How could you improve the heart? It's really very reliable, self-maintaining, self-configuring, powered off readily-available biochemical energy. You can pretty much forget it's there, most of the time. Evolution has done an excellent job. The only area I can see to improve would be correcting single points of failure.

Easily abused. No hollywood movie ever turns a profit on paper.

It's an eagle entertainment device.

Same at the one I went to - there was minimal catholic influence. We had a bishop in to speak once - discovered at the last minute that the portable projection screen we were going to set up in the churchy bit was broken, so I spent half an hour sitting behind it with one arm holding the screen in place.

It depends how many potential candidates there are. If there are more jobs than candidates, employers will have an incentive to overlook minorly undesireable traits to hire the best talant. But if there are many many candidates qualified for a job, who would you expect the employer to choose? The one with a history of insulting religion online, which some future customer could cite as evidence in a discrimination claim (Possibly an unjustified one, fishing for a settlement), or the one who has no strong opinions on anything?

But they do have the power to do something about it.

For a good example, I loathe the catholic church. I think they are an outdated organisation that does far more harm than good, that their views on contraception are getting people killed, that their homophobia and misogyny are archaic and disgusting and that, while they proclaim themselves as a great charitable organisation, the fast wealth they flaunt given every chance tells another story. The cover-ups for pedophiles is just the icing on the evil cake.

My first job out of university was for a Catholic school.

If my employers had been able to read my posts about the church, there is no way I would have gotten that job. I'd likely have not gotten my job at another school later on either, because their legal advisor would caution against hiring someone who may later be accused of religious discrimination.

Sure, you could pass a law prohibiting discrimination in employment or services based on personal views - but it'd be very hard to enforce.

I expect the cache could consist of several terabytes of flash (HDDs not liking vibration) - it'd take a long time for LRU cache management to drop anything.

Even for home users it has potential. Think of things like Windows update. Rather than every PC in the house individually downloading the latest huge upload from MS's server and eating into your connection, only the first one to do so results in internet traffic. The others all fetch it from the router's cache, or from another computer on the network. Even a little SOHO router can comfortably fit a few gigabytes of flash, upgradable via USB stick.

I think the idea isn't to replace IP, but to run alongside it.

There's sure to be some approval system, otherwise it'd instantly turn into a tool of massive piracy.

The technology itsself could be good - it just looks like it'll be hampered by business and legal concerns. Which is understandable - the only reason IP wasn't hampered in the same was was a failure to anticipate the magnitude of its impact. If ARPA had known that their technology would one day be used for commiting so many crimes on such a scale, they would certainly have built in some form of control capability to make sure that the government had a way to securely identify everyone and block illegal acts.

That depends where the cache goes. If it's at the endpoint, you're right. But this allows the cache to be much closer. In the cell tower. In the office router.

You could watch youtube video on a moving train with this. As soon as one person tries to watch the viral video of the day the train's router will store it, so it'll keep working for all even through tunnels and dropouts.

Multicast is fine when every reciever wants the same thing at the same time. Good for broadcasting live events. Not very good for things like youtube, where millions of people will want to watch a video but very few of them simutainously, and those that do may want to pause it at any moment and resume playback hours later.

Slight correction: It does include protection from MITM attacks: There's a hash for the content that the endpoint verifies. So it does prevent spoofing content, so long as the endpoint has the correct address. It does't stop your ISP from monitoring exactly what you are getting though - it makes that a whole lot easier, as there's no way the requests could be encrypted.

That's the main selling point. It gives routers a lot more information about what they are routing, allowing them to enforce usage rules. Things like 'only redistribute content signed by those who paid to use our new content distribution system' or 'Do not distribute media from Netflix tagged as licensed for distribution in the US only.'

There's the core of a good idea. CAN is a great idea - power savings, bandwidth savings, faster internet, more reliable, hosting costs slashed. But this starts off with CAN and then layers on top of it layer upon layer of hideous complexity, most of which is designed not to bring faster performace to the end user but rather to provide ISPs with an incentive to deploy it by enabling new business models by which they may screw said end users over.

I doubt many ISPs will let your content benefit from this new technology. They'll be keeping it only for their favored distribution partners. Not least because if it was available to all people, it'd become the single greatest advancement in piracy since the invention of usenet binaries. Can you imagine what would happen if this worked an was open to all? I could distribute a 4GB movie rip to a million people with ease, no messing with p2p networks, it would be no harder than sticking it up on a webserver. So could every dodgy russian website offering free movies. There's no way ISPs could permit that to happen - that's one of the big reasons none have invested in developing simpler CAN technology. This NDN system includes public-key verification of the publisher, so ISPs can make sure their networks only cache and improve the performance of content from trusted partners who have the influence and/or money to get on the whitelist.

It looks like they started out with Content Addressible Networking, which is a great idea. Massive bandwidth savings, improved resilience, faster performance, power savings, everything you could want. But then rather than try to impliment CAN properly alongside conventional networking they went for some ridiculous micro-caching thing, over-complicated intermediate nodes that enforce usage rules, some form of insane public-key versioning system validated by intermediate nodes and generally ended up with a monstrosity.

CAN is a great idea. NDN is a terrible implimentation of CAN. The main selling points include having DRM capability built into the network itsself, so if you try to download something not authorised for your country the ISP router can detect and block it. A simple distributed cache would achieve the same benefits with a much simpler design.

There's the core of a great idea in there, burried deep in the heap of over-engineered complexity that appears designed not to bring benefits to performance but rather to allow ISPs to readily decide exactly what content they wish to allow to be distributed and by whome. This thing is designed to allow the network devices to transcode video in real time to a lower bitrate - putting that kind of intelligence in the network is insane!

There's also the fire button: A literal kill switch.

Trusted-code-only app signing on Windows RT.

I'm sure someone could crack it but... why bother?