The idea of a university is to learn, not to pass courses. Learning involves taking away, in your head and in physical form, knowledge. If your teacher believes that the only output from her course is the grade, and after that the entire set of things she has taught are worthless, that's telling you something: what she's teaching is, in fact, worthless. If the university backs her position, they're saying that the knowledge they impart is fit only to be thrown away.
Anyway, the copyright in your notes vests in you. She's welcome to try arguing that notes taken in a lecture belong to the lecturer, but she's wrong.
This problem isn't anything to do with the drives being SATA versus anything else, and the FC lobby shouldn't get too smug. Some (with hindsight, at least) bad engineering decisions got taken in a complex product, and the result was that the product got into trouble. All disks are a mixtures of electronics, mechanicals and firmware, and although this happened today on a SATA drive it could happen equally well tomorrow on an FC drive.
The answer to your question is ``anyone who wants to be power, space and money efficient''. There are products now shipping in volume --- Pillar, Sun's Fishworks boxes spring to mind --- where the performance of SATA is brought up to FC standards for many workloads (your mileage may vary, objects may be closer than they appear, etc) by the application of appropriate filesystem structures, battery-backed RAM, flash, SSD, etc, etc. There are, before anyone jumps in, workloads where nothing this side of a gazillion independent spindles of 15000rpm FC is going to work. But conversely, there are other workloads where performance isn't as much of an issue as space and power density (backup, for example) or where capacity causes the business far more issues than performance.
I've got a Pillar stuffed full of SATA. There's FC available for people who need the performance bump, but I don't: my application workload saturates on other factors long before it maxes out the NAS server, and even if that were not the case, the value to my business of small deltas of performance (and the difference between FC and SATA is a lot smaller than people make out) is less than the massive difference in price. In general terms, SATA today is where FC was five years ago, and even if you end up short stroking it it's _still_ cheaper than FC. My Pillar allows me to effectively short-stroke SATA for performance and use the residue for non-critical data, which is nice, of course.
Performance isn't everything, as otherwise we'd all be going to the supermarket in Formula 1 cars. There are other criteria, and SATA may be appropriate for your business, depending on what your business is. And slightly more controversially, I'm suspicious of admins who claim their application needs the latest bleeding edge of a component --- disks --- which is on a slow development curve for performance. The speed of disks scales, loosely, at the square root of the capacity times any increase in rotational speed, but seek times have only improved by a factor of four over the twenty years I've been running fileservers for. If you're seek bound, you've got deeper problems that disk technology won't always help you with.
ian
Prefacing this with ``the RIAA are insane and the whole thing screams out cartel and intimidation'', on its face the statement
an IP address, MAC address, a consistent username, and a specific taste in music identifies a single person.
isn't totqally unreasonable to a civil (balance of probability) threshold. ``It wasn't me, it was someone who lives in my house, behaves like me, looks like me and with whom I share everything but whom I can't name'' is a defence which requires a bit more than just stating it.
Yet again, we see the reason why computer folk make poor lawyers. The law, and trials, are about making reasonable deductions in the face of uncertainty. Which is the opposite of what most of us do, or the way we think. ``Beyond reasonable doubt'' or, even more ``on the balance of probabilities'' are about more than saying ``it must have been done by an alien shapeshifter who looks like me: see, that's reasonable doubt!''. If you want to see (on a more serious scale) how disconnected from legal reality computer folk can get, look at the Reiser case. As it happens he was guilty, but his defence was entirely misguided even had he been innocent. Endless ``just so'' stories don't sew reasonable doubt: they just look shifty.
I've updated my desktop from Win2k to XP, my dad's desktop from Win98 to XP, and a friend's laptop from Win2k to XP. So it happens.
Slashdot readers aren't representative of the market at large. I've moved the same laptop between two versions of Windows, two Linux distributions and two major releases of Solaris. This does not read across into the population at large.
Consumers don't put a new OS on Wintel platforms, they buy a new system.
Businesses don't spend money without some sort of justification.
Moore's Law is now adding more cores and threads, not more mippage on a single task.
Disks, RAM and other drivers of new equipment purchase are pretty much ``as much as you want for as little as you want''.
Netbooks and small laptops are the current hot items.
XBoxes and the like are providing gamers with an alternative to PCs
The economy has tanked since Vista shipped.
