Monday, May 23, 2016

What to Know About the Presidential Race Today


1
Though Bernie Sanders says he is still focused on the campaign, some liberal Democrats are wondering whether his chance to build a legacy and political apparatus for progressive causes that will outlast him is slipping away.
2
On the trail: Hillary Clinton is in Michigan, while Mr. Sandersis in California, which votes on June 7. Donald J. Trump has no official campaign events scheduled on Monday, before heading out West for rallies the rest of the week.
3
Mrs. Clinton continues to have a general election focus, warning that Mr. Trump is not a "normal" candidate.
4
Deep resistance from some of the biggest Republican donors stands between Mr. Trump and his $1 billion fund-raising goal. We look at why top donors refuse to give him money.



Looking for a great collaborative drone company? I endorse this site

*Mr. Perlman has created a site that my blog could never fully do justice. If you are into drones / RC, I advise you visit the site and become a member.

About UAV Coach

alan perlman uav coachWhen I was younger, my uncle bought my brother and I remote control helicopters for Christmas. No joke, it was literally one of the best gifts I have ever received. At that point, I had never flown any kind of UAV, and I’d be lying if I said my mind wasn’t blown. I brought the helicopter back to my apartment in Boston and flew it around indoors, learning how to land it on the ceiling fan and hover it as close to the ground as possible.
Fast-forward to fall 2014, where my wife and I bought a DJI Phantom quadcopter for our cousin. We all opened the box together, and it soon became clear that this wasn’t a turn-on-and-play kind of toy. We read through the instructions and learned about the software. We attached the propeller blades, charged and inserted the battery, and then calibrated the quadcopter.
After about 45 minutes, we went outside to practice.

And that’s when I almost killed someone.

I was too excited. I hadn’t taken the time to properly train. I throttled the quadcopter upward to about 20 feet, quickly lost control, and didn’t know how to bring it back down. The next few seconds were terrifying. I narrowly missed a few cars, a couple of people, the side of a building, and somehow miraculously piloted the quadcopter down, crashing it into the tire of a parked car. Fortunately, only the propellers were a little scratched up. We turned off the quadcopter and went back inside.
Later that night, I had trouble sleeping.
What a numbskull I had been!

Why I Started This Website

I started this website to help people avoid the mistakes I made during that first flight, to show people how amazing the UAV industry is, how to get involved, how to properly fly, and more.
I’m here to help push the drone community forward. To interview aerial videographers, professional drone pilots, and UAV manufacturers. To share stories and tips and tricks. To connect with others and to showcase the surge in technology and applications we’re seeing in the UAV industry each week.
I live in the U.S., where the FAA is playing catch up to properly regulate the UAV industry. My hunch is that when they do, the commercial UAV industry will explode, just like it’s doing in other parts of the world. I’m here to ride that wave and to connect with others who are looking to do the same.

How to Get Involved With UAV Coach

Below are a few ways to get involved with this website:
If you’ve made it this far, then I’m stoked you’re here.
Over the last few months, I’ve had a lot of fun meeting people in the UAV industry and exchanging ideas. Don’t be shy. Reach out to say hello!
alan signature


Jobs



Sunday, May 22, 2016

Inexpensive ways to bring your service machine up to speed

*My main craptop is connected to a flat screen which leaves me primarily with my service machine partitioned with Ubuntu.

 Here's a cheap way to make it a little faster.

 First search for processor updates, I'm running 2 older AMD's.


 I looked for updates pertaining to my network adapter and found none so...

 I skipped it with a Nano USB Adapter.


*I reiterate, "I am not a software pro and that's why I hire them". When my software tech comes, he may laugh in my face but this little rig has increased my speed and works well for me.

 Don't be afraid to try new things, that's what system restore was made for.


A Helpful Guide to Stop Comparing Yourself to Others

“Comparison is the thief of joy.” —Theodore Roosevelt
I’ve struggled with it most of my life. Typically, I blame it on having a twin brother who is five inches taller with much broader shoulders. But if I was being truly honest, more likely, it is simply a character flaw hidden somewhere deep in my heart.
I’ve lived most of my life comparing myself to others. At first, it was school and sports. But as I got older, I began comparing other metrics: job title, income level, house size, and worldly successes.
I have discovered there is an infinite number of categories upon which we can compare ourselves and an almost infinite number of people to compare ourselves to. Once we begin down that road, we never find an end.
The tendency to compare ourselves to others is as human as any other emotion. Certainly I’m not alone in my experience. But it is a decision that only steals joy from our lives. And it is a habit with numerous shortcomings:
  1. Comparisons are always unfair. We typically compare the worst we know of ourselves to the best we presume about others.
  2. Comparisons, by definition, require metrics. But only a fool believes every good thing can be counted (or measured).
  3. Comparisons rob us of precious time. We each get 86,400 seconds each day. And using even one to compare yourself or your accomplishments to another is one second too many.
  4. You are too unique to compare fairly. Your gifts and talents and successes and contributions and value are entirely unique to you and your purpose in this world. They can never be properly compared to anyone else.
  5. You have nothing to gain, but much to lose. For example: your pride, your dignity, your drive, and your passion.
  6. There is no end to the possible number of comparisons. The habit can never be overcome by attaining success. There will also be something—or someone—else to focus on.
  7. Comparison puts focus on the wrong person. You can control one life—yours. But when we constantly compare ourselves to others, we waste precious energy focusing on other peoples’ lives rather than our own.
  8. Comparisons often result in resentment. Resentment towards others and towards ourselves.
  9. Comparisons deprive us of joy. They add no value, meaning, or fulfillment to our lives. They only distract from it.
Indeed, the negative effects of comparisons are wide and far-reaching. Likely, you have experienced (or are experiencing) many of them first-hand in your life as well.
How then, might we break free from this habit of comparison? Consider, embrace, and proceed forward with the following steps.

A Practical Guide to Stop Comparing Yourself to Others

Take note of the foolish (and harmful) nature of comparison.

Take a good look at the list above. Take notice of comparison’s harmful effects in your life. And find priority to intentionally remove it from the inside-out.

Become intimately aware of your own successes.

Whether you are a writer, musician, doctor, landscaper, mother, or student, you have a unique perspective backed by unique experiences and unique gifts. You have the capacity to love, serve, and contribute. You have everything you need to accomplish good in your little section of the world. With that opportunity squarely in front of you, become intimately aware of your past successes. And find motivation in them to pursue more.

Pursue the greater things in life.

Some of the greatest treasures in this world are hidden from sight: love, humility, empathy, selflessness, generosity. Among these higher pursuits, there is no measurement. Desire them above everything else and remove yourself entirely from society’s definition of success.

Compete less. Appreciate more.

There may be times when competition is appropriate, but life is not one of them. We have all been thrown together at this exact moment on this exact planet. And the sooner we stop competing against others to “win,” the faster we can start working together to figure it out. The first and most important step in overcoming the habit of competition is to routinelyappreciate and compliment the contribution of others.

Gratitude, gratitude, gratitude.

Gratitude always forces us to recognize the good things we already have in our world.

Remind yourself nobody is perfect.

While focusing on the negatives is rarely as helpful as focusing on the positives, there is important space to be found remembering that nobody is perfect and nobody is living a painless life. Triumph requires an obstacle to be overcome. And everybody is suffering through their own, whether you are close enough to know it or not.

Take a walk.

Next time you find yourself comparing yourself to others, get up and change your surroundings. Go for a walk—even if only to the other side of the room. Allow the change in your surroundings to prompt change in your thinking.

Find inspiration without comparison.

Comparing our lives with others is foolish. But finding inspiration and learning from others is entirely wise. Work hard to learn the difference.
Humbly ask questions of the people you admire or read biographies as inspiration. But if comparison is a consistent tendency in your life, notice which attitudes prompt positive change and which result in negative influence.

If you need to compare, compare with yourself.

We ought to strive to be the best possible versions of ourselves—not only for our own selves, but for the benefit and contribution we can offer to others. Work hard to take care of yourself physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Commit to growing a little bit each day. And learn to celebrate the little advancements you are making without comparing them to others.
With so many negative effects inherent in comparison, it is a shame we ever take part in it. But the struggle is real for most of us. Fortunately, it does not need to be. And the freedom found in comparing less is entirely worth the effort.
Joshua Becker

About Joshua Becker

Writer. Inspiring others to live more by owning less.
WSJ Bestselling author of The More of Less.

Absolute Truth


Absolute Truth - Inflexible Reality
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!


