So a device that, at a certain price, you can put a sim card into to connect it to the internet... and you want to bypass this by buying the cheaper one and tethering it to a phone (that costs more than the difference between the two versions of the device).... Firstly clearly no grasp of business and pricing structures. Secondly pathetic complaint. Thirdly DUH! Yeah it's over-priced, yeah it might be gimmicky, but since most of the critics are clearly dumber than the people fooled into buying one; it's probably looking at being a success.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A7 2-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate- change Let's just consider this simple FACT. When smoking was deemed to be cancerous and dangerous to the health of individuals they found plenty of scientists willing to work for them to disprove negative claims. Ignoring Al Gore as an inflated ego there is plenty of popular support for the theory of Global Warming. There is plenty of evidence from many varied fields to support it. Before grasping at the few dissenting voices as proof that it is not universally accepted it's worth investigating the credibility of the dissenters, their motives and why they are at odds with the majority. One of the protagonists in this article for example works for oil companies. Do your research see what you can find out. Considering that the these are the same rhetorical arguments used by the creationist/intelligent design people, the smoking lobby etc. I'm instinctively suspicious. Fabricating dissent or over inflating the value of opposition is a tactic favored by those who fear change. I think as a simple test we should move all those who don't agree with Global warming to New Orleans, Bangladesh and the Netherlands just to really test their convictions. Anti-Global warming rhetoric is for people who can't deal with large amounts of rhetoric forcing them to re-think their world view. Just as anti-Evolution arguments are for those who have failed to let their world view evolve. For most of he scientific community Global warming isn't a matter of "IF" it, it's "HOW" it will affect us. Considering that most of the scientific is hugely more intelligent than the average journalist, American voter or US President I'm going to go with their over-whelming consensus until there is some stronger evidence than the opinions of some corporate stooges, a few deranged rogues seeking attention and their friendly Right-Wing spin doctors.