Member Sign In
Not a member?

A Wired.com user account lets you create, edit and comment on Webmonkey articles. You will also be able to contribute to the Wired How-To Wiki and comment on news stories at Wired.com.


It's fast and free.

Sign in with OpenID
Sign In
Webmonkey is a property of Wired Digital.
processing...
Join Webmonkey
Please send me occasional e-mail updates about new features and special offers from Wired/Webmonkey.
Yes No
Please send occasional e-mail offers from Wired/Webmonkey affiliated web sites and publications, and carefully selected companies.
Yes No
I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to Webmonkey's User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Webmonkey is a property of Wired Digital.
processing...

Retrieve Sign In

Please enter your e-mail address or username below. Your username and password will be sent to the e-mail address you provided us.

or
Webmonkey is a property of Wired Digital.
processing...

Welcome to Webmonkey

A private profile page has been created for you.
As a member of Webmonkey, you can now:
  • edit articles
  • add to the code library
  • design and write a tutorial
  • comment on any Webmonkey article
Close
Webmonkey is a property of Wired Digital.

Sign In Information Sent

An e-mail has been sent to the e-mail address registered in this account.
If you cannot find it in your in-box, please check your bulk or junk folders.
Sign In
Webmonkey is a property of Wired Digital.

Bit.ly Pro Makes it Dead Simple to Create Your Own URL Shortener

By Scott Gilbertson February 8, 2010 Categories: Platforms & APIs, Software & Tools

Bit.ly recently unveiled a new service, Bit.ly Pro, which makes it very simple to host your own custom-branded short URL.

The basic Bit.ly Pro service, which is in the free beta stage for now, allows you to set up a short domain and then point that domain to the Bit.ly servers. From there Bit.ly Pro works just like the existing Bit.ly service — it simply generates URLs using your custom domain.

There is also a paid “enterprise” option available which adds additional analytics for your links, custom short URLs (i.e. me.com/mypost rather than me.com/28dkad) and other pro-level features.

One very nice touch is that any existing URLs (and accompanying statistics) that you have associated with your Bit.ly account will be automatically migrated to the new domain.

Bit.ly has also made sure that any third party tools (such as Twitter clients) using the Bit.ly API can use your new short URL — just login with your Bit.ly username and API key and everything will work as usual.

Unfortunately, while Bit.ly Pro makes it dead simple to set up your own custom short URL, it does not, as Dave Winer points out, do anything to address the problem of URL portability. As we’ve written in the past, URL shortening services are very dangerous for the web — if Bit.ly goes out of business all those Bit.ly links become useless.

The way that Bit.ly Pro is currently set up, having your own domain does not mitigate the broken link problem. It may be branded with your domain name, but the data is no more portable than before. As Winer says, Bit.ly could, for example, “echo all your shortened URLs to an Amazon S3 bucket that you control,” but so far at least, Bit.ly Pro does not offer a way to export your shortened data.

Still, if you’ve been looking for a simple way to create custom short URLs, Bit.ly Pro is about easiest method we’ve seen. Better hurry though — short, clever domain names are going to start disappearing fast. You may want to consider registering something in Yiddish.

See Also:


Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

Weave May Let You Keep Firefox and Your iPhone in Sync

By Scott Gilbertson February 8, 2010 Categories: Mobile, Platforms & APIs, Software & Tools

Want to see all your open Firefox tabs on your iPhone? There may soon be an app for that.

There’s already a demo app and a code library that will let someone build an app for that, thanks to Mozilla’s recent efforts to extend Weave, its syncing tool for Firefox, to devices like the iPhone where the browser doesn’t go.

Weave is a Firefox-based syncing tool that takes a snapshot of your bookmarks, search history, saved passwords, preferences and open tabs and syncs that information to all copies of Firefox across all your computers. Weave recently hit 1.0, and will likely become a default part of Firefox in the future.
In the meantime, Mozilla Labs has announced a new set of Weave APIs and developer tools for extending Weave’s syncing powers beyond Firefox to, for example, to the iPhone. The company’s plan is to give you access to your synced data regardless of whether or not Firefox is available. Right now, that effort is limited to a demo app and a code library, but the project makes sense — especially considering most of us use at least two different brands of browser on distinctly different devices like desktops, phones and, soon, tablets.

