I'm not saying it's the public's job to troubleshoot their shoddy code and develop fixes.
I'm just saying I feel it IS the public's responsibility not to make potentially dangerous information available to people with malicious intent.
I have no love for MS. I just feel everyone is better off with "Hey you morons, look at the latest exploit" instead of "Hey, general public including innumerable black hats, look at the latest exploit"
That does kind of depend quite heavily on the researcher being the first to find the vulnerability, and the vendor allocating enough people to adequately deal with fixing it in a timely manner.
Can you say with any real supportable evidence that either statement is a safe assumption? Because I know I can't. And to be honest, I doubt any researcher worth their title can either. Including the guy who I imagine kicked this new policy off by disclosing one he discovered when Microsoft were palming him off with vague answers for a week.
If the "people with malicious intent" already know about a vulnerability, which is a much safer assumption to make, and Microsoft are dragging their feet, because hiring enough good security people is expensive, is it not the researcher's duty to inform the general public? Who can then take steps to protect themselves while waiting for Microsoft to get around to making the patch available the next Patch Tuesday? After all.. We are vulnerable every second of every day to a host of unknown unreported vulnerabilities that any "black hat" could discover by themselves, and exploit for fun and profit. We can't be wary about exploits we are not aware of.
If a vulnerability is discovered, which do you think is faster to react? A company who knows the finder is not going to tell anybody, so they can take their time, or even ignore them completely.. Or a company who knows they better get right on it, or have a pretty nasty PR mess to clean up?
Who do you think has the bigger and more authoritative security team? One who has perhaps got the authority to say to marketing.. " No you bloody well will not do that. And I don't care how much easier it makes sharing your whole hard drive over the internet with aunty Gladys and her bridge team"!
As you sit there worrying about Microsoft possibly losing money, or having their reputation tarnished.. Or worst of all.. Having to increase the size of the security team.. Ask yourself this question..
"What would BP have done differently if the warnings they had earlier been given about the safety of the gulf rig were a matter of public record"?
this is fine by me. i love Amy Pond, but i'm still fairly meh about Matt Smith as The Doctor. i've already got his replacement picked: Robert Sheehan. he'd make a great 12th Doctor!
The fuzzy haired guy from Misfits???? At least Matt Smith has finished puberty.
Seriously.. There is only one man who would do the part real Justice.
JOHNNY VEGAS!!
I can just see him being told off by a Chavvy 8 months pregnant battle axe assistant for losing the Tardis in a card game with the Cybermen and the Daleks. It would be Awsome.
iTunes doesn't have DRM either. And they act like it is because its the biggest, and most well known.
So.. I can put an iTunes purchased song on as many players as I like? Plug an iPod into any computer and play from the iPod, through the compute speakers, etc? Without going through any intermediate steps such as making a CD, and re ripping?
I will never buy a CD again. I download the music I like in mp3.
But, I go to every concert I can form the authors of such music
That way, the money goes where it should.. to the artists.
Used to. Now record labels are getting involved in this too.
I don't expect the layer to go transparent by default. I expect it to be transparent because I already set it to be transparent. And I set it to be transparent, by the way, because I wanted it to be transparent. Not just during resize, but in all cases.
Well now you know it doesn't.
I think you missed my point. I made a layer transparent and it became untransparent when I started to resize it.
No. I got that. Tried it myself, saw the transparent layer go opaque as I tried to resize it, and found the way to do it. I understand exactly what you were describing.
This is non-obvious and non-intuitive. It didn't happen in Photoshop and it shouldn't happen in the GIMP.
No. It's different. Skip the non obvious non intuitive crap. It's only obvious to you because you are familiar with it being done in a different way, and no computer program is intuitive. Your real problem is that Gimp doesn't work like Photoshop. A crime on a par with child molestation no doubt, but sorry to tell you. It is permitted to do stuff in differnt ways.
Gimp is not Photoshop.
Gimp is not attempting to be a copy of Photoshop.
Gimp is not legally or morally bound to do stuff like Photoshop.
Gimp is not your answer to the problem of not wanting to pay the bill to Adobe.
Do you complain that you can only hammer small nails into wood with a screw driver, and that the handle keeps shattering?
I'm not expecting it to read my mind and guess that a layer should be transparent during resize when it isn't transparent normally. But I also don't expect it to undo what I have already set by making a translucent layer opaque during resizing.