Americans’ Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking

The Democratic primary will technically march on, but Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be her party’s nominee. Same with Donald Trump. And voters don’t appear thrilled at the prospect: Clinton and Trump are both more strongly disliked than any nominee at this point in the past 10 presidential cycles.
Normally, when we talk about candidate likability, we use favorability ratings, which combine “strongly favorable,” “somewhat favorable,” “somewhat unfavorable” and “strongly unfavorable.” But that didn’t work so well in the Republican primary, where Trump was able to win despite a relatively low net favorability rating because his “strongly favorable” rating with Republican primary voters was among the highest in the field. So let’s look at Trump and Clinton’s “strongly1 favorable” and “strongly unfavorable” ratings among general election voters.2
These are people who don’t just like or dislike the candidates, they really like or dislike them.
No past candidate comes close to Clinton, and especially Trump, in terms of engendering strong dislike a little more than six months before the election.

enten-generaldislike-1 

 
Clinton’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating in probability sample polls from late March to late April, 37 percent, is about 5 percentage points higher than the previous high between 19803 and 2012. Trump, though, is on another planet. Trump’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating, 53 percent, is 20 percentage points higher than every candidate’s rating besides Clinton’s. Trump is less disliked than David Duke was when Duke ran for the presidency in 1992, but Duke never came close to winning the nomination. In fact, I’ve seen never anything like Trump’s numbers heading into a general election for someone who is supposed to be competitive.4
Part of the negativity voters feel toward Clinton and Trump probably has something to do with growing political polarization in our country. But polarization doesn’t explain everything. If Trump and Clinton’s strongly unfavorable ratings were simply a byproduct of polarized politics, you’d expect them to have high “strongly favorable” ratings too. They don’t. You can see this in their net strong favorability ratings (the “strongly favorable” rating minus the “strongly unfavorable” rating):

 enten-generaldislike-2


No major party nominee before Clinton or Trump had a double-digit net negative “strong favorability” rating. Clinton’s would be the lowest ever, except for Trump.
In previous cycles, the nominees of each party almost always had a strongly favorable and unfavorable rating within 10 percentage points of each other. The only exception was Michael Dukakis in 1988; only 19 percent of Americans felt strongly about Dukakis, either favorably or unfavorably. Over 50 percent of Americans give Clinton and Trump either a “strongly favorable” or “strongly unfavorable” rating, and most of that feeling is negative.

Listen to the latest episode of the FiveThirtyEight elections podcast.
Audio Player

Subscribe: iTunes | Download | RSS | Video

 http://tinyurl.com/j5ddk7g

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Is it possible to dual boot two OS's at the same time?

This site has tons of links, please visit:

24
down vote
favorite
3
Is it possible to dual boot two OS's at the same time?

For example: I'm currently dual booting Ubuntu 11.04 and Windows 7. Ubuntu is running on a single 500gb HDD, Windows 7 is running on 1TB RAID 1 mirror. To switch between the two OS's, a reboot is required. Is it possible to switch between the two OS's without a reboot?

NOTE: I'm fully aware of the capabilities of VirtualBox and VMWare Player - I use both. Please don't answer "Use Virtualization!"

EDIT: If this is not possible can you share why it's not possible? To me, it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. Keep in mind that my vision is unencumbered by knowledge!

windows-7 ubuntu multi-boot
shareimprove this question
edited Sep 8 '11 at 13:28
asked Sep 8 '11 at 12:33

James Hill
4193620
12
+1 for my vision is unencumbered by knowledge! – Andrew Neely Sep 8 '11 at 15:28
 
On a mainframe with partitioned memory... – Fiasco Labs Dec 27 '13 at 8:04
add a comment
9 Answers
active oldest votes
up vote
30
down vote
accepted
Most, if not all, mainstream operating systems expect to have exclusive acccess to the host computer's low-level functionality (eg: hardware, ports etc.) and do not have any concept of sharing with anything else - it just won't work - so to try and run two OSs simultaneously on the same system requires some form of transparent arbitrator to shield the operating systems from each other - in other words, a virtualization application.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:17

Linker3000
20k33356
 
Virtualization application seems to be the consensus. Are there any free or open source options that you would recommend? – James Hill Sep 8 '11 at 13:27
1
It really depends on what you are trying to do as some VM apps are better at some things than others, but in general: Choose your main default OS (ie: boot to Ubuntu or Windows) and then install Virtualbox, VM Player (my two faves) or your favourite VM app then install the other OS as a virtual machine in that environment. – Linker3000 Sep 8 '11 at 14:30 
 
you could create an ubuntu distro based off of colinux. colinux runs the linux kernel as a process on windows, so it is not really virtualization. in a sense, what the original question asked is possible, it just has not been done yet. – Jay R. Wren Sep 8 '11 at 17:38
 
However, some have been ported to run on operating systems, as opposed to actual hardware - UserModeLinux is the perfect counterexample. colinux (as mentioned by @Jay) is another example of an operating system being "ported" to another. – new123456 Sep 8 '11 at 20:10
add a comment

up vote
12
down vote
You seem to be dismissing Hyper-V and Xen (so called "bare-metal" hypervisors) even though they're closest to what you seem to be asking for. Yes, it's virtualization, but not in the same way that VirtualBox works.