Whether or not such an app for the iPhone or iPad would make it past the notoriously fickle App Store gestapo is another matter. We’re hoping it does though, because the demo app of Weave running on the iPhone (see video below) bests even Apple’s efforts at syncing data by giving you access to your entire desktop — browsing history, bookmarks and any currently open Firefox tabs — all without needing to be anywhere near your desktop.

Other examples and source code for the new Weave APIs include a web-based application that will work in any browser, a command line interface (written in Python) and a complete, ready-to-go app for Palm’s WebOS.

The Weave team plans to release more APIs in the future. Imagine a search engine that can narrow the field of results by taking a look at your Weave data to see what interests you. Or how about recommendations based on what you like at not just one website, but all of them?For the time being, such APIs are just a glimmer in Weave’s eye and the Weave team acknowledges that these potential web service APIs will need more restrictions and privacy controls than the current crop of APIs offers. But thanks to the Weave APIs, at least some of your Firefox data can go places even Firefox can’t.

Weave iPhone Data Viewer from Mozilla Labs on Vimeo.

See Also:


Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

New Firebug Lite Adds Web Dev Tools to Any Browser

By Scott Gilbertson February 5, 2010 Categories: Software & Tools, Web Basics

The developers of Firebug, the popular Firefox add-on for web developers, have released a new beta of Firebug Lite, the lightweight version of Firebug that works in any browser.

This new version is a significant update to Firebug Lite. While the full power of Firebug still requires Firefox (see our coverage of the recently released Firebug 1.5), Firebug Lite 1.3 adds some great HTML and CSS debugging tools to any browser, including IE6+, Opera, Safari and Google Chrome.

The lastest beta release of Firebug Lite — which is bookmarklet script that you can add to your browser’s favorites bar — features significant speed boosts and many improvements to the HTML and CSS inspectors. The visual interface of Firebug Lite has also been revamped to match that of Firebug 1.3. For more details on everything that’s new in the Firebug Lite 1.3 beta be sure to check out the release notes.

Google’s Chrome browser gets some special attention in the latest release, with a new Firebug Lite beta extension that makes Firebug Lite feel like a part of Google Chrome. The Chrome extension still lacks the JavaScript debugger and the Net Panel found in Firebug proper, but otherwise is behaves much like Firefox version.

For other browsers Firebug Lite 1.3 remains a bookmarklet with the same functionality — if not the UI integration — of the Google Chrome version.

If Firefox isn’t your bag, or if you don’t need the JavaScript debugging tools of Firebug, the Lite version has you covered and will work in the browser of your choice. Keep in mind that this is a beta release, though we encountered no problems during our testing.

See Also:


Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

To Crop or Not to Crop?

By Michael Calore February 4, 2010 Categories: Visual Design

Every post on Webmonkey gets an image, and more times than not, we need to crop those images.

I usually hate cropping photos. Back when I was working as a marketing designer, I’d have to crop and mangle beautiful photos to fit them onto a retail package or squeeze them into a banner ad. It sometimes made me sick to do so.

Today, I was talking with two of Wired.com’s photo editors — Jim and Keith — about cropping photos. Specifically, what to call those bozos who leave box notes on your Flickr photos outlining what they deem to be the perfect crop, then saying in the note “it would be better if you cropped it like this”. I hate that. Keith suggested we call them “crop cocks.”

Personally, I defer to the maestro Henri Cartier-Bresson:

Of all the means of expression, photography is the only one that fixes a precise moment in time. We play with subjects that disappear; and when they’re gone, it’s impossible to bring them back to life. We can’t alter our subject afterward… Writers can reflect before they put words on paper… As photographers, we don’t have the luxury of this reflective time….We can’t redo our shoot once we’re back at the hotel. Our job consists of observing reality with help of our camera (which serves as a kind of sketchbook), of fixing reality in a moment, but not manipulating it, neither during the shoot nor in the darkroom later on. These types of manipulation are always noticed by anyone with a good eye. - Henri Cartier-Bresson - “American Photo”, September/October 1997

So much about writing is pre-meditated, and I try my hardest to get away from that when I express myself creatively in other ways. That’s one of the reasons why I love improvisational music, and why I try to approach photography and videography from the same POV as music — off the cuff and from the hip is usually better than labored and sweated over.

Today’s search also led me to this thread on the DPReview forums. It’s filled with posts from both sides, and the most sensible folks say (paraphrasing here) yeah the “never crop” rule was true on film maybe, but now we have better software tools, and these thing should not be viewed as band-aids or crutches, but rather just TOOLS.

Anyway, how do you feel about it? How much do you think about it — if at all — when you’re cropping a photo for inclusion in a design, or even when you’re just posting to Flickr?

Photo: Electrospray/Flickr, CC


Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

Royalty Deadline for H.264 Extended, But It’s Still Bad for the Web

By Scott Gilbertson February 4, 2010 Categories: Multimedia, Software & Tools

As if the web’s video codec issues weren’t complex enough, the group that controls the licensing and royalties for the H.264 video codec has announced that H.264 will remain royalty-free until the end of 2016.

One the surface it sounds like a good thing — at least until 2016, you’re free to post H.264 videos on your web site without paying royalties to MPEG-LA, the controlling body. But after 2016, MPEG-LA could charge you whatever it wants — even an Austin Powers-style one million dollars per second of video.

MPEG-LA’s latest move seems ripped straight from a crack dealer’s marketing guide — “Here kid, the first hit’s free.” Then, once the web is even more heavily invested in H.264 than it is now, MPEG-LA can set its royalty fees at whatever rate it wants, sit back and reap the profits.

This news comes at a time when the web is in a heated debate over how to best display videos in the browser. The vast majority of content providers rely on Flash (which can decode H.264) to show videos. The certainty of Flash’s longevity on the web was thrown into question by the recent arrival of the iPad, which, like the iPhone, iPod Touch and other mobile devices, doesn’t support the Flash Player software. Some sites are experimenting with using HTML5 to display videos in either H.264 or Ogg Theora file formats. But different browser makers have chosen to support different file formats because of the licensing complexities — Mozilla, Apple, Opera and Google are all picking different sides.

It’s important to understand that the royalty fees being deferred by MPEG LA are in addition to the licensing fees the group already has in place (at over US$50,000 per year). Proponents of H.264, along with many unaware users, often argue that the licensing fees are irrelevant because web users like you and I remain unaffected by them.

But that doesn’t mean that the licensing fees won’t affect the web. Sure, the fees are no big deal for Apple, YouTube and other established players, but what if you want to build a web video encoding service to compete with YouTube and Vimeo? Well, if you want to serve your video to iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad users you’re going to need to come with $50,000+ in licensing fees.

Even without the royalty fees arriving in 2016, the licensing costs alone put start ups at a disadvantage, meaning that an H.264-encumbered web might well miss out on the next big leap in web video sharing.

Then there’s the decoding side of the equation.

At least part of the reason Mozilla and Opera refuse to support H.264 is the licensing fee necessary for software that decodes H.264. While both companies can likely afford it, smaller players can’t. For example, if you want to distribute your own version of Firefox, or simply create something totally new — some next-generation web browser or add-on based on Mozilla code — again, get ready to pony up the licensing fees if you plan to support H.264.

Even using Flash to decode H.264 doesn’t protect you from the licensing fees. As the Adobe H.264 page notes: “commercial use of the Flash Player to decode H.264 video may require a separate license.”

We’re not saying there’s anything wrong with H.264 or MPEG-LA’s desire to make money off it, but let’s not delude ourselves — H.264 isn’t a viable solution for the web’s open video woes.

See Also:


Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

Firefox Takes Its First Baby Steps on Android

By Michael Calore February 3, 2010 Categories: Mobile, Software & Tools

A Mozilla engineer has posted the first screenshot of the Firefox web browser running on Android.

Mozilla’s Vladimir Vukicevic is currently working on porting the mobile version of the Firefox browser to Google’s mobile operating system. The first results, seen in the screenshot above, were posted to Vukicevic’s personal blog Tuesday.

This means that, yes, a full, add-on capable version of Firefox will be making its way to Android phones and tablets in the future. Just a few days ago, Mozilla released a version of Firefox for mobiles running Nokia’s Maemo OS.

Vukicevic’s screenshot shows Firefox running in an Android emulator (to make debugging easier, he says) but it works fine on regular Android devices, too. His team has “a ways to go” before the first public alpha release — various input methods like the keyboard and mouse only “sort of work,” to say nothing of a touch screen — but it’s cool to see some progress being made.

