Apple Watch to make special appearance at 2015 Salone del Mobile in Milan

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited April 2015
On April 17 only, the Apple Watch will make an appearance at this year's Salone del Mobile fair in Milan, an exhibition celebrating design and art.




Wallpaper wrote that an Apple Watch viewing and try-on event will take place at Carlo e Camilla in Segheria, a trendy upscale restaurant. Apple's lead designer, Jony Ive, was quoted as saying that the Salone has a "a deep-rooted history of embracing excellence in design," and that he's excited to celebrate the Watch "alongside our friends and fellow designers."

The Salone is actually a furniture event first and foremost, but there are some exceptions. This year, for instance, Hyundai is showcasing credit cards. The fair runs from today through April 19.

Apple is presumably showcasing Watch due to the Salone's global significance in the design world and the proximity to the device's April 24 launch. The company is heavily marketing the Watch as a fashion item, arranging for magazine spreads and celebrity product placements.

Apple may also be invested in positioning the Watch in front of the Salone's rich visitors. The device starts at $349 -- already more expensive than most smartwatches -- and can cost as much as $10,000 to $17,000 for top-end Edition models.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    Must be this rich to enter. ;)
  • Reply 2 of 19
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple may also be invested in positioning the Watch in front of the Salone's rich visitors. The device starts at $349 -- already more expensive than most smartwatches -- and can cost as much as $10,000 to $17,000 for top-end Edition models.

     

    Can AI stop with the class warfare, class hatred, and class envy nonsense please? We get it. The tech wannabe crowd thinks the watch is too expensive, that it’s for idiots with more money than sense, that function and specs are the sole purposes that electronic devices exist for. Design, fashion, personal preference, status, fun, excitement, pleasure are for losers and the stupid masses, rich people are evil and the source of all misery on the planet, and therefore to be despised and ridiculed. An entire generation is being raised to believe wealth is evil and must be distributed evenly among the population. To each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities.

  • Reply 3 of 19
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple may also be invested in positioning the Watch in front of the Salone's rich visitors. The device starts at $349 -- already more expensive than most smartwatches -- and can cost as much as $10,000 to $17,000 for top-end Edition models.</span>

    Can AI stop with the class warfare, class hatred, and class envy nonsense please? We get it. The tech wannabe crowd thinks the watch is too expensive, that it’s for idiots with more money than sense, that function and specs are the sole purposes that electronic devices exist for. Design, fashion, personal preference, status, fun, excitement, pleasure are for losers and the stupid masses, rich people are evil and the source of all misery on the planet, and therefore to be despised and ridiculed. An entire generation is being raised to believe wealth is evil and must be distributed evenly among the population. To each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities.

    You forgot to say Acts 4:32–35.
  • Reply 4 of 19

    If a person thinks that rich people are evil, their subconscious is likely to try and prevent them from becoming rich!

     

    I'm all for helping people in need but I'd still like it to be, by the grace of God, a choice I make, not something that is taken from me or demanded of me by those in need.

  • Reply 5 of 19
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by quinney View Post





    You forgot to say Acts 4:32–35.



    But that was voluntary, not confiscation and redistribution by force.

  • Reply 6 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,538moderator
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Can AI stop with the class warfare, class hatred, and class envy nonsense please? We get it. The tech wannabe crowd thinks the watch is too expensive, that it’s for idiots with more money than sense, that function and specs are the sole purposes that electronic devices exist for. Design, fashion, personal preference, status, fun, excitement, pleasure are for losers and the stupid masses, rich people are evil and the source of all misery on the planet, and therefore to be despised and ridiculed. An entire generation is being raised to believe wealth is evil and must be distributed evenly among the population. To each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities.

    The article wasn't demonising the wealthy by simply pointing out that expensive products are going to be targeted at people who can afford them. Some people at Apple were against the watch because of the class problem it would create. They prefer their products to be accessible to anyone.

