Search Results

Search found 16547 results on 662 pages for 'physical design'.

Page 143/662 | < Previous Page | 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150  | Next Page >

  • Ranking players depending on decision making during a game

    - by tabchas
    How would I go about a ranking system for players that play a game? Basically, looking at video games, players throughout the game make critical decisions that ultimately impact the end game result. Is there a way or how would I go about a way to translate some of those factors (leveling up certain skills, purchasing certain items, etc.) into something like a curve that can be plotted on a graph? This game that I would like to implement this is League of Legends. Example: Player is Level 1 in the beginning. Gets a kill very early in the game (he gets gold because of the kill and it increases his "power curve"), and purchases attack damage (gives him more damage which also increases his "power curve". However, the player that he killed (Player 2), buys armor (counters attack damage). This slightly increases Player 2's own power curve, and reduces Player 1's power curve. There's many factors I would like to take into account. These relative factors (example: BECAUSE Player 2 built armor, and I am mainly attack damage, it lowers my OWN power curve) seem the hardest to implement. My question is this: Is there a certain way to approach this task? Are there similar theoretical concepts behind ranking systems that I should read up on? I've seen the ELO system, but it doesn't seem what I want since it simply takes into account wins and losses.

    Read the article

  • Passing functions into other functions as parameters, bad practice?

    - by BlueHat
    We've been in the process of changing how our AS3 application talks to our back end and we're in the process of implementing a REST system to replace our old one. Sadly the developer who started the work is now on long term sick leave and it's been handed over to me. I've been working with it for the past week or so now and I understand the system, but there's one thing that's been worrying me. There seems to be a lot of passing of functions into functions. For example our class that makes the call to our servers takes in a function that it will then call and pass an object to when the process is complete and errors have been handled etc. It's giving me that "bad feeling" where I feel like it's horrible practice and I can think of some reasons why but I want some confirmation before I propose a re-work to system. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this possible problem?

    Read the article

  • Why do most programming languages only support returning a single value from a function?

    - by M4N
    Is there a reason or an explanation why functions in most(?) programming languages are designed to support any number of input parameters but only one return value? In most languages, it is possible to "work around" that limitation, e.g. by using out-parameters, returning pointers or by defining/returning structs/classes. But it seems strange, that programming languages were not designed to support multiple return values in a more "natural" way.

    Read the article

  • Brute force algorithm implemented for sudoku solver in C [closed]

    - by 0cool
    This is my code that I have written in C.. It could solve certain level of problems but not the harder one.. I could not locate the error in it, Can you please find that.. # include <stdio.h> # include "sudoku.h" extern int sudoku[size][size]; extern int Arr[size][size]; int i, j, n; int BruteForceAlgorithm (void) { int val; for (i=0; i<size; i++) { for (j=0; j<size; j++) { if (sudoku[i][j]==0) { for (n=1; n<nmax; n++) { val = check (i,j,n); if ( val == 1) { sudoku[i][j]=n; // output(); break; } else if ( val == 0 && n == nmax-1 ) get_back(); } } } } } int get_back (void) { int p,q; int flag=0; for ( p=i; p>=0; p-- ) { for (q=j; q>=0; q-- ) { flag=0; if ( Arr[p][q]==0 && !( p==i && q==j) ) { if ( sudoku[p][q]== nmax-1 ) sudoku[p][q]=0; else { n = sudoku[p][q]; sudoku[p][q]=0; i = p; j = q; flag = 1; break; } } } if ( flag == 1) break; } } Code description: Sudoku.h has definitions related to sudoku solver. 1. size = 9 nmax = 10 2. check(i,j,n) returns 1 if a number "n" can be placed at (i,j) or else "0". What does this code do ? The code starts iterating from sudoku[0][0] to the end... if it finds a empty cell ( we take cell having "0" ), it starts checking for n=1 to n=9 which can be put in that.. as soon as a number can be put in that which is checked by check() it assigns it and breaks from loop and starts finding another empty cell. In case for a particular cell if it doesn't find "n" which can be assigned to sudoku cell.. it goes back to the previous empty cell and start iterating from where it stopped and assigns the next value and continues, Here comes the function get_back(). it iterates back..

    Read the article

  • Architecting persistence (and other internal systems). Interfaces, composition, pure inheritance or centralization?

    - by Vandell
    Suppose that you need to implement persistence, I think that you're generally limited to four options (correct me if I'm wrong, please) Each persistant class: Should implement an interface (IPersistent) Contains a 'persist-me' object that is a specialized object (or class) that's made only to be used the class that contains it. Inherit from Persistent (a base class) Or you can create a gigantic class (or package) called Database and make your persistence logic there. What are the advantages and problems that can come from each of one? In a small (5kloc) and algorithmically (or organisationally) simple app what is probably the best option?

    Read the article

  • How to implement a multi-part snake with smooth movement? [closed]

    - by Jamie
    Sorry that i couldnt answer on my previous post but it got closed. I couldnt answer because i had to prepair for my finals. As there were problems with understanding of what im trying to achieve, im going to describe a little bit more in depth. Im creating a game in which you steer a snake. I assume everybody knows how that works. But in my case the snake isnt just propagating in an array element by element. Imagine a 2Dgrid on which the snake moves. Its 10x10 tiles. Lets say one tile is 4x4 meters. The snakes head spawns in the middle of the (3,2) tile (beginning with (0,0)), so its position is (4*3+2,4*2+2)(the 2's are so that the snake is in the middle of the 4x4 tile). And heres where the fun begins. when the snake moves, it doesnt jump to next tile. Instead it moves a fraction of the way there. So lets say the snake is heading to tile (4,2). After it moved once, its position is (4*3+2+0.1,4*2+2), where 0.1 is the fraction of the way it moved. This is done to achieve smooth movement. So now im adding the rest of the body. The rest is supposed to move along the exact same path as the head did. I implemented it so that each part of the body has its own position and direction. Then i apply this algorithm: 1.Move each part in its direction. 2.If a part is in the middle of the tile(which implies all of them are), change each parts direction to the direction of the part proceeding it. As i said before i could make this work, but i cant stop thinking that im overlooking a much easier and cleaner solution. So this is my question. Is there any easier/better/faster way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Architecture Question

    - by katie77
    I am writing a rules/eligibility Module. I have 2 sets of data, one is the customer data and the other is the customer products data. Customer data to Customer products data is one to many. Now I have to go through a set of Eligibility rules for each of this Customer product data. For each customer products data, I can say the customer is eligible for that product or decline the eligibility and should move on to the next product record. So in all the rules, I need to have access to customer and customer product data(the particular record that the rules are being executed against). Since all the rules can either approve a product or decline a product, I created an interface with those 2 methods and is implementing the this interface for all the rules. I am passing the Customer data and one product data for all the rules (because rules should be executed on each row of customer product data). An Ideal situation would be having the customer and customer product data available for the rule instead of passing them to each rule. What is the best way of doing this in-terms of architecture?

    Read the article

  • Bluetooth push application

    - by Paul Kassey
    I am considering the technical viability of software that I want to write. Is there a way that I can push data to a phone (iPhone or Andriod) via Bluetooth without pairing with it? I want to be able to walk into a room and have a computer push data to my phone when I get a certain distance from it, or push data to any phone automatically when it comes within a certain distance to a Bluetooth-ready device?

    Read the article

  • Set modified date = created date or null on record creation?

    - by User
    I've been following the convention of adding created and modified columns to most of my database tables. I also have been leaving the modified column as null on record creation and only setting a value on actual modification. The other alternative is to set the modified date to be equal to created date on record creation. I've been doing it the former way but I recent ran into one con which is seriously making me think of switching. I needed to set a database cache dependency to find out if any existing data has been changed or new data added. Instead of being able to do the following: SELECT MAX(modified) FROM customer I have to do this: SELECT GREATEST(MAX(created), MAX(modified)) FROM customer The negative being that it's a more complicated query and slower. Another thing is in file systems I believe they usually use the second convention of setting modified date = created date on creation. What are the pros and cons of the different methods? That is, what are the issues to consider?

    Read the article

  • PHP I am pulling my hair out trying to find the best! [closed]

    - by darga33
    PULLING MY HAIR OUT I have heard of Martin Fowler's book PoEAA and the other book Head First OOA OOD but those are not in PHP. I DESPERATELY WANT TO READ THEM, but ONLY in PHP utilizing SOLID principles! Does anyone know of the absolute best, most recent PHP book that utilizes the SOLID principles and GRASP, and all the other best practices? I want to learn from the best possible source! Not beginner books! I already understand OOP. This seems like an almost impossible question to find the answer to and so I thought, hey, might as well post on stackexchange!! Surely someone out there must know!!!!!!!!!! Or if noone knows Maybe they know of an open source application that utilizes these principles that is relatively small that is not a framework. Something that I can go through every single class, and spend time understanding the insides and outs of how the program was developed. Thanks so much in advance! I really really really really appreciate it!

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous for me to give some of my Model classes Control-like methods?

    - by Pureferret
    In my personal project I have tried to stick to MVC, but I've also been made aware that sticking to MVC too tightly can be a bad thing as it makes writing awkward and forces the flow of the program in odd ways (i.e. some simple functions can be performed by something that normally wouldn't, and avoid MVC related overheads). So I'm beginning to feel justified in this compromise: I have some 'manager programs' that 'own' data and have some way to manipulate it, as such I think they'd count as both part of the model, and part of the control, and to me this feels more natural than keepingthem separate. For instance: One of my Managers is the PlayerCharacterManager that has these methods: void buySkill(PlayerCharacter playerCharacter, Skill skill); void changeName(); void changeRole(); void restatCharacter(); void addCharacterToGame(); void createNewCharacter(); PlayerCharacter getPlayerCharacter(); List<PlayerCharacter> getPlayersCharacter(Player player); List<PlayerCharacter> getAllCharacters(); I hope the mothod names are transparent enough that they don't all need explaining. I've called it a manager because it will help manage all of the PlayerCharacter 'model' objects the code creates, and create and keep a map of these. I may also get it to store other information in the future. I plan to have another two similar classes for this sort of control, but I will orchestrate when and how this happens, and what to do with the returned data via a pure controller class. This splitting up control between informed managers and the controller, as opposed to operating just through a controller seems like it will simplify my code and make it flow more. My question is, is this a dangerous choice, in terms of making the code harder to follow/test/fix? Is this somethign established as good or bad or neutral? I oculdn't find anything similar except the idea of Actors but that's not quite why I'm trying to do. Edit: Perhaps an example is needed; I'm using the Controller to update the view and access the data, so when I click the 'Add new character to a player button' it'll call methods in the controller that then go and tell the PlayerCharacterManager class to create a new character instance, it'll call the PlayerManager class to add that new character to the player-character map, and then it'll add this information to the database, and tell the view to update any GUIs effected. That is the sort of 'control sequence' I'm hoping to create with these manager classes.

    Read the article

  • When creating a GUI wizard, should all pages/tabs be of the same size? [closed]

    - by Job
    I understand that some libraries would force me to, but my question is general. If I have a set of buttons at the bottom: Back, Next, Cancel?, (other?), then should their location ever change? If the answer is no, then what do I do about pages with little content? Do I stretch things? Place them in the lone upper left corner? According to Steve Krug, it does not make sense to add anything to GUI that does not need to be there. I understand that there are different approaches to wizards - some have tabs, others do not. Some tabs are lined horizontally at the top; others - vertically on the left. Some do not show pages/tabs, and are simply sequences of dialogs. This is probably a must when the wizard is "non-linear", e.g. some earlier choices can result in branching. Either way the problem is the same - sacrifice on the consistency of the "big picture" (outline of the page/tab + location of buttons), or the consistency of details (some tabs might be somewhat packed; others having very little content). A third choice, I suppose is putting extra effort in the content in order to make sure that organizing the content such that it is more or less evenly distributed from page to page. However, this can be difficult to do (say, when the very first tab contains only a choice of three things, and then branches off from there; there are probably other examples), and hard to maintain this balance if any of the content changes later. Can you recommend a good approach? A link to a relevant good blog post or a chapter of a book is also welcome. Let me know if you have questions.

