|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |