That's not at all what I said.

Yes, it is. You said:

as they won't have the cost of running their own dealers

If something is a cost, then it's something that loses money. I understand why you want to have not said it now (and we both know it's wrong) but you did say it, and denying that is really silly when it's right bloody there.

And pretending Apple is more like a car dealer than a car manufacturer is ridiculous, and I think you know that.. so I'm not going to bother continuing.

But, uh, there is?

There's lots of non-dealership places that I can go to fix my car, and those would exist no matter who owned the dealership I bought my car at (and might be more prevalent, even, if more car selling was direct from manufacturer).

Similarly, there's already manufacturer original parts and parts made by other companies. This has even less to do with who owns the dealership. It's not like the independent dealerships are making all the parts they use.

Unfortunately, the reverse of this actually happens, and is actually a problem. There's lots of little places where there's a Ford and a Honda and a Toyota dealer, and they're all owned by the same guy. It's lots easier to maintain this kind of local monopoly than it would be to sustain collusion between manufacturers.

And if the different manufacturers actually wanted to collude, they still obviously, obviously could as they still set the wholesale prices.

Wow what a bizarre, moronic comment.

as they won't have the cost of running their own dealers

So dealerships are actually money losers, eh? And the people who own them are just so committed to their LOVE of community that they run them anyway.

the current method is far more efficient

So having independent dealerships would just save Tesla rafts of money, but they don't want to do it? And so we need laws, to what, protect Tesla from making such a bad decision?

Why don't we let Tesla decide how Tesla wants to sell cars? I'm sure lots of other companies were worried when Apple starting setting up their own stores. But the right response isn't "NOOO, we can't let Apple do that because, uh... they'll lose money having to operate all those stores - we're really saving Apple from themselves". And it's certainly not "oh, well, those Best Buy salesmen knew their community so much better, how could Apple people ever understand unique needs?".

If you think you're right, you should have no objection to letting Tesla try this, find out they're wrong and then switching.

But you know you're not right. Obviously.

Look for Intel NUC boxes - you can get a reasonably powerful computer in a very small box. They're expensive, and they need a high speed fan to keep them running, but otherwise are pretty cool.

Is this a new committee? Or did they just not know about this stuff until Snowden told them?

Isn't that evidence enough that there's a serious problem?

Most companies in the RPG space are very poorly run, and many are hamstrung by preconceptions, their knowledge of how you "have to" do things. Being free from those bad ideas is probably a good head start.

The other, solitary thing I know about this guy is that he can get free advertising on slashdot without even a hint of an interesting story. That's worth something.

When RIM was pushing all-in on the new OS, I wondered how any human could possibly think it was a good idea. How could they not see: it was clearly, obviously suicidal. Now, years later, after we know that it was a horrible idea - we've seen how it took away RIM's last real shot at continued relevance, now that we know people are not excited about it, that it didn't bring anything interesting or novel and has been panned resoundingly by critics and consumers pretty much everywhere, and people have demonstrated their preference by switching off RIM en masse... how can people still not see it? I mean, lots of people were stoked about the Playbook; it had every chance at success. Until people saw it and it was obvious garbage.

I know people who still like their BlackBerries, some have even gone back after experimenting with other smartphones. But they went back because of the hardware, in defiance of their hatred for the OS. My brother has one and is perpetually swearing at it and its unintuitive menus and crappy apps, but he keeps it on him because it gets a good signal, has a hardware keyboard, good battery life, and voices are clear.

He would instantly switch to an Android phone on BlackBerry hardware (sometimes he actually carries two phones so that he can have one that is a phone, the BlackBerry, and one that is everything else, the Android). I think it would be an OK idea, and said so years ago, once it was clear Android would win. I don't know anyone who would want BlackBerry OS on someone else's hardware.

Except you, I guess.

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.

It appears to show a decline.. hmmm, yeah... It's a log graph - it went from like 100,000 to 10, you fantastic, almost unbelievable idiot. That's not methodological differences or something. A whole bunch of people used to get measles, and then almost nobody did. Because they were getting vaccinated.

Your stupid, stupid mental agenda is preventing you from getting anywhere near the ballpark of sanity.

"There were people who were vaccinated that got this disease, but to blame it on the un-vaccinated, we excluded all those who did not get their vaccinations when we said so"

That, uh, is not what they're saying. It's implied from their statement that some people were vaccinated on time and still got the disease, yes. Clearly the vaccine is not 100% effective. We know this. But they're highlighting the fact that people who were not vaccinated are overrepresented in the infected group, a fact that is true and interesting.

They have no scientific data to prove that there are certain times that EVERY individual must be vaccinated - there are many medical reasons for why one would delay certain vaccinations.

That statement is not making the value judgement you are attributing to it. There could be a million reasons to not get vaccinated. It could be a horrible idea to get vaccinated. They're not doing any of the persecution you're imagining. They're just saying that people who didn't get vaccinated (a smaller group) makes up a disproportionate number of people who got infected.

Additionally, they have no studies to show that delaying vaccination has an increased risk of infection from the diseases

Measles vaccines are well studied. There are studies that prove the efficacy of the vaccine, and also studies that tell us how long vaccines take to start working. There's also studies on the effect of vaccination programs that are widely followed. Here - http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199411243312101 - is an article from the New England Journal of Medicine talking about how the vaccine effectively eliminated measles in Finland.

Of course there are negatives to vaccines, sure, but the vast majority of resistance to them is based on misunderstandings and ignorance of science. There's also a feeling that opting out has no negative consequences; this is dangerous, and something that becomes exponentially more dangerous the more people that buy into it. It's like people deciding not to vote. It's pretty much meaningless in small numbers, but it could become a real issue if too many people stopped at once.

You say that's a correlation == causation strawman argument?... So is the snide comment in the original post

Do you know what a strawman argument is? You're saying that the original post here is a strawman argument.. but where's the strawman? What is the other position that's being misrepresented?

So is the snide comment in the original post

What is the snide comment? The summary, which is all most of the posters would have read, is pretty much a list of facts. I mean:

Around 90 percent of the people who have had measles in this country were not vaccinated either because they refused, or were not vaccinated on time.

There's not really any spin there, that's just what happened.

And are you really, really taking the position that an increased number of measles cases, where we know that most of the infected weren't vaccinated, is just spuriously correlated to more people not getting vaccinated? That's really where you're at? Do you understand how impossible it would be to gain knowledge about the world if this is how you reasoned?

Hmm. There's no milk in the fridge. Also, I drank all the milk last night. But let's not go jumping to conclusions here. There seems to be correlation, but we can't reason based on that. I really want to choke whoever started the current "correlation is not causation" meme - it's true, but it's mostly used now as an excuse to discount reasonably valid evidence, often in favor of humanity-embarrassing stuff like this:

I'll buy that GW is dangerous when ALGORE sells his beach house and carbon-neutrally composts his $100*10^6 from Qatar

Yeah, this is how we should do reasoning. We should look at the behavior of people that espouse positions, and if we detect any hypocrisy then their position must be wrong.

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