Are you fucking with me, or what?

If you have ONE AP using ONE channel and you have ONE user, then the user can use (or at least approach) the full channel capacity. When you add a second node you have to add some back off time to avoid collisions. As you add nodes, there are more times when you have to back off. During back off time, no one is transmitting. Since capacity is a RATE, any TIME when no one is transmitting equals a LOSS of capacity.

So, for the third fucking time, without regard to power or interference, the aggregate capacity of a wireless network decreases as the number of nodes increase.

I'd be very happy to discuss this further. But if you just say the same thing again I will wish horrible, violent death on you.

It seems like you're arguing AT&T's point. Why should they give access to a company that doesn't have to comply with telecom regulations if the deal was that they'd give access to other telecoms?

Interference is a different problem. And you're absolutely right that it can be mitigated with more APs (and smart channel assignments).

With a single AP and a completely (RF) quiet environment the aggregate capacity goes down as the number of nodes increases. More nodes means more time spent in backoff. This problem is unrelated to interference or transmit power.

The bigger problem is that having many nodes means having many collisions. The aggregate capacity of the WiFi channel goes down as the number of nodes increases. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSMA/CA

If Apple (or someone) files a patent application it is on the public record*, if they don't, they can't make a claim. So . . . how is Apple meant to make Samsung do its due diligence?

*37 C.F.R. 1.11

How is the ISP meant to know the video's bitrate?

In fact, most streaming video doesn't have a bitrate. It has several and the player adapts based on network conditions.

Have we forgotten about PolyHeme? It isn't truly artificial (it is made from human hemoglobin), but it is not infectious and is not type specific. And it can be stored for a year at room temperature.

People don't want DNS. They want web and mail. Both depend on DNS.

A couple of points of fact.

1. You can run non-MacOS software on Mac hardware. (E.g. Windows, Linux.)
2. You can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware (though it is a violation of the license agreement).

I take your point, but I think it would be more apt to say "free as in bar mix". Yes, it's figured into the overall bill. Yes, it makes you want more of the product for sale. But it's not really a trap. More of a loss leader.

"Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which serve to mask the source and destination of data by routing it through a third-party server"

This is a false and very dangerous line of thinking. A VPN and a proxy are two different things. And they don't necessarily do what you're saying they do.

"We don't know why Facebook would be against a browser extension that improves their users' site experience."

Easy. You seem to be operating under the very common -- but clearly mistaken -- belief that Facebook users are Facebook's customers. In fact, Facebook's advertisers are their customers, and Facebook users are the product. Once you look at it from this perspective, everything Facebook does makes sense.

"The automobile saved people time, which is why it replaced the horse."

It also saved Manhattan from being -- quite literally -- buried in horse shit.

"Most people don't think too highly of the folks behind Standard Oil, but an honest assessment would suggest that they did more to save whales than anyone at Greenpeace -- by making whale oil a less cost effective heating mechanism."

Strangers with this kind of intellectual honesty make me go a big rubbery one, if you know what I mean.

Very, very well said. Kudos.

From the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article:

"some rich areas of the country receiving up to US$23,000 per line per year from the agency's Universal Service Fund"

Per line, per year. Not one-time.

I wonder why you think I'm upset.