I think the real question we need to ask ourselves is; Do we even need a bunch of laws? I think an open source society would flourish if we only had 1 law: Nobody can initiate force/violence on someone else or someone's property. Period. Once that basic law is understood, there's no real need for any other laws. If you guys want to know more, Google "Voluntary society" or "Libertarian society"
Most significant talk related to society changes for my last years. It has a positive, possible, reasonable, meaningful message, that questions all our understanding on how we should participate on democracy and its evolution .
@@dmg46664 not particularly. in the uk mainstream shows now oftern point out the true people behind the innovation that big names took credit for and expecialy people in the know remember aswell
Fair argument. I really do think Shirky presents a well formulated argument that strongly supports his thesis. However, as you mention, the lack of specificity concerning how GIT actually works definitely sheds some light on some major flaws. What's even more amazing is the fact that in a matter of minutes he actually had me convinced that GIT was going to save the world in the next couple of years! He is definitely a great and charismatics speaker.
idk if Clay will ever see these comments, but Clay, if you're reading this, please know that you've given me a sense of direction for the remainder of this year. I'm in sociological research methods course in which I'm specifically examining how the internet has changed U.S. congressional/presidential candidates' campaign strategies, blah blah blah.. yadda yadda yadda.. anyhow.. I didn't know how to bring all my research together until watching this video. Thank you, phriend! Much love. (~):}
And as a C++ programmer I don't dread snychronizing changes made by a large mass of people, I welcome it. This is how TH-cam works, it's how Wikipedia works, and in my humble opinion, I think it has paved the way for innovation. Heck, you can even write a program for something like that.
Clear delivery with great supporting points! I hope that people will see the value this would have in monitoring fiscal change and amplifying rolling issues that our government hesitates to act upon :) Thanks for commenting
(1) Git societies are still feudal. One editor taking updates from trusted subeditors. (2a) Get wiggle room, for own edits, whilst still connected to the main pool. (2b) Choice of conform, or publish yourself. (2c) earlier, experimental, draft (3) Individuals do 'get the hump' and fork off (4a) With a political arena, what is the product? (4b) If too bulky, it gets unreadable, lots of stray asides. (4c) need = (opinionated) review and collation. Competing sources of remarks are available.
It was in the news lately ( /. ) that the French Prime Minister has requested that open source be used whenever possible. Can we get this video translated or subtitled into French and inform the French government?
I think he was talking about the formation of the law, not changing it after. Instead of bills being written by lobbyists, they could be formed by actual citizens instead. I wouldn't be surprised if Iceland is already doing this, they seem to be the most democratic country.
The excuse of the government to impose representatives was based on the idea that not the entire population could be present to vote on important issues all the time. The invention of the internet has given the population this ability, the government officials are just stalling for time now. They bring forth excuses that it is impracticle, that people cannot consciously decide matters of such national importance, that we are not informed enough, to prevent chaos, etc I vote, government 2.0!
Why aren't anyone exploring the idea of reinventing democracy altogether using modern technology? Example: Every citizen have a secure online profile. Through this profile, citizens elect people to produce proposals and changes. Citizens then excercise executive power through their online profile to pass or reject the proposals. It has potential to put more power in the hands of the people instead of having to rely on indirect representation.
How optimistic! I was expecting just 'Fixed' and 'Fixes' :) I can imagine asking the MP's name that's alongside the change later what it meant and them responding, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time."
I first read your comment before watching the video and thought, "the intro is fine". I just finished the video and nearly fell out of my chair. I found myself thinking, "oh, he said outtro."
Programs and morality are different things, one is highly subjective and one if highly objective. I have a hard time believing that they can be approached and resolved, to some degree, in the same fashion. Democracy has arguably up until recently been driven by elites. Whether this model is best is unknown but it certainly is the model in the scientific world. Imagine putting peer review up to the people en mass. Joe six pack might not be the best blind reviewer for Science or Nature. Great talk
Yes, very nicely put, much clearer than what I wrote! :) I've also been thinking some more about merge issues, maybe in the long run political parties will separately develop more or less incompatible branches, which the voters then would vote on to decide what branch to use... but that is just speculations...
Indeed! It seems to me that Git is virtually identical to standard version control systems, except that you do all your work with a local copy by default - an option which exists in other version control systems if everyone wanted to make their own branch. There is still a central, definitive version that all changes must be merged into for them to manifest - otherwise what would you have, laws which were different depending on who you talked to? Would like to hear talk about merge issues.