    Read the article

  • Proper library for enums

    - by Bobson
    I'm trying to refactor some code such that the display is separate from the implementation, and I'm not sure where to put the existing enums. My project is currently structured as follows: Utilities RemoteData (Depends on: Utilities) LocalData (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) RemoteWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) LocalWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, LocalData, Utilities) I'm now trying to add "ViewLibrary (Depends on: Utilities)" to this list, and then adding it as a new dependency to both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb. It will contain a set of interfaces which the other two projects will implement, use to populate the view, and then consume the result. There's an enum which is currently used in all the projects except Utilities. It thus lives in the RemoteData project, because everything else depends on it. But this new ViewLibrary won't depend on either data project. So how will it know about this enum? Some options I see: Create a new project just for shared enum values. Add it to Utilities, even though it is related to data. Define it a second time in ViewLibrary, and require both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb to convert the one type into the other when they access the shared views. Add a dependency on RemoteData to the ViewLibrary, even though it's supposed to be independent of data-source. Are there any better options? Is this structure flawed to begin with?

    Read the article

  • How do you plan your asynchronous code?

    - by NullOrEmpty
    I created a library that is a invoker for a web service somewhere else. The library exposes asynchronous methods, since web service calls are a good candidate for that matter. At the beginning everything was just fine, I had methods with easy to understand operations in a CRUD fashion, since the library is a kind of repository. But then business logic started to become complex, and some of the procedures involves the chaining of many of these asynchronous operations, sometimes with different paths depending on the result value, etc.. etc.. Suddenly, everything is very messy, to stop the execution in a break point it is not very helpful, to find out what is going on or where in the process timeline have you stopped become a pain... Development becomes less quick, less agile, and to catch those bugs that happens once in a 1000 times becomes a hell. From the technical point, a repository that exposes asynchronous methods looked like a good idea, because some persistence layers could have delays, and you can use the async approach to do the most of your hardware. But from the functional point of view, things became very complex, and considering those procedures where a dozen of different calls were needed... I don't know the real value of the improvement. After read about TPL for a while, it looked like a good idea for managing tasks, but in the moment you have to combine them and start to reuse existing functionality, things become very messy. I have had a good experience using it for very concrete scenarios, but bad experience using them broadly. How do you work asynchronously? Do you use it always? Or just for long running processes? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

    - by missingno
    Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

    Read the article

  • How can I get non-programmer colleagues on board with bespoke software rather than Dynamics CRM + Sharepoint?

    - by Bendos
    I am working with a company which designs and builds one-off machines. They have been 'dabbling' with hosted Dynamics CRM and Sharepoint (on different servers!) in an attempt to centralise their data and help colleagues collaborate more effectively across projects. They haven't used either system to their potential. Now we are looking at the engineering department who already use a form of version control software for the various CAD files (Autodesk Vault) however it is becoming increasingly necessary to implement more of a generic file version control system as they use many more files than can be managed in Vault (sometimes just photos or scans of paper documents), hence why they were looking at using Sharepoint. However... as the 'programmer' of the bunch, I can see several scenarios which don't seem to fit well with the Dynamics + Sharepoint approach; simple reports based on cross-table queries, exporting certain metrics as a spreadsheet, defining project hierarchies and many-many relationships, and as such I have been pushing for an in-house developed 'ECM' / 'ERP' software package (perhaps in .NET or php). Some colleagues seem to attach a greater value to the MS software (perhaps becuase it has a logo!) but don't see that it's just a framework, not a solution. Can anyone provide a good example of when custom software would actually be better than using Dynamics + Sharepoint and how do I relate that to non-technical staff?

    Read the article

  • I want something ready to start with

    - by BDotA
    I am looking for something quick like a weblog in wordpress or blogspot maybe, that when I write a blog post I can put it there, for example if I write something about .NET or Java or Database,..some quick tutorial with some small code samples that visitors can use ... And I don't know anything about webdesign and I just want a ready-made thing to use for this purpose. What do you suggest? any samples of that that I can take a look?

    Read the article

  • Storing revisions of a document

    - by dev.e.loper
    This is a follow up question to my original question. I'm thinking of going with generating diffs and storing those diffs in the database 'History' table. I'm using diff-match-patch library to generate what is called a 'patch'. On every save, I compare previous and new version and generate this patch. The patch could be used to generate a document at specific point in time. My dilemma is how to store this data. Should I: a Insert a new database record for every patch? b. Store these patches in javascript array and store that array in history table. So there is only one db History record for document with an array of all the patches. Concerns with: a. Too many db records generated. Will be slow and CPU intensive to query. b. Only one record. If record is somehow corrupted/deleted. Entire revision history is gone. I'm looking for suggestions, concerns with either approach.

