You are correct if there is no other traffic on a wireless router. Introduce traffic from other sources and suddenly you get collisions and retries that you didn't have to worry about before.
I'm just saying that wired connections are superior for certain applications (i.e. I would not want to play UT2004 over a wireless network with other traffic on that same wireless router).
Oh My! Can you imagine trying to play UT2004 on a wireless monitor? It's not longer the LCD pixel refresh rate that will be the problem... Even if you had the throughput, the latency would suck as it usually does with wireless.
You probably agree with that wacko Mahmoud Ahmadinijad (sp) that the holocaust was a conspiracy!
It's pretty hard to deny eyewitness accounts (via telephones) from the doomed passengers themselves.
I'd rather frame this argument another way:
For those who complain about this - how would YOU gather intelligence on terrorists inside the US?
Personally, I see this as no more intrusive than Amazon telling me "people who bought this book also bought this..." It's data mining and my privacy is not compromised.
It cracks me up every time the discussion of creationism or ID comes up. The opponents inevitably use ad hominem attacks to shut down any debate. "We're too smart for that" is the most common form of attacking the individual and not the argument.
The idea of the church as "big business" and using ID and creationism as PR is equally laughable. First, the statement that church is big business in the U.S. is false. Church membership has dropped every year of every decade for several decades now. The rise of the megachurches that we see is at the expense of the small churches that have had to close their doors due to lack of attendance and giving by parishoners.
Lastly, trying to use science to disprove the existence of a God is pointless. You could just as easily use science to disprove the concepts of love, justice, compassion, and friendship. But yet we all know they exist. If you can't agree with me on that, then I truly pity you.
"The sad thing is many of these christian fanatics are uneducated, Rush Limbaugh/ Bill O'Reilly products (sculpted zombies) who's life doesn't stray further than Wal-Mart."
WTF do Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have to do with Christianity?
What I find ironic is that the BBC author is making a huge non-sequitur by linking any decline in technology to a Christian influence.
In Genesis it says that man should "subdue the earth" and to most this includes scientific discovery for his own benefit. Christians have long been leaders in science and medicine. Some examples include: Sir Francis Bacon (creator of the scientific method), Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Isaac Newton, Morse, Faraday, Charles Babbage, Joseph Henry, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, James Maxwell, Leonhard Euler, Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, and Wernher von Braun. Study these mens lives and you will see that their faith made them outstanding scientists.
The guy I'm replying to is using hyberbole like it's going out of style.
"You teach kids that ID is science and you get crappy scientists."
All that the ID folks want is for evolution to be correctly labeled a Theory (which it is). Other theories need to be taught in juxtaposition with it.
"The religious fanatics are intent on replacing the textbook with the Bible."
Nonsense. Go to your local Christian high school or college. Science is taught just like at any other school.
"The condom policy in Africa makes me think the latter rather than the former."
I didn't know you had to be a religious fanatic to have an ounce of compassion. AIDS is decimating the population in several African countries. If there's any morality involved, it's the moral obligation we have to use our wealth to save lives over there. We're talking one in four people with HIV in many places.
"You cut the percentage of GDP spent on RND and you get less nobel prize winners. You ignore the science of economics and you end up with a huge current account deficit which will take a decade to repay."
In the first sentence you say we should spend more and in the next that we should spend less. Which is it?
The difference is this:
Under the old accounting practices, the company did not expense the options that were granted. All they did was include some small byline buried deep in some obscure SEC filing that some options were granted. No money value was assigned and it did not get accounted for in the very highly-read income & expense report. The vast majority of shareholders never realized that they were being diluted out of money. (NOTE: I am not saying don't pay engineers what they are worth, just be up front about it!)
Under the new accounting practices, a fair value must be assigned to these options and added to the expense column in the income statement. This insures that investors know more about the internal workings of a company and how much is going out in incentives. A smart investor can then better decide if pay and incentives are under control or out of control and therefore decide whether to invest or not. In addition, you don't have to think about the share dilution, because that has already been accounted for in the expensing of the options.
Ummmm. There's always the standard way to pay employees - from earnings. I don't think you really understood my point at all. You can still pay your employees in stock, too. You just have to expense that just as you would normal pay.
The former method merely allowed the company to "hide" the cost to shareholders. You need to understand that shareholders are the owners. If you own shares of Intel - great. You should be happy to see the change in accounting practices.
Read the Motley Fool online articles. They've been talking about this issue for a long time. I honestly can't understand anyone who would oppose this change and I've been a tech worker (Masters in EE) for 12 years.
Actually, Intel (I consider them a tech company) is one of the worst companies in terms of doling out stock options. They cried endlessly when they found out that the SEC and FASB wanted to switch to expensing stock options. They realized that the game of stealing from the shareholders to pay their employees could be over.
What I hate is that they claim they won't be able to attract talent any more. What a crock, they can still give as much stock as they want to their employees, they just can't hide the dilution anymore.
