Search Results

Search found 3093 results on 124 pages for 'weng lock mok'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 29/124 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Printing to a remote printer through the internet

    - by Lock
    I have a remote network (A) that is connected to a head office (B) through a private network. Network A only has 1 PC that requires the connection, and this is into a terminal server at network B. We want to save money by getting rid of the private network as only 1 PC now access it and it seems silly to pay ~$400 per month for something that is accessed by 1 PC. A VPN tunnel is out of the question as the provider wants to charge $600 a month for a VPN tunnel (more than a private network? I might get them to check these numbers). I was thinking of 2 options: 1) VPN client on the PC. This wouldn't cost a thing as we already have VPN users available. 2) Open up a port on the firewall of network B, forwarding to the terminal server. Now the problem is this: On the terminal server, the program that is accessed is for printing labels to the printer that is at network A. The program is setup to send all print jobs to a printer that is setup locally on the terminal server, which has its port mapped to the IP address of the printer that is at network A. If we got rid of the VPN tunnel and used clients/open up firewall port, the printer would no longer be able to find network A, and hence printing would not work. Any ideas to combat this issue? Can the printers at the remote network be setup as internet printers? I've never had any experience with internet printers. Can you open up ports and map to a public static IP address?

    Read the article

  • How to implement Session timeout in Web Server Side?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    I beheld a web framework implementing in-memory session in this way. The session object is added to Cache with timeout. When the time is out, the session is removed from Cache automatically. To protect race condition, each request should acquire lock on given session object to proceed. Each request will "touch" the session in Cache to refresh the timeout. Everything looks fine, until this scenario is discovered. Say, one operation takes a long time, longer than timeout. Another request comes and wait on session lock which is currently hold by the long-time request. Finally, the long-time request is over, it releases the lock. But, since it already takes longer time than timeout, the session object is already removed from Cache. This is obvious because the only request holding the lock doesn't have a chance to "touch" the session object in cache. The second request gets the lock but cannot retrieve the expired Session object. Oops... To fix this issue, the second request has to re-create the Session object. But, this is just like digging a buried dead body from tomb and try to bring it back to life. It causes buggy code. I'm wondering what's the best way to implement timeout in session to handle such scenario. I know that current platform must have good session mechanism. I just want to know the under-the-hood how.

    Read the article

  • Using boost locks for RAII access to a semaphore

    - by dan
    Suppose I write a C++ semaphore class with an interface that models the boost Lockable concept (i.e. lock(); unlock(); try_lock(); etc.). Is it safe/recommended to use boost locks for RAII access to such an object? In other words, do boost locks (and/or other related parts of the boost thread library) assume that the Lockable concept will only be modeled by mutex-like objects which are locked and unlocked from the same thread? My guess is that it should be OK to use a semaphore as a model for Lockable. I've browsed through some of the boost source and it "seems" OK. The locks don't appear to store explicit references to this_thread or anything like that. Moreover, the Lockable concept doesn't have any function like whichThreadOwnsMe(). It also looks like I should even be able to pass a boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore> reference to boost::condition_variable_any::wait. However, the documentation is not explicitly clear about the requirements. To illustrate what I mean, consider a bare-bones binary semaphore class along these lines: class MySemaphore{ bool locked; boost::mutex mx; boost::condition_variable cv; public: void lock(){ boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lck(mx); while(locked) cv.wait(lck); locked=true; } void unlock(){ { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lck(mx); if(!locked) error(); locked=false; } cv.notify_one(); } // bool try_lock(); void error(); etc. } Now suppose that somewhere, either on an object or globally, I have MySemaphore sem; I want to lock and unlock it using RAII. Also I want to be able to "pass" ownership of the lock from one thread to another. For example, in one thread I execute void doTask() { boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore> lock(sem); doSomeWorkWithSharedObject(); signalToSecondThread(); waitForSignalAck(); lock.release(); } While another thread is executing something like { waitForSignalFromFirstThread(); ackSignal(); boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore>(sem,boost::adopt_lock_t()); doMoreWorkWithSameSharedObject(); } The reason I am doing this is that I don't want anyone else to be able to get the lock on sem in between the time that the first thread executes doSomeWorkWithSharedObject() and the time the second executes doMoreWorkWithSameSharedObject(). Basically, I'm splitting one task into two parts. And the reason I'm splitting the task up is because (1) I want the first part of the task to get started as soon as possible, (2) I want to guarantee that the first part is complete before doTask() returns, and (3) I want the second, more time-consuming part of the task to be completed by another thread, possibly chosen from a pool of slave threads that are waiting around to finish tasks that have been started by master threads. NOTE: I recently posted this same question (sort of) here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2754884/unlocking-a-mutex-from-a-different-thread-c but I confused mutexes with semaphores, and so the question about using boost locks didn't really get addressed.

