080222_tech_wikitn.jpgIt’s getting harder to be a Wikipedia-hater. The user-generated and -edited online encyclopedia—which doesn’t even require contributors to register—somehow holds its own against the Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy, a Nature study concluded, and has many times more entries. But even though people are catching up to the idea that Wikipedia is a force for good, there are still huge misconceptions about what makes the encyclopedia tick. While Wikipedia does show the creative potential of online communities, it’s a mistake to assume the site owes its success to the wisdom of the online crowd.

Social-media sites like Wikipedia and Digg are celebrated as shining examples of Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters. In reality, a small number of people are running the show. According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site’s edits. The site also deploys bots—supervised by a special caste of devoted users—that help standardize format, prevent vandalism, and root out folks who flood the site with obscenities. This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.

The same undemocratic underpinnings of Web 2.0 are on display at Digg.com. Digg is a social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others’ submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site’s front page. The site’s founders have never hidden that they use a “secret sauce”—a confidential algorithm that’s tweaked regularly—to determine which submissions make it to the front page. Historically, this algorithm appears to have favored the site’s most active participants. Last year, the top 100 Diggers submitted 44 percent of the site’s top stories. In 2006, they were responsible for 56 percent.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Digg—a site meant to “collectively determine the value of content“—is largely run by 100 people. The influence of these members was particularly apparent last month. After Digg tweaked its secret sauce, top contributors noticed a decline in influence—fewer of their submissions became top stories. The super Diggers published an open letter of grievances and threatened to boycott the site. The changes in the algorithm, the Digg execs said, were meant to bring a more diverse set of stories to the site, and they begged for patience from the top Digg contributors. (Thus far, a shaky truce has endured.) The takeaway: Digg’s brass believe that the site, which purports to be the product of a broad-based community, will cease to run smoothly if a microscopic percentage of its user base stops participating.

At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority. In the case of Wikipedia, this authority is both organic and institutionalized. A small segment of highly active users author the majority of the site’s content; there are also elected site administrators who have the power to protect pages, block the IP addresses of problem users, and otherwise regulate Wikipedia’s operations. At Digg, active users have more of a de facto authority over the site’s goings-on (though there are persistent rumors that the site has “secret moderators” who delete content). But officially speaking, while the site’s algorithm seems to favor devoted users, no individual Digger has the power to unilaterally delete a post.

While both sites effectively function as oligarchies, they are still democratic in one important sense. Digg and Wikipedia’s elite users aren’t chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They’re the people who participate the most. Despite the fairy tales about the participatory culture of Web 2.0, direct democracy isn’t feasible at the scale on which these sites operate. Still, it’s curious to note that these sites seem to have the hierarchical structure of the old-guard institutions they’ve sought to supplant.

This top-heavy structure of social-media sites isn’t news to researchers and technophiles. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has acknowledged that what he expected to be an “80-20″ rule—a system where 20 percent of people control 80 percent of the resources—in fact understates the site’s top-heaviness. Palo Alto Research Center’s Ed Chi, the scientist who determined that 1 percent of Wikipedians author half of the content, told me he originally hypothesized that the site’s most energetic editors were acting as custodians. Chi guessed that these users mostly cleaned up after the people who provided the bulk of the encyclopedia’s facts. In reality, he found the opposite was true (PDF). People who’ve made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who’ve made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds. A small number of people are writing the articles, it seems, while less-frequent users are given the tasks of error correction and typo fixing.

This isn’t the kind of people-working-together image that Digg and Wikipedia promote. Of course, Wikipedia requires some level of administration—otherwise, the site would crash under the weight of additions and deletions to the George W. Bush page. But that doesn’t explain the kind of territorialism—the authorial domination by 1 percent of contributors—on the site’s pages. Is this a necessary artifact of operating an open-access site? Or is it possible to build a clearinghouse for high-quality, user-generated content without giving too much power to elite users and secret sauces?

