The switches become stateless routers. A stateless router to a router is what unmanaged switch is to a managed switch.

Unfortunately people who spell like you just did, aren't allowed to agree with elitist points of view.

If you have your own fire department, healthcare system, and will supply them at your own expense to everyone affected by a fire caused by your improperly wired kitchen, and you and everyone in your family are willing to kill themselves if someone will die in that fire or be electrocuted? I guess, why not...

Engineer is a person whose work is solving problems. That also happen to be a kind of problems that require engineering education to be understood. An engineer who can not solve problems in general is a shit engineer, and even though there are plenty of shit engineers, no company or team can do any engineering without good engineers. Obviously, an uneducated person such as yourself, would marvel at the solutions to trivial problems (that you do understand) by people you see around you. This is not however all that there is in the world.

Very perceptive that highly evolved alien life forms would dig Bill Evans, since he was one of them.

Being realistic? There's a glut of electricians right now--though there is a massive shortage of lineworkers(guys who work on utilities, can be much more dangerous but pay is better), lot of people started picking up that trade during the housing boom and are still out of work. I've heard anywhere between 10% and 55% depending where you live(either in Canada or the US and particular states/provinces) are unemployed. I'd suggest looking at what trades need the most hands, and consider it. Metal workers, CNC operators, mechanic(did this myself off and on for a decade), pipefitters and so on. The real problem is that kids aren't given the suggestion to look at trades these days, they got the same spiel that we were getting in the 80's and 90's, that going into technology is the way to go. But everyone needs someone to lay and fit pipe, fix their car, and so on.

I've got a place in Florida(the land of cockroaches, more cockroaches, ants, and now invasive species), stepping on ants might work with some species but for most barrier protection works best. And same with plain old baiting to kill them, especially fire ants. Up here in Ontario, stepping on paths works on some of the carpenter ants as well, but not all of them. Doesn't work on the pavement ants all the time either, depends on how hungry they are. You're better off using again a good barrier type spray. In anycase, it'll be interesting to see how we deal with these ones. I'm guessing that if they're that sensitive and drawn to electronics, the answer will be discovering something that drives them away, and just slapping one at your house.

I just did. And I conclude you don't realise when you are being lied to.

The paper divides research into 8 categories.

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
(3) Implicit endorsement
(4a) No position (4b) Uncertain
(5) Implicit rejection
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification

The paper itself, reasonably compares 1-3 against 5-7.

Your denialist blog compares 1 against 5-7.
i.e. it excludes "Explicit endorsement without qualification", but includes "Explicit rejection without quantification
and it excludes "Implicit endorsement" whilst including "Implicit rejection".

Are you prepared to accept that your blog link is a lie, or are you going to join in the lie?

This is like arguing the Wright brothers' first airplane didn't change anything because it could only fly a few dozen feet.

That would only be the case if at the same time people were already flying twin engine cubs around.

People have been crafting guns at home for decades. The 3D printing aspect adds nothing to that truth.

What it does show is how easily people can be led into an irrational fear of technology.

What you don't seem to understand is that laws are meant to keep people safe and secure, not just punish people after the fact.

No, most laws are in fact meant to punish people before the fact.

The speed limit laws are there because some people can't drive well or maintain cars, so they punish those who can with lower speeds than they could drive in perfect safety.

Gun laws exist because people have to "do something" when criminals use guns, even though criminals don't purchase firearms legally and ignore laws. So everyday people who just want to buy and enjoy guns have to jump through pointless hoops and delays.

Public nudity laws exist because some people are prudes and some people don't have a reasonable sense of when clothes are appropriate. So the people who just want a good tan at the beach or in the backyard are punished.

Basically most laws are no different than the stupid warnings you see on every packaged product to not drink a bottle of sunscreen or not to insert canned beans up your anus. They are not really there to protect anything, they are just there because it made someone feel good to pretend they were helping.

When I was a chemistry student in high school, I could go down to the Lewis Chemical Supply on Canal Street in New York City and buy a pound of potassium chlorate. I can't buy potassium chlorate any more in New York City. Maybe it was because we had a few bombing incidents. I can't buy fireworks in New York City either.

There are places in the US where people (like the Boston Marathon bomber) can buy fireworks. There may be places where they can buy potassium chlorate. There used to be places where they could buy a ton of ammonium nitrate, no questions asked. Since the Oklahoma bombing, it's been a lot more difficult.

For other reasons, there are laws prohibiting the possession of materials needed to manufacture methamphetamines. The laws are vague and overbroad, and innocent law-abiding people have gotten their chemistry labs confiscated, but there are such laws.

My answer is no.

http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/17/reason-rupe-may-2013-national-survey

The Reason-Rupe poll conducted live interviews with 1,003 adults on mobile (503) and landline (500) phones from May 9-13, 2013. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3.7 percent. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey.

Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive.

Except that dogs adapt, survive and thrive by cooperating. In fact I'm pretty sure that a dog that resorts to cannibalism will be put down pretty fast, by humans or other dogs.

The business world is the same way.

Yes: cooperation is the best way to succeed there too. That's why we have anti-trust laws: peaceful cooperation is such a winning strategy that companies will always resort to it unless prevented by force.

I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

I work for a paycheck, and entrepreneurs work for profit, but I guess some men just want to see the world burn.

And when you're too poor to afford the privacy of your own home, I'm sure Big Brother Googlecorp will help you afford a Google Telescreen to watch every room of your apartment (good luck finding an apartment without one; your slumlord will *know* you must be up to nefarious business if you're unwilling to submit to automated good behavior monitoring).