A great reform - kudos to the SEC and FASB.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct if there is no other traffic on a wireless router. Introduce traffic from other sources and suddenly you get collisions and retries that you didn't have to worry about before. I'm just saying that wired connections are superior for certain applications (i.e. I would not want to play UT2004 over a wireless network with other traffic on that same wireless router).
Oh My! Can you imagine trying to play UT2004 on a wireless monitor? It's not longer the LCD pixel refresh rate that will be the problem... Even if you had the throughput, the latency would suck as it usually does with wireless.
You probably agree with that wacko Mahmoud Ahmadinijad (sp) that the holocaust was a conspiracy! It's pretty hard to deny eyewitness accounts (via telephones) from the doomed passengers themselves.
I'd rather frame this argument another way: For those who complain about this - how would YOU gather intelligence on terrorists inside the US? Personally, I see this as no more intrusive than Amazon telling me "people who bought this book also bought this..." It's data mining and my privacy is not compromised.
It cracks me up every time the discussion of creationism or ID comes up. The opponents inevitably use ad hominem attacks to shut down any debate. "We're too smart for that" is the most common form of attacking the individual and not the argument.
The idea of the church as "big business" and using ID and creationism as PR is equally laughable. First, the statement that church is big business in the U.S. is false. Church membership has dropped every year of every decade for several decades now. The rise of the megachurches that we see is at the expense of the small churches that have had to close their doors due to lack of attendance and giving by parishoners.
Lastly, trying to use science to disprove the existence of a God is pointless. You could just as easily use science to disprove the concepts of love, justice, compassion, and friendship. But yet we all know they exist. If you can't agree with me on that, then I truly pity you.
"The sad thing is many of these christian fanatics are uneducated, Rush Limbaugh/ Bill O'Reilly products (sculpted zombies) who's life doesn't stray further than Wal-Mart."
WTF do Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have to do with Christianity?
What I find ironic is that the BBC author is making a huge non-sequitur by linking any decline in technology to a Christian influence.
In Genesis it says that man should "subdue the earth" and to most this includes scientific discovery for his own benefit. Christians have long been leaders in science and medicine. Some examples include: Sir Francis Bacon (creator of the scientific method), Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Isaac Newton, Morse, Faraday, Charles Babbage, Joseph Henry, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, James Maxwell, Leonhard Euler, Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, and Wernher von Braun. Study these mens lives and you will see that their faith made them outstanding scientists.
The guy I'm replying to is using hyberbole like it's going out of style.
"You teach kids that ID is science and you get crappy scientists."
All that the ID folks want is for evolution to be correctly labeled a Theory (which it is). Other theories need to be taught in juxtaposition with it.
"The religious fanatics are intent on replacing the textbook with the Bible."
Nonsense. Go to your local Christian high school or college. Science is taught just like at any other school.
"The condom policy in Africa makes me think the latter rather than the former."
I didn't know you had to be a religious fanatic to have an ounce of compassion. AIDS is decimating the population in several African countries. If there's any morality involved, it's the moral obligation we have to use our wealth to save lives over there. We're talking one in four people with HIV in many places.
"You cut the percentage of GDP spent on RND and you get less nobel prize winners. You ignore the science of economics and you end up with a huge current account deficit which will take a decade to repay."
In the first sentence you say we should spend more and in the next that we should spend less. Which is it?
The difference is this: Under the old accounting practices, the company did not expense the options that were granted. All they did was include some small byline buried deep in some obscure SEC filing that some options were granted. No money value was assigned and it did not get accounted for in the very highly-read income & expense report. The vast majority of shareholders never realized that they were being diluted out of money. (NOTE: I am not saying don't pay engineers what they are worth, just be up front about it!) Under the new accounting practices, a fair value must be assigned to these options and added to the expense column in the income statement. This insures that investors know more about the internal workings of a company and how much is going out in incentives. A smart investor can then better decide if pay and incentives are under control or out of control and therefore decide whether to invest or not. In addition, you don't have to think about the share dilution, because that has already been accounted for in the expensing of the options.
Ummmm. There's always the standard way to pay employees - from earnings. I don't think you really understood my point at all. You can still pay your employees in stock, too. You just have to expense that just as you would normal pay. The former method merely allowed the company to "hide" the cost to shareholders. You need to understand that shareholders are the owners. If you own shares of Intel - great. You should be happy to see the change in accounting practices. Read the Motley Fool online articles. They've been talking about this issue for a long time. I honestly can't understand anyone who would oppose this change and I've been a tech worker (Masters in EE) for 12 years.
Actually, Intel (I consider them a tech company) is one of the worst companies in terms of doling out stock options. They cried endlessly when they found out that the SEC and FASB wanted to switch to expensing stock options. They realized that the game of stealing from the shareholders to pay their employees could be over. What I hate is that they claim they won't be able to attract talent any more. What a crock, they can still give as much stock as they want to their employees, they just can't hide the dilution anymore. A great reform - kudos to the SEC and FASB.