"usual suspect" <abovegro...@earth.man> wrote in message news:qO9%a.165768$TJ.9824874@twister.austin.rr.com... > Derek wrote: > <snip> > > You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being > > what they are and not very fussy... <snip>
> wtf do you know about American girls?
I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and watch it every time the wife goes shopping. What else is there to learn about them?
> >>>>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. > >>>>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British > >>>>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking > >>>>>>>>and cheating the employer.
> >>>>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with > >>>>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
> >>>>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> >>>>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
> >>>>She was.
> >>>But not for long, and the reason for that was because > >>>he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and > >>>totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was > >>>the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke > >>>who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
> >>How sure are you that Mr Nash was your biological father? Ask your mum > >>if she ever went out with any of those virile American soldiers and > >>airmen who were defending your muddy island from foreign invasion.
> > Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
> > Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > > still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
> Impossible to say for certain, but doubtlessly false. > As it was, prior to our rescue of your shithole island, > you were fighting them the whole time with huge > helpings of our war matériel, for which you never > repaid the loans. I suppose your meager assistance in > the two wars against Iraq made a small dent in the > accumulated interest.
> Ray wrote: > > Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
> Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
> > Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > > still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
> No, *you* would be speaking German now.
> > Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to > > experience. None of your own. Eh?
> We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most > of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate > instantaneously.
How much of that do we owe to the Japs? You have not even got a decent TV transmission service. NTSC is crap.
> >>>Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
> >>Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
> >>>Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > >>>still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
> >>No, *you* would be speaking German now.
> >>>Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to > >>>experience. None of your own. Eh?
> >>We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most > >>of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate > >>instantaneously.
> > Bell was born in Scotland, dolt.
> That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by > real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?). > Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer? > Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
OK smart arse, which country does launch our communication satellites - certainly not the USA.
Some are launced by ESA but most are launched by the Russians. They are cheaper but not reliable. The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
I'll rephrase the second part of your question. Who is fucking the world over with the extortionate prices demanded for software? Where are they based?
> >>>> Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
> >>> Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
> >>>> Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > >>>> still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
> >>> No, *you* would be speaking German now.
> >>>> Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to > >>>> experience. None of your own. Eh?
> >>> We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most > >>> of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate > >>> instantaneously.
> >> Bell was born in Scotland, dolt.
> > That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by > > real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?).
> Bell did his work in America, where individual > initiative and effort traditionally have been rewarded > rather than ridiculed. The brain drain has been going > on a long time.
Yours was drained years ago, pity it was refilled with piss.
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal > >> computer? Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet?
> > Careful. The WWW was invented in Switzerland. Not by anyone named Gore.
> Right, by someone named Berners-Lee. CERN's contribution is noted. > ARPAnet and internet, though, are American in origin.
Steady on, you'll start an argument between yourselves:-)
Ray wrote: >>We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most >>of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate >>instantaneously.
> How much of that do we owe to the Japs?
The innovations? Some. The manufacture? A lot more.
> You have not even got a decent TV transmission service.
I don't watch much TV, but I have digital cable. With all due respect, it's pretty good.
> NTSC is crap.
Traditional network broadcasting has been in decline for years. Most people watch cable (who needs to see network sit coms, Jerry Springer, and soap operas in HD anyway?). We've had HD and digital cable/satellite available here for a few years now. Most of the people I know have it. Local broadcasters (dinosaurs) are slow to change because of too many bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Ray wrote: >>That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by >>real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?). >>Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer? >>Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
> OK smart arse, which country does launch our communication satellites - > certainly not the USA.
> Some are launced by ESA but most are launched by the Russians. They are > cheaper but not reliable.
I know that.
> The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the > bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
Would you like to put me there?
> I'll rephrase the second part of your question. Who is fucking the world > over with the extortionate prices demanded for software? Where are they > based?
That would be the same company you trust for your e-mailing and newsgrouping: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Where are they based? Redmond, Washington.
Try Linux or BSD if you don't like their products or their profitability. BTW, when was the last time you worked for free or reduced rate?
> Ray wrote: > >>We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most > >>of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate > >>instantaneously.
> > How much of that do we owe to the Japs?
> The innovations? Some. The manufacture? A lot more.
> > You have not even got a decent TV transmission service.
> I don't watch much TV, but I have digital cable. With all due respect, > it's pretty good.
> > NTSC is crap.
> Traditional network broadcasting has been in decline for years. Most > people watch cable (who needs to see network sit coms, Jerry Springer, > and soap operas in HD anyway?). We've had HD and digital cable/satellite > available here for a few years now. Most of the people I know have it. > Local broadcasters (dinosaurs) are slow to change because of too many > bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Well, now we are back to a bit of decent debate I'll clarify what I said earlier.
Your 'NTSC' system had it's faults due to the vector phase shift within the chroma subcarrier, but as I'm stupid I don't know about those things, in any case with the advent of digital transmissions this is no longer an issue. The analogue system we use 'PAL' ( a German development) gives superior pictures than our present digital transmissions.
Of course MPEG is capable of far superior resolution, but not at the rate it is streamed in the UK. At best it is acceptable, to the trained eye - I regret to say it is crap. We have no plans for HDTV, indeed experimental transmissions have only recently started in Europe. All digital transmissions in the UK share the same encryption system 'Videoguard', it is very secure and has only been cracked once. Which brings me on to a political theme.
'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport, owned by BT.
IOW The BBC have no jurisdiction over their signal once it leaves their control rooms. Not a lot of people know that!
Do you see any problem there? (Apart that I am a mile 'off topic')
> >>>Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been > >>>an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be > >>>using it to get back at you for anything really. > >>>Sorry Jon.
> >>I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously > >>affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I > >>seen how wrong I was.
> >>My older brother and younger brother both have led > >>thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has > >>had any career success at all. My younger brother > >>bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in > >>a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older > >>brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger > >>has been married and divorced twice; older has been > >>married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him). > >> My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing > >>okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once. > >> I think she's done relatively better than my brothers > >>in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea > >>what was going on at the time.
> > I'm quite surprised, because even though I knew > > you had all those brothers and a sister it never > > occured to me that any of them were less fortunate > > than yourself in some ways. In fact, I've thought for > > a long time that maybe you were left behind by at > > least one of them in academia, and I was hoping to > > prize it out of you to make some use of it later on.
> It's exactly the other way around. I'm the only one > who completed university. My older brother probably > could have done, but began to skid. I doubt my younger > brother ever had the right mental makeup for it. My > sister never was interested.
There's the reason, then: they just weren't interested enough in studying the subjects being offered. Take my twin, for example. He can barely understand even the basics in the subjects I managed, with distinctions no less, but I can't even get close to matching him in chess, even though I consider myself extremely good. We were both beating most of the adults at the age of 12 in Vauxhall's chess club in our home town. I did fairly well, but he went straight into the ratings room within a month. The chess-mad cafe's all around where he lived in Holland treated him like royalty, and rival cafe's with their own resident teams would even try to poach him. He's practically unbeatable, even when pissed, but he can't even read the freeware I write for Psion computers, let alone the math included in them. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
> >>I have had far, far better career success than any of > >>them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you > >>- and me - something.
> > You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being > > what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably > > gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you > > finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you > > made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor.
> No; that's not it.
Prison? If your bachelor status (marginalized) wasn't a conscious decision of your own, it had to be someone else's instead. [..]
> >>BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt > >>that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest > >>single difference between me and my two brothers, > >>particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude > >>that the world owed him and didn't pay.
> > I don't see much wrong in that thinking if it's justified.
> It isn't. It probably never is, but certainly not in > his case. He had an emotionally hard time of it due to > the divorce, but that's hardly the *world's* fault. In > terms of material advantages and disadvantages, he had > exactly the same as I had.
Luck, then. Maybe 'luck' owes him a favour, and that's what he means when he says the World owes him. Despite my current health predicament I've always considered myself lucky, although I have had to make some of it myself. Like you, I'm no Victor Mature either, but I always managed to get the best girl in town. To show you what I mean, if you go to alt.binaries.pictures.misc and look at two of the photos under my name you'll see last month's shots of myself and Belinda in our garden, and an awful one from the same month of myself taken by surprise indoors. There's a couple there of my dog and grandson under the name of 'non' too. With a face and shape like mine, you need an awful lot of luck in this World.
>>Traditional network broadcasting has been in decline for years. Most >>people watch cable (who needs to see network sit coms, Jerry Springer, >>and soap operas in HD anyway?). We've had HD and digital cable/satellite >>available here for a few years now. Most of the people I know have it. >>Local broadcasters (dinosaurs) are slow to change because of too many >>bureaucrats and lobbyists.
> Well, now we are back to a bit of decent debate I'll clarify what I said > earlier.
> Your 'NTSC' system had it's faults due to the vector phase shift within the > chroma subcarrier, but as I'm stupid I don't know about those things, in any > case with the advent of digital transmissions this is no longer an issue. > The analogue system we use 'PAL' ( a German development) gives superior > pictures than our present digital transmissions.
> Of course MPEG is capable of far superior resolution, but not at the rate it > is streamed in the UK. At best it is acceptable, to the trained eye - I > regret to say it is crap. We have no plans for HDTV, indeed experimental > transmissions have only recently started in Europe. All digital > transmissions in the UK share the same encryption system 'Videoguard', it is > very secure and has only been cracked once. Which brings me on to a > political theme.
Why does it have to be "political"?
> 'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All > transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal > encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to > the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus > there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport, > owned by BT.
Murdoch is a genius when it comes to running his businesses. He's a visionary, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, who saw the bigger picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it, only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
> IOW The BBC have no jurisdiction over their signal once it leaves their > control rooms. Not a lot of people know that!
> Do you see any problem there? > (Apart that I am a mile 'off topic')
No. The BBC contracts to have their signal transmitted. The BBC has certain assurances and protections under contract and copyright laws that pertain to their rights (BBC transmissions carry copyrights, right?) and transmission integrity. Such legal protections make your concerns about BBC's signal irrelevant.
> Ray wrote: <..> > > 'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All > > transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal > > encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to > > the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus > > there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport, > > owned by BT.
> Murdoch is a genius when it comes to running his businesses. He's a > visionary, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, who saw the bigger > picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than > where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry > were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it, > only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
'Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip, naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he contaminates. And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into his mix for good measure. .. His great fortune rests on his wager that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to the core.' Read All About It- http://rense.com/general39/mass.htm .
>>>'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All >>>transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal >>>encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to >>>the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus >>>there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport, >>>owned by BT.
>>Murdoch is a genius when it comes to running his businesses. He's a >>visionary, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, who saw the bigger >>picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than >>where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry >>were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it, >>only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
> 'Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip, > naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he > contaminates.
See a demand, supply it, make a profit. There's nothing wrong with it. That's how you put bread on your table.
> And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into > his mix for good measure. ..
Evidence please?
> His great fortune rests on his wager > that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to > the core.'
It wasn't a wager, it was borne of a vision and marketing studies. Murdoch's holdings aren't "bigoted, prurient, or nasty to the core." Those tabloids have a long history of showing scantily-clad women, and Brits have long been bigoted and engaged in "bedroom humor." He hasn't changed the British climate, he's only profited from it.
> >>Traditional network broadcasting has been in decline for years. Most > >>people watch cable (who needs to see network sit coms, Jerry Springer, > >>and soap operas in HD anyway?). We've had HD and digital cable/satellite > >>available here for a few years now. Most of the people I know have it. > >>Local broadcasters (dinosaurs) are slow to change because of too many > >>bureaucrats and lobbyists.
> > Well, now we are back to a bit of decent debate I'll clarify what I said > > earlier.
> > Your 'NTSC' system had it's faults due to the vector phase shift within the > > chroma subcarrier, but as I'm stupid I don't know about those things, in any > > case with the advent of digital transmissions this is no longer an issue. > > The analogue system we use 'PAL' ( a German development) gives superior > > pictures than our present digital transmissions.
> > Of course MPEG is capable of far superior resolution, but not at the rate it > > is streamed in the UK. At best it is acceptable, to the trained eye - I > > regret to say it is crap. We have no plans for HDTV, indeed experimental > > transmissions have only recently started in Europe. All digital > > transmissions in the UK share the same encryption system 'Videoguard', it is > > very secure and has only been cracked once. Which brings me on to a > > political theme.
> Why does it have to be "political"?
Read on
> > 'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All > > transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal > > encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to > > the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus > > there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport, > > owned by BT.
> Murdoch is a genius
He's a crook a cheat and a fraud. He is allowed by our government to operate an unfair monopoly. He is a dangerous man.
> picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than > where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry > were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it, > only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
> > IOW The BBC have no jurisdiction over their signal once it leaves their > > control rooms. Not a lot of people know that!
> > Do you see any problem there? > > (Apart that I am a mile 'off topic')
> No. The BBC contracts to have their signal transmitted. The BBC has > certain assurances and protections under contract and copyright laws > that pertain to their rights (BBC transmissions carry copyrights, > right?) and transmission integrity. Such legal protections make your > concerns about BBC's signal irrelevant.
Not irrelevant.
A brief example of the tactics of 'Sky TV'.
One of our terrestrial programmes (Channel 5) is not available in many parts of he country, owing to analogue bandwidth problems. However it is carried via satellite. Sky TV suddenly decide that they will disconnect viewers from the transmission unless they subscribe to a Sky TV package.
I do not know he outcome of this situation, but palms have to be greased before it is resolved. This is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. More will follow, Murdoch is corrupt and enjoys an unfair monopoly.
> Ray wrote: > >>That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by > >>real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?). > >>Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer? > >>Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
> > OK smart arse, which country does launch our communication satellites - > > certainly not the USA.
> > Some are launced by ESA but most are launched by the Russians. They are > > cheaper but not reliable.
> I know that.
> > The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the > > bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
> Would you like to put me there?
If you like.
> > I'll rephrase the second part of your question. Who is fucking the world > > over with the extortionate prices demanded for software? Where are they > > based?
> That would be the same company you trust for your e-mailing and > newsgrouping: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158. Consulted
'Properties' I hope! Or did ~~jonnie~~ tell you?
No trust involved, came with the PC. Convenient to upgrade. Another point, Windows 98 is due for the chop.
Tell you what though. My PCs at work operate on ME which is a bloody unstable system. I opted for XP and was quoted well over £200 per PC. That's what I call having my leg lifted. Microsoft are bandits.
> Where are they based? Redmond, Washington. Precisely!
> Try Linux or BSD if you don't like their products or their > profitability.
No, I fancy 'Mozilla' The choice of the connoissseur and hacker.
BTW, when was the last time you worked for free or
> reduced rate?
A great failing of mine. I'm thinking of applying for registered charity status.
> He's a crook a cheat and a fraud. He is allowed by our government to operate > an unfair monopoly. He is a dangerous man.
He's not a crook, cheat, or fraud. If he were, he could be tried for crimes. He is not dangerous at all. Were it not for him, you'd still be glued to Channel 4 all bloody day.
His businesses are not monopolistic. Your government has instituted a barrier to competition in the form of a franchise agreement. We have similar barriers to competition here, including with cable television providers.
>>visionary, like Bill Gates,
> He's another, except he's not dangerous
I think he'd pose more of a global threat than Murdoch. I don't think Microsoft is a threat or evil or dangerous, either.
>> Steve Jobs,
> Can't comment never use 'Apple'
You can still comment. Prior to Apple, few people saw the possibility of personal computers, much less that nearly every home would have one. Jobs also saw the potential for operating systems with a graphical user interface. He knew Xerox already had one but were never going to use it; he bought it for next to nothing, adapted it to the personal computer, and now you and I benefit from Gates' version of the technology.
>>No. The BBC contracts to have their signal transmitted. The BBC has >>certain assurances and protections under contract and copyright laws >>that pertain to their rights (BBC transmissions carry copyrights, >>right?) and transmission integrity. Such legal protections make your >>concerns about BBC's signal irrelevant.
> Not irrelevant.
No, irrelevant. Transmission integrity is mandated by nearly every nation. If you're running Botswana Television, you cannot intercept CNN's or BBC's transmission and put your own graphics over theirs. Nor can they do that to Botswana TV's signal. If you're running a cable or satellite network, you cannot hold programmers hostage beyond the terms of contract. BBC, if there were a problem, could find another uplink and downlink in America, France, Russia, Israel, or China.
> A brief example of the tactics of 'Sky TV'.
> One of our terrestrial programmes (Channel 5) is not available in many parts > of he country, owing to analogue bandwidth problems. However it is carried > via satellite. Sky TV suddenly decide that they will disconnect viewers from > the transmission unless they subscribe to a Sky TV package.
> I do not know he outcome of this situation, but palms have to be greased > before it is resolved. This is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. More will > follow, Murdoch is corrupt and enjoys an unfair monopoly.
It isn't corruption, and that monopoly is related to a state-granted franchise agreeement. We've had similar problems here, particularly with home satellite dish service as it related to then FCC rules (most of which have changed). Some terrestrial cable companies have also engaged in similar practices as you described. It's a matter of contract, and the fault lies with the bureaucrats -- the corrupt and dangerous parties involved -- who devise franchise schemes that aren't in the public interest in the first place.
Ray wrote: >>>The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the >>>bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
>>Would you like to put me there?
> If you like.
I've already had a brush with death in the Pacific. What's one more ocean?
>>That would be the same company you trust for your e-mailing and >>newsgrouping: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158. Consulted
> 'Properties' I hope! Or did ~~jonnie~~ tell you?
Header data.
> No trust involved, came with the PC. Convenient to upgrade. Another point, > Windows 98 is due for the chop.
> Tell you what though. My PCs at work operate on ME which is a bloody > unstable system. I opted for XP and was quoted well over £200 per PC. That's > what I call having my leg lifted. Microsoft are bandits.
I only used Win 98 on my laptop, but ditched it for Linux when my warranty ran out. I had to run 32-bit NT on my old desktop to remain compatible with my work stuff. Never was impressed with ME, so I never bothered with it. Switched to XP last summer when I upgraded my box. It's pretty stable and worth the cost. You shouldn't have to spend that much for an upgrade from ME. IIRC, my upgrade was $69 (about £45); I just looked and found the upgrade for £85 online.
>>Where are they based? Redmond, Washington. Precisely!
>>Try Linux or BSD if you don't like their products or their >>profitability.
> No, I fancy 'Mozilla' The choice of the connoissseur and hacker.
Mozilla runs on Linux/BSD, as well as other platforms.
>> BTW, when was the last time you worked for free or >>reduced rate?
> A great failing of mine. > I'm thinking of applying for registered charity status.
> I only used Win 98 on my laptop, but ditched it for Linux when my > warranty ran out. I had to run 32-bit NT on my old desktop to remain > compatible with my work stuff. Never was impressed with ME, so I never > bothered with it. Switched to XP last summer when I upgraded my box. > It's pretty stable and worth the cost. You shouldn't have to spend that > much for an upgrade from ME. IIRC, my upgrade was $69 (about £45); I > just looked and found the upgrade for £85 online.
|
