Making Money Web

so, yea, what's the big deal?

This is not a simple matter of temporary inconvenience. If you agree to pay interest on a loan from them you are enslaving yourself. It is very simple, and they don't want you to know that.

The loan money you agree to pay back did not exist until you signed the dotted line. In fact, it will never 'exist'. When you purchase a home or a car you agree to make payments until the loan is completely paid off, paying an 'agreed' interest rate, a premium, for the convenience of taking control of the home or car without paying in full. But no money is ever exchanged. The loan document is essentially an agreement that if you stop making payments the bank will have to take over, potentially at a loss. Either way the third party, such as the original owner of the home, or Toyota, in the case of a car, is paid in full by the bank - the third party is no longer involved. They have received full payment. But you, my dear consumer, are now a slave.

Why use such a term as slave? Because you are working for someone that never worked for the money in the first place. They 'printed' it. They increased the number of zeros on their ledger because you have agreed to make payments on that money, but it never existed in the first place. That is, the Federal Reserve has the ability to increase the money supply and then pass it on to their 'member' banks: Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, etc. These banks will only take a loss if you stop making payments - and they threaten you with a lower FICO score, which is always fluctuating and at risk of identity fraud anyway, if you decide not to play anymore. So how is this slavery? You are paying interest on money they did not work for. But you had to sweat to get the money to pay that interest. Your sweat goes to these bankers without them doing a thing. If enough of your fellow consumers stop making payments the house of cards falls and the big bank gets a bailout. The small banks just get their assets gobbled up by the big banks; no bailout.

If you, my dear consumer, attempt to create money out of thin air you are put in jail. You are a cheat. But not them. They can create all the money they need, raising this so-called debt ceiling, creating programs like TARP, and other 'bailouts' for risk-taking banksters. That's right. They get your sweat in the form of interest payments, you slave, and they get to take risks because Glass-Steagall has been repealed, and if they fail, you, the taxpaying consumer, get to become the primary investor in their failure: the bailout. They threaten collapse, chaos, and even war if the don't get their bailout from the taxpayer. And then they turn around and lend you, the consumer, money at 10, 20, 30%.

So what is pragmatic? How about a system that cannot be manipulated? How about a system in which losers actually lose and are not allowed to play anymore instead of given huge bonuses? 

That system, is a gold-backed system. Keynes is popular in the current time because he speaks the language of bankers and politicians - not the People. There should be no such thing as inflation. Inflation is at best a hidden tax (increase the money supply to fund inefficient programs, sweetheart deals, and risky investments waiting for a bailout) because the value of the money under your mattress is devalued - you can't buy as much anymore. Why should anyone ever! be content to have less money the next day. You can buy X for $10 today, after inflation it will be $11. Why would you ever want that? How is that ever good? This is no mere inconvenience - it really is theft. So these financial scientists (bankers) and politician friends have devised a near perfect system of control. And because you can't inflate gold (it can't be copied, duplicated, or printed) it's 'value' stays constant. A gold coin will always have a specific weight and purity according to the standards of the mint it came from. That's what's in the Constitution - not an extra-governmental (private) instiution that can create as much money as it needs to maintain control!

Banking should be boring. They should accept deposits and charge money for keeping it safe in their vaults. But don't they pay depositors interest, you ask? Why would they pay you to keep your money safe when you can come in and get it back anytime you like? You can't run a business like that! The point of paying interest on a deposit is because the depositor agrees to allow the banker to loan the money to someone else. But that's not how it works, you say? Exactly. Because everybody knows that if enough depositors come to get their money the house of cards collapses and the FDIC has to step in. This should never happen. There should be no such thing, generally speaking, as a bankrun. A bank will fail if they make too many risky loans. That is, if a banker fails to properly evaluate the 'creditworthiness' of the individuals applying for loans. If too many loans go sour the banker fails and all of his assets are purchased by those making loans that are less risky. No need to ask Keynes what he thinks. Banking should not involve economics, which is really about the effects of human choice. Banking is math. If you deposit money, and you want to be able to get it the next day, you must pay the banker a fee for safekeeping. If you agree that your money can be lent to another, trusting the judgment of your banker, then you should receive part of the profit - and you cannot get it the next day, because it has already been lent! How can you possibly retrieve something that is not there? You banker would think you are an idiot to request money you agreed to lend! But that's what an honest system would work. Instead, we have an 'unlimited' system. It stops working properly if you apply gravity. Ron Paul's 26 year attempt to audit the Federal Reserve is almost more of an inside joke. He already knows that the Federal Reserve is evil - but he has a hard enough time deflecting attempts from the media to portray him as a lunatic as it is - he wants the public to perceive what a mudfight will ensue if they actually knew how the system works.

