner shop and Rupert Murdoch a socialist? You won't guess the answer in a month of Sundays. While there are plenty of candidates, my vote goes not to the banks, the oil companies or the health insurers, but - wait for it - to academic publishers.
  •  
    fully agree ...

    "But an analysis by Deutsche Bank reaches different conclusions. "We believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process … if the process really were as complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, 40% margins wouldn't be available." Far from assisting the dissemination of research, the big publishers impede it, as their long turnaround times can delay the release of findings by a year or more."

    very nice also:

    "Government bodies, with a few exceptions, have failed to confront them. The National Institutes of Health in the US oblige anyone taking their grants to put their papers in an open-access archive. But Research Councils UK, whose statement on public access is a masterpiece of meaningless waffle, relies on "the assumption that publishers will maintain the spirit of their current policies". You bet they will.

    In the short term, governments should refer the academic publishers to their competition watchdogs, and insist that all papers arising from publicly funded research are placed in a free public database. In the longer term, they should work with researchers to cut out the middleman altogether, creating - along the lines proposed by Björn Brembs of Berlin's Freie Universität - a single global archive of academic literature and data. Peer-review would be overseen by an independent body. It could be funded by the library budgets which are currently being diverted into the hands of privateers.

    The knowledge monopoly is as unwarranted and anachronistic as the corn laws. Let's throw off these parasitic overlords and liberate the research that belongs to us."
  •  
    It is a really great article and the first time I read something in this direction. FULLY AGREE as well.
    Problem is I have not much encouraging to report from the Brussels region...
Luke O'Connor

Astronomer Captures Enormous True-Color Photo of Night Sky - 4 views

  •  
    And some interactive versions:
    http://skysurvey.org/
  •  
    this is very very nice! thanks for sharing
Ma Ru

I know at least *some* of you will like it... - 11 views

shared by Ma Ru on 29 Mar 10 - Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  •  
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Shit!! I only got 79, should have lied better...
  •  
    My score was obtained with *sincere* answers, don't cheat!
  •  
    ouah, 80...! didn't think i was so nerd...!
  •  
    Dario, Francesco, we're waiting for your scores... are you afraid of the truth??
  •  
    hmm "Low Ranking Nerd. Definitely a nerd but low on the totem pole of nerds." , as of a score of 66
  •  
    I am disappointed!!!!! Shame on me.......


    I am nerdier than 68% of all people. Are you a nerd? Click here to take the Nerd Test, get geeky images and jokes, and talk on the nerd forum!
  •  
    Sigh


    I am nerdier than 93% of all people. Are you a nerd? Click here to take the Nerd Test, get geeky images and jokes, and write on the nerd forum!
  •  
    wow!
  •  
    My girlfriend...


    I am nerdier than 80% of all people. Are you a nerd? Click here to take the Nerd Test, get nerdy images and jokes, and write on the nerd forum!


    She must be an archaeological nerd...
  •  
    Great Scott, Leo! Honest answers?? I was kinda expecting Francesco's score, but this...
Luzi Bergamin

Physics in a Crisis - 3 views

  •  
    Luckily I'm far away from Geneva, but this has to be said today, when the LHC starts! No, not tiny black holes will eat us (what a nonsense!), but the supernovae energy will let LHC explode!!!
    Pacome, I expect you to debunk this with gratest care!
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    wtf is this! As I read this morning in the newspaper (not even a scientific one), 1 TeV is the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito... so be careful !
    It seems they already sloved every thing on this website:
    "At the Institute for Space Quantum Physics ISQP, it was already proved in 1991-1992 that dark matter is in magnetic fields as magnetic space quantum flux."

    This website is the biggest source of crackpots i have seen in a long time...!
    (http://www.supernovae-energy.com/)
  •  
    Come on guys, this website is hilarious!
    "The HAITI EARTHQUAKE (...) were impossible for the Institute for Space Quantum Physics (ISQP) to compute because on one single planet was on a common line or axis with the Sun: Venus."
  •  
    Unfortunately, most information I have about the guy (Hans Lehner, a Swiss) is in German, his official homepage is http://www.rqm.ch/

    According to EsoWatch he is the Swiss analogue to Dr. Mills and his Blacklight power. Lehner apparently founded a company, which should have produced a "Raum-Quanten-Motor" that -- of course -- produces energy out of nothing. The theory is based on spookey forces mediated by Lehneronen. 11 Million Swiss Franks (about 8 Million Euro) were lost when the company bankrupt. And the guy is selling new stocks on his homepage again...