    Read the article

  • Modelling boost::Lockable with semaphore rather than mutex (previously titled: Unlocking a mutex fr

    - by dan
    I'm using the C++ boost::thread library, which in my case means I'm using pthreads. Officially, a mutex must be unlocked from the same thread which locks it, and I want the effect of being able to lock in one thread and then unlock in another. There are many ways to accomplish this. One possibility would be to write a new mutex class which allows this behavior. For example: class inter_thread_mutex{ bool locked; boost::mutex mx; boost::condition_variable cv; public: void lock(){ boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lck(mx); while(locked) cv.wait(lck); locked=true; } void unlock(){ { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lck(mx); if(!locked) error(); locked=false; } cv.notify_one(); } // bool try_lock(); void error(); etc. } I should point out that the above code doesn't guarantee FIFO access, since if one thread calls lock() while another calls unlock(), this first thread may acquire the lock ahead of other threads which are waiting. (Come to think of it, the boost::thread documentation doesn't appear to make any explicit scheduling guarantees for either mutexes or condition variables). But let's just ignore that (and any other bugs) for now. My question is, if I decide to go this route, would I be able to use such a mutex as a model for the boost Lockable concept. For example, would anything go wrong if I use a boost::unique_lock< inter_thread_mutex for RAII-style access, and then pass this lock to boost::condition_variable_any.wait(), etc. On one hand I don't see why not. On the other hand, "I don't see why not" is usually a very bad way of determining whether something will work. The reason I ask is that if it turns out that I have to write wrapper classes for RAII locks and condition variables and whatever else, then I'd rather just find some other way to achieve the same effect. EDIT: The kind of behavior I want is basically as follows. I have an object, and it needs to be locked whenever it is modified. I want to lock the object from one thread, and do some work on it. Then I want to keep the object locked while I tell another worker thread to complete the work. So the first thread can go on and do something else while the worker thread finishes up. When the worker thread gets done, it unlocks the mutex. And I want the transition to be seemless so nobody else can get the mutex lock in between when thread 1 starts the work and thread 2 completes it. Something like inter_thread_mutex seems like it would work, and it would also allow the program to interact with it as if it were an ordinary mutex. So it seems like a clean solution. If there's a better solution, I'd be happy to hear that also. EDIT AGAIN: The reason I need locks to begin with is that there are multiple master threads, and the locks are there to prevent them from accessing shared objects concurrently in invalid ways. So the code already uses loop-level lock-free sequencing of operations at the master thread level. Also, in the original implementation, there were no worker threads, and the mutexes were ordinary kosher mutexes. The inter_thread_thingy came up as an optimization, primarily to improve response time. In many cases, it was sufficient to guarantee that the "first part" of operation A, occurs before the "first part" of operation B. As a dumb example, say I punch object 1 and give it a black eye. Then I tell object 1 to change it's internal structure to reflect all the tissue damage. I don't want to wait around for the tissue damage before I move on to punch object 2. However, I do want the tissue damage to occur as part of the same operation; for example, in the interim, I don't want any other thread to reconfigure the object in such a way that would make tissue damage an invalid operation. (yes, this example is imperfect in many ways, and no I'm not working on a game) So we made the change to a model where ownership of an object can be passed to a worker thread to complete an operation, and it actually works quite nicely; each master thread is able to get a lot more operations done because it doesn't need to wait for them all to complete. And, since the event sequencing at the master thread level is still loop-based, it is easy to write high-level master-thread operations, as they can be based on the assumption that an operation is complete when the corresponding function call returns. Finally, I thought it would be nice to use inter_thread mutex/semaphore thingies using RAII with boost locks to encapsulate the necessary synchronization that is required to make the whole thing work.

    Read the article

  • ARM cortex: mutex using bit banding

    - by Jeff V
    Given that, on the ARM Cortex M3, I can: atomically read a single bit atomically set a single bit atomically clear a single bit How can I combine these for a mutex style set of operations: try lock take lock release lock It seems that try_lock or take_lock would require two operations that would not be atomic. Do I need more control to accomplish this? Disable global interrupts would do it but it seems there should be a more surgical approach.

    Read the article

  • Shrew VPN Client gives default route- changing the policy stops me from accessing VPN network

    - by Lock
    I am using the shrew client to connect to what I believe is a Netscreen VPN. Now, when connected, the client adds the VPN as the default route. I do not want this- there is only 1 network behind the VPN that I need to access. I found that with the shrew client, you can change the "Policy" settings on the connection, and can add your own networks in that should tunnel over the VPN. I do this, and add my network in, but when I connect the VPN, I get nothing. Can't access the network. Any idea why this would be? I can see my network in the routing table, and its correctly pointing to the correct gateway. A traceroute shows all time-outs, so I can't be 100% sure that it is trying to tunnel over the VPN. Any idea how I can troubleshoot this?

    Read the article

  • IIS- defining a website as a dev site

    - by Lock
    I am new to IIS. Is there a way during the setup of IIS to have a variable of some sort set that I can use to tell my site that this is the development copy? I am using PHP via IIS 7.5 and would like to have a file with a few lines that define which databases etc is used by my application. Is this the purpose of web.config? I would love there to be a place in the setup of the website where I can set a few variables that are accessibly by my application. That way, when I migrate files to live, I don't need to worry about access details to databases etc.

    Read the article

  • deadlock because of foreign key?

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am using SQL Server 2008 Enterprise. I met with deadlock in the following store procedure, but because of my fault, I did not record the deadlock graph. But now I can not reproduce deadlock issue. I want to have a postmortem to find the root cause of deadlock to avoid deadlock in the future. The deadlock happens on delete statement. For the delete statement, Param1 is a column of table FooTable, Param1 is a foreign key of another table (refers to another primary key clustered index column of the other table). There is no index on Param1 itself for table FooTable. FooTable has another column which is used as clustered primary key, but not Param1 column. Here is my guess why there is deadlock, and I want to let people review whether my analysis is correct? Since Param1 column has no index, there will be a table scan, and will acquire table level lock, because of foreign key, the delete operation will also need to check master table (e.g. to acquire lock on master table); Some operation on master table acquires master table lock, but want to acquire lock on FooTable; (1) and (2) cause cycle lock which makes deadlock happen. My analysis correct? Any reproduce scenario? create PROCEDURE [dbo].[FooProc] ( @Param1 int ,@Param2 int ,@Param3 int ) AS DELETE FooTable WHERE Param1 = @Param1 INSERT INTO FooTable ( Param1 ,Param2 ,Param3 ) VALUES ( @Param1 ,@Param2 ,@Param3 ) DECLARE @ID bigint SET @ID = ISNULL(@@Identity,-1) IF @ID > 0 BEGIN SELECT IdentityStr FROM FooTable WHERE ID = @ID END thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • postfix and iRedMail- Relaying Denied

    - by Lock
    I am trying to setup iRedMail and am way over my head here. I have installed it, and can send emails internally, but not externally. When I send an email from outside, I get the following return email: The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 <[email protected]>... Relaying denied (state 13). Now I have no idea where to start looking! Any ideas? I have really only just installed iRedMail so I am unsure what else I need to do to get it working. I've pointed my MX records to that server, so that shouldnt be the problem. Also- if i stop postfix (so nothing is listening on port 25) and send a test email, I get the same reply back. Why would I get the same reply back even if postfix is stopped? I have run tcpdump over 25 and can see the packets coming in/out, so its definitely a configuration issue! I suppose my question is not really "what is my problem", but more "What configuration needs to be completed on postfix and iRedMail?"

