Rashputin wrote:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:PJL3j.7513$KK1.4959@newsfe24.lga...
>
>>In news:EeK3j.71973$YL5.27005@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net,
>>ed <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> typed:
>>
>>>"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
>>>news:linuxlovesosx-A4B1C2.23222628112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>>>
>>>>News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>...And can roam seamlessly between cells/APs...
>>>>
>>>>as you can with apple's wireless base stations since the beginning of
>>>>802.11 time...
>>>>
>>>>http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=58596
>>>
>>>uh, yeah, but the basestations need to be connected together with
>>>ethernet...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>Minor insignificant detail. Oxford might be working on a plan to
>>implement
>>this everywhere and for free. lol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Yeah, if it's "hip" enough, whether it loses money or not won't matter.
> He'll lose money on every installation and every minute someone uses it but
> he'll make it up in volume (volume of shares of stock sold to idiots, that
> is).
>
>


And if it's "hip" enough, the fashionistas and fashion victims will
assume away the pain of poor performance. More KoolAid, please.