    Lehner calls another crackpot named Oliver Crane Zweistein (from Einstein being "Onestone") and himself "Dreistein". Now he is looking for Mister or Misses Vierstein. Perhaps you should apply, good luck!!
  •  
    i like the first line of their supernovae energy technology document

    "Dear potential investor:"...
Francesco Biscani

Amount of profanity per programming language - 7 views

  •  
    And the winner is... C++ :) Love the comment on Slashdot:

    "C++ Templates will turn the most pious programmer into a curse-slinging, chain-smoking alcoholic."
  •  
    Nice one... However note the sample could be biased, because I'd expect some interaction between "using github" and "being a curse-slinging, chain-smoking alcoholic" ;-)
  •  
    Fair enough :)
Guido de Croon

What happens when two artificial-intelligence bots talk to each other? - 7 views

  •  
    Amazing conversation...
  •  
    hilarious !
Marion Nachon

APOD: 2012 March 12 - The Scale of the Universe Interactive - 3 views

  •  
    The scale of Universe Interactive,
Giusi Schiavone

The importance of stupidity in scientific research. - 10 views

  •  
    I suggest you this easy reading ( is on a peer-reviewed scientific journal, IF = 6.14)
    'We just don't know what we're doing!!!'
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    as a start of a peer reviewed paper this is an interesting first paragraph: "I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years. We had been Ph.D. students at the same time, both studying science, although in different areas. She later dropped out of graduate school, went to Harvard Law School and is now a senior lawyer for a major environmental organization. At some point, the conversation turned to why she had left graduate school. To my utter astonishment, she said it was because it made her feel stupid. After a couple of years of feeling stupid every day, she was ready to do something else."
  •  
    Hilarious! Mr Schwartz, who made a PhD at Stanford(!) and apparently is working as a postdoc now, has finally discovered what science is about!!! Quote: "That's when it hit me: nobody did. That's why it was a research problem." And he seems so excited about it! I think he should not only get published in 6.14 journal, but also get the Nobel Prize immediately!
    Seriously, after reading something like this, how one may not have superstitions about the educational system in the US?
  •  
    I tend to agree with you but I think that you are too harsh - its still only an "essay" and one of his points of making sure that education at post graduate level is not about indoctrinating what we know already is valid ...
  •  
    I think this quote by Richard Horton is relevant to the discussion:

    "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

    :P
Luís F. Simões

Seminar: You and Your Research, Dr. Richard W. Hamming (March 7, 1986) - 10 views

  • This talk centered on Hamming's observations and research on the question "Why do so few scientists make significant contributions and so many are forgotten in the long run?" From his more than forty years of experience, thirty of which were at Bell Laboratories, he has made a number of direct observations, asked very pointed questions of scientists about what, how, and why they did things, studied the lives of great scientists and great contributions, and has done introspection and studied theories of creativity. The talk is about what he has learned in terms of the properties of the individual scientists, their abilities, traits, working habits, attitudes, and philosophy.
  •  
    Here's the link related to one of the lunch time discussions. I recommend it to every single one of you. I promise it will be worth your time.

    If you're lazy, you have a summary here (good stuff also in the references, have a look at them):
         Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M, Bourne PE (2007) Ten Simple Rules for Doing Your Best Research, According to Hamming. PLoS Comput Biol 3(10): e213.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I'm also pretty sure that the ones who are remembered are not the ones who tried to be... so why all these rules !? I think it's bullshit...
  •  
    The seminar is not a manual on how to achieve fame, but rather an analysis on how others were able to perform very significant work. The two things are in some cases related, but the seminar's focus is on the second.
  •  
    Then read a good book on the life of Copernic, it's the anti-manual of Hamming... he breaks all the rules !
  •  
    honestly I think that some of these rules actually make sense indeed ... but I am always curious to get a good book recommendation (which book of Copernic would you recommend?)
    btw Pacome: we are in Paris ... in case you have some time ...
  •  
    I warmly recommend this book, a bit old but fascinating: The sleepwalkers from Arthur Koestler. It shows that progress in science is not straight and do not obey any rule... It is not as rational as most of people seem to believe today.

    http://www.amazon.com/Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Universe-Compass/dp/0140192468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294835558&sr=8-1

    Otherwise yes I have some time ! my phone number: 0699428926
    We live around Denfert-Rochereau and Montparnasse. We could go for a beer this evening ?
1 - 20 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page