Thanks :) Something else to think about are the legal ramifications of legislation change - something that isn't considered during code development or writing wiki pages. What happens if a law changes - would there be retrospective 'fixing' where people would be freed if in prison as a result of falling foul of that law? What happens if the change goes the other way, or is reverted? Also, would there be a form of automated testing following changes? That's another handy code dev process.
So, are we in agreement that 'someone' has to merge? I'm not saying who that someone is, just that it is necessary to produce a definitive version for future reference. If not I can't see how it would work. What's the point in taking a copy of the original if you don't plan to merge your changes back at some stage? You're proposing a local version with local rule? How local are we talking, per household? Per individual? Who decides what is allowed in a local version? Every home a nation?
if people vote and the voting in some way actually changes things, its a democracy. But not every democracy is a representative democracy. in USA, UK and France you have democracy, but it is not representative because so many votes are deleted long before the end-result is calculated. These systems delete about 40% of all votes, before computing the end-result. Representative democracies typically delete 5% of votes or less, and there is a multitude of parties in parliament.
I don't see what 'openness' has to do with being a democracy. While not totally mutually exclusive (as the people should know the gist of what the government is undertaking), don't forget that an open government has very little benefit for us and naturally gives our enemies access to our information. THAT'S why governments should be scared of WikiLeaks (and similar communities) -- because of the danger it can cause to a nation's security.
But surely as a planet, our aim should be towards total transparency! If all governments were to be more open and transparent then the US for example would not have to spend $600 billion on it's annual military budget. Imagine if instead that money was put towards say NASA research (currently has a 17.8billion budget)...As a race, we could stop fighting and could explore space together in peace! Github FTW!
well ... not open source software, but wikipedia is our generation's natural philosophy journal. WP is by far the single most valuable human creation on the planet.
A better question I guess I am asking is where could this system be used in democracy because you can't have laws changing all the time it would be to chaotic. Where in democracy could this be used?
Is there some kind of discussion integrated with github? I mean, who is deciding what's gonna make it into the master and what's not? I know git, but I never participated any bigger project, so I don't quite know how it's done.
Very interesting, but this is just further proof that the future of organizing society is not law, but that social norms or rules will be effectively developed collaboratively by everyone and enforced by social ostracism instead of by violence...just like how we deal with bad behavior of people we know in our personal lives. The internet will eliminate government eventually because we will have access to everyone's reputation at all times.
I'm afraid that is a faulty analogy between standard version control systems and Git - Git is not so different. All changes must be merged together to produce a definitive version sooner or later. How does this merging come about? How does this compare with Wikis? We can all post ideas for changes to legislation to our MPs, but who makes the call on whether to merge it in or not? That said it would be great to have version history for legislation, along with descriptive change comments!
I respect his efforts in SOPA etc. There is good reason why government does not keep pace with technology. The instant, sometimes disinhibited, views of a random person (or programmer) need to be evaluated. Please don't make it seem the printing press (of course he's only referring to the first "European" press) started by printing hedonistic material (12:56). Ever heard of the Gutenberg bible? It helps his point so run with it. Imagine the applications of this. Scary.
It's about your personal ethics in your day-to-day life: what are you supporting? Do you vote for a party that condones this immoral socioeconomic reality; do you spend your money on products that were immorally manufactured, distributed, etc.; do you work for a company that pollutes, kills, tortures, arrests or throws people out of their homes; do you spend a lot of attention on mass entertainment (sports, soap operas, reality tv); do you judge and ostracize people who don't share your views?
Please refrain from copying ridiculously uninformative comments from within the video. They are an example of comments we shouldn't want to have in the comments section. Thank you.
no, the trouble is the election system. In the USA for presiential elections, a large number of votes goes into the trashcan instead of being counted. That is true for every vote in the USA that is NOT for the party that happens to win the state you vote in. In such an election system, third parties ARE subsidiaries of the big two parties with the sole purpose of luring people into voting directly for the trashcan, by voting for a party that wont win the state.
As far as I know, LT made GIT cause he thinks that CVS or SVN are s**t : too bad at branching, too slow, .. so globally unadapted to a project as big as the linux core. His priorities were making branching really easy and really fast. At the end he still the one who really decides what goes in Linux or not and the one who does the release, just as it was before GIT, that is what I remember of his talk at google, feel free to correct me. I hate when people at TED glamorize reality like this.
