Or perhaps you've heard the saying about 75% of people think they're above average?
FWIW, 75% can be "above average" if by "average" you are talking about the mean and not the median; it only takes a few outliers to throw the mean off.
9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?
"Correct" is a matter of context. I shouldn't expect that teenagers writing sms messages are going to eschew expediency for accuracy and as such excessive use of acronyms and false contractions can be considered "correct" in the context of an SMS. However that same message when included in a homework assignment can clearly be considered incorrect given the more formal context. Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course. To disregard these principal in favor of picking arguments based on some false premise is pedantic at best...
And before you jump in with some retort please consider for a moment the formal acceptance of the ideas I've expressed. In an America criminal court an expert recognized by the court is expected to use language that is specific to their expertise in a manner that is both consistent and correct within their claimed/recognized expertise. The same level of expectation is not levied upon an layperson when they are presented as a witness. Such that a layperson could and should be expected to say "theory" when they might actually mean "hypothesis" yet a scientist would be expected to both understand the difference and use the term which is correct within the domain of their meaning.
These types of concerns are of increasing importance to professional system administrators in a time where there (to me at least) seems to be an increasing focus on meeting legally mandated audit and retention requirements.
I could be, and likely am, wrong; please correct me me if I am. I don't see any clear indication in the SLI wikipedia article and I'm not motivated enough to dig much deeper than that.
As for your claim that netapp is more than a SAN/NAS, I'll agree there is a bit more in the way of features, but not much. I've yet to see a netapp used for much more than CIFS/NFS/ISCSI and maybe some light http/ftp work. Clustering, failover, remote mirroring, etc are neat but they are essentially just enterprise frosting on top of the basic nas/san functionality.
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
NetApp does a much better job of this even going so far as to support ZFS.
Are you pot high? In what way does NetApp support ZFS? ZFS is not a NAS protocol... ZFS on SAN luns isn't a feature that needs to be explicitly supported and is the only way I can think you'd even sort of have a NA filer with ZFS on it. Also the continuing litigation by NetApp with regards to ZFS's purported infringement on NA's WAFL file system would be a pretty good reason to not believe that "Netapp [supports] ZFS".
If I missing something exceedingly obvious please reply...