More from Vlad’s post:

You’ll note that this is the full Firefox interface, and not the Fennec/Firefox Mobile UI; we’re testing with the full interface because it’s significantly more complex than the mobile UI and stresses Gecko much more. So, if the full UI works, then Fennec should work fine as well. Given the interest in Android on netbook and tablet devices, an updated version of the full Firefox UI might find a home on some of these.

See Also:

  • Review: Google Nexus One

    • Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

    Adobe CTO Defends Flash Against Apple, HTML5

    By Michael Calore February 2, 2010 Categories: Multimedia, Platforms & APIs


    He waited a few days to make his point, but Adobe’s head software honcho has thrown a bucket of water onto the “Death of Flash” fire.

    In a blog post Tuesday, Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch responded to Apple’s recent criticisms of the Flash platform and warned that a switch to HTML5 would throw users and content creators “back to the dark ages of video on the web.” Lynch went on to cite many of the same shortcomings of HTML5 video that we outlined in our post on the topic Monday.

    First, here’s Lynch on Apple’s failure to support Flash on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad:

    We are ready to enable Flash in the browser on these devices if and when Apple chooses to allow that for its users, but to date we have not had the required cooperation from Apple to make this happen.

    And later:

    Engaging with ideas and information also means ensuring there is an open ecosystem and freedom to view and interact with the content and applications a user chooses. This model of open access has proven to be more effective in the long term than a walled approach, where a manufacturer tries to determine what users are able to see or approves and disapproves individual content and applications. We strongly believe the web should remain an open environment with consistent access to content and applications regardless of your viewing device.

    These strong words are no no doubt directed at Apple, which is actively keeping Flash off of its newest devices.

    As reported by Wired’s Epicenter blog, Steve Jobs laid into Adobe at an Apple employee meeting last week, calling the company “lazy” and deriding its Flash Player as buggy, saying Apple is refusing to support it in Mobile Safari for stability reasons.

    To defend against that particular statement, Lynch also pointed out that Adobe has been busy enhancing Flash Player 10.1 (which will be released within a few months) to work better on Android, BlackBerry, Nokia and Palm devices — and not just phones, but tablets, netbooks and other so-called “transitional devices” where Flash has historically had a negative effect on performance.

    In other words, Lynch says Adobe is working on making Flash perform better on everyone else’s tablets and phones, just not Apple’s.

    And here’s Lynch on the notion that HTML5 will threaten Flash’s dominance:

    Some point to HTML as eventually supplanting the need for Flash, particularly with the more-recent developments coming in HTML with version 5. I don’t see this as one replacing the other, certainly not today nor even in the foreseeable future. Adobe supports HTML and its evolution, and we look forward to adding more capabilities to our software around HTML as it evolves. If HTML could reliably do everything Flash does, that would certainly save us a lot of effort, but that does not appear to be coming to pass.

    He pointed to inconsistencies in browsers as the main hindrance on HTML5’s video capability, adding that, “users and content creators would be thrown back to the dark ages of video on the web with incompatibility issues.” For this reason and a few other ones cited by Lynch, Flash will be sticking around — at the very least, as a stopgap solution — for years to come.

    What is left largely unsaid is the future of Flash as a development environment.

    Flash Professional and Adobe Creative Suite are some of the most well-loved and powerful tools for creating rich apps on the web, especially when building apps to run on multiple devices.

    Right now, a lot of people are building that stuff in Flash. In the future, they will likely be using the same software to do it in HTML5.

    Adobe will react to the market, following developers where they go. If developers are making a broad switch to HTML5 — which the most forward-thinking ones already are — expect tools like Flash (via export add-ons) and Dreamweaver to get better at outputting content in HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and other web standards.

    Lynch touched on it a little bit here:

    We support whatever technologies and formats that best enable our customers to accomplish these goals, and work to drive technology forward where there are gaps that we can fill.

    Photo: Laurence Olivier as Hamlet

    See also:


    Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

    SublimeVideo Hopes to Simplify HTML5 Web Video

    By Scott Gilbertson February 2, 2010 Categories: Software & Tools, Web Basics

    Flash might not be disappearing overnight, but there’s no denying that HTML5 is gaining momentum every day, particularly when it comes to web video. YouTube and Vimeo both recently announced support for browser-native video through HTML5, joining other, smaller web video sites that already supported HTML5.