No. But you are expecting one program to copy the methods of the other. And you are assuming that one is of a superior design to the other because you know it better. Which is the problem. You know Photoshop, you are familiar with how to do stuff in Photoshop. Now you demand everything else must work as Photoshop does. Too bad. Not going to happen.
I agree it would be odd if the crop tool defaulted to a constrained aspect crop in Photoshop. But it doesn't. I've never seen it default to this in any version of Photoshop I have used including CS3 that I just tried. Maybe he was holding shift?
No. How ever it happened, it happened. I saw it. With only the mouse being held, the crop box refused to leave the aspect ratio. Because the aspect ratio was locked. Can't Photoshop be set to use the last action with the tool in question as it's current setting? In which case, if it had been aspect locked previously, it will be aspect locked when he tried to use it. It would make sense, as the effort of reconfiguring the tool every time is going to be time consuming. This was not a criticism, just an illustration that the all powerful all intuitive Photoshop is not actually intuitive unless you already know how to use it.
Bottom line. Photoshop and Gimp are two different programs. Deal with it. If you choose to use Photoshop, do so in good health, and enjoy. If you choose to use Gimp, don't expect it to be a Photoshop clone, and you will be much happier.
As merchandising vehicles, no. They gave a context for the toys. So primary function achieved.
As movies, hell yes. Started with the first one, and went downhill.
Because at a guess. The super specialised kiosk is actually a normal PC with a copy of Windows slapped on it, custom front end and a USB socket and multi card reader and not much more than a touch screen added to makeit seem less like a Windows PC.
Cheap beats good. And it no doubt costs a fortune for the fancy cabinet it is mounted in.
Does present a large potential for mischief though.
Thankyou very much - This is something I did not know that the gimp did...
We live and learn.
Despite what so many here say, or scream to be honest.. Gimp does have a logically consistent user interface. And is pretty powerful. It isn't the same as Photoshop, but then if it was, what would be the point.
But if someone else in the household wants to use the PC at the same time as you, you have to buy/build another PC for gaming. It's not like a Wii console where most of the multiplayer games support one console, one monitor, one copy of the game, and multiple controllers.
And if someone wants to watch TV when you want to play with your console?
Well, it's a bit more than that. Once you've created the selection, you then have to use select-> border to turn the border into the selection, and then fill that border. (this presumes that you actually want to draw the outline of the box, as opposed to the filled-in square.
No it really isn't. You can do it that way, but you are making things harder for yourself. There is more than one way.
Using your example image..
Start with your original blank world map.
Make a transparent layer.
Make a selection of the shape and size you want.
Now we go a different way to the way you suggest. I found an easier way than I originally posted, but both work.
Select the foreground colour for the colour you want the border of the box to be.
Go to the edit menu, and select stroke.
Choose any and all permutations such as line width, dash pattern, corner decoration etc, and stroke the selection. You now have your basic box. Job done. You can make each box have it's own layer, put them all on one layer etc..
If you don't want a border, just fill the box as normal. Solid colour, grad, pattern.. Up to you. Basic use of the paint bucket tool to fill a selection.
As the selection is going to stay active on all layers, it is easy to make a multi layered semi transparent coloured grad fill with a solid border, put in a drop shadow, cut text out of the box so the background shows through.. you name it. It can be as elaborate or as simple as you want. You want a bump mapped translucent texture to fill the box with?why not. The only limitation is your ability to use the application. Which is pretty much the same no matter what you are trying to use.
To illustrate.. Not pretty, but then I was aiming for fast. And the time and care you want to take over it is up to you. Too=k me more time to decide what I wanted to do than it took me to do it.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/Jtde8le9YKqcjTYH7hKGEQ?feat=directlink
You're saying there's another opacity slider that overrides the layer opacity during a resize?
Yes. If you look at the tool pallet the bottom section often has quite a few fine controls there. In the case of layer resize, the option to make it use a given degree of transparency is there. I didn't know about it myself up until a few minutes ago. But layer scaling isn't a tool I often use.
If you think about it a little.. There are drawbacks to having the layer go transparent by default too. If instead of a fully occupied layer, the layer you want to resize just contains an already cut out image on a transparent background, or some text, do you really want that to go transparent as you resize? And can you make the resize go opaque in Photoshop independent of the layer opacity.
Well, that's interesting to know. I'm not at all sure why I was supposed to guess that. I would presume that a layer when being resized would be no more opaque than it is when it isn't being resized.
You're not really supposed to guess. You are supposed to learn the way the program works if you want to use it to it's fullest extent.. This applies to every program on every OS. And a second tool is always harder if you are trying to make it work like the first one.
Photoshop is not that straightforward either, despite the cries of how intuitive it is. It's familiar. That's all. In Photoshop (from vague memory) Some modifiers appear on the top of the window. Easy to miss. As easy as the missed opacity slider that you missed.
A friend of mine was having problems getting the cropping tool to allow him to make the crop he wanted in Photoshop. He didn't notice the aspect ratio was defaulting to a specific fixed one, and he wanted to do a freehand crop.
To echo your point.. Why should he be expected to guess the check box need to be unchecked?
Your post demonstrates another weakness of GIMP: the few knowledgeable and vocal members who publicly treat potential newcomers with distain, but yet wonder why they don't flock to GIMP and its abusive zealots en masse.
Assuming that by box, you mean a square or rectangle..
Click on the square select tool. If you want a specific aspect ratio, enter it. Go to the "select menu". Click on the selection editor menu option and when the box comes up, click on the last button.
Ok, the example might have been bad but the point still stands. One can imagine all kinds of illegal/immoral/unethical things done 'inside' the parliament as well, with the protection of immunity as long as you can convince 4% of people to support it.
Which differs from governmental practice in most countries how exactly?
Fraud, bribery, extra marital affairs, Who the hell needs imagination? It's common bloody knowledge!
Why is it that the global warming deniers can't ever seem to get this right? You think the scientists are wrong? Then post something factual. It's not my job to defend and litigate all of climate science just because you lack education in the matter.
Because those sneaky climate scientists put all the stuff that they avoided when cherry picking the evidence back in. The poor ID scientistss get the same unfair treatment. Not so easy to prove something outside the echo chamber.
Bad engineering solution. A truly elegant solution will partake of the properties of either duct tape or WD-40. The latter probably isn't appropriate here, but duct tape will solve your blinking warning light and would damn sure solve the iPhone problem.
Well.. If the lamp is stuck in the holder, you could use a squirt of WD40 to get it out..
So, instead of solving the problem, they just downgraded the problem??? Sorry iPhone fans, but it looks like your phone cannot event manage something so simple and base as signal strength!!!!!!
Nonsense..
Apple has fixed the problem of the bars going down by recalculating the scale. This is perfectly acceptable. It's an elegant cost efficient and perfectly practical solution.
I mean.. If a warning light is blinking, just take the bulb out. No more warning light, problem solved.. yes?
If any one comment deserves to be modded to +infinity, this it is. I am so sick of the smug assholes who think everyone should be EE and/or Comp. Sci. expert, and people deserve to be taken for a ride when they are not.
And the ones that state an exaggerated qualification is needed to get basic knowledge need similar modding down to oblivion. Or are you actually a sales person, who relies on the ignorance of the masses to keep you in a job?
Shit, they took down a pirate and *two* ninja's man! Think about the unholy alliance of ninja pirates who will take their revenge and seize what is erRRRrrrrrrightfully theirs.:)
They only took down the Ninjas because there was two of them. Never forget the inverse Ninja rule.
I would like to see the software update that gives ipads front/back-facing video cameras...
But it would be a magical update. And we all know magic can do aanything.. Like the one that was going to fix the antenna problem.. but because so many people complained. Steve is holding it back to teach the heretics a lesson.. He may never release it because we dared to question his great indefatigable wisdom... I'm sure it works perfectly for the truly faithful..
And when you have unicorns instead of icky old core functionality, there are no limits.
...I would rather see the money from the tax breaks going to finance local sports and getting kids interested in kicking a ball around so that we have some chance in the next 20 years of putting together a national football team worthy of wearing the "Three Lions".
This is the iPhone we are talking about. It plays games, surfs the internet, chat on Facebook or Tweet your heart out, PLUS it runs thousands of different software packages as low as $1.50 each. What makes you think they designed this thing for making old fashion phone calls?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying it's the public's job to troubleshoot their shoddy code and develop fixes.
I'm just saying I feel it IS the public's responsibility not to make potentially dangerous information available to people with malicious intent.
I have no love for MS. I just feel everyone is better off with "Hey you morons, look at the latest exploit" instead of "Hey, general public including innumerable black hats, look at the latest exploit"
That does kind of depend quite heavily on the researcher being the first to find the vulnerability, and the vendor allocating enough people to adequately deal with fixing it in a timely manner.
Can you say with any real supportable evidence that either statement is a safe assumption? Because I know I can't. And to be honest, I doubt any researcher worth their title can either. Including the guy who I imagine kicked this new policy off by disclosing one he discovered when Microsoft were palming him off with vague answers for a week.
If the "people with malicious intent" already know about a vulnerability, which is a much safer assumption to make, and Microsoft are dragging their feet, because hiring enough good security people is expensive, is it not the researcher's duty to inform the general public? Who can then take steps to protect themselves while waiting for Microsoft to get around to making the patch available the next Patch Tuesday? After all.. We are vulnerable every second of every day to a host of unknown unreported vulnerabilities that any "black hat" could discover by themselves, and exploit for fun and profit. We can't be wary about exploits we are not aware of.
If a vulnerability is discovered, which do you think is faster to react? A company who knows the finder is not going to tell anybody, so they can take their time, or even ignore them completely.. Or a company who knows they better get right on it, or have a pretty nasty PR mess to clean up?
Who do you think has the bigger and more authoritative security team? One who has perhaps got the authority to say to marketing.. " No you bloody well will not do that. And I don't care how much easier it makes sharing your whole hard drive over the internet with aunty Gladys and her bridge team"!
As you sit there worrying about Microsoft possibly losing money, or having their reputation tarnished.. Or worst of all.. Having to increase the size of the security team.. Ask yourself this question..
"What would BP have done differently if the warnings they had earlier been given about the safety of the gulf rig were a matter of public record"?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10652032 (first one I came across on Google, not the first one I have read)
this is fine by me. i love Amy Pond, but i'm still fairly meh about Matt Smith as The Doctor. i've already got his replacement picked: Robert Sheehan. he'd make a great 12th Doctor!
The fuzzy haired guy from Misfits???? At least Matt Smith has finished puberty. Seriously.. There is only one man who would do the part real Justice. JOHNNY VEGAS!! I can just see him being told off by a Chavvy 8 months pregnant battle axe assistant for losing the Tardis in a card game with the Cybermen and the Daleks. It would be Awsome.
I see you are familiar with the work of the PRS..
iTunes doesn't have DRM either. And they act like it is because its the biggest, and most well known.
So.. I can put an iTunes purchased song on as many players as I like? Plug an iPod into any computer and play from the iPod, through the compute speakers, etc? Without going through any intermediate steps such as making a CD, and re ripping?
I will never buy a CD again. I download the music I like in mp3. But, I go to every concert I can form the authors of such music That way, the money goes where it should.. to the artists.
Used to. Now record labels are getting involved in this too.
Maybe that is the future of netbooks and iPad/slate devices. Draw a passive keyboard on a fold out case. Use a camera to detect keystrokes.
Yep..Zero feedback FTW..
I don't expect the layer to go transparent by default. I expect it to be transparent because I already set it to be transparent. And I set it to be transparent, by the way, because I wanted it to be transparent. Not just during resize, but in all cases.
Well now you know it doesn't.
I think you missed my point. I made a layer transparent and it became untransparent when I started to resize it.
No. I got that. Tried it myself, saw the transparent layer go opaque as I tried to resize it, and found the way to do it. I understand exactly what you were describing.
This is non-obvious and non-intuitive. It didn't happen in Photoshop and it shouldn't happen in the GIMP.
No. It's different. Skip the non obvious non intuitive crap. It's only obvious to you because you are familiar with it being done in a different way, and no computer program is intuitive. Your real problem is that Gimp doesn't work like Photoshop. A crime on a par with child molestation no doubt, but sorry to tell you. It is permitted to do stuff in differnt ways. Gimp is not Photoshop. Gimp is not attempting to be a copy of Photoshop. Gimp is not legally or morally bound to do stuff like Photoshop. Gimp is not your answer to the problem of not wanting to pay the bill to Adobe. Do you complain that you can only hammer small nails into wood with a screw driver, and that the handle keeps shattering?
I'm not expecting it to read my mind and guess that a layer should be transparent during resize when it isn't transparent normally. But I also don't expect it to undo what I have already set by making a translucent layer opaque during resizing.
No. But you are expecting one program to copy the methods of the other. And you are assuming that one is of a superior design to the other because you know it better. Which is the problem. You know Photoshop, you are familiar with how to do stuff in Photoshop. Now you demand everything else must work as Photoshop does. Too bad. Not going to happen.
I agree it would be odd if the crop tool defaulted to a constrained aspect crop in Photoshop. But it doesn't. I've never seen it default to this in any version of Photoshop I have used including CS3 that I just tried. Maybe he was holding shift?
No. How ever it happened, it happened. I saw it. With only the mouse being held, the crop box refused to leave the aspect ratio. Because the aspect ratio was locked. Can't Photoshop be set to use the last action with the tool in question as it's current setting? In which case, if it had been aspect locked previously, it will be aspect locked when he tried to use it. It would make sense, as the effort of reconfiguring the tool every time is going to be time consuming. This was not a criticism, just an illustration that the all powerful all intuitive Photoshop is not actually intuitive unless you already know how to use it. Bottom line. Photoshop and Gimp are two different programs. Deal with it. If you choose to use Photoshop, do so in good health, and enjoy. If you choose to use Gimp, don't expect it to be a Photoshop clone, and you will be much happier.
The prequels weren't *that* bad, were they?
As merchandising vehicles, no. They gave a context for the toys. So primary function achieved. As movies, hell yes. Started with the first one, and went downhill.
Because at a guess. The super specialised kiosk is actually a normal PC with a copy of Windows slapped on it, custom front end and a USB socket and multi card reader and not much more than a touch screen added to makeit seem less like a Windows PC. Cheap beats good. And it no doubt costs a fortune for the fancy cabinet it is mounted in. Does present a large potential for mischief though.
Thankyou very much - This is something I did not know that the gimp did...
We live and learn.
Despite what so many here say, or scream to be honest.. Gimp does have a logically consistent user interface. And is pretty powerful. It isn't the same as Photoshop, but then if it was, what would be the point.
But if someone else in the household wants to use the PC at the same time as you, you have to buy/build another PC for gaming. It's not like a Wii console where most of the multiplayer games support one console, one monitor, one copy of the game, and multiple controllers.
And if someone wants to watch TV when you want to play with your console?
Well, it's a bit more than that. Once you've created the selection, you then have to use select-> border to turn the border into the selection, and then fill that border. (this presumes that you actually want to draw the outline of the box, as opposed to the filled-in square.
No it really isn't. You can do it that way, but you are making things harder for yourself. There is more than one way. Using your example image.. Start with your original blank world map. Make a transparent layer. Make a selection of the shape and size you want. Now we go a different way to the way you suggest. I found an easier way than I originally posted, but both work. Select the foreground colour for the colour you want the border of the box to be. Go to the edit menu, and select stroke. Choose any and all permutations such as line width, dash pattern, corner decoration etc, and stroke the selection. You now have your basic box. Job done. You can make each box have it's own layer, put them all on one layer etc.. If you don't want a border, just fill the box as normal. Solid colour, grad, pattern.. Up to you. Basic use of the paint bucket tool to fill a selection. As the selection is going to stay active on all layers, it is easy to make a multi layered semi transparent coloured grad fill with a solid border, put in a drop shadow, cut text out of the box so the background shows through.. you name it. It can be as elaborate or as simple as you want. You want a bump mapped translucent texture to fill the box with?why not. The only limitation is your ability to use the application. Which is pretty much the same no matter what you are trying to use. To illustrate.. Not pretty, but then I was aiming for fast. And the time and care you want to take over it is up to you. Too=k me more time to decide what I wanted to do than it took me to do it. http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/Jtde8le9YKqcjTYH7hKGEQ?feat=directlink
I set the layer opacity to 50%.
You're saying there's another opacity slider that overrides the layer opacity during a resize?
Yes. If you look at the tool pallet the bottom section often has quite a few fine controls there. In the case of layer resize, the option to make it use a given degree of transparency is there. I didn't know about it myself up until a few minutes ago. But layer scaling isn't a tool I often use.
If you think about it a little.. There are drawbacks to having the layer go transparent by default too. If instead of a fully occupied layer, the layer you want to resize just contains an already cut out image on a transparent background, or some text, do you really want that to go transparent as you resize? And can you make the resize go opaque in Photoshop independent of the layer opacity.
Well, that's interesting to know. I'm not at all sure why I was supposed to guess that. I would presume that a layer when being resized would be no more opaque than it is when it isn't being resized.
You're not really supposed to guess. You are supposed to learn the way the program works if you want to use it to it's fullest extent.. This applies to every program on every OS. And a second tool is always harder if you are trying to make it work like the first one.
Photoshop is not that straightforward either, despite the cries of how intuitive it is. It's familiar. That's all. In Photoshop (from vague memory) Some modifiers appear on the top of the window. Easy to miss. As easy as the missed opacity slider that you missed.
A friend of mine was having problems getting the cropping tool to allow him to make the crop he wanted in Photoshop. He didn't notice the aspect ratio was defaulting to a specific fixed one, and he wanted to do a freehand crop.
To echo your point.. Why should he be expected to guess the check box need to be unchecked?
Your post demonstrates another weakness of GIMP: the few knowledgeable and vocal members who publicly treat potential newcomers with distain, but yet wonder why they don't flock to GIMP and its abusive zealots en masse.
Nah.. This is how we keep the rifraff out.
Assuming that by box, you mean a square or rectangle..
Click on the square select tool. If you want a specific aspect ratio, enter it.
Go to the "select menu".
Click on the selection editor menu option and when the box comes up, click on the last button.
Ok, the example might have been bad but the point still stands. One can imagine all kinds of illegal/immoral/unethical things done 'inside' the parliament as well, with the protection of immunity as long as you can convince 4% of people to support it.
Which differs from governmental practice in most countries how exactly? Fraud, bribery, extra marital affairs, Who the hell needs imagination? It's common bloody knowledge!
Why is it that the global warming deniers can't ever seem to get this right? You think the scientists are wrong? Then post something factual. It's not my job to defend and litigate all of climate science just because you lack education in the matter.
Because those sneaky climate scientists put all the stuff that they avoided when cherry picking the evidence back in. The poor ID scientistss get the same unfair treatment. Not so easy to prove something outside the echo chamber.
Bad engineering solution. A truly elegant solution will partake of the properties of either duct tape or WD-40. The latter probably isn't appropriate here, but duct tape will solve your blinking warning light and would damn sure solve the iPhone problem.
Well.. If the lamp is stuck in the holder, you could use a squirt of WD40 to get it out..
So, instead of solving the problem, they just downgraded the problem??? Sorry iPhone fans, but it looks like your phone cannot event manage something so simple and base as signal strength!!!!!!
Nonsense.. Apple has fixed the problem of the bars going down by recalculating the scale. This is perfectly acceptable. It's an elegant cost efficient and perfectly practical solution. I mean.. If a warning light is blinking, just take the bulb out. No more warning light, problem solved.. yes?
If any one comment deserves to be modded to +infinity, this it is. I am so sick of the smug assholes who think everyone should be EE and/or Comp. Sci. expert, and people deserve to be taken for a ride when they are not.
And the ones that state an exaggerated qualification is needed to get basic knowledge need similar modding down to oblivion. Or are you actually a sales person, who relies on the ignorance of the masses to keep you in a job?
Shit, they took down a pirate and *two* ninja's man! Think about the unholy alliance of ninja pirates who will take their revenge and seize what is erRRRrrrrrrightfully theirs. :)
They only took down the Ninjas because there was two of them. Never forget the inverse Ninja rule.
I would like to see the software update that gives ipads front/back-facing video cameras...
But it would be a magical update. And we all know magic can do aanything.. Like the one that was going to fix the antenna problem.. but because so many people complained. Steve is holding it back to teach the heretics a lesson.. He may never release it because we dared to question his great indefatigable wisdom... I'm sure it works perfectly for the truly faithful.. And when you have unicorns instead of icky old core functionality, there are no limits.
I just had a terrible thought that involved a hair salon selling shiny "product" to a bunch of metro fanbois... *shudder*
Something like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGScqPdyj2s
...I would rather see the money from the tax breaks going to finance local sports and getting kids interested in kicking a ball around so that we have some chance in the next 20 years of putting together a national football team worthy of wearing the "Three Lions".
Even fantasy has to have some limits..
This is the iPhone we are talking about. It plays games, surfs the internet, chat on Facebook or Tweet your heart out, PLUS it runs thousands of different software packages as low as $1.50 each. What makes you think they designed this thing for making old fashion phone calls?
Those letters after the lower case "i"?