    Read the article

  • When should I use temporary variables?

    - by Kyle
    Specifically, I'm wondering which of these I should write: shared_ptr<GuiContextMenu> subMenu = items[j].subMenu.lock(); if (subMenu) subMenu->setVisible(false); or: if (items[j].subMenu.lock() items[j].subMenu.lock()->setVisible(false); I am not required to follow any style guidelines. After optimization, I don't think either choice makes a difference in performance. What is generally the preferred style and why?

    Read the article

  • Solving a SQL Server Deadlock situation

    - by mjh41
    I am trying to find a solution that will resolve a recurring deadlock situation in SQL server. I have done some analysis on the deadlock graph generated by the profiler trace and have come up with this information: The first process (spid 58) is running this query: UPDATE cds.dbo.task_core SET nstate = 1 WHERE nmboxid = 89 AND ndrawerid = 1 AND nobjectid IN (SELECT nobjectid FROM ( SELECT nobjectid, count(nobjectid) AS counting FROM cds.dbo.task_core GROUP BY nobjectid) task_groups WHERE task_groups.counting > 1) The second process (spid 86) is running this query: INSERT INTO task_core (…) VALUES (…) spid 58 is waiting for a Shared Page lock on CDS.dbo.task_core (spid 86 holds a conflicting intent exclusive (IX) lock) spid 86 is waiting for an Intent Exclusive (IX) page lock on CDS.dbo.task_core (spid 58 holds a conflicting Update lock)

    Read the article

  • Testing UDP port connectivity

    - by Lock
    I am trying to test whether I can get to a particular port on a remote server (both of which I have access to) through UDP. Both servers are internet facing. I am using netcat to have a certain port listening. I then use nmap to check for that port to see if it is open, but it doesn't appear to be. Iptables is turned off. Any suggestions why this could be? I am eventually going to setup a VPN tunnel, but because I'm very new to tunnels, I want to make sure I have connectivity on port UDP 1194 before advancing.

    Read the article

  • Highlighting correctly in an emacs major mode

    - by Paul Nathan
    Hi, I am developing an emacs major mode for a language (aka mydsl). However, using the techniques on xahlee's site doesn't seem to be working for some reason (possibly older emacs dialect..) The key issues I am fighting with are (1) highlighting comments is not working and (2), the use of regexp-opt lines is not working. I've reviewed the GNU manual and looked over cc-mode and elisp mode... those are significantly more complicated than I need. ;;;Standard # to newline comment ;;;Eventually should also have %% to %% multiline block comments (defun mydsl-comment-dwim (arg) "comment or uncomment" (interactive "*P") (require 'newcomment) (let ((deactivate-mark nil) (comment-start "#") (comment-end "") comment-dwim arg))) (defvar mydsl-events '("reservedword1" "reservedword2")) (defvar mydsl-keywords '("other-keyword" "another-keyword")) ;;Highlight various elements (setq mydsl-hilite '( ; stuff between " ("\"\\.\\*\\?" . font-lock-string-face) ; : , ; { } => @ $ = are all special elements (":\\|,\\|;\\|{\\|}\\|=>\\|@\\|$\\|=" . font-lock-keyword-face) ( ,(regexp-opt mydsl-keywords 'words) . font-lock-builtin-face) ( ,(regexp-opt mydsl-events 'words) . font-lock-constant-face) )) (defvar mydsl-tab-width nil "Width of a tab for MYDSL mode") (define-derived-mode mydsl-mode fundamental-mode "MYDSL mode is a major mode for editing MYDSL files" ;Recommended by manual (kill-all-local-variables) (setq mode-name "MYDSL script") (setq font-lock-defaults '((mydsl-hilite))) (if (null mydsl-tab-width) (setq tab-width mydsl-tab-width) (setq tab-width default-tab-width) ) ;Comment definitions (define-key mydsl-mode-map [remap comment-dwim] 'mydsl-comment-dwim) (modify-syntax-entry ?# "< b" mydsl-mode-syntax-table) (modify-syntax-entry ?\n "> b" mydsl-mode-syntax-table) ;;A gnu-correct program will have some sort of hook call here. ) (provide 'mydsl-mode)

    Read the article

  • .NET 3.5 C# does not offer what I need for locking: Count async saves until 0 again.

    - by Frank Michael Kraft
    I have some records, that I want to save to database asynchronously. I organize them into batches, then send them. As time passes, the batches are processed. In the meanwhile the user can work on. There are some critical operations, that I want to lock him out from, while any save batch is still running asynchronously. The save is done using a TableServiceContext and method .BeginSave() - but I think this should be irrelevant. What I want to do is whenever an async save is started, increase a lock count, and when it completes, decrease the lock count so that it will be zero as soon as all have finished. I want to lock out the critical operation as long as the count is not zero. Furthermore I want to qualify the lock - by business object - for example. I did not find a .NET 3.5 c# locking method, that does fulfil this requirement. A semaphore does not contain a method to check, if the count is 0. Otherwise a semaphore with unlimited max count would do.

    Read the article

  • Can an asynchronously fired event run synchronously on a form?

    - by cyclotis04
    [VS 2010 Beta with .Net Framework 3.5] I've written a C# component to asynchronously monitor a socket and raise events when data is received. I set the VB form to show message boxes when the event is raised. What I've noticed is that when the component raises the event synchronously, the message box blocks the component code and locks the form until the user closes the message. When it's raised asynchronously, it neither blocks the code, nor locks the form. What I want is a way to raise an event in such a way that it does not block the code, but is called on the same thread as the form (so that it locks the form until the user selects an option.) Can you help me out? Thanks. [Component] using System; using System.Threading; using System.ComponentModel; namespace mySpace { public delegate void SyncEventHandler(object sender, SyncEventArgs e); public delegate void AsyncEventHandler(object sender, AsyncEventArgs e); public class myClass { readonly object syncEventLock = new object(); readonly object asyncEventLock = new object(); SyncEventHandler syncEvent; AsyncEventHandler asyncEvent; private delegate void WorkerDelegate(string strParam, int intParam); public void DoWork(string strParam, int intParam) { OnSyncEvent(new SyncEventArgs()); AsyncOperation asyncOp = AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation(null); WorkerDelegate delWorker = new WorkerDelegate(ClientWorker); IAsyncResult result = delWorker.BeginInvoke(strParam, intParam, null, null); } private void ClientWorker(string strParam, int intParam) { Thread.Sleep(2000); OnAsyncEvent(new AsyncEventArgs()); OnAsyncEvent(new AsyncEventArgs()); } public event SyncEventHandler SyncEvent { add { lock (syncEventLock) syncEvent += value; } remove { lock (syncEventLock) syncEvent -= value; } } public event AsyncEventHandler AsyncEvent { add { lock (asyncEventLock) asyncEvent += value; } remove { lock (asyncEventLock) asyncEvent -= value; } } protected void OnSyncEvent(SyncEventArgs e) { SyncEventHandler handler; lock (syncEventLock) handler = syncEvent; if (handler != null) handler(this, e, null, null); // Blocks and locks //if (handler != null) handler.BeginInvoke(this, e, null, null); // Neither blocks nor locks } protected void OnAsyncEvent(AsyncEventArgs e) { AsyncEventHandler handler; lock (asyncEventLock) handler = asyncEvent; //if (handler != null) handler(this, e, null, null); // Blocks and locks if (handler != null) handler.BeginInvoke(this, e, null, null); // Neither blocks nor locks } } } [Form] Imports mySpace Public Class Form1 Public WithEvents component As New mySpace.myClass() Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click component.DoWork("String", 1) End Sub Private Sub component_SyncEvent(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As pbxapi.SyncEventArgs) Handles component.SyncEvent MessageBox.Show("Synchronous event", "Raised:", MessageBoxButtons.OK) End Sub Private Sub component_AsyncEvent(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As pbxapi.AsyncEventArgs) Handles component.AsyncEvent MessageBox.Show("Asynchronous event", "Raised:", MessageBoxButtons.OK) End Sub End Class