So growth would be slower. But it is inherently stable. Individuals are likely to take less risk, and they are less likely to get a loan that they probably won't be able to pay back. People sharpen their pencils. People look for other ways to finance their plans by seeking out friends, family, neighbors, etc instead of bankers. The free market is the market in which there is no restriction. But we do not have a free market. We have banksters hiding behind green curtains telling us what is best. The more stable the system the less money the banksters make. They make more money gaming the system: booms and busts - and we start to hear these pompous, paid economists (bankster apologists) tell us they couldn't see this was going to happen, and we all nod our heads, "Nobody saw this coming." So because the banksters never work for any of this money it is in their best interest that you, the simple-minded, ever-trusting consumer is in a perpetual state of paying interest. They are less interested in being paid in full than they are having you pay with your sweat.

Bankers control. Consumers always pay. Maybe you already explained all this to your girlie, my fellow FR-hater, and there is much more, but ask her what has always happened when enough people become apathetic to evil. The reason the founding fathers didn't get around to explaining the free market in the Constitution is because it is the lack of restriction. Real liberty. Let coined precious metals be the pinnacle of our economic system - everything else can be bartered. It keeps the bankers at bay.

I leave you with two quotes, from men of opposite character, that say the same thing using different words:

This post originally appeared on Forbes.com, where Mashable regularly contributes articles about social media, business and technology.

Why do web startups raise money? And how? These are two questions that account for a huge corpus of tech and financial discussion. Despite the complexity involved in these questions, their answers can be condensed into an eight-word statement: Someone somewhere thought he’d make his money back.

If you consider a few notable fundraising efforts from popular web startups, you begin to see how this aforementioned hypothetical “someone” might think his investment would be prudent and even profitable. Here are five popular web startups we’ve seen raising large amounts of money since the 2008 downturn, and a quick look at how they were able to do so.

1. Groupon

Groupon offers daily discounts for local businesses; these coupons can be redeemed only when a significant number of people choose to use them. For example, Groupon recently partnered with Gap to offer shoppers $50 worth of clothing and accessories for $25.

While daily deals and critical-mass coupons are fine and dandy for retailers and consumers, Groupon also takes its cut. The company usually keeps half of the coupon price and is expected to report $400 million in revenue for 2010.

Groupon has brought in increasing interest from investors. Since its relatively modest $1 million angel round in 2007, this startup has gone on to garner a total of $173 million over the past three years, the vast majority of which was raised after the 2008 economic crash. After collecting $6.8 million during its Series A round of funding, Groupon managed to bring in $30 million during its Series B round in December 2009, which was led by Accel Partners. Its headline-making $135 million Series C was led by Digital Sky Technologies, the famous investors behind Zynga and Facebook.

Without question, having a revenue stream as a core part of the company’s main product is a popular feature (with VCs) of funded startups. Groupon has that covered. Aside from the value the product offers, at scale, it also is intended to generate massive amounts of revenue. Unlike some social networking apps that require partnerships and advertising dollars to support an unrelated product for end users, generating revenue is Groupon’s most basic function.

2. Zynga

Zynga, creator of popular casual games, including FarmVille and Mafia Wars, boasts a revenue model based on small end-user transactions in virtual currency, which users spend on virtual goods. Zynga has proved that microtransactions at the scale of Facebook’s platform are big business worth serious investment.

