> Some tech guy probably drafted the original version, which while 
> technically accurate was not "appealing" enough so marketing changed and 
> added some bits that sounded good.  Then legal came in and told them to 
> change the wording a bit more to avoid making false claims, and then you 
> got the result :-)

Yeah, probably...

> Also note they don't claim that it is possible 
> *with* their system, just that it is impossible without it...

Ooo... you've played this game before! ;-) Yes, they assert that it is 
*designed* to avoid bottlenecks, while carefully avoiding claiming that 
it *succeeds* [although they very strongly imply it]. I wonder if that 
works in a court of law?

Post a reply to this message