The simple way to tell is by the USB ports, Card Readers, and Chrome Trim.
The 40 GB model was the first one to not have BC, and it was the first one to also receive an RSX reduction to 65nm, along with the cosmetic stripping.
Non-BC 40/80/160 US models can be identified by the following:
-2 USB ports instead of 4
-A matte silver trim near the disc drive and on the bottom, as opposed to shiny chrome
-No card readers.
Also, the non-BC models have less ventilation under the right hand side overhang (where it looks like the UFO landed on the square), most likely due to them running cooler with the new RSX.
That great new SF show that just rocked your socks off? If you're not in a Neilsen household, then they don't even know that you watched it, and buying the DVD box set 2 years later won't save it. The fat welfare whore next door with the Neilson box and the seven kids who watch re-runs of America's Fattiest Fatty 24/7? They're the people driving the content provision.
It does not work like that. Audience measurement panels (what Neilson runs in the US) are balanced. That means they select a set of demographic factors that describe the population (age, sex, social-class being only three of them), and try to recruit a panel of households that cover those demographics in the about the same proportions as the full population. Next, they apply a weighting step; rather than computing the ratings by simply multiplying by the ratio of population to panelists, they include a weight for each household (ideally, close to 1.0), which reflects how close the panel is to an ideally balanced panel. So, if many more geeks were panelists, all that would happen is that the weight of each geek panelist would be reduced.
I'd be cautious about dismissing RMS too much. It seems to me that RMS should have some "ownership" of the GPL in so far as it's authored by his group. And that group has always been an advocacy group even while acting as a software collective.
I like GNU's philosophy page. And I like RMS' rants. I can't always find myself agreeing or willing to follow the ideas presented. But they're often worth considering.
I've known individuals before who were very much the backbones of any given technical environment. They weren't good leaders. They weren't good with people in general. They weren't the ones you brought to a big presentation with "the suits." But they certainly were the ones you turned to when wanting things to work - both now and in the future. And even if their initial lack of pragmatism could be frustrating, their long-term view was often solid.
RMS strikes me as one of those guys. He's a sort of Don Quixote. You may not wish to emulate his example. But the ideals he presents aren't always without merit.
Torvalds offers his own merits. I wouldn't even begin to present him and RMS as an either-or choice.
Does it run Linux?
No, but they ship with Duke Nukem Forever.
Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell