Slashdot Mirror

This is clearly NOT what the worldbooklibrary.com/adobe site is claiming.

Who knows what might be in this "reader".. a trojan? virus? spyware.... only one way to find out, download it! (have an antivirus software around if you're on windows)

They should be reported to Adobe.

Yeah, I mean, christ, AcroRead6 even displays a freaking little ad button on the toolbar now. One time installing that POS taught me to only use version 5.1, conveniently available from the text-only download page.

Not that I am in any way disparaging The GIMP, which is awesome, but the PHBs and CXOs only know Illustrator and PhotoShop...

Not that I am in any way disparaging The GIMP, which is awesome, but the PHBs and CXOs only know Illustrator and PhotoShop...

Allow PDF, GIF, and JPEG at the firewall and in the mail client. That's it.

From the PDF 1.5 Reference Manual

8.5 Actions
Instead of simply jumping to a destination in the document, an annotation or outline item can specify an action (PDF 1.1) for the viewer application to perform, such as launching an application, playing a sound, or changing an annotation's appearance state... In addition, the optional OpenAction entry in a document's catalog (Section 3.6.1, "Document Catalog") may specify an action to be performed when the document is opened.

Looks like PDF has the potential to cause some damage too.

The Audacity team has had a fine product out there for some time; I'm sure 1.2 will be that much better, and will push the level of expectation for "entry level" up for users and software producers alike.

And you of all people should know desktop publishing gave us 'zines, comix, as well as homegrown amateur pornography.

Before the advent of vanity sites and blogs, desktopPub was what certain creative-types used to do with their time to get their bitching and moaning "heard."

Oh, yeah - it also kinda became a multi-billion dollar industry that begat other multi-billion-dollar industries.

yr pal -

s mcnally

Photoshop is already a free legal download. When the trial ends, clean up the registry and reinstall. People do that with Winzip. I don't hear the Winzip folks complaining about it.

Photoshop is quite scriptable as well you know.

http://partners.adobe.com/asn/photoshop/scripting. jsp

You can read a sample chapter from the Debugging Rules book in PDF format by going here. (Requires the free Adobe reader.)

PHP's PDF Forms support seems centered around Adobe's FDF toolkit. This article and the PHP manual should be enough to get you started, if only for the right search terminology to get you closer to your application.

You can use the Adobe SVG Viewer for your SVG needs, but you need to find the Beta version of 5.0 (I think that's the number).

go here

If your tool is JavaScript, then it's almost certain your task is related to building web pages,

Or controlling Acrobat. See this PDF for the object spec.

What do normal users need with a compiler? If you want one you can get one here.

2) It had no INTENDED remote access services such as FTPD or SSHD.

of course it didn't, that's what Windows Server 2003 is for.

3) I was unable to manipulate graphics.

*gasp* welcome to the world of closed source! Companies actually make MONEY here. You can do basic graphics manipulation using Paint, or you can download The Gimp of course, otherwise you should spring for a copy of Paint Shop Pro or Adobe Photoshop

4) I was unable to use my Network Card.

5) I was unable to optimally use my graphics card.

6) I was unable to optimally use any piece of hardware that didn't have Microsoft written on it.

What kind of bizarre obscure hardware where you using? Windows XP properly detects alot more hardware then linux does currently.

It takes for ever to do anything in Notepad as compared to Vi.

Then by all means, download vi and use it. Some people like working with this little thing called a Graphical User Interface.

8) I had practically no system logging to speak of.

Windows XP is a desktop OS, you can find all the logging you should ever care for at Start->Control Panel->Administrative Tools->Event viewer.

9) I was unable to use multiple desktops.

10) I was unable to entirely change the appearance of the GUI.

most display drivers come with desktop management software, or you can use Windows XP's quicklogin features to have multiple login sessions. Part of the reason Windows is so successful is that you CAN'T entirely change the GUI. Windows, at it's core, always looks like Windows, even with a skin applied.

11) I was unable to simply download much of the software needed to render Windows somewhat useful. Even though Gimp and OpenOffice run on Windows and GVIM, refer to number 4.

See my answer to number 4.

12) I kept getting "Access Denied" or something along the lines of insufficient permissions even though I believe I gave myself full rights over the system. On Windows 2000 this can be seen even if you are logged in as Administrator.

Wow, Microsoft prevents you from killing critical system processes! What a shock! Oh no! what ever shall we do?!? Seriously though, the only time i've ever gotten access denied is when a file is in use, or you try to kill a critical system process (except XP, which lets you)

13) I had to reboot fifteen times, and four hours later while windowsupdate.microsoft.com told me I needed nearly a GB of updates. Many of which could only be installed one at a time. 14) Then another two hours and multiple reboots becuase of installing device drivers (refer to number 6) and then updating those from the old drivers that were on old disgarded discs in the closet.

with the default install of XP, there are 50 mb worth of updates + sp1, which is another 30 or so, a far cry from the 1 gb you speak of.

15) I had next to nothing in regards to software and production....

Compared to what you get with the average Linux ISO image.... Windows, out of the box, is a pathetic quadriplegic whose wheel chair is missing a wheel.

Then, Microsoft goes and strips so much "functionality" from Windows XP to publicly admit it's "crippled"? What more can you take from it?

They never stripped functionality, it was never there to begin with. Windows XP is a desktop OS for every day users, not for supergeeks.

Disclaimer: I am not pro microsoft nor am i in any way being paid by microsoft for this comment. (On the contrary, i'm working on an open source Microsoft Windows NT Compatible Operating System called ReactOS The parent was a blatant troll and i was simply shedding some light on the truths.

At least they're upfront and forthcoming about it. It's they're gamble on if it will affect sales or not, but at least they were responsible enought not to try sneaking it in.

-Trick

Open source has made some inroads into broadcasting, but not many. For the most part anything in a radio station will run on Windows or a more proprietary system.

The starting point is usually sound recording and editing. Unfortunately the available Open Source products are still a fair distance from matching the functionality of say Adobe Audition or Pro Tools. Still though do check out Audacity for a simple editor which can handle many tasks.

Beyond editing there have been a few people in Canada who have developed Linux based audio logging systems, and stations in many places who catalog music using Open Source software.

Automation is still the land of proprietary software, although Scott Studios has been working on packages that run over Linux.

A good source for information (assuming you're a community radio station) is the member e-mail list for the National Federation of Community Broadcasters or either of the radio-tech or pub-tech mailing lists for broadcast engineers.

Finally, you might want to hook up with the Prometheus Radio Project, the leaders in community LPFM. Ask for Pete Tridish.

... it's not?

You can download PDF format specs from Adobe's web site at no charge. You've got all the info you need to write your own PDF viewer. Hell, there are utilities such as pdf2ps that you can use to view PDF files in GhostView and such.

There's also PDF viewers for about everything that's capable of viewing them--PDAs, Windows/Mac, Linux, most flavors of UNIX.

Nathan

I've said it several times PDF is an Open Specification.

There are several Free readers, such as GView, gv, xpdf, and so on. YES, even on Windows a Free reader is available (it's an add-on to GhostScript, find it yourself)

Complaining about PDF because of Acrobat is like complaining about HTML because of MSIE.

But which Garamond? Garamond 3, Adobe Garamond, ITC Garamond, Simoncini Garamond? To say nothing of the various Garamond types from other foundries, like URW++.

Garamond isn't a single face, but rather any of a range of faces based (sometimes indirectly) on the roman types cut by Claude Garamond, usually paired with an italic derived from those cut by Robert Granjon.

While Garamonds are to varying degrees good print faces (not all are of decent quality), I'm not sure they make the best choice in an age of on-screen viewing and coarse output from cheap printers. They tend to have subtle curves and details which just don't reproduce well at low resolution.

Times New Roman, a face designed by Stanley Morrison for the London Times, is likewise a poor choice for an all-purpose face. It was originally designed for newspaper work, meaning it was to be legible at small sizes (specifically 8 pt., IIRC). It is a transitional face, meaning there is moderate difference in weight between thick strokes (the 'stem' of the upper-case 'P' for example) and thin strokes (e.g. the crossbar on the 'H') and the type is generally more geometric than the old style faces like Garamond, but less so than 'modern' faces like Bodoni. While it was intended to be used with newsprint, and so isn't as vulnerable to coarse printing as, say, a Didot type, the rather thin bits of Times New Roman make it ill-suited to on-screen display, and it has never been a terribly great face for larger sizes (including 14 point).