    But while HTML5 video is here, it isn’t quite ready for prime time. There are the codec issues, but even without considering those, the unfortunate fact is that even just watching HTML5 video isn’t as nice as it is with Flash. Full-screen support isn’t universal, some browsers autoplay video while some don’t, and the players themselves lack features you’ll find in most Flash video players.

    In short, the experience of HTML5 video hasn’t quite caught up to the promise. That’s where SublimeVideo hopes to come in and sharpen the picture. SublimeVideo is a software product from Swiss startup Jilion. The company wants to create a uniform, cross-browser, multiple-codec compatible, HTML5 video-embedding solution.

    As we mentioned in our Flash-isn’t-dead-yet piece, smart web developers are going to use both HTML5 and Flash for some time and that’s exactly what SublimeVideo plans to do.

    SublimeVideo’s working demo movie currently only supports WebKit browsers (Safari, Chrome and IE with Chrome Frame), but before the public release arrives, SublimeVideo’s developers plan to add support for Firefox (via .ogg videos), Opera and a way to fall back to Flash video in older browsers and IE8.

    At the moment, SublimeVideo supports basic features like live resizing, keyboard shortcuts for play/pause, advanced buffering and full-screen mode (full screen only works if you’re using a nightly build of WebKit). Obviously, it’s no match for a Flash video player, but it’s an impressive start and much nicer than the native video controls in most browsers. Unfortunately, the reality is a bit more of a mixed bag.

    The player worked just fine in the latest version of Safari, though load times were bit slow particularly when jumping around in the timeline. Only the developer version of Chrome for Mac supports HTML5 video and it has quite a few bugs, making SublimeVideo’s demo video a jittery, stuttering affair (not SublimeVideo’s fault).

    If SublimeVideo is able to deliver on all its goals, the end results just might make for a very slick HTML5 video solution — deliver web-standards video where you can and fall back to Flash where you can’t. Solutions like this are what the web needs in the short term.

    It’s unclear from the limited information available, but it would be nice to see SublimeVideo fall back in the opposite direction as well. In other words, sites that use features HTML5 video doesn’t support — for example, in-video queue points, like user comments — start with the Flash video embed and then fall back to HTML5 for mobile devices that don’t support Flash.

    SublimeVideo has not announced a release date beyond “soon,” but does say the code will be available for free so long as it’s for noncommercial use.

    See Also:


    Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

    Why Flash Isn’t Going Anywhere, iPad Be Damned

    By Scott Gilbertson February 1, 2010 Categories: Multimedia, Software & Tools, Web Basics

    The arrival of the Apple iPad is still months away, and already the tech pundits are declaring the demise of Flash.

    The view is based largely on the fact that the iPad, like the iPhone, will likely not support Adobe’s plug-in, but it’s also a result of the enthusiasm surrounding the current momentum of HTML5. The emerging web standard, which is quickly being adopted by browser manufacturers and developers, offers native video playback and animation tools that don’t require Adobe’s Flash plug-in. Google recently added its significant weight to the HTML5 camp when it announced HTML5 video support for YouTube. That Apple appears to have again shunned Flash is simply more fuel for the anti-Flash fire.

    At this point, however, the demise of Flash is anything but assured. Even if it does eventually fade away, Flash will still be with us for quite some time because there’s currently nothing to replace it with.

    While some proponents of the open web would have you believe that a viable replacement for Flash is already here — in the form of HTML5 –that’s not exactly the case. The HTML5 video tag does indeed allow you to embed videos in web pages without Flash, but it’s up to the browser to actually play that video. And that’s where the problem arises — what video codec should the browser use? Apple, with the iPad, iPhone and its desktop apps, is pushing the H.264 codec. But the H.264 video codec has licensing requirements and is not free in any sense of the word. Moving from the Flash plug-in to the H.264 codec is like moving backward — from Flash to a more expensive Flash.

    The iPad then, even if it does hasten Flash’s demise, isn’t helping to bring about an open web, it’s just moving from one controlling body (Adobe) to another (MPEG LA, which controls the H.264 codec and is not, for the record, affiliated in any way with the MPEG standards organization). The iPad delivers Apple’s vision of the web, which currently happens to not include Flash. But the iPad isn’t some giant leap for the open web, no matter what Steve Jobs would have you believe.