The moderation system at the tech blog Slashdot is perhaps the best example on the Web of a middle way. Slashdot, which draws on links submitted by readers, ordains active contributors with limited power to regulate comments and contributions from other users. Compared with Wikipedia, which requires supreme devotion from its smaller core of administrators, Slashdot makes it easy to become a moderator. Giving large numbers of people small chunks of responsibility has proven effective in eliminating trolls and flame wars in the comment section. Still, the authority any one moderator commands is small, and the site’s official poobahs maintain control over which stories are featured at the top of the site. “These things are far from utopian,” says founder Rob Malda, aka CmdrTaco. “Slashdot tends to have a lot of ‘Microsoft does something bad’ stories. If I let the community run the whole thing, we’d have a lot more. But I don’t want Slashdot to be the ‘Microsoft Sucks’ page. It’s just one of many subjects.”

Another compelling model comes from Helium.com, a Wikipedia-like repository of articles and editorials. Its founder, Silicon Valley veteran Mark Ranalli, compares his site to a capitalist version of Wikipedia. On Helium, contributors compete to have the top-ranked article on a given subject. As soon as you write an article, you’re invited to pick your favorite of two articles on a similar subject. Requiring someone to write before he or she rates creates a more stable system: Rather than create a caste of creators and a caste of peons, Helium encourages everyone to do everything.

Every model has its drawbacks. Unlike Wikipedia, Helium doesn’t lend itself to comprehensive articles drawing on many sources. Nor is Slashdot free of moron commenters, though its quotient is significantly lower than on any unmoderated message board. It’s refreshing, though, that these sites acknowledge that Web 2.0 isn’t a fairy-tale democracy without letting themselves become dictatorships. Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they’re operated by the many and start thinking of ways to rein in the power of the few.

Via Slate Magazine

Ebony girls cartoon xxx free black porn cute adult girl with big boobs wild teen sex pics free porn anal sex tranny bdsm vids pantyhose sex images milf sex

cheapest price cialis soft tabs cheapest place to buy levitra online buy online cialis natural substitute for viagra canadian rx

PORN FREE VIDEOS

Housewares Shop

Pligg had released beta version 9.5, our last installment of the beta series for Pligg.
Between this release and the next there will be additional optimizations performed and some final tweaking and bugfixes added.
We love open source Stuff, and internet or blog tools, and we always welcome new release, and like always we’ll do the best to inform you about anything new that appearing.

Pligg, for those who’s not familiar with is unique compared to most other content management systems because of its flexibility. A web designer can do pretty much anything with Pligg because the software was designed to be used in as many ways as possible. Not only can a person with very little knowledge of PHP and MySQL install it, but they can modify and administer it with relatively little difficulty. For those who have a greater understanding of web languages, Pligg can act as the first step in a highly customized personal content management system.

http://www.blogmaverick.com/

Its fun to watch all the discussion, hyperbole and hopes associated with Apple TV. Once again Apple has come out with a well designed, functional product. Unfortunately for Apple, it may be too little too late.

Lets face some facts. The era of the desktop PC being the home for exciting change and enhancement are long gone. I wrote this for the first time 2 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.

Then in January of this year, I asked why people are so concerned about getting internet video from PCs to HDTVs , rather than taking traditional video from existing sources and distributing it to PCs. Basically saying that its a lot easier to get from TV to PC via any number of existing DVR and other devices than the other way around.

Yet Apple and others still seem to think that simplifying internet video through a PC to a device to an HDTV is the way to go. Is this the future of home entertainment.

Please. Its shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Its a waste of time.

There is an old saying that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Right now the hammer is internet video and everyone wants to find a way to make it the future. Its old news people. Its a mature product in a mature environment.

Now don’t get me wrong. Youtube, despite its copyright problems that could shut it down (i had to slip that in there :), has been a marketing miracle. They have done the completely unexpected and aggregated 10s of millions of monthly users. The same could be same of Myspace. They deserve a ton of credit for what they have accomplished. But the operative word is marketing. Embedded music and video was a catalyst for both. How long has the opportunity to embed videos in an html page been around, 8 years ? No original technology, but a new application of old features is what great ideas and great marketing thrive on.

That is what has made Web 2.0 so interesting. Web 2.0 isnt about technology. Its about ideas implemented around simple applications that have been around for years. The maturity of the technology makes the implementation of ideas simple. That is the key to success in Web 2.0. The technology always works. It may sound crazy to some, but thats the reality. The internet as a connectivity utility and the browser are mature application platforms.