    People are being raised to believe that greed is evil and rightly so and have been taught this for millennia.

    "greed (gr?d) n.
    An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

    If one person has enough to feed every person on the planet and someone somewhere is dying because they can't eat then the balance is wrong. Tim Cook makes something like 20,000x a low-level Apple employee and about 60,000x a factory worker. They're all contributing to the company's success. Nobody expects that the lower level employees should make the same (even or equal distribution) but that the ratio is more fair and they can't simply earn their way out of that position because employees don't decide their own salaries. That isn't to say that everyone who is rich is purposefully greedy because they may not have been motivated by the wealth but holding onto more than they need fits the definition.

    There didn't need to be a solid gold watch in the same way there isn't a solid gold iPhone, iPad, iPod or laptop and the same way there isn't any product encrusted with diamonds.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    That isn't to say that everyone who is rich is purposefully greedy because they may not have been motivated by the wealth but holding onto more than they need fits the definition.

     

    Who determines what I need? You?

  • Reply 8 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,538moderator
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Marvin wrote: »
    That isn't to say that everyone who is rich is purposefully greedy because they may not have been motivated by the wealth but holding onto more than they need fits the definition.

    Who determines what I need? You?

    What people need can be determined quite easily by anyone by assessing their lifestyle. People of a certain body size only need a certain amount of food and water intake per day. A family only needs a single home. What people want is a different thing entirely. Nobody needs a gold watch (or a watch at all), it's a luxury.

    Determining greed is done by weighing up how excessive the difference is between how much is needed and how much is taken or owned. It's also relative, if everyone in the world had assets and resources far in excess of their basic needs then nobody would be accused of greed, it's only when the excess of some is detrimental to others. This is always going to be the case in a closed system.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Marvin wrote: »
    What people need can be determined quite easily by anyone by assessing their lifestyle. People of a certain body size only need a certain amount of food and water intake per day. A family only needs a single home. What people want is a different thing entirely. Nobody needs a gold watch (or a watch at all), it's a luxury.

    Determining greed is done by weighing up how excessive the difference is between how much is needed and how much is taken or owned. It's also relative, if everyone in the world had assets and resources far in excess of their basic needs then nobody would be accused of greed, it's only when the excess of some is detrimental to others. This is always going to be the case in a closed system.

    Jesus, Marvin. Is this really what you believe? You'd rather live under fascism or mob rule?
  • Reply 10 of 19
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    There didn't need to be a solid gold watch in the same way there isn't a solid gold iPhone, iPad, iPod or laptop and the same way there isn't any product encrusted with diamonds.

    But who's to say there won't be soon?

     

    At the end of the day, there is absolutely no difference between the solid gold version and the Sport model, except materials, and styling. And I can't imagine Apple won't start offering a $1-2K gold option for their customers who don't wear silver, so that will narrow the distinction even more.

     

    So seriously, if Apple has customers with $17K burning a hole in their pocket who are willing to pay for a watch which aside from about $2k in gold, is otherwise identical to the entry level watch which costs 50x less, who is Apple to refuse to take their money? How does it really create any class issues?

  • Reply 11 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,538moderator
    Jesus, Marvin. Is this really what you believe? You'd rather live under fascism or mob rule?

    I don't recall proposing either of those things nor whatever the 'rather than' comparison option would be. I was merely offering a suggestion as to why wealth has a negative association. No one would be surprised that greed has a negative association but there's confusion about the accumulation of excess wealth having a negative association.
    mac_128 wrote:
    At the end of the day, there is absolutely no difference between the solid gold version and the Sport model, except materials, and styling. And I can't imagine Apple won't start offering a $1-2K gold option for their customers who don't wear silver, so that will narrow the distinction even more.

    So seriously, if Apple has customers with $17K burning a hole in their pocket who are willing to pay for a watch which aside from about $2k in gold, is otherwise identical to the entry level watch which costs 50x less, who is Apple to refuse to take their money? How does it really create any class issues?

    The product is all about style. The gold one looks much nicer than the lower ones.

    1000 1000 1000

    These cost $350, $750 and $17,000 respectively.

    The reason it creates a class system is it says 'you can't look as good as me because you're poor'. Listen to their descriptions:

    "The Sport collection cases are made from lightweight anodised aluminium in silver and space grey. The display is protected by strengthened Ion-X glass. And the matching fluoroelastomer strap comes in five different colours."

    "The Apple Watch collection features highly polished stainless steel and space black stainless steel cases. The display is protected by sapphire crystal. And there’s a choice of three different leather straps, a link bracelet, a Milanese loop and a strap made from high-performance fluoroelastomer."

    "The Edition collection features eight uniquely elegant expressions of Apple Watch. Each has a watch case crafted from 18-carat gold that our metallurgists have developed to be up to twice as hard as standard gold. The display is protected by polished sapphire crystal. And an exquisitely designed strap provides a striking complement."

    Notice they don't even mention fluoroelastomer (rubber) with the edition one. With the iPhone, if you want gold, silver or grey, it's the same price.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member

    People constantly referencing the "high" price of the Apple watch don't know what they're talking about.

     

    A high quality stainless steel band costs thousands of dollars. Apple's stainless steel band is priced below $1,000. Despite that price it is technically superior with it's user-removable links, produced to higher standards from Apple's production expertise, and utilising advanced alloys that require significant economic scale to prepare at this cost.

     

    That's a band that I'd expect to see on a $10k+ time piece and here we have people ignorantly decrying the price because you can buy a paper-clip quality bands from other manufacturers.

    The same applies to the electronics and technology inside the watch itself, there is nothing close to this and the closest in performance/resolution have absolutely dismal battery life.

     

    The price for the gold models is not surprising as that is the territory. There is no class warfare here, the gold models are functionally equivalent to the cheapest model available. Other than the inclusion of matching gold, there aren't even unique band options in the edition collection.

  • Reply 13 of 19
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Who determines what I need? You?

    You need air, water, food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else is a want.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You need air, water, food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else is a want.



    So that logic allows the government to confiscate by force from me what I “want” or “desire” and give it to someone else it has determined needs it. Nice.

     

    By the way, am I supposed to be on some kind of guilt trip because I live a more comfortable life than some others do? Have I won “life’s lottery” as some politicians like to term it? Instead of buying a new fishing boat should I just give the money to the boat factory workers so they don’t have to perform any physical labor for it?

  • Reply 15 of 19
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    lkrupp wrote: »

    So that logic allows the government to confiscate by force from me what I “want” or “desire” and give it to someone else it has determined needs it. Nice.

    By the way, am I supposed to be on some kind of guilt trip because I live a more comfortable life than some others do? Have I won “life’s lottery” as some politicians like to term it? Instead of buying a new fishing boat should I just give the money to the boat factory workers so they don’t have to perform any physical labor for it?

    Where did I say all that? There's nothing wrong with wanting things. It drives the human spirit, and gives us purpose. I think the rich get less credit than many of them deserve. My wife is getting cancer treatments in a state of art facility that was built by donations of wealthy people. Their contributions are saving lives everyday, and if I could personally thank them I would on bended knee.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,538moderator
    lkrupp wrote: »
    am I supposed to be on some kind of guilt trip because I live a more comfortable life than some others do? Have I won “life’s lottery” as some politicians like to term it? Instead of buying a new fishing boat should I just give the money to the boat factory workers so they don’t have to perform any physical labor for it?

    It's all about the ratio. The following story highlights an example of someone trying to address it:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/business/owner-of-gravity-payments-a-credit-card-processor-is-setting-a-new-minimum-wage-70000-a-year.html?_r=0

    The CEO dropped from $1m salary and allocated a large portion of the company profits to give his 120 employees who were making 1/20th that amount a minimum $70k salary. Their salaries didn't sound too bad to begin with but it depends on living costs. He took it to an extreme level but the principle is there, which is the value of someone's contribution and their quality of life.

    You mentioned giving away money for no work but that's not what resolving the wealth gap is about, it's about the relative value of someone's contribution vs another. Healthy people have roughly the same physical limitations in terms of working hours yet one person can make 300,000x another. It's not possible for them to be doing 300,000x more work and relative values of that work should never be that high e.g hedge fund manager vs doctor/nurse.

    When the income gap is excessive then there should be guilt because if there was a buffet table where you got in early and decided you wanted it all and left just breadsticks for an entire party who arrived later then you'd similarly be expected to feel guilty for doing that. You could say that it's not up to them to decide how much food you should take, they had the opportunity to do the same but people who live in a civilized society know that's a terrible attitude to have and it's why children are taught that. It's selfish to think that only your own quality of life matters.

    Having an average boat or car where someone else doesn't have one is hardly excessive. If you have a $5m boat or car and someone else has to take a bus or walk to work like this guy:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11389252/James-Robertson-Detroit-super-commuter-reveals-wishlist-as-donations-top-250000.html

    then it's an excessive and unnecessary difference between your quality of life and theirs. If you look at the donations there, it reached nearly $350k from just over 13k people, averaging $27 each, the highest was $2k:

    http://www.gofundme.com/l7girc

    This is people who didn't need to sacrifice their own quality of life to help someone who they felt had an unreasonable quality of life.

    The value placed on products is adjusted by the market. People seem to think that if wealth was redistributed that some products or experiences would then become out of reach but that's not the case because the value of items is not absolute, it's all relative. If the highest house price anyone could afford was previously $100m and everyone in the world eventually had $50m at most, would that house sit empty? Of course not, it would be priced below $50m. Acquiring it then becomes more about timing than wealth but there would also be more homes to satisfy the demand. The only reason gold or diamonds have the price they have is the balance of supply and demand and supplies of precious materials are sometimes artificially constrained.

    The challenge is making an effective system to produce the best quality of life for the most people and varying it relative to their contribution. I'd say it has to meet the following requirements:

    - income growth should decelerate the more wealth someone has above a certain point (determined by living standards in a given era) and eventually reach zero or negative growth if it's too high
    - there shouldn't be income growth for people who don't work, just a very basic living income and capped to support a small family so that people don't have a dozen kids to milk the system
    - for people at the bottom who do work, the income and asset growth should grow relative to their work and always be more worthwhile than welfare

    When people earn more sooner and pay off homes quicker then they may well retire sooner and this is fine because it frees up jobs for younger people and the cycle repeats. What messes things up a lot is company valuations and loans because these aren't tangible assets. Someone may have over $10b but if that's all in shares, it could be $100m the following week. Tangible assets can be like this too e.g a $1m home where a sink-hole opens beneath it but it's uncommon for tangible assets to be valued in the billions. It happens for things like oil, cocoa, minerals and this comes down to claiming ownership of those assets. There's not an easy answer to produce a fairer system, if there was it would be done by now but it's also not the case that it's fine the way it is.

    You only have to look at countries that have no welfare to see this where children have to sleep on the side of the road and can die from starvation or disease before they can walk. It's not as if their parents (if they are still around) can start a company and work their way out of that. For that to happen, there needs to be a support framework that allows them their health and the opportunity of rewarding work. George Soros made $4b in 2013 betting on stocks, a minimum wage worker in the same year would have made $20k so that's a ratio of 200,000x between top and bottom. It's an absurd system that allows an 82 year old billionaire betting away on stocks to make 200,000x a young person starting out working a 50-60 hour week. The whole point of everything that exists in a properly functioning society (technology, homes, healthcare, education, work) is to ensure that people have a good quality of life so there has to be a better balance in the ownership ratio.

    It comes down to ownership of assets. The only way a billionaire can make billions is by owning something worth billions (a company, a large natural resource, a pile of assets). If there ever reached a situation where a single person owned 99.99% of all worldly assets to the point that 1 person owned more than the next 7 billion people then that's clearly too far and no it wouldn't necessarily work itself out just as it isn't now. For some reason, people don't see a problem with the current system where 80 people own the same as the bottom 3.5 billion people and it's not improving. This idea of victimhood if asset growth was capped by high levels of taxation is crazy. You can see your own expenditure and weigh it up against your assets to determine if your quality of life can be sustained for your whole life.

    I think what's key to making it work is lowering volatility e.g over-leveraging and fictional company valuations. It borders on fraud when people misrepresent something's value. If assets are to have a more fair distribution (not equal remember and not necessarily by force) then their value needs to be more stable. When you look at the big economic crises, they come from debts, loans, shares. People with assets try to stop those assets being devalued by inflation. This happens due to the money supply vs economic growth and supply/demand in trade. This would be much more stable with better wages and a lack of events requiring messing about with the money supply. It also changes the game of unlimited asset hoarding into plate-spinning: maintaining what you have rather than constantly trying to have more and more.

    The framework to use to achieve this is not easy to choose because ultimately it comes down to people imposing their rules on other people. The ideal scenario is that people simply wouldn't be greedy in the first place but that's clearly not going to happen. Fortunately the people who have the highest asset ownership are in fact giving away significant portions of wealth but they have no way of spreading it far so it's not effective enough just hoping for this to happen and it makes the flow of assets follow their singular interests like the following nonsense:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/woman-leaves-13m-fortune-to-pet-cat/

    "Gunther IV, a German shepherd who inherited $372 million dollars from his father, Gunther III, the beloved companion of an eccentric German countess."

    That could improve the lives of over 1500 families but it goes to a dog instead whose quality of life is most likely satisfied by having his balls within licking distance. It's wasteful and making better use of the world's resources benefits everyone.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    It's all about the ratio.

     

    Suffice it to say I do not agree with your world view. Interesting that all your talk about ratios, reasonability, equity, fairness, etc. are completely subjective opinions begging again the question of who makes the decisions. Who decides when an individual’s “wants” exceed reason? Is it some universal constant that is obvious? Something we just know when we see it? Great that some CEO lowered his salary and raised his employees salaries to identical levels. What about the CEO, or shareholders, or board members who think otherwise? Time to step in and force change? Time to regulate wages? Time to regulate the accumulation of wealth? Italy taxes its most wealthy citizens an incredible 90% which on the surface looks like it fits right in with your world view. They don’t “need” most of their money so we’ll do them a favor and take it.

  • Reply 18 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,538moderator
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Suffice it to say I do not agree with your world view. Interesting that all your talk about ratios, reasonability, equity, fairness, etc. are completely subjective opinions begging again the question of who makes the decisions. Who decides when an individual’s “wants” exceed reason? Is it some universal constant that is obvious? Something we just know when we see it?

    This is why the problem won't resolve itself. You can say that everything is subjective, why should you obey the law when it's really just the opinion of lawmakers who are people just like you? Group decisions are reached to the benefit of a group and not an individual at the expense of the group. Who gets to say which side of the road you should drive on or how fast? It's just their opinion. If it was everyone just looking out for themselves then it would create complete chaos.

    Take the example of the buffet again. You don't seriously think that it would be ok for you to take the vast majority of the food all to yourself? If not then there's your answer about the limit on what people find to be acceptable. People who aren't hungry take a little, people who are take a lot but the ratio between the two is never 200,000x.
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Great that some CEO lowered his salary and raised his employees salaries to identical levels. What about the CEO, or shareholders, or board members who think otherwise? Time to step in and force change? Time to regulate wages? Time to regulate the accumulation of wealth? Italy taxes its most wealthy citizens an incredible 90% which on the surface looks like it fits right in with your world view. They don’t “need” most of their money so we’ll do them a favor and take it.

    The action chosen depends on the desired outcome. Italy's tax rate is ~40-50%:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

    France had a 75% rate recently that was dropped back to 50%:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

    Some of the things you mention are already regulated with minimum wage and income tax.

    Think of it from the opposite view and tell me why someone who is already a billionaire "needs" another billion. Their quality of life would only be worse if they planned to spend it but given that they already had billions they hadn't spent, it's unlikely that they needed it so what difference does it make that they don't have it? Take the following case of a secretary who stole millions from someone at Goldman Sachs and they had so much money they didn't even notice for 2 years:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-300688/Secretary-stole-4-4-million.html

    "Joyti De Laurey's bosses at Goldman Sachs were so rich they did not notice sums of up to £2.25million at a time disappearing to pay for houses, a powerboat and Cartier jewellery."

    Nobody can possibly class something that people don't even notice isn't there as a need.

    Some people might spend a lot like Larry Ellison spending $500-600m on an island:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/06/21/larry-ellison-hawaii-lanai-island-david-murdock-dole/

    The island is 141 square miles and he paid for 98%. It's just common sense that individuals don't need to own an entire city of assets, you could barely spend a day in each home over your entire lifetime. If he didn't own it, how would his life be any worse off?

    It seems obvious to me that there's no reason for an individual to own a planet, a country, a city and so on, so there's a reasonable cap somewhere between zero and a city. At a buffet, a cap is achieved with smaller plates and possibly limiting table visits. This sort of thing isn't as easy with assets. If someone owns shares in a company they started, it's not easy to cap their ownership in it. Capping the wealth the company generates can stifle its growth. It can be done on a personal level though. There can be caps on the amount of wealth that can be taken out of a business for personal use and a maximum ratio of company assets to operating costs. This might reduce the incentive to create a huge business but I don't see much evidence that people who create and run big businesses do it for the money. If they were in it for the money, they could have cashed out long before.

    If wealth was capped and the top portion taken off by a tax then people tend to be against that on the grounds that it lines the pockets of the people authoring the tax but we know this isn't the case because those salaries are on record and max out in the low hundreds of thousands. The money is used primarily for social causes like healthcare, care for the elderly etc. People don't always see this because it happens over such a long period of time. People in their 20s complain about tax being taken out of their salary but demand their state pension in their 60s because they are entitled to it not realising that in a roundabout way it's the same money. Someone who worked for 40 years and paid say 20% tax rates on $1m total earnings might live 20 years in retirement on $10k pension per year. This can get unbalanced between generations and this seems to be where some of the tension is coming from with income:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055497/JEREMY-PAXMAN-Baby-Boomers-selfish-generation-history.html

    It's not that everyone thinks they should be millionaires and live in luxury, everyone just knows that there can be a better quality of life and the obvious target is people who are rich because that's where the money all went. If you look at someone like Notch, the developer of Minecraft who Microsoft paid $2.5b to own his software company, he went out and bought one of the most expensive houses in the world outbidding Jay-Z and Beyoncé but after that, he has nothing to spend his money on:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/03/03/minecraft-markus-persson-life-after-microsoft-sale/

    The resentment is not necessarily the taking of the wealth but more the lack of sharing it again. If you took a whole heap of food then people wouldn't like it at first but if you passed it around (like job creation), it would be less of an issue. If you smacked someone's hand away trying to take anything at all saying 'no, it's all mine' then that's not a nice thing to do. When kids play with toys, they have the option to hoard all the toys but if they refuse to let anyone play, they are told off for it. The kid is under the impression that simply taking an available toy makes it theirs. Wealthy people think that taking revenue out of a functioning economy makes it entirely theirs but the functioning economy needs to be supported. Employees need to be educated and healthy; customers need to be prosperous enough to purchase products. If it's allowed to become too unbalanced then the whole economy shifts to targeting the more affluent and you get a class system.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    [B]Marvin[/B], you have made some excellent points. Keep up the good work.
Sign In or Register to comment.