    Read the article

  • Should I always encapsulate an internal data structure entirely?

    - by Prog
    Please consider this class: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThings(){ return things; } } This class exposes the array it uses to store data, to any client code interested. I did this in an app I'm working on. I had a ChordProgression class that stores a sequence of Chords (and does some other things). It had a Chord[] getChords() method that returned the array of chords. When the data structure had to change (from an array to an ArrayList), all client code broke. This made me think - maybe the following approach is better: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThing(int index){ return things[index]; } public int getDataSize(){ return things.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ things[index] = thing; } } Instead of exposing the data structure itself, all of the operations offered by the data structure are now offered directly by the class enclosing it, using public methods that delegate to the data structure. When the data structure changes, only these methods have to change - but after they do, all client code still works. Note that collections more complex than arrays might require the enclosing class to implement even more than three methods just to access the internal data structure. Is this approach common? What do you think of this? What downsides does it have other? Is it reasonable to have the enclosing class implement at least three public methods just to delegate to the inner data structure?

    Read the article

  • Efficient Algorithm for Recording gameplay's objects positions

    - by Scorch
    So, I have a game idea in mind, and for that I need to record the game around the player. I'me not talking about recording it as video, but rather recording the scene objects, and their positions within the game, and then render them, giving the player the ability to go back and forth, to stop time and move around. I've made a prototype with some data structures in C#, since this is going to be the programming language we'll be using in our game, but if we want the player to be able to go back just five minutes back with the data of just 100 NPC's, it takes almost 1GB of RAM. Right now, I'm just storing a Doubly linked list, each item with the object position. In the game, I'll need to store even more data in each node, so I need something even more ligher. Of course, this algorithm is zero optimized, but still, that is a lot. The alternatives would be create the NPC's that aren't really important to the game when the user is viewing the past, but I don't really like it very much for the sake of realism. I wonder if there is a better way to store this? Thanks in advance, Scorch

    Read the article

  • Many ui panels needs interaction with same object

    - by user877329
    I am developing a tool for simulating systems like the Gray-Scott model (That is systems where spatial distribution depends on time). The actual model is loaded from a DLL or shared object and the simulation is performed by a Simulation object. There are at least two situations when the simulation needs to be destroyed: The user loads a new model The user changes the size of the domain To make sure nothing goes wrong, the current Model, Simulation, and rendering Thread are all managed by an ApplicationState object. But the two cases above are initiated from two different UI objects. Is it then ok to distribute a reference to the ApplicationState object to all panels that need to access at least one method on the ApplicationState object? Another solution would be to use aggregation so that the panel from which the user chooses model knows the simulation parameter panel. Also, the ApplicationState class seems somewhat clumsy, so I would like to have something else

    Read the article

  • Law of Demeter in MVC regarding Controller-View communication

    - by Antonio MG
    The scenario: Having a Controller that controls a view composed of complex subviews. Each one of those subviews is a separated class in a separate file. For example, one of those subviews is called ButtonsView, and has a bunch of buttons. The Controller has to access those buttons. Would accessing those buttons like this: controllerMainView.buttonsView.firstButton.state(); be a violation of the LOD? On one hand, it could be yes because the controller is accessing the inner hierarchy of the view. On the other, a Controller should be aware of what happens inside the view and how is composed. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Creating a Application in Winrt that requires Internet

    - by wtsang02
    I am making a paid App for Windows 8, c#. I am wondering which is better? If my application doesn't need internet connection normally but does requires internet connection for the first time to download content data. --Makes my life easier Load the default data when installing. Then ask the user if he wants to update in app. -- Making the default data will be pain. Now my big question is, is it safe to assume user has access to internet now-a-days when using application that shouldn't require internet?

    Read the article

  • Storing translation data as JSON column

    - by j0ntech
    We're deciding on how to store translations of some descriptions of database items. We could go the traditional way and keep a translations table (and a language table and an object_translation linking table) OR we thought it might be better to just have a Description column that contains JSON like the following: { "EN": "This is the translation in English", "EE" : "See on kirjeldus eesti keeles" } Are there any serious downsides as to why we shouldn't use this? (I haven't seen it being used anywhere else)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150  | Next Page >