All that being the case, why on earth do we care about Windows 7? If Microsoft couldn't get people to migrate off XP with benign economic circumstance and ready availability of credit, why do we think it's going to happen this time?
My father had a succession of Windows boxes. Hopeless: he's not naive, having used systems back to Wordstar on CP/M in the late seventies, but they kept on getting screwed up. My mother got fed up with the email breaking, so I slung Linux (Redhat 7 or something) on an old laptop: she loved it, and nothing seemed to break. But she wanted Office to interwork with newsletters she was helping on. So, although at the time I had little to no Mac experience, I got her to buy an iBook G4. It just worked. Dad bought one. It just worked. I switched my house over later, building on their good experience. A lot of their friends are making the same switch. Windows just doesn't work unattended, or at least the effort required to make it run unattended is beyond most people.
Possibly the worry from MS's point of view is that linux/BSD/etc.. won't be considered part of the market from a legal point of view. I mean I think it should be but I don't know what the law is.
RHEL and other for-money distributions would most certainly be seen as part of the market. But free would as well, I think: it's perfectly reasonable to define the market for operating systems (ie choices consumers have) as incouding free alternatives.
Also, MS likely realizes the important role the developing world will play in software sales in the future and the threat that a totally free OS provides. OS X, MS likely assumed, would face too high a barrier to entry to ever get really popular (who wants to spend thousands on an OS that you find unfamiliar and are unsure if it can do what you need?) but that a free OS would be tried and gain a foothold.
There's still an awful lot of Windows server out there, even in the face of Linux.
Moreover, MS may think that linux's low desktop penetration means that it wouldn't provide much legal defense in the first place.
Apple has acted as a shield, and its adoption (at the time) was pretty low.
Unless US law is radically different to the UK and EU situation, anti-trust legislation is only relevant when there is a trust: when you exert what we British call significant market power. Analogies involving cars are weak, certainly in the EU, because there is explicit legislation covering cars which is not applicable elsewhere --- long-term parts availability and permission for pattern manufacturers to produce copies is permitted for reasons of social and industrial policy, but it's not necessarily applicable elsewhere.
So car manufacturers are obligated to provide parts for fifteen years after last sale, and pattern part manufacturers are permitted to operate within certain constraints, and car manufacturers aren't permitted to insist that initial warranties are dependent on dealer servicing (although they are allowed to impose this on `extended' warranties). But makers of domestic appliances, say, can decline to sell parts, sue people who copy them and tear up warranties for equipment that you've tried to repair with, and all you can fall back on is sale of goods act rights or their local equivalent.
Now this all changes once you exert significant market power. BT isn't allowed to insist you only use their phones on their lines, say, because it's a regulated company which has market power. Microsoft (like IBM before it) is the US equivalent: it's been found to be a near-monopoly (ie to exert significant market power) both in the US and the EU, IBM weren't allowed to `close' interfaces between their CPUs and their disks; Honeywell were. Microsoft are legally bound to disclose the APIs and protocols used between their applications and their operating systems; Sun aren't.
And Apple aren't, either. Psystar are pissing in the wind, attempting to argue that there's a monopoly market for OSX which Apple run. That's like arguing there's a monopoly market for Cadbury's Dairy Milk, totally ignoring the rack of Hershey Bars next to it. For as long as there's a reasonably substitutable good which isn't under the control of monopolist, trusts are very hard to prove.
This is why Apple was kept alive by Microsoft in the 90s, and is why Microsoft continue to build and develop Office for OSX (and, particularly, Entourage): by showing that there are alternative platforms for Office they greatly reduce the power of the government to regulate them. I'm always surprised that Microsoft are so antagonistic to Linux and Open Office: if they could show there were three credible, available desktop operating systems with application stacks on them, they could nip over to the anti-trust people and make the point that they aren't a monopolist. And they'd be right, too.
The word `sheeple' is the preserve of idiots. The people who use it think ``other people are fools, unlike the wise, all-knowing, uninfluenced me. You can tell how clever I am by my use of original, incisive words like `sheeple'.''
What's also dreadful about it is that it's an excuse for your inability to get your ideas over. You convince yourself that it's not that your ideas are wrong, or that your arguments are weak, or that your communication skills aren't up to the job. No, it's because people are sheeple, so it's not your fault.
I did Midlands Maths Experiment O Level at Christmas 1980 followed by JMB standard O Level in summer 1981, JMB OA (or was it AO) in the summer of 1982 and JMB A Level in the summer of 1983. So I accept I did two O Levels on different syllabuses, one ``modern'' and one ``traditional'' within a few months of each other. But the overlap was massive between the two syllabuses. MME was a bit more `modern'.
A couple of years ago the AQA took out adverts in broadsheet papers whose basic thrust was ``Celebrate our children's success: look how hard the exams are''. My wife and I did our A levels in the early eighties: science for me, arts for her. Which meant we had between us 1981 O Level grade As and 1983 A or B grade A Levels in every subject that had sample questions shown, plus a smattering oa OA, AO, S, degrees, etc.
Yes, we agreed after looking at the questions, GCSEs are about the same standard as O Levels used to be.
Then we realised that was being shown were A level questions.
Go and look at the current A Level maths syllabus http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-5361-6371-W-SP-08.PDF and, if you're over forty, try to spot anything in the core syllabus you didn't do at O Level. Now look at all the stuff you did at O Level that's only in the further extension modules : matrix manipulation, composition of matrices of transformation leap out at me, but there's other stuff. The calculus I did at O Level extended out to volume of rotation and area of volume of rotation, for example, and I'm pretty certain that either O Level Physics or the applied side of O Level maths covered quite a lot of the mechanics, too.
OK, there's a small amount of stuff that I didn't do at either O or A Level, mostly because it barely existed. There a couple of modules called `Decision' which appear to be about complexity theory, for example.
My father, who lectured in chemistry in higher education from the early sixties through to the late eighties reports the same decline, and I recently took my daughter around the physics department at UCL with an emeritus reader, and he was railing about how third year work is what used to be first year work, because of the poor standards in A Levels.
This may be one of those jurisdictional differences, but in what countries do will include an exhaustive list of bank accounts? Certainly not here in the UK, where aside from the large percentage of people who die intestate, a notorious problem for executors is dealing with the simple act of rounding up the deceased's assets.
I installed such a device a couple of weeks ago, and I had several metres of cable to choose from on the link from the meter (front of the house) to the consumer unit (rear).
users are demonstrably sticking with XP over switching to non-Microsoft OS'
Apple now have, what, 20% of the laptop market by volume and rather more by dollar revenue? I'd say there's a strong argument that a significant demographic --- young, affluent, university educated, pick any two --- has already left town. I lecture occasionally at a University which is amongst the UK equivalent of the Ivy League, and have a friend who is a full-time lecturer, and both of us (me CS, she English) are under the clear impression that Apple are making massive inroads into the student laptop market. That's the classic opinion-former group, and losing that market is usually regarded as a very bad thing.
ian
The exception, for US citizens, is information about nuclear devices. If you happen to be dabbling in your back-yard laboratory and come up with a design for a classified component of a nuclear device, my understanding is that you have to treat that information as though you had obtained it as TOP SECRET (or some similar protective marking). Nuclear device designs are born classified, whoever does the work.
Stewart's too deep in stage at the moment. He did Anthony and Cleopatra (which I didn't see) and The Tempest (which I did) at the RSC a couple of seasons ago, to wide acclaim. He then did Macbeth with Chichester Festival (which was stunning) which transferred to London and then New York. This season he was Claudius to Tennant's Hamlet at the RSC and will shortly be starting the London transfer. The fuss was about Teannat, who was indeed very good, but Stewart (and Penny Downie, and Oliver Ford-Davis) provided the backbone of the production. Next year he's touring Godot with Ian McKellan, and has talked about spending the next ten years making up for lost stage time. He has to be lining up for a Lear, for example.
Judging by the responses here nuisance calls are about two orders of magnitude more of a problem in the US than in the UK. Here, if as an individual you opt out of marketing calls you don't get any - that includes charities and political parties. They clamp down hard and fast on people who break the law (it is illegal, not just a breach of your terms and conditions). Many businesses have consent for marketing in their standard contracts, but I've only had a few such calls in my life and if you tell them to stop they have to, by law.
By and large, outbound marketing checks against the TPS but doesn't then check if there's an explicit permission been given by the target. So if you register with the TPS but also give explicit permission to company X, company X usually won't call you. For smaller companies there are services available which implement the TPS at a network level: a company uses carrier-preselect which in turn fails any call to an opted out subscriber. See http://www.optoutuk.com/telephonepreferenceservice.asp?screen_id=tps. Larger companies pull the TPS register into their systems, under fairly tight controls.
It's been moderated `funny', but I recently plugged eight 2GB USB memory sticks into a pair of hubs and ran ZFS over it (RAID 0+1, roughly). That's 8GB of storage that would resist most failure modes, I think. Detecting bit-flips requires checksums, which of course ZFS offers.
Except what's on the table isn't anything about `central censorship'. From the original article:
But the law does focus on empowering parents to take control of new media technologies to deal with undesired content, rather than handing the job over to the government. It asks the FCC to focus the inquiry on blocking systems for a "wide variety of distribution platforms," including wireless and Internet, and an array of devices, including DVD players, set top boxes, and wireless applications.
Quite how you get from there to enforced censorship to protect the image of the UK government I don't know.
My parents didn't, and don't, have a television. In 1970 it could be argued that excluded my brother and I from a shared culture, there being only at the time three channels. That's not true today: there's very little TV which is a genuine part of the shared experience, simply because it's far more fragmented. But I didn't have access to a TV on a regular basis until I bought one myself in my early
I'm not inclined to not have a television --- I like F1, and watch Doctor Who --- but there's a single TV which is sat in the corner of one room, which is turned on to watch specified programmes and turned off when they finish. The kids know my parents don't have a television, that I'd be perfectly capable of simply disposing of the one we have, and therefore that they shouldn't push their luck. Televisions in bedrooms, kitchens and other rooms in the house? How common.
You say `elitism' as though it's a bad thing for a product. Whose balance sheet would you rather read: GM's or BMW's? How are Rolex's margins look at the moment?
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of a university is to learn, not to pass courses. Learning involves taking away, in your head and in physical form, knowledge. If your teacher believes that the only output from her course is the grade, and after that the entire set of things she has taught are worthless, that's telling you something: what she's teaching is, in fact, worthless. If the university backs her position, they're saying that the knowledge they impart is fit only to be thrown away. Anyway, the copyright in your notes vests in you. She's welcome to try arguing that notes taken in a lecture belong to the lecturer, but she's wrong.
This problem isn't anything to do with the drives being SATA versus anything else, and the FC lobby shouldn't get too smug. Some (with hindsight, at least) bad engineering decisions got taken in a complex product, and the result was that the product got into trouble. All disks are a mixtures of electronics, mechanicals and firmware, and although this happened today on a SATA drive it could happen equally well tomorrow on an FC drive. The answer to your question is ``anyone who wants to be power, space and money efficient''. There are products now shipping in volume --- Pillar, Sun's Fishworks boxes spring to mind --- where the performance of SATA is brought up to FC standards for many workloads (your mileage may vary, objects may be closer than they appear, etc) by the application of appropriate filesystem structures, battery-backed RAM, flash, SSD, etc, etc. There are, before anyone jumps in, workloads where nothing this side of a gazillion independent spindles of 15000rpm FC is going to work. But conversely, there are other workloads where performance isn't as much of an issue as space and power density (backup, for example) or where capacity causes the business far more issues than performance. I've got a Pillar stuffed full of SATA. There's FC available for people who need the performance bump, but I don't: my application workload saturates on other factors long before it maxes out the NAS server, and even if that were not the case, the value to my business of small deltas of performance (and the difference between FC and SATA is a lot smaller than people make out) is less than the massive difference in price. In general terms, SATA today is where FC was five years ago, and even if you end up short stroking it it's _still_ cheaper than FC. My Pillar allows me to effectively short-stroke SATA for performance and use the residue for non-critical data, which is nice, of course. Performance isn't everything, as otherwise we'd all be going to the supermarket in Formula 1 cars. There are other criteria, and SATA may be appropriate for your business, depending on what your business is. And slightly more controversially, I'm suspicious of admins who claim their application needs the latest bleeding edge of a component --- disks --- which is on a slow development curve for performance. The speed of disks scales, loosely, at the square root of the capacity times any increase in rotational speed, but seek times have only improved by a factor of four over the twenty years I've been running fileservers for. If you're seek bound, you've got deeper problems that disk technology won't always help you with. ian
an IP address, MAC address, a consistent username, and a specific taste in music identifies a single person.
isn't totqally unreasonable to a civil (balance of probability) threshold. ``It wasn't me, it was someone who lives in my house, behaves like me, looks like me and with whom I share everything but whom I can't name'' is a defence which requires a bit more than just stating it.
Yet again, we see the reason why computer folk make poor lawyers. The law, and trials, are about making reasonable deductions in the face of uncertainty. Which is the opposite of what most of us do, or the way we think. ``Beyond reasonable doubt'' or, even more ``on the balance of probabilities'' are about more than saying ``it must have been done by an alien shapeshifter who looks like me: see, that's reasonable doubt!''. If you want to see (on a more serious scale) how disconnected from legal reality computer folk can get, look at the Reiser case. As it happens he was guilty, but his defence was entirely misguided even had he been innocent. Endless ``just so'' stories don't sew reasonable doubt: they just look shifty.
Slashdot readers aren't representative of the market at large. I've moved the same laptop between two versions of Windows, two Linux distributions and two major releases of Solaris. This does not read across into the population at large.
All that being the case, why on earth do we care about Windows 7? If Microsoft couldn't get people to migrate off XP with benign economic circumstance and ready availability of credit, why do we think it's going to happen this time?
ian
If Zac Goldsmith is a big political operator, I'd hate to see what a small one was.
My father had a succession of Windows boxes. Hopeless: he's not naive, having used systems back to Wordstar on CP/M in the late seventies, but they kept on getting screwed up. My mother got fed up with the email breaking, so I slung Linux (Redhat 7 or something) on an old laptop: she loved it, and nothing seemed to break. But she wanted Office to interwork with newsletters she was helping on. So, although at the time I had little to no Mac experience, I got her to buy an iBook G4. It just worked. Dad bought one. It just worked. I switched my house over later, building on their good experience. A lot of their friends are making the same switch. Windows just doesn't work unattended, or at least the effort required to make it run unattended is beyond most people.
That mockup looks like my desktop: OSX with Growl notifications for mail.
RHEL and other for-money distributions would most certainly be seen as part of the market. But free would as well, I think: it's perfectly reasonable to define the market for operating systems (ie choices consumers have) as incouding free alternatives.
There's still an awful lot of Windows server out there, even in the face of Linux.
Apple has acted as a shield, and its adoption (at the time) was pretty low.
So car manufacturers are obligated to provide parts for fifteen years after last sale, and pattern part manufacturers are permitted to operate within certain constraints, and car manufacturers aren't permitted to insist that initial warranties are dependent on dealer servicing (although they are allowed to impose this on `extended' warranties). But makers of domestic appliances, say, can decline to sell parts, sue people who copy them and tear up warranties for equipment that you've tried to repair with, and all you can fall back on is sale of goods act rights or their local equivalent.
Now this all changes once you exert significant market power. BT isn't allowed to insist you only use their phones on their lines, say, because it's a regulated company which has market power. Microsoft (like IBM before it) is the US equivalent: it's been found to be a near-monopoly (ie to exert significant market power) both in the US and the EU, IBM weren't allowed to `close' interfaces between their CPUs and their disks; Honeywell were. Microsoft are legally bound to disclose the APIs and protocols used between their applications and their operating systems; Sun aren't.
And Apple aren't, either. Psystar are pissing in the wind, attempting to argue that there's a monopoly market for OSX which Apple run. That's like arguing there's a monopoly market for Cadbury's Dairy Milk, totally ignoring the rack of Hershey Bars next to it. For as long as there's a reasonably substitutable good which isn't under the control of monopolist, trusts are very hard to prove.
This is why Apple was kept alive by Microsoft in the 90s, and is why Microsoft continue to build and develop Office for OSX (and, particularly, Entourage): by showing that there are alternative platforms for Office they greatly reduce the power of the government to regulate them. I'm always surprised that Microsoft are so antagonistic to Linux and Open Office: if they could show there were three credible, available desktop operating systems with application stacks on them, they could nip over to the anti-trust people and make the point that they aren't a monopolist. And they'd be right, too.
ian
What's also dreadful about it is that it's an excuse for your inability to get your ideas over. You convince yourself that it's not that your ideas are wrong, or that your arguments are weak, or that your communication skills aren't up to the job. No, it's because people are sheeple, so it's not your fault.
I did Midlands Maths Experiment O Level at Christmas 1980 followed by JMB standard O Level in summer 1981, JMB OA (or was it AO) in the summer of 1982 and JMB A Level in the summer of 1983. So I accept I did two O Levels on different syllabuses, one ``modern'' and one ``traditional'' within a few months of each other. But the overlap was massive between the two syllabuses. MME was a bit more `modern'.
A couple of years ago the AQA took out adverts in broadsheet papers whose basic thrust was ``Celebrate our children's success: look how hard the exams are''. My wife and I did our A levels in the early eighties: science for me, arts for her. Which meant we had between us 1981 O Level grade As and 1983 A or B grade A Levels in every subject that had sample questions shown, plus a smattering oa OA, AO, S, degrees, etc. Yes, we agreed after looking at the questions, GCSEs are about the same standard as O Levels used to be. Then we realised that was being shown were A level questions. Go and look at the current A Level maths syllabus http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-5361-6371-W-SP-08.PDF and, if you're over forty, try to spot anything in the core syllabus you didn't do at O Level. Now look at all the stuff you did at O Level that's only in the further extension modules : matrix manipulation, composition of matrices of transformation leap out at me, but there's other stuff. The calculus I did at O Level extended out to volume of rotation and area of volume of rotation, for example, and I'm pretty certain that either O Level Physics or the applied side of O Level maths covered quite a lot of the mechanics, too. OK, there's a small amount of stuff that I didn't do at either O or A Level, mostly because it barely existed. There a couple of modules called `Decision' which appear to be about complexity theory, for example. My father, who lectured in chemistry in higher education from the early sixties through to the late eighties reports the same decline, and I recently took my daughter around the physics department at UCL with an emeritus reader, and he was railing about how third year work is what used to be first year work, because of the poor standards in A Levels.
This may be one of those jurisdictional differences, but in what countries do will include an exhaustive list of bank accounts? Certainly not here in the UK, where aside from the large percentage of people who die intestate, a notorious problem for executors is dealing with the simple act of rounding up the deceased's assets.
I installed such a device a couple of weeks ago, and I had several metres of cable to choose from on the link from the meter (front of the house) to the consumer unit (rear).
The argument that nothing's free is one that taxpayers can make. You don't need companies helpfully making the point as an act of charity.
Apple now have, what, 20% of the laptop market by volume and rather more by dollar revenue? I'd say there's a strong argument that a significant demographic --- young, affluent, university educated, pick any two --- has already left town. I lecture occasionally at a University which is amongst the UK equivalent of the Ivy League, and have a friend who is a full-time lecturer, and both of us (me CS, she English) are under the clear impression that Apple are making massive inroads into the student laptop market. That's the classic opinion-former group, and losing that market is usually regarded as a very bad thing.
ian
The exception, for US citizens, is information about nuclear devices. If you happen to be dabbling in your back-yard laboratory and come up with a design for a classified component of a nuclear device, my understanding is that you have to treat that information as though you had obtained it as TOP SECRET (or some similar protective marking). Nuclear device designs are born classified, whoever does the work.
ian
By and large, outbound marketing checks against the TPS but doesn't then check if there's an explicit permission been given by the target. So if you register with the TPS but also give explicit permission to company X, company X usually won't call you. For smaller companies there are services available which implement the TPS at a network level: a company uses carrier-preselect which in turn fails any call to an opted out subscriber. See http://www.optoutuk.com/telephonepreferenceservice.asp?screen_id=tps. Larger companies pull the TPS register into their systems, under fairly tight controls.
It's been moderated `funny', but I recently plugged eight 2GB USB memory sticks into a pair of hubs and ran ZFS over it (RAID 0+1, roughly). That's 8GB of storage that would resist most failure modes, I think. Detecting bit-flips requires checksums, which of course ZFS offers.
Quite how you get from there to enforced censorship to protect the image of the UK government I don't know.
ian
I'm not inclined to not have a television --- I like F1, and watch Doctor Who --- but there's a single TV which is sat in the corner of one room, which is turned on to watch specified programmes and turned off when they finish. The kids know my parents don't have a television, that I'd be perfectly capable of simply disposing of the one we have, and therefore that they shouldn't push their luck. Televisions in bedrooms, kitchens and other rooms in the house? How common.
ian
You say `elitism' as though it's a bad thing for a product. Whose balance sheet would you rather read: GM's or BMW's? How are Rolex's margins look at the moment?
TAI might be a good compromise now, less so in a thousand years' time when it'll be several hours out. ian