Imagine something like VirtualBox was its own operating system, so you could install a tiny VirtualBox OS, and then run Windows and Ubuntu side by side as virtual machines on top of the VirtualBox OS. Well, that's essentially what Hyper-V or Xen do. It's just a thin virtualization layer between the hardware and the guest operating systems, and it's as close as you can get to directly running them side by side with existing hardware and existing operating systems.

You don't need a separate server for either of these, you'd just install the hypervisor as if it was the first operating system on the machine, and then add Windows and Ubuntu as virtual machines under the hypervisor.

Both Xen and Hyper-V will run Ubuntu and Windows as guest operating systems, although it may not be a supported configuration. Xen is more Linuxy and Hyper-V is an MS product, so I'd suggest picking the hypervisor based on whichever OS you're more comfortable with.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 9 '11 at 0:09

Kevin
1,636188
add a comment
up vote
8
down vote
The closest thing you could do... is make use of hibernation. Unfortunately, the operating systems are alien enough to each other that there is no way for both OS'es to be running at the same time without implementing virtualization. Honestly, virtualization isn't as bad as you think anymore... especially when you are using a virtualization platform that supports the "VT" extensions. The guest OSes get the ability to communicate directly with hardware, and have much better memory mapping & such. I've actually setup a guest OS installed directly on a SSD... and it ran faster than the host OS.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:18

TheCompWiz
6,4301217
 
I have no problem with virtualization, I use VirtualBox on every computer that I have. Can you explain the VT extensions that you mentioned a bit more? FYI - This is for home use so I'm looking for a cheap (read:free/open source) way of doing this. – James Hill Sep 8 '11 at 13:22
 
VT = Hardware Virtualization. Basically, the CPU has some additional extensions (sometimes requires being enabled in the BIOS) designed to facilitate running OSes in parallel. VirtualBox can do this... but if you're stuck with software virtualization it isn't going to perform well. Sometimes called VT-x, VT, AMD-V, Hardware Virtualization, or a myriad of additional names. – TheCompWiz Sep 8 '11 at 13:25 
 
Does VMWare have this "VT" extensions creature you speak of? if so, does it need to be enabled explicitly? – MasterMastic Aug 6 '14 at 13:26 
 
VT is a processor feature. It is a matter of weather or not your CPU has the bits built in or not... and also if the motherboard has support for it. (the processor extensions can be disabled in many BIOSes) Usually it is enabled by default... but can be disabled. My HP Laptop had it turned off... but my supermicro servers have it turned on. – TheCompWiz Aug 11 '14 at 21:48
add a comment
up vote
6
down vote
Here's the simple, short reason the answer is 'no': What software would control your hardware?

If OS 1 does it, then you are not running OS 2. If OS 2 does it, then you are not running OS 1. If they both do it, then then some other software would have to mediate their shared access to the physical hardware, and that's virtualization (which you ruled out).

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 16:47

David Schwartz
45k56294
6
Unless OS 1 is OS/2. Then your running OS/2 as OS 1. :D – Kenneth Cochran Sep 8 '11 at 19:32
 
@KennethCochran - That made me grin ;-) – Unsigned Dec 14 '11 at 18:49
 
That's just plain Warped... Remembering a neat operating system created by a company that couldn't market its way out of a wet paper bag. – Fiasco Labs Dec 27 '13 at 8:07
add a comment
up vote
2
down vote
Things that come to mind are :
- Memory management ( ram and cache )
- Process management (process threads running )

So you would probably need a man in the middle juggling memory usage and processes between the two OSs .

That would be another os/firmware.
So if somebody has implemented it os will implemented it , you might end up with 3 instead of 2 Oss running simultaneously

EDIT-
Adding what linker3000 wrote : managing of ports

This 'man in the middle ' will essentially become your host OS and the other OSs virtualized , leading you back to what you already knew was a solution

shareimprove this answer
edited Sep 8 '11 at 13:31
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:20

Shekhar
4,09622341
add a comment
up vote
2
down vote
All OSs I'm aware of demand total control of the computer hardware.

It is theoretically possible though. Both OSs would need to be designed to:

Run as both a master(total hardware control) and a slave(requests resources from the master OS)
Relinquish control of the hardware upon request from another OS
If both of these conditions are met it would be possible to run two OSs simultaneously without any kind of virtualization. It would be akin to two OSs using cooperative multitasking. Of course, cooperative multitasking has all but been abandoned because of the issue of poorly written applications refusing to cede control. Perhaps two properly written OSs would play nice. Then again what would be the incentive?