Except you don't have to merge. You're thinking of the state. But it's possible to do away with forced centralization, a dynamic system of philes, like forks or independent branches that may cooperate w/each other w/out forced merges of all. So we can have a system that works that way too (free market in law/courts/security) We *already* have that today among private ppl, with different rules with each org/work/home and contracts among ppl. Such system has existed in past (Iceland/Ireland/etc)
as a non-programmer, in such a system, dont you make a choice about which version to work on? Surely working on the up-to-date version that is in constant flux would be a bad choice. Wouldnt you start with the best version you can find, and then work on that unchainging version until finished? And wouldnt the process of verifying and debugging and merging be kind of like gem-collecting, deciding which deviations of super duper blockbuster version 1213 should make it into version 1214?
There's a fair number of libertarians who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists. However, talking about these things usually results in people talking past each other, because they accept different semantic definitions.
Pure democracy is bad. The people in these open source projects know what they are doing. You would get a much different effect if we required everyone to participate in these projects. GitHub is a representative democracy, not everyone can directly participate because they don’t have the knowledge/ skills. The thing with government, everyone would be more inclined to try to participate even without knowledge/ skills.
I hear what you are saying. I think the problem here is that the context is TED and there is expectation of the profound. Plus you have, like I, an idealism about the world that you would like to see realized, so you want it to be good. But it isn't quite. Good sentiment but doesn't seem to match reality. That said however, just like wikipedia sort of works way above the quality of mankind, it's possible some democratization some day can work a bit like he suggests. The key element is good will.
I can understand collective programming because of the sheer manpower involved on creating software for free could be accomplished this way but writing laws does not require thousands of man hours on a tight budget, it requires extremely intelligent, ethical and logical minds of a few to create, that can be voted on by the masses
He doesn't look like Tom Hanks at all,he looks exactly like an actor but I can't remember his name.He usually plays in comedies and he has some hair on the sides.Anybody know?
Listening to it in 2024. Still relevant. Still not implemented, anywhere. Maybe one day.
"When you adopt a tool you also adopt the embedded management philosophy within that tool" - Priceless and on point. Ever used an ERP? :)
anybody else noticed he looks like Tom Hanks - Bold version.
he also sounds a bit like him.. :>
i was going to say exactly this. I ctrl+F "tom hanks" and I knew I would find this comment
You missed the content of the talk.
I think the real question we need to ask ourselves is; Do we even need a bunch of laws?
I think an open source society would flourish if we only had 1 law: Nobody can initiate force/violence on someone else or someone's property. Period.
Once that basic law is understood, there's no real need for any other laws.
If you guys want to know more, Google "Voluntary society" or "Libertarian society"
Most significant talk related to society changes for my last years.
It has a positive, possible, reasonable, meaningful message, that questions all our understanding on how we should participate on democracy and its evolution .
One of my favorite TED talks. I've probably watched this 6 times over the last year.
Same, great spokesman :)
Git wasn't the first distributed version control system. Both Git (April 2005) & Mercurial (April 2005) borrowed concepts from Monotone (2003).
history will remember
@@crappymeal You have too much faith ;-)
@@dmg46664 not particularly. in the uk mainstream shows now oftern point out the true people behind the innovation that big names took credit for and expecialy people in the know remember aswell
Fair argument. I really do think Shirky presents a well formulated argument that strongly supports his thesis. However, as you mention, the lack of specificity concerning how GIT actually works definitely sheds some light on some major flaws.
What's even more amazing is the fact that in a matter of minutes he actually had me convinced that GIT was going to save the world in the next couple of years! He is definitely a great and charismatics speaker.
idk if Clay will ever see these comments, but Clay, if you're reading this, please know that you've given me a sense of direction for the remainder of this year. I'm in sociological research methods course in which I'm specifically examining how the internet has changed U.S. congressional/presidential candidates' campaign strategies, blah blah blah.. yadda yadda yadda.. anyhow.. I didn't know how to bring all my research together until watching this video. Thank you, phriend! Much love. (~):}
And as a C++ programmer I don't dread snychronizing changes made by a large mass of people, I welcome it. This is how TH-cam works, it's how Wikipedia works, and in my humble opinion, I think it has paved the way for innovation.
