Talk:Sirius Satellite Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Radio (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Subscriber counts[edit]

The subscriber info is from 2006 and is outdated. Remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.8.36 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could whomever made the XM/SIRIUS Subscriber Graph please update it to reflect the 4Q 2006 numbers? (6.024m for SIRIUS vs. 7.6m for XM)? Thanks. JaedenStormes 14:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have Sirius subscriber counts graphed? Since it's inception? Same with XM? Then after Howard and then after the merger? Please point me in the right direction. THanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.67.186 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved[edit]

I moved the page. Since Wikipedia's Manual of Style mandates this, there can be no question.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 02:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

in that case, make sure to pick up the pillows too, and anything else that ISN'T capitalized for some reason or other.~~

It's "SIRIUS Satellite Radio". That's the official trademark. It's on my business card. It's on all of the official correspondance and documentation. It's the official print method of referring to the company in the last revision of the corporate style guide. Any questions? :) Jbmcb 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of name[edit]

SIRIUS is used on their site and press releases. Drew3D 00:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not a reason to succumb to this ridiculousness. Bill Walsh says there's a reason we went to grammar school: [1]
I realise it's already been done, but perhaps we ought to move this page to a more reasonable title, like "Sirius satellite radio", and make this page redirect there. —chris.lawson (talk) 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Bill Walsh, but SIRIUS is the name of the radio provider and I don't see any reason why the article should reflect a different name. This naming convention is reflected on all of their media. (Walsh gives Macy's/macy*s as an example. However "Macy's" in print is always given as that – Macy's. Same goes for SIRIUS.) TrbleClef 00:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does "SIRIUS" stand for something?—chris.lawson (talk) 01:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's the name of a star. The brightest one in the sky.
Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style on trademarks says to avoid all-caps in trade names:

Follow our usual text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment

Therefore, in accordance with this guideline, it seems the article should be renamed and the all-caps version redirected to a properly titled article.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know who the hell Bill Walsh is, but I think it's notable that the Dish Network article also uses the same format as this article does, when the company itself capitalizes it (though I was pretty sure it was capitalized the last time I checked it...). How is CAPITALIZATION in company names any different from CamelCase, other than the number of capital letters involved? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 22:14, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
The reason Dish Network uses the sane version is because I fixed it. CamelCase is marginally less offensive, though I find it rather silly too.—chris.lawson (talk) 05:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eh, I might as well mention that the Waldorf=Astoria Hotel article uses a wonkier name than this would if it used the company's preferred capitalization. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 22:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Every mention of Sirius in the list of Sirius Satellite Radio stations is in all caps… —Frungi 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Something should be mentioned about the initial confusion about the name. When it first came out, just about everybody (I met) called it "Sirus"

Past Content[edit]

Should there be some mention of previous shows that are no longer on the network, like Pamela Lee/Anderson?

Howard Stern In Canada (not)[edit]

I wanted to post this somewhere but it did not seem appropriate to place this in the main article so I put it here.

I had been listening to Howard Stern for more than 5 years in the Kitchener/Waterloo area over Rogers Cable (WBUF 92.9 Buffalo) until June-1-2005 when Rogers Communications and/or the CRTC cut off my access. (I say and/or because after contacting both of them they blamed each other in snail-mail letters sent to me)

So now someone (CRTC? SIRIUS?) is blocking my choices again. At age 53 you would think that I would be allowed to "subscribe" to what ever I want, including the humourous antics of a popular radio comedian. I guess I was wrong in thinking that there is a free market economy in Canada.

As a side note, my father-in-law escaped communist controlled Czechoslovakia in 1980 and brought his family with him. I thought I was listening to stories from a by-gone era when I learned he purchased a black market radio then only powered it up late at night to listen to "Radio-Free Europe". I thought it sounded like an episode of "Hogan's Heroes".

So now it is 2005-12 and someone in Canada is now restricting me in a similar way. --Neilrieck 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In cases like this, the best way to deal with the government's attempt to control your life is to ignore them. Drive across the border, buy a Sirius receiver - whichever one you want - and activate it. (You have to buy it in the US because the receivers sold in each country have different firmware chips. US receivers can't receive the Canadian channel lineup and vice versa.) You'll have to play a couple of tricks with your credit card as well, because they've started checking what country each credit card is from, but it's not hard to do, just annoying. Check out this thread on the Sirius Backstage forum for more details. --Aaron 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I call bullshit; the CRTC at no time made any attempt to tell Rogers that it couldn't carry WBUF on FM cable. Bearcat 04:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern[edit]

I've been asked and I dont myself know... Sirius is carried over Dish Network... will the Howard Stern sirius content be carried by Dish Networks? Anyone know?  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Dish Network only carries Sirius music channels. --Aaron 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Start of Operation?[edit]

When did Sirius start broadcasting? Paul, in Saudi 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Sirius officially launched July 1, 2002, but was offering some sort of "beta" service to a limited number of people before that date. --Aaron 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sirius receivable in the rest of the world?[edit]

Due to the elliptical orbit of Sirius' satellites, is their service receivable in the rest of the world outside of North America/western hemisphere, or is the apogee there of the satellites too far away to facilitate receiving a strong enough signal for a Sirius radio to lock on to? misternuvistor 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind this post, my slow mind just figured out that this answer would be no, since the only uplink facilities for Sirius would be in the United States (AFAIK), and the satellites would be well under the horizon of said uplink station in the USA. Another uplink station would be needed in the eastern hemisphere, if Sirius' satellites are close (or sensitive) enough to receive (and transmit) a signal in their apogee of their elliptical orbit. Pardon my idiocy. :P misternuvistor 22:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A Sirius satellite, because it's geosynch, traces a distorted figure eight out on the ground through it's orbit - it's always over the western hemisphere. Additionally, the satellites only carry traffic while they're above a certain latitude. Combine all that with the fact that the antenna beam is shaped to cover the US, and generally speaking, you can only receive service in the US. Saturn V 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, but Sirius' satellites are not geostationary (like XM's), they orbit around the earth in an elliptical path, with the perigee (closest point to the earth) being right over North America. There are 3 of these satellites orbiting, so in the event that one orbits under the horizon, another will be popping out above the horizon to provide continuous coverage. Sirius decided to use this type of satellite coverage to gain less inclination for the satellites in order to have them higher in the sky for better coverage between mountains, low valleys, and other surrounded terrain, AFAIK. Just thought I'd correct you about that, not to be a blowhard or anything. misternuvistor 03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I probably should have clarified my terms in my previous post. By 'geosynch(ronous)' I meant that each Sirius satellite has a 24-hour orbital period. The inclination of the satellites is the reason they're not geostationary (which is a special case of geosynchronous). Also, a small correction to your description of the orbit: The perigee (closest approach to the Earth) is above South America. The apogee (furthest out point on the orbit) is above the US. In practice (and I'm working from memory here, so I may be off by a bit), each satellite spends about 2/3s of its time above (north of) the equator and the remaning third below the equator. Your description of why this constellation was chosen is correct. Saturn V 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I was utterly confused in my previous postings. I assumed that the Sirius birds stayed put longitudinally (no north-south motion, staying fixed over the equator) and had an egg-shaped eccentric orbit traveling east-west, with the perigee being right over the western hemisphere. In other words, I was thinking that the orbit was being like a longitudinal hula-hoop with the earth being the "hooper", with each satellite orbiting in the same longitudinal plane, one after the other. But I was wrong, and you are right. If I understand correctly, the sats have a 24-hour period, but go north-south in a figure-8 pattern (just like the inclined orbit of the old Syncom 2 sat, but much more exaggerated)? The diagram just recently posted to this article (Image:Sirius_orbit_Earth.JPG) clarified this quite greatly for me. Pardon my cluelessness and misunderstanding... :P misternuvistor 11:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sirius online stream, while not including every channel, includes music channels a select amount of talk channels, and both Howard Stern channels. You can have an internet only Sirius subscription. While the satellites may not be able to reach areas outside of the US and Canada the internet is world wide. So Sirius is world wide technically. Redd Dragon 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Three things.

1) Redd Dragon above stated that there was an internet-only subscription available. I don't believe that that was the case (as of June 2006). Subscribers who had a satellite radio - could also get free internet access of most of the channels as a bonus. But not as a stand-alone service. Its rival XM was offering such a service.

2) In any event - that now becomes moot as of an announcement today (October 16, 2006) that Sirius is launching a separate stand-alone internet service - to be named Sirius Internet Radio. So - as of Oct 25 - Sirius WILL be available worldwide.

3) Since this will be a separate business - offering many (but not all) of the channels offered on the Satellite station - and will be available worldwide as distinct from US/Canada - should this warrant a separate article? It certainly needs to be mentioned in the main article.

Other thoughts? Davidpatrick 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Receivers[edit]

Under the Receivers section, there are various links to Sirius receivers. This appears to be more of an online shopping website rather than an encyclopedia. I believe it should be removed. I would like to hear other suggestions on this. Ajwebb 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the biggest fan of that section myself. I don't think it should just be deleted outright, though; I'd prefer to see it replaced by a "Technology" section that provides more details on the compressed schemes used, how Sirius units differ from XM's, etc. --Aaron 03:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather just see a section on the different types of Sirius receivers (portables, PnP, home, aftermarket, and marine), instead of specific models. I am too close to the subject though (I have many, many friends who work for Sirius), so I can't edit this page myself due to a conflict of interests. Spazure 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Editing your own page (e.g. Howard Stern editing the Howard Stern page) is considered bad, but having friends in the biz doesn't preclude you from editing a page about the biz. See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines for more info.
Yes, I saw that, but I also saw Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest which blatantly mentions not writing about my best friend (who does work for Sirius). As you can't be friends with a company itself, but you can be friends with people whom are a part of that company, then in my eyes, a friend within the company = friends with the company = COI. More importantly though, guidelines aside, I don't feel that I could make a 100% neutral edit to this article. I came from Epinions, I'm used to being biased -- so I'm practicing NPOV writing on topics that I don't have a feeling about one way or another. Spazure 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How does it work? I'm assuming the satelite sends my units number after I subscribe and that turns on something in my receiver.

When I cancelled my subscription my radio had already been removed from my truck and was in a box. A year later I get it out to give to my mom and it works for free. Is this a flaw in their system? At some point do they quit sending out the numbers of people who cancelled? How long do you have to have your radio off to get free sirius? --Gbleem 12:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, it looks like you got lucky. I'd suggest not complaining unless you or your mom wants to start paying. =P Redd Dragon 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complaining. I just want to know how the system works. -- Gbleem 14:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Mom called today. She's still getting Sirius for free. --Gbleem 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Mom called today. The radio reverted to the default subscription station. --Gbleem 02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Ten[edit]

I am pretty sure Sirius does not have access to Big Ten Sports programming. I think that exclusivity is with XM?--Gangster Octopus 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

XM signed a deal with the Big Ten, Sirius has signed deals with individual universities, bypassing the Big 10 conference. Jbmcb 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada Merge[edit]

Sirius Canada should be merged with the official Sirius Satellite Radio article for the reasons that each section of this article can be found in both Howard Stern and Sirius Satellite Radio articles. Not to mention the fact that most of the article is already included in the main Sirius article. With the merged there should be a re-write of the Sirius Canada article under the Sirius Satellite Radio page.

Table of Contents:

  • Info box – This should be moved to be placed in the Sirius Canada section of the Sirius article
  • Subscription package – This is included in the List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations
  • Other differences – Should be included in under Sirius Canada of Sirius Satellite Radio
  • Howard Stern – The terrestrial radio history of Howard Stern has nothing to do with Sirius or Sirius Canada. It already is included where it should be, Howard Stern’s article. The other half, which talks about Sirius Canada, is included in both Howard 100 and the Howard Stern articles. Redd Dragon talk Contributions 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirius Canada is a separate company from the American one, with different ownership. I have to object to the proposed merge, on the grounds that Sirius Canada has to be independently reflected in the categories Category:Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, Category:Canadian radio networks and Category:Media companies of Canada, and there's no way to do that with a merged article. And as for Howard Stern, his terrestrial radio history in Canada has everything to do with Sirius Canada; it's necessary background for the issue. Bearcat 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Other services where identical kit provides highly similar services to two countries but marketed/run seperate are in one article though. Viasat serve half of Northern Europe with satellite TV, its not split in to Viasat Sweden and Viasat Estonia and so on; Sky Digital serves 2 (and a bit, however you want to class the IOM and Channel Islands), with quite different services; one article. --Kiand 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Viasat is one company operating in multiple countries. Sirius is not; it's two separate companies offering similar but not identical services in different countries. Bearcat 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirius Canada is a separate company, however programming is near exactly the same. Not only that, but the whole article regurgitates information that is already found in more appropriate places. I don’t see why we must keep an article alive because the title of the article is needed for categorization. As for Howard Stern, there is no link between the terrestrial radio career and the choice of Sirius Canada not to accept his channels. The only link is pure speculation.Redd Dragon talk Contributions 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the reason for the category issue is that Sirius Canada is not a subsidiary of Sirius; it is a separate, independent company, incorporated separately by different owners, which franchises the service separately. I'd also like to add that XM Radio Canada must be treated identically; there is absolutely no way it would be remotely appropriate for XM to continue to have its own separate article if Sirius didn't. Bearcat 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bearcat. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bearcat. CJCurrie 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bearcat. --Ardenn 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's enough content for two articles, even with much of the duplication removed. --Usgnus 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two separate companies, no need for merge. --Skeezix1000 12:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

External links is becoming Google.[edit]

There is an enormous amount of links. The External links section is not meant to be Google or Yahoo! Search. The list is growing and growing with every fan site and every link someone finds on Google. It needs to be trimmed down. New links should not be added unless someone can explain on the talk page why it is really important. I think a lot of people are finding sites on Google and adding the link here. Redd Dragon talk contributions 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rarely is there ever an external link that cannot be found with Google. While what was listed previously was out of hand, I believe what it has been trimmed down to now is excessive in the opposite manner. A link to one related bulletin board i.e. http://www.siriusbackstage.com and one related newsgroup i.e. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.satellite should be sufficient. 68.73.75.192 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Geoff S. 15:08, 12 March 2007

That is not an acceptable solution per policy. Who is to determine what link is allowed and what others aren't? -- Huntster T@C 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not this debate again! Trust me, Geoff - you don't want to tangle with Huntster on this. Per WP:EL, you should not link to fan sites. Sirius Backstage is the #1 site on a Google search for "Sirius Forums." I think it's easy enough to find without relying on WP. :) -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Why, thank you for the compliment Tom ;) Anyway, slippery slope and all that jazz, heh. -- Huntster T@C 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't agree with you; I just don't want to see a reversion war. ;) I still think that the top 1 or 2 fan sites ought to be included, but since nobody seems to want to go to bat for that, I'm backing the current guidelines. -- TomXP411[Talk] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Business section[edit]

I rewrote the Sirius Business section which was little more than a cut-and-paste of the AMTC announcement. Shame on you!! --KJRehberg 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you might wish to read the revision logs because the SIRI business section on this article predated the AMTC article by over a month JaedenStormes 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

JaedenStormes, you might actually wish to re-read the comment that I'm referring to the AMTC announcement (press release), not the AMTC Wikipedia article. --KJRehberg 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Need to address development of Sirius Internet Radio[edit]

The launch of Sirius Internet Radio is likely to have some impact. It is being operated as a separate business - offering many (but not all) of the channels offered on the Satellite radio station.

And since the service is now available worldwide as distinct from just US/Canada - the potential for attracting a new audience is considerable.

This new development has been added - almost as a footnote - in the article. I'm thinking that this should perhaps warrant a short separate article. Any thoughts? Davidpatrick 16:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

I hardly say the merger discussions qualify for being called a "buyout" so I removed those words. More so nothing has been confirmed and that whole section is merely speculation.