A better choice would have been a type specifically designed to work well on screen or when printed on low-quality printers, like Microsoft's Georgia by Matthew Carter. It's really a much more legible face on-screen, and in my experience prints acceptably as well. It's also among Microsoft's Core Fonts and distributed alongside Times New Roman so it is likely to be installed anywhere Times New Roman is available.

But which Garamond? Garamond 3, Adobe Garamond, ITC Garamond, Simoncini Garamond? To say nothing of the various Garamond types from other foundries, like URW++.

Garamond isn't a single face, but rather any of a range of faces based (sometimes indirectly) on the roman types cut by Claude Garamond, usually paired with an italic derived from those cut by Robert Granjon.

While Garamonds are to varying degrees good print faces (not all are of decent quality), I'm not sure they make the best choice in an age of on-screen viewing and coarse output from cheap printers. They tend to have subtle curves and details which just don't reproduce well at low resolution.

Times New Roman, a face designed by Stanley Morrison for the London Times, is likewise a poor choice for an all-purpose face. It was originally designed for newspaper work, meaning it was to be legible at small sizes (specifically 8 pt., IIRC). It is a transitional face, meaning there is moderate difference in weight between thick strokes (the 'stem' of the upper-case 'P' for example) and thin strokes (e.g. the crossbar on the 'H') and the type is generally more geometric than the old style faces like Garamond, but less so than 'modern' faces like Bodoni. While it was intended to be used with newsprint, and so isn't as vulnerable to coarse printing as, say, a Didot type, the rather thin bits of Times New Roman make it ill-suited to on-screen display, and it has never been a terribly great face for larger sizes (including 14 point).

A better choice would have been a type specifically designed to work well on screen or when printed on low-quality printers, like Microsoft's Georgia by Matthew Carter. It's really a much more legible face on-screen, and in my experience prints acceptably as well. It's also among Microsoft's Core Fonts and distributed alongside Times New Roman so it is likely to be installed anywhere Times New Roman is available.

But which Garamond? Garamond 3, Adobe Garamond, ITC Garamond, Simoncini Garamond? To say nothing of the various Garamond types from other foundries, like URW++.

Garamond isn't a single face, but rather any of a range of faces based (sometimes indirectly) on the roman types cut by Claude Garamond, usually paired with an italic derived from those cut by Robert Granjon.

While Garamonds are to varying degrees good print faces (not all are of decent quality), I'm not sure they make the best choice in an age of on-screen viewing and coarse output from cheap printers. They tend to have subtle curves and details which just don't reproduce well at low resolution.

Times New Roman, a face designed by Stanley Morrison for the London Times, is likewise a poor choice for an all-purpose face. It was originally designed for newspaper work, meaning it was to be legible at small sizes (specifically 8 pt., IIRC). It is a transitional face, meaning there is moderate difference in weight between thick strokes (the 'stem' of the upper-case 'P' for example) and thin strokes (e.g. the crossbar on the 'H') and the type is generally more geometric than the old style faces like Garamond, but less so than 'modern' faces like Bodoni. While it was intended to be used with newsprint, and so isn't as vulnerable to coarse printing as, say, a Didot type, the rather thin bits of Times New Roman make it ill-suited to on-screen display, and it has never been a terribly great face for larger sizes (including 14 point).

A better choice would have been a type specifically designed to work well on screen or when printed on low-quality printers, like Microsoft's Georgia by Matthew Carter. It's really a much more legible face on-screen, and in my experience prints acceptably as well. It's also among Microsoft's Core Fonts and distributed alongside Times New Roman so it is likely to be installed anywhere Times New Roman is available.

But which Garamond? Garamond 3, Adobe Garamond, ITC Garamond, Simoncini Garamond? To say nothing of the various Garamond types from other foundries, like URW++.

Garamond isn't a single face, but rather any of a range of faces based (sometimes indirectly) on the roman types cut by Claude Garamond, usually paired with an italic derived from those cut by Robert Granjon.

While Garamonds are to varying degrees good print faces (not all are of decent quality), I'm not sure they make the best choice in an age of on-screen viewing and coarse output from cheap printers. They tend to have subtle curves and details which just don't reproduce well at low resolution.

