A scheme that optimizes when the various attached clients come on the medium to collect there traffic could well have the power gains described.

But, if you're not always listening to the medium, you're bound to miss some opportunity to receive data. The paper seems to say with some methods, the AP wakes the client, and then transfers to it, possibly queuing multiple packets before waking up the client. I'd expect there to be an increase in latency with a scheme like that, and indeed the article seems to mention that. (But, for what one is doing on a mobile device, it probably won't matter.)

Therefore, to amortize the wake-up cost, PSM clients are made to wake-up less frequently, permitting multiple packets to queue up at the AP. Of course, such queuing introduces latency in PSM packet delivery.

The article then improves upon this method, but I didn't see if they actually did anything to remove the latency. I also didn't read the whole 13 pages of research.

That's not the mantra - the mantra is "If it isn't bleeding out of its eye sockets, dismembered, and is dragging itself about the cubicles moaning like the half dead, half undead zombie piece of software that it is, then don't fix it." It's like telling some poor little kid they're going to the dentist to have their teeth pulled, and watching them kick and moan and scream the whole way. I find myself wondering "just what does IT do?" since it seems to take a planetary alignment just to get something upgraded from version 1.0.0 to version 1.0.1 when version 9.4.7 has been out the door for a decade. As a developer, I could make your computer address you in a British accent, play Mozart to make your baby smarter, and put the toilet seat down after each use, except that those features are only available in Windows XSP2k 128-bit, which we haven't upgraded to yet.

+1 for standing up. I had to not back down in a high-school level class on "Zero is an even number."

Alright. This was modded +5 funny. Why?

Have we not ha-ha'd ourselves sore in our solitude "ha-ha we're so nerdy we can't get girls". This is not funny -- this is sad. A community that is sorely lacking in female involvement (most of my classes are 5% or less female to male), and we joke about it?

Now, I don't like to brag, but I'm going to defeat your odds. I know girls. I talk to them (gasp). I even have a girlfriend (careful, you're near the edge of the chair there). She's a liberal arts major. (Put the pitchforks and torches down, there's no need) Some of my "geeky" friends have even asked on multiple occaisions how I know so many girls. I despise this stereotype, simply because it never did and never will fit me. Yet I put up with it day in and day out.

Yet, there are (sadly, many) people out there who this does fit. And we find this funny. I don't even know what to say. Stereotypical Nerd: Bathe. Shave. Stand up straight. And diversify your interests. And no, I don't mean "I know threads, sockets, internationalization techniques, and 20 (computer) languages." No, no. Learn to play an instrument, go play a sport, or (if you really want a challenge) learn to dance. If you must talk tech to someone you know is non-technical, put it in English. Their eyes glazing over is a sign you're losing them... or they don't care.

The GPL is not a license ... that is a license ... It contains a license

(emphasis mine) Huh? The GPL is not a license? I wonder, whatever could the L stand for then?