So where will the change come ? What will the be the host for new applications ? Its right in front of our faces, literally. Its the HDTV that you will be buying in the future.

Remember when you would buy a new PC every couple years to keep up and you would buy a new TV every decade ? Well thats about to reverse itself. You no longer feel the need to get the latest and greatest desktop PC, but you are about to get in the habit of upgrading your TV every couple years as new and original features and applications are developed for it.

Dont agree ? Think about the last analog set you bought and what it looked like, could do and cost and compare it to the new HDTV you either just bought or are considering buying. Which has experienced the greatest technological change. The leap from your last analog TV to your next TV or your last PC to your current or next PC ?. The price performance of HDTVs are going to continue at the pace we saw for PCs in the late 90s and early 2000s. In 3 years the mainstream TV will be 70″ and cost less than $1500. In 5 years, it could be 100″ for $2500 dollars . Yes, you will make room for it. You will redesign the family room or your bedroom to make room.

The price performance curve will drive competition for incremental features as well.

We are getting to the point where features that would have been added to PCs in the past will be added to your HDTV. Advances in wireless technology will be more important to your new TV than your desktop PC once your TV has an IP address and internet connectivity, which is right around the corner.

New and unique applications will be developed for your TV ahead of your PC once every HDTV has a browser built in starting in 18 - 24 months.

If you want to see where exciting software is being developed, its not web 2.0. Its being developed for OCAP, Directv and Dish Networks interactive platforms among many. You probably didnt even realize that many of these development platforms are already being built into HDTVs and applications are starting to be released for them.

Its time for everyone to realize that the internet is old news. Its a mature utility, which is the greatest compliment you can give it. The desktop PC is old news. File it next to DVD players: useful and boring with obsolescence right around the corner. Web 2.0 is pleasingly boring.

If the question is “Whats Next “, the answer begins with “Watch TV”

April 21st, 2019New StumbleUpon Feature

The most recent StumbleUpon Toolbar (v. 3.05) includes a new feature called StumbleThru, which allows users to stay on a specific web site while stumbling through pages that they might enjoy. Wikipedia, Flickr, MySpace, YouTube, Wordpress, The Onion, and CNN are some of the sites currently enabled (as are the .edu and .gov domain names).

It’s a cool way to find those YouTube videos or Onion articles that will appeal most to you. But I agree with Rafe Needleman - StumbleUpon should release this functionality through an API and let sites include a “Stumble” button. If the reader is a StumbleUpon user, it will take them to a page on the site that they’ll like. If they aren’t, it should take them to a random page on that site and can prompt them to become a StumbleUpon user to get more customized results.

Creating a link to take readers to a random post is a good idea and would only take a couple of minutes to code in WordPress (we’ll do it for fun this afternoon). If StumbleUpon gives away the functionality, my guess is a lot of sites would integrate it to increase page views.

Saved from rev2.org

I’ve had an idea for this kind of a list for months now, but I guess I’ve been waiting until we have clear, agreed, and well-defined players rather than something we insiders consider successful but is really unknown to the rest of the world.

The list was narrowed down from a selection of 20 startups, and the criteria were as simple as (a) they had to be a new startup — Valley-based or not, but most are anyway, and (b) they had to be looked at as a Web 2.0 company (i.e. no eBay or Yahoo! or Craigslist), which I think we’ll all agree on. I’ve tried to diversify the list with startups doing all kinds of things, and while this is a list of the ‘most successful,’ please note that the startups in here are in no way the ‘best.’ They’re simply used by the most people, have happy investors behind them, and are looking toward a bright future.

(1) MySpaceMySpace

Launched: July 2003
Founded by: Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe
Type: Social Network
Targeted Audience: 16 - 24 (teens, young adults)
Approximate Users: 150 million (100 million as of August 2006; growing at around 200,000 registrations per day)
Approximate Pageviews: 40 billion per month (as of March /2007/)
Acquisition/Valuation: Bought by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Interactive Media in July 2005 for $580 million

(2) YouTubeYouTube

Launched: February 2005
Founded by: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim
Type: Video Sharing
Targeted Audience: 16 - 40 (teens, adults)
Approximate Users: Unknown
Approximate Pageviews: 4 billion per month (as of July 2006, serving 100 million videos per day)
Acquisition/Valuation: Bought by Google in October 2006 for $1.6 billion