Despite violating a core tenet of web startup wisdom: Never build your business on someone else’s platform, Zynga has racked up huge rounds and equally huge valuations. All told, Zynga has taken $519 million in funding, the bulk of which was raised after December 2009. In that month, the company closed a $180 million Series C from such firms as Andreessen Horowitz, Digital Sky and others. And in June 2010, Zynga took a $300 million Series D from Google and SoftBank. With more than 56 million Americans playing social games, it’s no wonder why investors are putting down serious money in this industry.

3. Twitter

Since its launch in 2006, micro-blogging service Twitter has become a social media darling, raising a total of $160 million since its 2007 Series A. The company raised $135 million over two rounds in 2009 from such firms as Benchmark, Morgan Stanley, Union Square and others.

Notably, all this money was raised before Twitter had found any significant source of revenue. This fact bucks a major trend in investment (that VCs like to see clear revenue stream before investing), but Twitter pulled it off because of one major factor: People.

Not only was the service growing exponentially, but it also had the endorsement (and daily usage) of pop culture celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher and Justin Timberlake. But nothing topped Twitter’s Oprah appearance, a watershed moment that brought a deluge of mainstream attention and a glut of new users.

Between the escalating adoption and increasing media attention, Twitter has become an opportunity investors can’t turn down.

4. Asana

Facebook Co-Founder Dustin Moscovitz and Facebook engineering lead Justin Rosenstein teamed up after leaving Facebook to found Asana, a startup that is reportedly building project management software. It is still in early development and hasn’t launched a product yet. This is one case where the product is presumed to be a sure bet because of the past experience and intellectual caliber of its creators.

Sometimes, a startup can raise money with nothing but pure pedigree. When a handful of big tech company engineers leave the mothership to found a startup, as happens in Silicon Valley from time to time, they can often drum up a round of funding before pencil meets paper.

Over seven months in 2009, the team was able to raise $10.2 million in two rounds of funding. In this case, investors are banking on Moscovitz’s and Rosenstein’s past successes. In a way, it’s as if they are investing in Beethoven’s next symphony or Van Gogh’s next canvas (i.e. the next Facebook).

5. Ustream

Finally, there’s Ustream, a live interactive broadcast platform, which raised an impressive $75 million round of funding earlier this year from SoftBank. Previously, the startup had brought in nearly $13 million between a small 2007 seed round and a 2008 Series A. That’s a huge jump.

Despite a range of competitors in the online video world, including YouTube, Ustream has made its mark on the live video market. Ustream has demonstrated mass-scale success in this arena by brokering deals to show live online footage of red carpet events, celebrity press conferences and even the 2008 Presidential Inauguration.

While challenging an industry leader like YouTube isn’t usually a prudent path to funding, doing so successfully through innovative technologies and user acquisition strategies can pay off.

More Business Resources from Mashable:

- 10 Emerging Social Platforms and How Businesses Can Use Them/> - 10 Free WordPress Themes for Small Businesses/> - The Future of Ad Agencies and Social Media/> - HOW TO: Run Your Business Online with $10 and a Google Account/> - 5 New Ways Small Business Can Offer Location-Based Deals

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, Sage78

For more Business coverage:

class="f-el">class="cov-twit">Follow Mashable Businessclass="s-el">class="cov-rss">Subscribe to the Business channelclass="f-el">class="cov-fb">Become a Fan on Facebookclass="s-el">class="cov-apple">Download our free apps for iPhone and iPad

WordPress app adds video support | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the WordPress app adds video support. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

<b>News</b> Roundup: Ryan Murphy Confirms Chord Overstreet Will Not Play <b>...</b>

Ryan Murphy finally put an end to the speculation about Kurt's new boyfriend on 'Glee' -- well, sort of. We finally know once and for all.

ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...

bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off

WordPress app adds video support | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the WordPress app adds video support. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

<b>News</b> Roundup: Ryan Murphy Confirms Chord Overstreet Will Not Play <b>...</b>

Ryan Murphy finally put an end to the speculation about Kurt's new boyfriend on 'Glee' -- well, sort of. We finally know once and for all.

ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...

bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off

so, yea, what's the big deal?

This is not a simple matter of temporary inconvenience. If you agree to pay interest on a loan from them you are enslaving yourself. It is very simple, and they don't want you to know that.