  • I cited the Bloomberg report, which refers to the deal as a 4.57 billion dollar "buyout" of XM by Sirius. JaedenStormes 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Patrickmacdonald 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Created a new article. Please go add info there as its available. I think people will be asking these questions (at least, these are the two most common questions on the forums)

  • what about our hardware? address any announcements about hardware changes, including a universal receiver
  • what about my favorite station? when info comes available about stations, let's build a post-merger station list

-- TomXP411[Talk] 19:50, February 19, 2007 (UTC)

In the official filed documents it is a merger with XM corporation to be kept along with branding.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4980805&Type=HTML

70.64.50.221 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Satellite Tracking[edit]

I added links to the tracking pages of the Sirius Satellites. I could not figure out a good way to make it sound good, so I did the best I could. It could be moved to the links area, but its location seems relevant. Teh HM 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Income/Revenue?[edit]

The order of Net income and revenue is messed up ?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.63.224.234 (talk) 18:13:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Why exactly do you believe it is out of order? -- Huntster T@C 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The satellites are over canada more than the US?![edit]

According to the site that Teh HM mentioned under the heading "Satellite Tracking", it looks like the satellites actually spend much more time over Canada than over the US. Sirius's assertion that "at least one satellite is over the country at all times" is untrue. They spend about 6 hours per orbit over almost the exact center of Canada, when they are at their apogees; they are only over the US on their way to and from Canada, which is about 2-3 hours per orbit. If anyone has the patience to verify this, the main article should be corrected. Qbert203 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The apogee of the orbit is over North Dakota, give or take a few hundred miles. Jbmcb (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Back To Top

XM-Sirus Merger[edit]

The PR reference is is of feb. 07, not Dec. 07 to 08... i think it may be outdated, can anyone update this possiable FCC leagal debacle confermation for merger? -67.160.127.140 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter when this particular reference is dated from, and where does "December 7 to 8" come from? The merger talks are still in progress as far as I know, so this ref should probably stay in place unless a new one can be found to replace it. -- Huntster T@C 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Revenue and net income[edit]

Okay, where are the figures in the infobox coming from for Revenue and Net Income? I ask because the net income is listed as higher than the revenue. Um, no it doesn't work like that. Are the figures just transposed or is something else going on?Ben W Bell talk 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source reference for name[edit]

Hi, I am bolstering up the Modern_legacy Section on the Sirius page. If someone gets me a ref for this article I can use it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Due to the recent U.S. Justice Dept. approval of the Sirius-XM merger, I hereby propose the merging of the Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.170.172 (talkcontribs) March 25, 2008

  • Oppose No hurry needed. There is good reason to keep the articles separate until all approvals have been issued by US and Canadian regulatory agencies, an actual corporate merger has been accomplished and all services have been actually been combined. It will be many months more before that occurs. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: While it has passed this one hurdle, more are yet to come. The FCC may deny it, and I understand it is also being examined by a Congressional committee of some sort. Such a proposal is highly premature. Huntster (t@c) 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: Even if the merger goes through and is concluded this year as expected if approvals are obtained, the brands will remain separate for years, and the new combined services will be offered in addition to the XM and Sirius brands, according to the current CEO of Sirius. -- Mcsheridan (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two companies have not merged, the Department of Justice has simply given its approval. There are still more steps to the process. Even once the two companies merge, if they choose to do so, will probably provide separate programming. -- brob1994 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.72.253 (talk)
  • Oppose per reasons above. I have removed the merge tags at the top of the two articles. This suggestion was premature to say the least. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the fact they are not yet operating as one company. As well as the fact that CEO Mel Karmazin, has stated that both the XM and Sirius brands will be offered as separate brands/services for the next 15 years.[1] Any combined or unified services would be in addition to these separate services.--Subman758 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sirius Canada (again)[edit]

The first sentence of the article is not entirely correct. Sirius XM owns all of the American Sirius service, but only 20% of Sirius Canada, which is also a private company. Rewrites to that extent on my part have looked way too awkward. Perhaps someone else is up to the challenge?Hairhorn (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ut0226 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).