(3) FacebookFacebook

Launched: February 2004
Founded by: Mark Zuckerberg
Type: Social Network
Targeted Audience: 20 - 25 (college students), this is changing since they have opened up
Approximate Users: 18 million (as of February /2007/)
Approximate Pageviews: 22 billion per month (as of December 2006)
Acquisition/Valuation: Rejected $1 billion offer from Yahoo! in September 2006, asking for $2 billion

(4) WikipediaWikipedia

Launched: January 2001
Founded by: Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger
Type: Wiki-based Encyclopedia
Targeted Audience: 10 - 80 (general)
Approximate Users: 50,000 active users (as of January 2006)
Approximate Pageviews: 6 billion per month (as of February /2007/)
Acquisition/Valuation: Non-profit, has raised over $3 million in donations

(5) BeboBebo

Launched: January 2005
Founded by: Michael Birch and Xochi Birch
Type: Social Network
Targeted Audience: 16 - 24 (teens, young adults)
Approximate Users: 24 million (as of May 2006)
Approximate Pageviews: 4 billion per month (as of October 2006)
Acquisition/Valuation: Rejected $500 million offer from British Telecom Group, asking for $1 billion

(6) DiggDigg

Launched: November 2004
Founded by: Kevin Rose
Type: Social Content Bookmarking/Voting
Targeted Audience: 16 - 30 (teens, adults; technology-savvy)
Approximate Users: 1 million
Approximate Pageviews: 118 million per month (as of 2006)
Acquisition/Valuation: Rumored to have been in negotiations with Fox Interactive/Newscorp, asking for $150 million

(7) FlickrFlickr

Launched: February 2004
Founded by: Ludicorp
Type: Photo Sharing
Targeted Audience: 16 - 80 (general)
Approximate Users: 1.5 million (as of November 2005)
Approximate Pageviews: Unknown
Acquisition/Valuation: Bought by Yahoo! in March 2005 for an undisclosed price estimated in the lower tens of millions.

(8) NetvibesNetvibes

Launched: September 2005
Founded by: Tariq Krim
Type: AJAX-based Startpage
Targeted Audience: 20 - 40 (adults; technology-savvy)Has
Approximate Users: 7 million (as of February /2007/)
Approximate Pageviews: N/A
Acquisition/Valuation: Has received around $20 million of venture capital to date; no acquisition rumors or link-ups of any kind.

(9) Del.icio.usDel.icio.us

Launched: Late 2003
Founded by: Joshua Schachter
Type: Social Bookmarking
Targeted Audience: 20 - 40 (adults; technology-savvy)
Approximate Users: 1 million (as of September 2006)
Approximate Pageviews: 4 million (peak, as of August 2006)
Acquisition/Valuation: Bought by Yahoo! in December 2005 for estimated $30 - $40 million

(10) MeeboMeebo

Launched: September 2005
Founded by: Sandy Jen, Seth Sternberg, and Elaine Wherry
Type: AJAX-based Instant Messaging
Targeted Audience: 13 - 40 (teens, adults)
Approximate Users: 500,000 users (as of October 2006)
Approximate Pageviews: N/A
Acquisition/Valuation: Has received around $12 million of venture capital to date; no acquisition rumors or linkups.

Someone has to say it. The idea of using the web as a complete application platform is a bad one. Google didn’t do the world any favors by making a kickass interface to GMail, mainly because all the me-too startups in the Silicon Valley feel it necessary to imitate, and they are doing a piss-poor job.

That being said, let’s talk about meebo.com. Meebo is a cute, lovable web-based IM client. Yes, that’s right - no longer do you have to go through the hassle of downloading AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, or Google Talk: you can just navigate your browser to their web site and use all of these services through a single, unified interface. It’s so innovative and convenient, clearly worth millions in venture capital. We’ll just pretend we never heard of Gaim or Trillian. Anyhow, the problem with Meebo, besides being an unoriginal hack, is that they have tried too hard to make the web into a complete application platform, to the point where they don’t even bother holding themselves to the same standards by which desktop application developers are judged. That, and their entire user base consists of students who are signing into AIM on locked-down lab PCs during class, instead of doing the work.