The loan money you agree to pay back did not exist until you signed the dotted line. In fact, it will never 'exist'. When you purchase a home or a car you agree to make payments until the loan is completely paid off, paying an 'agreed' interest rate, a premium, for the convenience of taking control of the home or car without paying in full. But no money is ever exchanged. The loan document is essentially an agreement that if you stop making payments the bank will have to take over, potentially at a loss. Either way the third party, such as the original owner of the home, or Toyota, in the case of a car, is paid in full by the bank - the third party is no longer involved. They have received full payment. But you, my dear consumer, are now a slave.

Why use such a term as slave? Because you are working for someone that never worked for the money in the first place. They 'printed' it. They increased the number of zeros on their ledger because you have agreed to make payments on that money, but it never existed in the first place. That is, the Federal Reserve has the ability to increase the money supply and then pass it on to their 'member' banks: Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, etc. These banks will only take a loss if you stop making payments - and they threaten you with a lower FICO score, which is always fluctuating and at risk of identity fraud anyway, if you decide not to play anymore. So how is this slavery? You are paying interest on money they did not work for. But you had to sweat to get the money to pay that interest. Your sweat goes to these bankers without them doing a thing. If enough of your fellow consumers stop making payments the house of cards falls and the big bank gets a bailout. The small banks just get their assets gobbled up by the big banks; no bailout.

If you, my dear consumer, attempt to create money out of thin air you are put in jail. You are a cheat. But not them. They can create all the money they need, raising this so-called debt ceiling, creating programs like TARP, and other 'bailouts' for risk-taking banksters. That's right. They get your sweat in the form of interest payments, you slave, and they get to take risks because Glass-Steagall has been repealed, and if they fail, you, the taxpaying consumer, get to become the primary investor in their failure: the bailout. They threaten collapse, chaos, and even war if the don't get their bailout from the taxpayer. And then they turn around and lend you, the consumer, money at 10, 20, 30%.

So what is pragmatic? How about a system that cannot be manipulated? How about a system in which losers actually lose and are not allowed to play anymore instead of given huge bonuses? 

That system, is a gold-backed system. Keynes is popular in the current time because he speaks the language of bankers and politicians - not the People. There should be no such thing as inflation. Inflation is at best a hidden tax (increase the money supply to fund inefficient programs, sweetheart deals, and risky investments waiting for a bailout) because the value of the money under your mattress is devalued - you can't buy as much anymore. Why should anyone ever! be content to have less money the next day. You can buy X for $10 today, after inflation it will be $11. Why would you ever want that? How is that ever good? This is no mere inconvenience - it really is theft. So these financial scientists (bankers) and politician friends have devised a near perfect system of control. And because you can't inflate gold (it can't be copied, duplicated, or printed) it's 'value' stays constant. A gold coin will always have a specific weight and purity according to the standards of the mint it came from. That's what's in the Constitution - not an extra-governmental (private) instiution that can create as much money as it needs to maintain control!

Banking should be boring. They should accept deposits and charge money for keeping it safe in their vaults. But don't they pay depositors interest, you ask? Why would they pay you to keep your money safe when you can come in and get it back anytime you like? You can't run a business like that! The point of paying interest on a deposit is because the depositor agrees to allow the banker to loan the money to someone else. But that's not how it works, you say? Exactly. Because everybody knows that if enough depositors come to get their money the house of cards collapses and the FDIC has to step in. This should never happen. There should be no such thing, generally speaking, as a bankrun. A bank will fail if they make too many risky loans. That is, if a banker fails to properly evaluate the 'creditworthiness' of the individuals applying for loans. If too many loans go sour the banker fails and all of his assets are purchased by those making loans that are less risky. No need to ask Keynes what he thinks. Banking should not involve economics, which is really about the effects of human choice. Banking is math. If you deposit money, and you want to be able to get it the next day, you must pay the banker a fee for safekeeping. If you agree that your money can be lent to another, trusting the judgment of your banker, then you should receive part of the profit - and you cannot get it the next day, because it has already been lent! How can you possibly retrieve something that is not there? You banker would think you are an idiot to request money you agreed to lend! But that's what an honest system would work. Instead, we have an 'unlimited' system. It stops working properly if you apply gravity. Ron Paul's 26 year attempt to audit the Federal Reserve is almost more of an inside joke. He already knows that the Federal Reserve is evil - but he has a hard enough time deflecting attempts from the media to portray him as a lunatic as it is - he wants the public to perceive what a mudfight will ensue if they actually knew how the system works.