Times New Roman, a face designed by Stanley Morrison for the London Times, is likewise a poor choice for an all-purpose face. It was originally designed for newspaper work, meaning it was to be legible at small sizes (specifically 8 pt., IIRC). It is a transitional face, meaning there is moderate difference in weight between thick strokes (the 'stem' of the upper-case 'P' for example) and thin strokes (e.g. the crossbar on the 'H') and the type is generally more geometric than the old style faces like Garamond, but less so than 'modern' faces like Bodoni. While it was intended to be used with newsprint, and so isn't as vulnerable to coarse printing as, say, a Didot type, the rather thin bits of Times New Roman make it ill-suited to on-screen display, and it has never been a terribly great face for larger sizes (including 14 point).

A better choice would have been a type specifically designed to work well on screen or when printed on low-quality printers, like Microsoft's Georgia by Matthew Carter. It's really a much more legible face on-screen, and in my experience prints acceptably as well. It's also among Microsoft's Core Fonts and distributed alongside Times New Roman so it is likely to be installed anywhere Times New Roman is available.

For lots of text-on-paper reading, serifed faces are easier on the eyes, so I can see the arguement for Times. Times, though, was intended for newspaper use (hence the name), not long reports that run in wide columns...AS I've said elsewhere, I think something softer and rounder, like Bembo would have been a better choice. FWIW, I specify Verdana in all my site designs, because it's the best web-specific face out there. A lot of my designer geek pals do, too.

> there are more visually pleasing fonts, and I see no reason
> why official documents should not look good.

Yes, there are more pleasing fonts, but don't let untalented people come any where close to them. Give them Times New Roman and delete all the other fonts from their computers.

At my company, Futura is our corporate branded sans serif, with New Century Schoolbook used for serif work. However, only about 10% of the corporate population can deal with this. We've got people who produce hundreds of pages of Futura text (where its sans serif nature makes the document an eyestrain to read). We've got people who can't tell the difference between Futura, MS Comic Sans, and Arial. We've got people who will mix Futura and Times New Roman in the same freaking sentence. I once saw a marketing person (who should have known better) try to use Zapf Chancery (an abomination) in all caps all over a presentation for a trade show, before he was smacked upside the head.

I can't imagine our Federal government is any better. So, if settling on Times New Roman is the way to prevent font atrocities, then so be it.

Sheesh. The only way I can keep from exploding like this at work is to read Kibo's pages on this.

> there are more visually pleasing fonts, and I see no reason
> why official documents should not look good.

Yes, there are more pleasing fonts, but don't let untalented people come any where close to them. Give them Times New Roman and delete all the other fonts from their computers.

At my company, Futura is our corporate branded sans serif, with New Century Schoolbook used for serif work. However, only about 10% of the corporate population can deal with this. We've got people who produce hundreds of pages of Futura text (where its sans serif nature makes the document an eyestrain to read). We've got people who can't tell the difference between Futura, MS Comic Sans, and Arial. We've got people who will mix Futura and Times New Roman in the same freaking sentence. I once saw a marketing person (who should have known better) try to use Zapf Chancery (an abomination) in all caps all over a presentation for a trade show, before he was smacked upside the head.

I can't imagine our Federal government is any better. So, if settling on Times New Roman is the way to prevent font atrocities, then so be it.

Sheesh. The only way I can keep from exploding like this at work is to read Kibo's pages on this.

> there are more visually pleasing fonts, and I see no reason
> why official documents should not look good.

Yes, there are more pleasing fonts, but don't let untalented people come any where close to them. Give them Times New Roman and delete all the other fonts from their computers.

At my company, Futura is our corporate branded sans serif, with New Century Schoolbook used for serif work. However, only about 10% of the corporate population can deal with this. We've got people who produce hundreds of pages of Futura text (where its sans serif nature makes the document an eyestrain to read). We've got people who can't tell the difference between Futura, MS Comic Sans, and Arial. We've got people who will mix Futura and Times New Roman in the same freaking sentence. I once saw a marketing person (who should have known better) try to use Zapf Chancery (an abomination) in all caps all over a presentation for a trade show, before he was smacked upside the head.

I can't imagine our Federal government is any better. So, if settling on Times New Roman is the way to prevent font atrocities, then so be it.

Sheesh. The only way I can keep from exploding like this at work is to read Kibo's pages on this.

Or one could use the native MacOSX Illustrator implementation.

