The NASA letter states clearly that fuel sold at government-owned civil airports is not taxable. There are no back taxes owed.
Firefox OS doesn't run on phones with 128MB either, and Android launched on less RAM than Firefox OS requires. Nothing says a low-end device has to use the full stock Google experience; you can target the OS for lower memory devices.
I work down the street from their menlo park/willow road campus. Right now Facebook is building an apartment complex across the street from HQ. They've promised to only rent 10% of the apartments to their employees with the other 90% being offered to the general public at market rate.
Despite the nice sounding name, Menlo Park's east side is akin to East Palo Alto. Slum neighborhoods, crime, ghetto. With the influx of google/facebook employees however the neighborhood is slowly gentrifying.
I think facebook wants to turn the neighborhood into something more appealing for their employees.
The entire premise of this article seems to revolve around the unsubstantiated claim that Android is poorly optimized for low-end devices. I disagree with that claim, so the entire premise of the article seems suspect to me.
I feel bad for the guy. Even though I'm Canadian, this seems like the kind of thing you should sue over (publishing all your private info on the cover story of newsweek when the entire premise of the article is false). Does he have any grounds to sue Newsweek or the reporter who stalked and exposed him?
2.4ghz is still usable with 16 networks in the same area, but it's not a great experience. There are only three non-overlapping bands in the 2.4 GHz band, so you can see how there can be a rather lot of congestion.
The 5.8 GHz band, on the other hand, wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue. 802.11n in the 5.8GHz band devices can use 8 non-overlapping channels, significantly reducing the amount of interference.
802.11ac is kind of in a wierd spot. It's really 40MHz per channel minimum (twice the minimum for 802.11g or 802.11n), but many devices also support a whole whack of new frequencies that require the use of DFS to avoid interfering with radar (basically if the router detects radar on the channel, it blacklists the channel for a set amount of time and switches to another channel). That brings the total up to a possible 12 channels, even though they're twice as wide...
802.11ac also supports beam forming, which enables multiple simultaneous transmissions to happen on the same frequency at the same time without interfering. I believe that's more targeted at handling more users on a single network rather than letting multiple networks co-exist, though.
There are plenty of services like Opera Turbo that will recompress all images as smaller lossy images. Why should all users get a degraded experience when those on slow connections have options to automatically recompress images to be better suited for their connections?
There are services (Opera's work quite well, Google has one too) that will re-compress any images to lower quality lossy formats and into a single response to avoid round-trips. I don't think big image files are really the main problem for people still on dialup.
Since I started looking at web pages with JPEG images, the speed of my internet connection has increased by roughly 345,000%, the size of my hard disk by 200,000%. Why is a 300% increase in image size a concern?
Sorry, no one gets to control the flow of information they themselves introduced to the public. Sorry, that's not how things can or should or do work.