So growth would be slower. But it is inherently stable. Individuals are likely to take less risk, and they are less likely to get a loan that they probably won't be able to pay back. People sharpen their pencils. People look for other ways to finance their plans by seeking out friends, family, neighbors, etc instead of bankers. The free market is the market in which there is no restriction. But we do not have a free market. We have banksters hiding behind green curtains telling us what is best. The more stable the system the less money the banksters make. They make more money gaming the system: booms and busts - and we start to hear these pompous, paid economists (bankster apologists) tell us they couldn't see this was going to happen, and we all nod our heads, "Nobody saw this coming." So because the banksters never work for any of this money it is in their best interest that you, the simple-minded, ever-trusting consumer is in a perpetual state of paying interest. They are less interested in being paid in full than they are having you pay with your sweat.

Bankers control. Consumers always pay. Maybe you already explained all this to your girlie, my fellow FR-hater, and there is much more, but ask her what has always happened when enough people become apathetic to evil. The reason the founding fathers didn't get around to explaining the free market in the Constitution is because it is the lack of restriction. Real liberty. Let coined precious metals be the pinnacle of our economic system - everything else can be bartered. It keeps the bankers at bay.

I leave you with two quotes, from men of opposite character, that say the same thing using different words:

This post originally appeared on Forbes.com, where Mashable regularly contributes articles about social media, business and technology.

Why do web startups raise money? And how? These are two questions that account for a huge corpus of tech and financial discussion. Despite the complexity involved in these questions, their answers can be condensed into an eight-word statement: Someone somewhere thought he’d make his money back.

If you consider a few notable fundraising efforts from popular web startups, you begin to see how this aforementioned hypothetical “someone” might think his investment would be prudent and even profitable. Here are five popular web startups we’ve seen raising large amounts of money since the 2008 downturn, and a quick look at how they were able to do so.

1. Groupon

Groupon offers daily discounts for local businesses; these coupons can be redeemed only when a significant number of people choose to use them. For example, Groupon recently partnered with Gap to offer shoppers $50 worth of clothing and accessories for $25.

While daily deals and critical-mass coupons are fine and dandy for retailers and consumers, Groupon also takes its cut. The company usually keeps half of the coupon price and is expected to report $400 million in revenue for 2010.

Groupon has brought in increasing interest from investors. Since its relatively modest $1 million angel round in 2007, this startup has gone on to garner a total of $173 million over the past three years, the vast majority of which was raised after the 2008 economic crash. After collecting $6.8 million during its Series A round of funding, Groupon managed to bring in $30 million during its Series B round in December 2009, which was led by Accel Partners. Its headline-making $135 million Series C was led by Digital Sky Technologies, the famous investors behind Zynga and Facebook.

Without question, having a revenue stream as a core part of the company’s main product is a popular feature (with VCs) of funded startups. Groupon has that covered. Aside from the value the product offers, at scale, it also is intended to generate massive amounts of revenue. Unlike some social networking apps that require partnerships and advertising dollars to support an unrelated product for end users, generating revenue is Groupon’s most basic function.

2. Zynga

Zynga, creator of popular casual games, including FarmVille and Mafia Wars, boasts a revenue model based on small end-user transactions in virtual currency, which users spend on virtual goods. Zynga has proved that microtransactions at the scale of Facebook’s platform are big business worth serious investment.

Despite violating a core tenet of web startup wisdom: Never build your business on someone else’s platform, Zynga has racked up huge rounds and equally huge valuations. All told, Zynga has taken $519 million in funding, the bulk of which was raised after December 2009. In that month, the company closed a $180 million Series C from such firms as Andreessen Horowitz, Digital Sky and others. And in June 2010, Zynga took a $300 million Series D from Google and SoftBank. With more than 56 million Americans playing social games, it’s no wonder why investors are putting down serious money in this industry.

3. Twitter

Since its launch in 2006, micro-blogging service Twitter has become a social media darling, raising a total of $160 million since its 2007 Series A. The company raised $135 million over two rounds in 2009 from such firms as Benchmark, Morgan Stanley, Union Square and others.

Notably, all this money was raised before Twitter had found any significant source of revenue. This fact bucks a major trend in investment (that VCs like to see clear revenue stream before investing), but Twitter pulled it off because of one major factor: People.

Not only was the service growing exponentially, but it also had the endorsement (and daily usage) of pop culture celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher and Justin Timberlake. But nothing topped Twitter’s Oprah appearance, a watershed moment that brought a deluge of mainstream attention and a glut of new users.

Between the escalating adoption and increasing media attention, Twitter has become an opportunity investors can’t turn down.

4. Asana

Facebook Co-Founder Dustin Moscovitz and Facebook engineering lead Justin Rosenstein teamed up after leaving Facebook to found Asana, a startup that is reportedly building project management software. It is still in early development and hasn’t launched a product yet. This is one case where the product is presumed to be a sure bet because of the past experience and intellectual caliber of its creators.

Sometimes, a startup can raise money with nothing but pure pedigree. When a handful of big tech company engineers leave the mothership to found a startup, as happens in Silicon Valley from time to time, they can often drum up a round of funding before pencil meets paper.

Over seven months in 2009, the team was able to raise $10.2 million in two rounds of funding. In this case, investors are banking on Moscovitz’s and Rosenstein’s past successes. In a way, it’s as if they are investing in Beethoven’s next symphony or Van Gogh’s next canvas (i.e. the next Facebook).

5. Ustream

Finally, there’s Ustream, a live interactive broadcast platform, which raised an impressive $75 million round of funding earlier this year from SoftBank. Previously, the startup had brought in nearly $13 million between a small 2007 seed round and a 2008 Series A. That’s a huge jump.

Despite a range of competitors in the online video world, including YouTube, Ustream has made its mark on the live video market. Ustream has demonstrated mass-scale success in this arena by brokering deals to show live online footage of red carpet events, celebrity press conferences and even the 2008 Presidential Inauguration.

While challenging an industry leader like YouTube isn’t usually a prudent path to funding, doing so successfully through innovative technologies and user acquisition strategies can pay off.

More Business Resources from Mashable:

- 10 Emerging Social Platforms and How Businesses Can Use Them/> - 10 Free WordPress Themes for Small Businesses/> - The Future of Ad Agencies and Social Media/> - HOW TO: Run Your Business Online with $10 and a Google Account/> - 5 New Ways Small Business Can Offer Location-Based Deals

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, Sage78

For more Business coverage:

class="f-el">class="cov-twit">Follow Mashable Businessclass="s-el">class="cov-rss">Subscribe to the Business channelclass="f-el">class="cov-fb">Become a Fan on Facebookclass="s-el">class="cov-apple">Download our free apps for iPhone and iPad

bench craft company rip off

WordPress app adds video support | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the WordPress app adds video support. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

<b>News</b> Roundup: Ryan Murphy Confirms Chord Overstreet Will Not Play <b>...</b>

Ryan Murphy finally put an end to the speculation about Kurt's new boyfriend on 'Glee' -- well, sort of. We finally know once and for all.

ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...

bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off

WordPress app adds video support | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the WordPress app adds video support. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

<b>News</b> Roundup: Ryan Murphy Confirms Chord Overstreet Will Not Play <b>...</b>

Ryan Murphy finally put an end to the speculation about Kurt's new boyfriend on 'Glee' -- well, sort of. We finally know once and for all.

ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...

bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off

WordPress app adds video support | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the WordPress app adds video support. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

<b>News</b> Roundup: Ryan Murphy Confirms Chord Overstreet Will Not Play <b>...</b>

Ryan Murphy finally put an end to the speculation about Kurt's new boyfriend on 'Glee' -- well, sort of. We finally know once and for all.

ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...

bench craft company rip off