My solution was one step. And I didn't have to give up all my nice windows software

I think you mean Who wants to enhance some images using Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) software :-)

Adium users though. Nor you like Adobe stuff -- you know, Photoshop and Illustrator and Acrobat and all that.

I'm running Privoxy, and I've created specific exceptions for those, but it's still a bit annoying.

I feel sorry for the programmers that worked on Photoshop because i can tell that the decision to implement counterfeit prevention was a management one and if it was me i would be very pissed off that some idiot had demanded that i taint my software with a stupid mechanism that hasnt a chance in hell of working properly. What did they think they would achieve? would criminals suddenly give up because the latest version of photoshop wouldnt let them open money? im no expert but im almost certain that the system wouldnt prevent even one single counterfeiter. To me it says that Adobe management hold a very arrogent view on their products, (well actually ive thought that since Dimitry Sklyarov and this and i just hope that the negative impact it has on the programs performance and price is bloody minimal.

iPhoto came out before Photoshop Elements was ever released, and there was never a Mac version of PE.

dumbass.

Besides whining about price and summarily bashing any company that has a successful product (a hallmark of a successful Slashdot post for sure), has anyone looked at Photoshop Elements? It does 90% of what Photoshop does and is perfect for the professional consumer and digital hobbyist. It's also way cheaper at 15% of the cost of Photoshop. I think that Adobe has given folks a choice: Adobe Photoshop Elements Product Page

Perhaps Adobe should mimic the approach that Alias uses with Maya. Offer it free for non-commercial use. Then they wouldn't be wasting resources on useless security measures.

You're not paying much attention, are you? It doesn't have all the "pro" features, but then it doesn't sound like you're using them.

Photoshop too expensive? Get Photoshop Elements. They basically took all the features that people use most in the non-professional arena and made an affordable version of Photoshop. Straight from Adobe it costs $99, which is definitely affordable to the non-professional user. If you need the full version, and own Elements, you can upgrade for the price difference of Photoshop and Elements. It's by no means a "crippled" version of Photoshop either. It even has features that aren't in the full version.

Whenever you open an image photoshop loads that image into memory. To facilitate editing it collects information such as, Hue, Saturation, Histograms of the channels, contrast . . .(see the Image>Adjust[ments] menu). I downloaded your image and sure enough, pasting it into PS CS OS X brought up this alert window.

Since Adobe doesn't release any half decent contour tracing software(streamline hasn't been updated since the days of windows 95 and even then it was very crude) I was fairly certain it wasn't doing any kind of shape anaylasis. Using Illustrator 10 I shifted the color on the same image (using various blend modes from the transparency palette) and found that even minor hue shifts change the bill enough to be opened. Putting a 28% opaque color field in front of the bill changes it enough, and in my quick experimenting It doesn't seem to react adversely when I adjust it back to the correct range.Oddly the test I did that, to my eye changed the bill the most (think bright yellow and kelly green as opposed to peach and lime green) did

I don't have a good scanner in front of me now, but some variation on these tactics would probably work on hi res files, since the low res ones tripped up the alarm. I am curious about the millimeter diameter circles in the blue channel noted in another poster's comment though.

I will never plunk down whatever astronomical sum Adobe is charging for Photoshop nowadays

I personally wouldn't pay 650$ (US) for Photoshop, as my 5.0LE does the job fine for me. But calling that an astronomical sum is pushing it by a lot.

Adobe's Photoshop Store

Photoshop must be one the most pirated pieces of software on earth. I can understand activation, even if it ultimately does not work. As a company (with shareholders and other minds to convince), you are compelled to do something. And if you are a member of management who has only a nebulous clue about technology and the end user in general, activation seems like the acceptable option (I don't believe Adobe was the first - users are getting used to registration/activation).

But even Adobe says this is not the same as censorship with the statement here:


"The activation process authenticates licensed users of "shrinkwrapped" products (for retail purchase) without hindering their ability to use the software the way they always have."


(emphasis added)

If this censorship is true, Adobe indeed is "hindering [the end user's] ability to use the software". I would consider this change of attitude toward their customers a more serious cause for concern than the company's bandwagon participation in activation schemes.

I find it interesting that the Slashdot community is upset about this 'protection from counterfeiting', but isn't up in arms about the required product activation. With more than half of SlashDot using the Windows platform, you'd think there would be more concern about this.