    Mozilla has already said that Firefox will not support H.264. Google’s Chrome browser does support H.264, but the company also recently moved to acquire On2, makers of another, competing video codec which means, if nothing else, Google isn’t completely satisfied with H.264 either.

    Ogg Theora, which Mozilla has elected to support, is an alternative set of video codecs which might overcome some of the problems with H.264. But while Ogg is open source and free, there is some possibility that elements of it may be encumbered by patents. Apple has long cited these so-called “submarine patent” concerns among its reasons for not supporting Ogg. Critics dismiss these fears as misplaced. However, part of the reason Google acquired On2 may be to obtain these potential patents, and what Google does with them when the sale is completed — keep them or release them under an open source license — will have a significant impact on Ogg’s future.

    So there’s no agreement on an open web video codec yet. This means no matter which option you chose — HTML5 with H.264 or HTML5 with Ogg Theora — the best case scenario is that 20 to 25 percent of the web sees your video without needing a plug-in.

    Obviously that’s not ideal.

    Adobe likes to say that if you use Flash, around 99 percent of the web will see your video. But throw in the iPhone, the iPad and other mobile devices without Flash capability and that number drops significantly. But even if Adobe’s penetration is lower than it claims, Flash still has a much deeper reach than any of the myriad other options.

    So which option are developers going to chose?

    Well, smart developers are going to chose all of the above. And indeed, they already have. YouTube has not abandoned Flash. The site is offering both Flash and H.264 video. We expect YouTube will add even more file formats to the mix before it’s done.

    So if Flash’s dominance is slipping, then eventually it will just disappear right? Sure, just like IE 6 disappeared quickly as soon as something better showed up?

    Flash isn’t going to disappear overnight, and probably won’t even fade significantly any time soon. Dion Almaer, who works at Mozilla and is editor of Ajaxian.com, put it best when he wrote about this in a blog post Monday:

    HTML5 is slowly going to put a dent into [Flash] if we ever get some of the use cases just right (e.g. video), but Adobe has a good penetration and can move at the speed of a dictatorship… There is still much more work to be done. Flash and browser plug-ins have had a long history at forging new paths, and the web can come in behind them and standardize.

    Flash will continue to exist because for many it will continue to be the best tool for the job. And let us not forget that while Flash has its problems — namely performance — it’s also been an incredible innovator for the web. All that Ajax and amazing desktop-like stuff we all love about today’s web? Many of the tools used create those interfaces were written specifically to catch up with Flash.

    Instead of dancing prematurely on Flash’s grave, we ought to be hoping Adobe can turn it around and release something so innovative, so fast, so amazing — and so open — that even Steve Jobs has to smile.

    Update 02-02-10: Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch weighed in on the debate over Flash and HTML5 video on the web in a blog post Tuesday morning. He expresses many of the same concerns about support and user experience inconsistencies across browsers, and offers comments about Flash’s ongoing future as a development environment.

    See Also:


    Post Comment | Comments | Permalink

    Google Drops Support for IE6, Firefox Goes Mobile

    By Michael Calore January 30, 2010 Categories: Software & Tools

    From the weekend desk, two items announced late Friday afternoon we’d be remiss if we didn’t tell you about.

    First, Google is officially dropping support for IE6. Come March 1st, the company is also going to start phasing out support for other older browsers from Apple, Mozilla and Google itself, but IE6 is the one everyone’s most happy to see gone. The notoriously buggy browser is still supported by some institutions and large organizations. The new minimum browser requirements in Google Apps will be Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0, Mozilla Firefox 3.0, Google Chrome 4.0 and Safari 3.0.

    Second, Mozilla has launched Firefox for mobiles running Nokia’s Maemo operating system. This is the first official 1.0 version of Mobile Firefox, and the first mobile browser ever to support add-ons. We took it for a test drive when it was still in beta and found it to be quite slick.


    Post Comment | Comments | Permalink
    Next Page
     
    Subscribe now

    Special Offer For Webmonkey Users

    WIRED magazine:
    The first word on how technology is changing our world.

    Subscribe for just $10 a year