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 19:53

Kenneth Cochran
1,66911215
add a comment
up vote
1
down vote
Let me address the "why" part.

One of the reasons for a modern OS is to allow multiple programs (processes) to run at the same time on a system. If you want to do this safely, the following needs to happen:

You probably (unless you have special needs) don't want to divvy up the RAM in the system in a fixed fashion - e.g. 256MB fixed per process - limits you to 8 processes in a 2GB system. You'd like each process to be able to "ask" for memory and return it when it's done.
You also don't want to divvy up I/O devices in a fixed fashion among devices. Typically you want some or all the hardware, like memory to be a shared resource, or at least only temporarily exclusive to specific processes at specific times. This requires that all processes not try to do I/O on their own, but "go through" something to schedule and coordinate the I/O. The scheduling is important since most I/O is much slower than the CPU, so you can have the CPU do work for other processes while it is waiting on I/O even on a single-core system.
To do the above right, one needs to take advantage of several CPU hardware features. One of these is the MMU, the other is protected mode. Could two OSes share these hardware features cooperatively to run two or more OSes?

Sure, but there is nothing in hardware able to stop one OS from stomping all over the other OSes memory. If the CPU is in kernel mode (it only has one kernel mode), any code can do anything. It's 100% possible for code from one OS to run over the code or data of the other OS. And we know operating systems have had vulnerabilities in the past and will have more in the future. So it's very bad for security.

Now, wouldn't it be cool if you could put another "layer" over this and have that needed hardware support for multiple OSes? That's exactly what the hardware virtualization features do, they put a hardware barrier between multiple running OSes, and there is a top-level "interface" for them called a hypervisor. You can only have one hypervisor. And yes, processes running under either OS must go through three layers to do I/O (process - local kernel - hypervisor)

shareimprove this answer
answered Jun 10 '15 at 1:01

LawrenceC
45.6k572136
add a comment
up vote
0
down vote
I know you said no Virtualization, but something like MS Hyper V server may fit your needs

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 12:39

Akash
3,127928
 
Hyper-V would require a second machine to act as a server. If I had a second machine that was that powerful, I'd set it next to my other tower and start them both up with different OS's :). Also, from what I understand, getting set up would cost no less than $2k. – James Hill Sep 8 '11 at 12:41 
 
I think you can run Hyper V on a single machine.. – Akash Sep 8 '11 at 12:43
2
the V in hyper-v is for virtualization. if the constraint is no virtualization, then hyper-v is not a solution. – Jay R. Wren Sep 8 '11 at 17:39
add a comment
up vote
0
down vote
There is no other way than virtualization. I find it difficult to get definitve information which guest systems will work for the different hypervisors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor Should be a good start to get some information and Xen might be worth a try, though I would wait for someone to definitely confirm or deny if it supports Windows 7 guests.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:32

Nornagest
644
add a comment
protected by bwDraco Nov 13 '15 at 20:43

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site. 

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged windows-7 ubuntu multi-boot or ask your own question.

Progress with Ubuntu

*I'm an infant with Linux and I realize I'm probably performing 100s of unnecessary tasks. There is help for those who require it: https://www.edx.org/

 Everyone is different, I browsed some entries such as finding a root yet I find that reading and applying is too much like work.

 So, I play with OS's / applications and turn it into a game.

 Notes: When downloading I have failed to see, "Run, install, .exe" etc. I have begun the download for screen capture and I'd like to think I will no longer have to provide camera pics.

 Here are a few pics that somewhat convey what you're in for if you want to use Ubuntu / Linux.







 I'm outside my comfort zone where learning occurs.

Back to Ubuntu

*I pretty much squared away "SAD" Systems and the mobile command center so while we wait on the bureaucratic process, lets work with implementing and networking a Ubuntu partitioned old heap of a craptop.


The first thing I noticed was that my Firefox wouldn't connect until I loaded it to the Windows side of the partition. (Keep in mind, my expertise is not in software)

After that quick fix, I believe I can get all my goodies such as Virtual Box.


 This is going to be a work in progress and all I can say is, "Play with it". Don't make it a serious affair.

 Learning the Linux methods of procedure is the goal.
 
 

Success requires sacrifice

*I'm not going to share my specific goal, I'm not certain of it. I will say this, "I sacrificed a wife, dog, home, Lexus and Porsche to be as I am". Collateral damage.


 I'll go anywhere in the world if I believe my answers to my questions are there.

Featured Posts

Rental Properties for Sale, Santa Marianita, Ecuador

  Beautiful rental with beach access. Utilities and WiFi are included, just bring your food and move in. *Be sure to ask about our long-term...

Popular Posts