Heck, you can even write a program for something like that.
Whoa, you just blew my mind with that. You're so right.
My one and only hope is that the coordination possible through the 'Net enables government to be abolished completely.
No more institutional coercion.
Always good to hear from Clay "Bald Tom Hanks" Shirky
Imagine all the commit messages:
"Changed that thingy", "Fixed some stuff.", "meh. More changes."
Clear delivery with great supporting points! I hope that people will see the value this would have in monitoring fiscal change and amplifying rolling issues that our government hesitates to act upon :) Thanks for commenting
"More arguing?"
*example*
"..gold star on that one"
*laughter*
".....TH-cam is such a goldmine"
So true
Somebody please write a nice GUI for lawyers and legislators and open source it!
+Lucho Portuano there is one, sourcetree
(1) Git societies are still feudal. One editor taking updates from trusted subeditors.
(2a) Get wiggle room, for own edits, whilst still connected to the main pool.
(2b) Choice of conform, or publish yourself.
(2c) earlier, experimental, draft
(3) Individuals do 'get the hump' and fork off
(4a) With a political arena, what is the product?
(4b) If too bulky, it gets unreadable, lots of stray asides.
(4c) need = (opinionated) review and collation. Competing sources of remarks are available.
One of the greatest talks of our lifetime
It was in the news lately ( /. ) that the French Prime Minister has requested that open source be used whenever possible. Can we get this video translated or subtitled into French and inform the French government?
This guy is a glorious speaker. I love his lectures.
I think he was talking about the formation of the law, not changing it after. Instead of bills being written by lobbyists, they could be formed by actual citizens instead.
I wouldn't be surprised if Iceland is already doing this, they seem to be the most democratic country.
The excuse of the government to impose representatives was based on the idea that not the entire population could be present to vote on important issues all the time.
The invention of the internet has given the population this ability, the government officials are just stalling for time now.
They bring forth excuses that it is impracticle, that people cannot consciously decide matters of such national importance, that we are not informed enough, to prevent chaos, etc
I vote, government 2.0!
Why aren't anyone exploring the idea of reinventing democracy altogether using modern technology?
Example: Every citizen have a secure online profile. Through this profile, citizens elect people to produce proposals and changes. Citizens then excercise executive power through their online profile to pass or reject the proposals.
It has potential to put more power in the hands of the people instead of having to rely on indirect representation.
i think hes only scrapping the surface but its what hes implying in a way
How optimistic! I was expecting just 'Fixed' and 'Fixes' :)
I can imagine asking the MP's name that's alongside the change later what it meant and them responding, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time."
Oh my gosh! this could not have come in a more perfect time! I am presenting a speech for my speech class on this very topic tomorrow! Awesome!
Best TED Talk ever. Period.
I first read your comment before watching the video and thought, "the intro is fine". I just finished the video and nearly fell out of my chair. I found myself thinking, "oh, he said outtro."
Programs and morality are different things, one is highly subjective and one if highly objective. I have a hard time believing that they can be approached and resolved, to some degree, in the same fashion. Democracy has arguably up until recently been driven by elites. Whether this model is best is unknown but it certainly is the model in the scientific world. Imagine putting peer review up to the people en mass. Joe six pack might not be the best blind reviewer for Science or Nature. Great talk
@16'40" re dashboard but know steering wheel: cleverly and succinctly put.
very good points there. I hope this will be a new beginning in sociopolitical life of citizens.
Wonderful Solution for a technological society! Implementing a fiscal instrument of transparency is key to holding our government accountable!
4:48 nice wide shot
Yes, very nicely put, much clearer than what I wrote! :)
I've also been thinking some more about merge issues, maybe in the long run political parties will separately develop more or less incompatible branches, which the voters then would vote on to decide what branch to use... but that is just speculations...
I love this guy's talks!
Don't know why, but I'm still angry at that school for not encouraging that little girl in her project. What were they afraid of?
I thought about this since FB "Like" licked in. Voting with a stamp, what an original idea.
Indeed! It seems to me that Git is virtually identical to standard version control systems, except that you do all your work with a local copy by default - an option which exists in other version control systems if everyone wanted to make their own branch.
There is still a central, definitive version that all changes must be merged into for them to manifest - otherwise what would you have, laws which were different depending on who you talked to? Would like to hear talk about merge issues.
