Actually I've strung an Ethernet cable to the neighbor's house to help them out when their internet was borked.

Ok.. for the wires, no. Not with switched ethernet.

>I think he means that you don't have to share the available bandwidth with your neighbours.

But you do. Your neighbors might not get to use your AP and internet connection, but they certainly occupy bandwidth on the wireless channel when they run their own equipment on the same channel.

>Use ethernet. Cables don't have these kinds of problems.

Yes they do. 802.3 has packet and medium access overhead. Just not as much as 802.11

The school curriculum should be amended so that every school child graduates school knowing that physcial layer rate > MAC layer throughput.

Right but it was the first and only transistor at the time, so it was competitive.

However a 100Kbit, quite fast memory that is expensive because it's made on a low volume manufacturing line, without the benefit of the billions of dollars spent developing silicon based manufacturing equipment is hardly going to be competitive in the market and won't be able to generate the cash necessary to build up a manufacturing infrastructure that can compete with cheaper, higher volume memories that are a 1000 times more dense.

There is a constant stream of 'flash killing' non volatile memories that never made it in the market. This will be one of them.

Some companies have called me to ask if they can use the crypto code on my website. I said yes because it's just a bit of code.
People make too big a deal about bits of code. Working systems are hard. Bits of code are trivial.

> Flash is orders of magnitude slower than DRAM

You will find that the datasheets I posted elsewhere in this thread show flash at a semiconductor technology level to be 2-10 times slower than modern DRAM. That is not 'orders of magnitude'.

You just explained why the interface is a significant issue, then your last sentence was that the interface isn't the issue.

Old school flash is the best though.
http://www.xilinx.com/products/boards/ml410/datasheets/M29F040B.pdf

See my other response. Those facts are lacking factuality.

50us? 50-100MHz? 1/50E-6 = 20KHz, not 50MHz.
http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/flash/nand/2_4_8gb_nand_m49a.pdf -> Sequential READ: 30ns
I.E. half the speed of 15ns DRAM.

Parallel read stuff is a bit slower, but not a lot. You can pay more for faster and you can always wire it up in parallel.
http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/flash/qflash/MT28F640J3.pdf

SRAM speed depends entirely on the context, of which there are many. The on chip ones I use take less than 1ns to read on a modern silicon process.

Eric Schultz appears to underestimate the ability of programmers to not give shit about licensing.
Lawyers want to wheedle their ways into all our lives. Ignore them, they won't go away, but it will simplify your life.

No. SRAM and DRAM are not particularly faster than flash for read operations. The bigger impact on flash vs. SRAM is that SRAM is often on chip whereas flash is stuck behind a slow interface.

Flash is many times slower for erase and write operations.

From the article: "10 micrometres wide"

So move on. There's nothing to be seen here.