Technical Indiscretions

It has been said (by me) that what happens in Web 2.0 stays in Web 2.0. In AJAX development, programmers can’t be held responsible for, say, the amount of memory their giant JavaScript application uses, because hey, that’s the browser’s problem. We don’t care about the browser taking 100% of the user’s CPU to drag a window, because those Firefox & IE developers just need to get off their lazy asses and write a decent JavaScript interpreter. Well, I tell you what: if you develop desktop applications for Windows and your application uses 100% CPU when you drag a window - pack your shit, you’re going home. The user holds the developer responsible for shortcomings of the platform. The user doesn’t care that Firefox’s JavaScript interpreter runs in the same thread as the renderer, and that faulty JS can bring down the browser. The bottom line is, if the user comes to your application and Firefox crashes or starts eating memory, your application is at fault, not Firefox.

The Yardstick of Truth

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at Meebo as if we were desktop application developers. If you load up Firefox and go to google.com, it takes up about 40MB of memory. If you sign into GMail, it uses about 50MB. Take your browser over to meebo.com and sign into AIM, that’s 61MB. Have a conversation with a friend? 69MB. Chat for a while with said friend? You’re up to 79MB. That’s right: if you use Meebo for a while, it will use 39MB of memory over Firefox’s base usage. Gaim, by comparison, uses 15MB consistently, when signed into Google Talk and chatting all day.

If you’re signed into Meebo, take one of your IM windows and drag it around a bit. On my dual-core, 3.4GHz workstation, this uses 90% CPU time. However, if I take the whole Firefox window and drag it around the screen, Firefox uses about 11% CPU and XOrg uses another 20%. A pegged CPU will draw more power, which uses more electricity, which requires more electricity to be generated, which, given the division of power generation in the United States, causes more carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere. So there you have it, by not caring about resource consumption, Meebo is destroying the environment and perpetuating global warming. My grandkids will thank you, Meebo.

But Seriously, Folks

There is no place in my heart for companies that rewrite desktop applications we’ve had for years as web apps, without offering any additional functionality, like GMail’s gigabytes of storage. It’s like 1998 all over again, but on a smaller scale. I should go out looking for some venture capital, I have a great idea: selling pet food over the internet for more than it costs in the store.

From http://www.uncov.com/

As 2005 draws to a close, I am overwhelmed by the amount of Web 2.0 startups that this year brought. There were no doubt hundreds or perhaps thousands of new services that came about following on the trend of “Web 2.0″. Developers are beginning to create apps that are truly useful. Characteristics include more user interaction, far more efficient use of technologies such as AJAX, and slick design.

2005 also brought many “me too” companies. It seemed like every other Web 2.0 application was “The Best Social Bookmarking Site” or “The Best Startpage Site” or “Another Boring To-Do List site”. My only hope is that this nonsense ends a quick death by the end of this month. I am optimistic that 2006 is the year of “Web 2.0 Innovation”. It is the next logical step…and I anticipate it with great enthusiasm.

There have been quite a few “top web 2.0 companies of 2005″ lists made in the past couple of weeks and I was sick of seeing the same high profile sites over and over again. Here are my picks for Innovative Web 2.0 companies.

To all developers: Your new years resolution should be to innovate, not immitate…we are counting on you!

1. TravBuddy - I like TravBuddy because it allows users to create journals of their journeys. The application mashes up with Google Maps and has some very cool AJAX features. This is a very cool way to discover and research destinations. Out of all the Web 2.0 apps from 2005 I am most excited about Trav Buddy growing and becoming a huge success. I love to travel and I love to research travel destinations. I’m tired of reading snippets from real people rating a hotel and even more tired of reading “about” sections on city websites, hotel pages, etc. This has huge potential.

2. Rollyo - Plain and simple, Rollyo allows you to create a search engine based on any criteria that you see fit. From digital cameras to triathletes, Rollyo is one cool way to gather information. The site is designed well and super easy to use. Great application!

3. TagCloud - Tag cloud is cool because it is loosely based on social bookmarking…and I do mean loosely. I like this site because you can through RSS feeds into it and it will automatically parse keywords and create massive “Tag Clouds”. This is a very innovative way to keep track of news, blogs, etc. that you have in your feed reader.