Thanks :)
Something else to think about are the legal ramifications of legislation change - something that isn't considered during code development or writing wiki pages.
What happens if a law changes - would there be retrospective 'fixing' where people would be freed if in prison as a result of falling foul of that law? What happens if the change goes the other way, or is reverted?
Also, would there be a form of automated testing following changes? That's another handy code dev process.
Good talk! We definitelly need this.
To all of you pls listen to 4:58 - 5:10 OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
git as a form of arguing? very well put.
Great presentation.
So, are we in agreement that 'someone' has to merge? I'm not saying who that someone is, just that it is necessary to produce a definitive version for future reference.
If not I can't see how it would work. What's the point in taking a copy of the original if you don't plan to merge your changes back at some stage? You're proposing a local version with local rule? How local are we talking, per household? Per individual? Who decides what is allowed in a local version? Every home a nation?
gits do merge tho
TED talks are awesome.
Surprised by the maturity of comments on a TED video. I guess the singing cats still dominate this era of the internet.
It’s not the in- and outro that are too loud, but the talk that is too quiet.
Merging the Open Source Community's methods (GitHub) with making and managing laws... very interesting combination suggested by Clary Shirky!
Shirky! you're Tom Hanks of global society! :-)
great talk!
explain how it is a farce, and provide an alternate to it please. thank u.
if people vote and the voting in some way actually changes things, its a democracy.
But not every democracy is a representative democracy. in USA, UK and France you have democracy, but it is not representative because so many votes are deleted long before the end-result is calculated. These systems delete about 40% of all votes, before computing the end-result. Representative democracies typically delete 5% of votes or less, and there is a multitude of parties in parliament.
That accidental haiku finder was awesome.
I agree - though I don't know the details of git it seems to me that many horrible conflicts would occur.
I don't see what 'openness' has to do with being a democracy. While not totally mutually exclusive (as the people should know the gist of what the government is undertaking), don't forget that an open government has very little benefit for us and naturally gives our enemies access to our information. THAT'S why governments should be scared of WikiLeaks (and similar communities) -- because of the danger it can cause to a nation's security.
I'm wearing earphones and the intro is at normal volume.
This was very good! Im going to favorite and come back for other topics i may find interesting.
But surely as a planet, our aim should be towards total transparency! If all governments were to be more open and transparent then the US for example would not have to spend $600 billion on it's annual military budget. Imagine if instead that money was put towards say NASA research (currently has a 17.8billion budget)...As a race, we could stop fighting and could explore space together in peace! Github FTW!
well ... not open source software, but wikipedia is our generation's natural philosophy journal.
WP is by far the single most valuable human creation on the planet.
That was freakin epic. Maximum respect
A better question I guess I am asking is where could this system be used in democracy because you can't have laws changing all the time it would be to chaotic.
Where in democracy could this be used?
they could agree on the speed of implementation or even legislate that
Is there some kind of discussion integrated with github? I mean, who is deciding what's gonna make it into the master and what's not? I know git, but I never participated any bigger project, so I don't quite know how it's done.
Very interesting, but this is just further proof that the future of organizing society is not law, but that social norms or rules will be effectively developed collaboratively by everyone and enforced by social ostracism instead of by violence...just like how we deal with bad behavior of people we know in our personal lives. The internet will eliminate government eventually because we will have access to everyone's reputation at all times.
4-5 years is a long time for these politicians to do a lot of damage.
I love this guy.
this was a great talk
excellent talk.
I'm afraid that is a faulty analogy between standard version control systems and Git - Git is not so different. All changes must be merged together to produce a definitive version sooner or later. How does this merging come about? How does this compare with Wikis? We can all post ideas for changes to legislation to our MPs, but who makes the call on whether to merge it in or not?
That said it would be great to have version history for legislation, along with descriptive change comments!
That makes sense. As in creating bills to be past. Wouldn't everyone have to understand how law works to do this?
I respect his efforts in SOPA etc. There is good reason why government does not keep pace with technology. The instant, sometimes disinhibited, views of a random person (or programmer) need to be evaluated. Please don't make it seem the printing press (of course he's only referring to the first "European" press) started by printing hedonistic material (12:56). Ever heard of the Gutenberg bible? It helps his point so run with it. Imagine the applications of this. Scary.
For anyone who is interested, opencongress()org is a site that helps to move in this direction as well.
It's about your personal ethics in your day-to-day life: what are you supporting? Do you vote for a party that condones this immoral socioeconomic reality; do you spend your money on products that were immorally manufactured, distributed, etc.; do you work for a company that pollutes, kills, tortures, arrests or throws people out of their homes; do you spend a lot of attention on mass entertainment (sports, soap operas, reality tv); do you judge and ostracize people who don't share your views?
The intro is loud too, or the rest is just real quiet
So good.
So, so, so freakin' good.
Good job and thanks :D Is Iceland an example of this?
Steve Burt how are they? Can you tell me?
Please refrain from copying ridiculously uninformative comments from within the video. They are an example of comments we shouldn't want to have in the comments section.
Thank you.
Great, informative talk.
If anything the internet shows that government is not required at all.
Never heard that one before.
no, the trouble is the election system. In the USA for presiential elections, a large number of votes goes into the trashcan instead of being counted. That is true for every vote in the USA that is NOT for the party that happens to win the state you vote in. In such an election system, third parties ARE subsidiaries of the big two parties with the sole purpose of luring people into voting directly for the trashcan, by voting for a party that wont win the state.
brilliant talk
Richard Stallman started the GNU manifesto and Linus Torvalds only wrote the Kernal for GNU/Linux!
that's funny i was just in a meeting today @ my company about the discussion to migrate to git :D
i usually dislike ted talks, but this was inspiring
As far as I know, LT made GIT cause he thinks that CVS or SVN are s**t : too bad at branching, too slow, .. so globally unadapted to a project as big as the linux core. His priorities were making branching really easy and really fast. At the end he still the one who really decides what goes in Linux or not and the one who does the release, just as it was before GIT, that is what I remember of his talk at google, feel free to correct me. I hate when people at TED glamorize reality like this.
Except you don't have to merge. You're thinking of the state. But it's possible to do away with forced centralization, a dynamic system of philes, like forks or independent branches that may cooperate w/each other w/out forced merges of all. So we can have a system that works that way too (free market in law/courts/security) We *already* have that today among private ppl, with different rules with each org/work/home and contracts among ppl. Such system has existed in past (Iceland/Ireland/etc)
as a non-programmer, in such a system, dont you make a choice about which version to work on? Surely working on the up-to-date version that is in constant flux would be a bad choice. Wouldnt you start with the best version you can find, and then work on that unchainging version until finished? And wouldnt the process of verifying and debugging and merging be kind of like gem-collecting, deciding which deviations of super duper blockbuster version 1213 should make it into version 1214?
read about github in more depth
This is really happening .
I'm a OS programmer and commercial, I concur with him but sadly governments don't care.
they won't have a say when they are slowly replaced
So funny. Had me chuckling for a bit.
Maybe we need a way to 'debug' a legislation before distributing it..
Bingo,you got it.Thanks, that was driving me nuts.lol
There's a fair number of libertarians who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists. However, talking about these things usually results in people talking past each other, because they accept different semantic definitions.
nice subject
Pure democracy is bad. The people in these open source projects know what they are doing. You would get a much different effect if we required everyone to participate in these projects. GitHub is a representative democracy, not everyone can directly participate because they don’t have the knowledge/ skills. The thing with government, everyone would be more inclined to try to participate even without knowledge/ skills.
I hear Helium asphyxiation is a nice way to go. Good luck!
I hear what you are saying. I think the problem here is that the context is TED and there is expectation of the profound. Plus you have, like I, an idealism about the world that you would like to see realized, so you want it to be good. But it isn't quite. Good sentiment but doesn't seem to match reality. That said however, just like wikipedia sort of works way above the quality of mankind, it's possible some democratization some day can work a bit like he suggests.
The key element is good will.
As long as it shuts down all government buildings and declares humans unfit to govern themselves, I'm in..
I can understand collective programming because of the sheer manpower involved on creating software for free could be accomplished this way but writing laws does not require thousands of man hours on a tight budget, it requires extremely intelligent, ethical and logical minds of a few to create, that can be voted on by the masses
Good Talk. He looks like Tom Hanks.
...had to be said.
He doesn't look like Tom Hanks at all,he looks exactly like an actor but I can't remember his name.He usually plays in comedies and he has some hair on the sides.Anybody know?