I loved some of the concepts behind linux, but I think Linux's greatest advantage is also it's greatest weakness. The fact that there is no central governing body for most projects means that you get lots of fragmentation (X11: freedesktop.org, fresco, XFree; Distros: Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake, Redhat, etc) which makes it very difficult to stick to one standard. Thankfully, over time some projects fork (gcc) and wind up becoming the project that takes over. It's this fragmentation that helps linux adapt so rapidly. However because of all this, developers can't code for one toolkit api, one kernel api, etc. Mac OS X, to linux users, is like linux controlled by ONE group who says yes or no to all issues so that the complex fragmented software base can concentrate on one goal: a good consistent end user experience. I honestly would say Mac OS X couldn't exist without Linux or BSD because it wouldn't be where it was today without the OSS community. People complain that OS X is too proprietary, but i believe it is the perfect mix. On one hand you have OSS software. On the other hand you have commercial software. It's truely the best of both worlds! Isn't this what many linux users want? Linux grandma can use? Companies to write native software? Games? Gaim and KMail side by side with safari and photoshop? You don't have to wait if that's what you want. Linux is a great server OS, but mac os x has it by leaps and bounds as a good desktop platform. Am i saying Gnome and KDE should die off and we should all just use mac os x? of course not. But i am saying if you want a usable unix desktop now, not later, you don't have to look much further.

However, I would like to serve up my protected AAC to my squeezebox, and this just might allow for on the fly transcoding to a PCM stream from SlimServer.

I just got home from helping set up our booth for the Macworld expo (which starts tomorrow - free passes here!). After checking slashdot, I found a message on my machine from Dean, telling me to go check slashdot.

We're just now learning about this hack of course, but basically it looks like iTunes DRM has been broken wide open now.

Of course, we've already known of a different way to play iTMS drmed files on squeezebox, at least on Mac/Win, but I can't tell you how because that would be trafficking in a circumvention device. Anyway...

What's excellent about DVD-Jon's discovery is that this allows people who have legitimately purchased iTMS music to play it on squeezebox or any AAC compatible device/software. I expect it will also be easy to simply batch process all your iTMS files into unprotected AAC without having to re-encode.

Like I said this is news to us too. All I can say right now is that it's VERY unlikely we'll support DRMed AAC out-of-the-box, for obvious legal reasons (and some philosophical ones). However it's practically certain that within the week someone will have a command-line iTMS decoder that works on all platforms.

Thanks Jon - just in time for the biggest Mac event of the year!

Works for me.

It appears instead that Adobe is embracing SVG by releasing their own viewer.

Apples to oranges. If it were expensive to upgrade, then people would be giving out different advice. What you are seeing is the easiest solution to the problem. If windows were free, you'd see the messages like "just upgrade to XP and that problem goes away" messages too. This adobe help article actually adivses people to DOWNGRADE to fix a problem.

Please check these sites out immediately for more information. This field is GROWING CONSIDERABLY. If you WANT A JOB, study this stuff very closely!

- http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/
- http://www.adobe.com/svg/main.html
- http://xml.apache.org/batik/
- http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/
- http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/

The point is that Adobe publishes the specs for PDF, so it's much easier for third parties to read/write PDF documents. Unlike the top-secret, purposely obfuscated DOC format.

SVG: XML based.

This is is a good thing. That way you can manipulate it with the DOM, parse it with SAX, transform it with XSLT, etc. You never need to write annother parser.

Humongous bloat.

If you're referring to features... SVG is only part of the standards you need, it's finely tuned to doing Scalable Vector Graphics, nothing else.

If you're referring to download speed, refer to this.

No decent tools.

1 2 3

Players are glacially slow.

Development of flash player for environments other than the latest version of MS Windows on x86 is glacially slow.

what's more, SVG is useful in settings other than web pages, such as desktop publishing.

My question is this: is there a place for proprietary (read 'closed') applications on said open/free platforms and frameworks?

Yes.

WebLogic

Acrobat Reader

StarTeam, Together Control Center

StarOffice

WebSphere

That's just off the top of my head.

Just tossing in a few more brandnames that were not mentioned.

CNN
ATI Technologies Inc
Adobe Systems Inc.
Yahoo


Cheers,