4. Digg - Viva La Democratic media! Digg was one of this years smash successes, and rightly so. Users submit stories, users “digg” these stories, popular stories go to the homepage, lame stories turn to dust. Digg is the first site I go to every morning to find out whats new in tech. Rumor has it that Digg will be branching away from tech soon, and as long as they do it in a way that doesn’t offend the techies…I can’t wait to read politics.digg.com, and money.digg.com, and bizarre.digg.com.

5. Yahoo Answers - Yahoo has been on a Web 2.0 rampage the past couple of weeks. One property that came out of this is Yahoo Anwers. The site allows you to simply ask a question. Then, the community answers you and users can vote which answer is best. This is one of those apps that might depress you for not thinking of it first. Want to know how to tie a fancy knot? Just ask and in a short time users will tell you! Brilliant!

6. NetWorthIQ - Wanna know how filthy rich you aren’t? NetWorthIQ allows you to enter in your debts, assets, cash, etc. and track your net worth over time. The site is easy to use and you can even compare yourself to other people your age, location, education level, etc. The graphs are pretty and the site really sets itself apart from the Web 2.0 pack.

7. SideJobTrack - Here is a beautiful project management application which, at first glance, seems to be a site in a very a crowded space. It is not! SideJobTrack sets itself apart by catering to more of an offline enviornment. There are tons of useful features such as invoicing, estimates, reports, and of course all the general project management features that all the other applications in this stuffy space have. Two thumbs up for this company going a step above to really carve out a niche.

8. gChart - gChart is a very cool idea based on the Google Maps API. You click anywhere on the map and it tells you the time zone and has a live clock. Who said Web 2.0 had to be fancy? This site proves that you can take a simple idea and create a very useful application. I love it!

9. MooFlex - I first got a glimpse of MooFlex a couple months back when they produced a video of the admin backend. MooFlex is a content management solution that has ajax galore. I give these guys two thumbs up for design and innovation in the content management arena. They are currently in private beta but there is an ultra cool demo on their site.

10. GiveMeaning - “GiveMeaning.com is a website for the $5 philanthropist.” I like this site because it creates a community where people can help people. There are a lot of very cool opportunities to donate to causes that aren’t stemmed from the big likes of Red Cross, etc. I found an organization that was collecting money and support to print brochures to educate the public about suicide. This is a very cool way to help out those in need and a very cool platform indeed.

There you have it folks. My Top 10 List of Innovative Web 2.0 Companies of 2005. Lets hope 2006 spawns a surge of innovation. I am excited about what is going on with internet business right now and I can’t wait to see what the next step is.

Also, lets hope that 2006 spells the death of the social bookmark clones, to do list clones, calendar clones, startpage clones, etc. etc.

Mark Millerton

roshco roast lf12 flasher box of pampers & luvs. xhilaration stockins red and white striped mud pie baby shoes www.gpx pills.com Customer contact for RCA camcorder squeak no more screws kit Mattel UNO Spin Hannah Montana electronic brand list bluewave water bottle Avon Ideal shade smooth mineral mineral makeup review motorola PREPAID refill sylvania light bulbs automotive reviews boho holiday dessert plates ladies cable knit gloves eztec radio control trains reviews barry's boot camp men izod crew socks 100% cashmere topcoat pittsburgh penguin car seat covers single load liquid laundry detergent how to connect a pantech matrix to the computer a christmas carol reginald owen colorized DVD collegiate crocs university of florida books aztec woman Music Wire - .047in OD, Spring Steel Music Wire, Straight ladies blouse bodysuit weedeater bv2000 gas blower junior fiesta ware spoon rest coby 7587 7 in. digital photo frame reviews littlest pet shop planner MAKITA T220D CORDLESS STAPLER Josephine Bib Aprons pinzon mandoline johnsons baby oil packaging sports magazines basketball instant immersion french v3.0 reviews windjammer window caulk Teen Hardcore porn free videos Exterior Accessories Shop Adult dating group fucking girl squirting hairy pussy BBW hardcore bisexual teen sex anime girls Online adult dating
© 2007 - 2021 Web Development | iKon Wordpress Theme by TextNData | Powered by Wordpress | rakCha web directory
XHTML CSS Links RSS

12 bedrooms livingston inn with free WIFI access