    Read the article

  • How to implement a Mutex in Python when using Gtk with PyGTK

    - by Julian
    Hi, I have an application that starts several threads using gobject.timeout_add(delay, function) Now in my function I want to test and set on some variable, e.g. def function(self): if flag == True: flag = False doSomething() Now to make this threadsafe, I would have to lock the function using some mutex lock. Is this possible with Gtk? Or can I use the Python Lock objects from threading?

    Read the article

  • Is locking on the requested object a bad idea?

    - by Quick Joe Smith
    Most advice on thread safety involves some variation of the following pattern: public class Thing { private static readonly object padlock = new object(); private string stuff, andNonsense; public string Stuff { get { lock (Thing.padlock) { if (this.stuff == null) this.stuff = "Threadsafe!"; } return this.stuff; } } public string AndNonsense { get { lock (Thing.padlock) { if (this.andNonsense == null) this.andNonsense = "Also threadsafe!"; } return this.andNonsense; } } // Rest of class... } In cases where the get operations are expensive and unrelated, a single locking object is unsuitable because a call to Stuff would block all calls to AndNonsense, degrading performance. And rather than create a lock object for each call, wouldn't it be better to acquire the lock on the member itself (assuming it is not something that implements SyncRoot or somesuch for that purpose? For example: public string Stuff { get { lock (this.stuff) { // Pretend that this is a very expensive operation. if (this.stuff == null) this.stuff = "Still threadsafe and good?"; } return this.stuff; } } Strangely, I have never seen this approach recommended or warned against. Am I missing something obvious?

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to minimize this C# event repetition?

    - by Damien Wildfire
    I have a lot of code like this: public class Microwave { private EventHandler<EventArgs> _doorClosed; public event EventHandler<EventArgs> DoorClosed { add { lock (this) _doorClosed += value; } remove { lock (this) _doorClosed -= value; } } private EventHandler<EventArgs> _lightbulbOn; public event EventHandler<EventArgs> LightbulbOn { add { lock (this) _lightbulbOn += value; } remove { lock (this) _lightbulbOn -= value; } } // ... } You can see that much of this is boilerplate. In Ruby I'd be able to do something like this: class Microwave has_events :door_closed, :lightbulb_on, ... end Is there a similar shorter way of removing this boilerplate in C#?

    Read the article

  • php cron jobs overlapping

    - by naveen gupta
    Hi I wrote few months back a script in perl for checking overlapping of jobs use Fcntl ':flock'; INIT { my $waitcount=12; # possible attemtps to run script my $waitseconds=300; # wait for $waitseconds each attempt my $lockstatus=0;#no lock was attained while ($waitcount > 0){ if (open LH, $0){ while ($waitcount > 0){ if (flock LH, LOCK_EX|LOCK_NB){ $waitcount=0;#signal end of waiting $lockstatus=1;#lock was attained } else{ --$waitcount;#decrement waitcount print "waiting to be able to lock $0\n"; sleep $waitseconds; }#end else }#end while }#end if else{ --$waitcount;#decrement waitcount print "waiting to be able to open $0\n"; sleep $waitseconds; }#end else }#end while if ($lockstatus == 0){ die "no lock was attained\n"; }#end if } I wanted to know if we can do similar thing in php .. How to integrate with your current php code which is running a part of php jobs?

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >