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?

They wouldn't have to be servers. They can be old-fashioned paper books. Specifically the XOR of two or more books storred at seperate locations, and no one individual granted access to both.

There's a point where you are intelligent enough to play with the dangerous stuff, but not intelligent enough not to.

Stupid breeds.

I think that excuse was made up after the fact.

HTML isn't just one file any more. It's often supplimented by CSS, rewritten on the fly by javascript that pulls additional content from new URLs, and quite dynamic in general. It's quite possible for a browser to start downloading images before it has the HTML fully rendered.

With one difference: Take a look at the books. Voltaire was a great writer. This guy... not so much.

I find the shootings less interesting than the reaction to them. Every time one happens you immediately see half the internet commenters proclaim 'Teenagers should not have access to guns!' and the other half proclaim 'All teenagers should carry guns to defend themselves against crazed shooters!'

The problem is testing: Many manufacturers bodge up enough EFI boot support to load windows and proclaim it done. Then when you try to boot linux you find it doesn't work, because it isn't properly following the EFI spec: It's following the parts of the spec that Windows needs.

Nuclear ships have a very simple way around this: They run at full power most of the time, and dump the excess energy when not needed to run the engines. It's horribly inefficient, but even used with such inefficiency nuclear reactors still pack an energy density that puts any diesel engine to shame.

Remember what happened after the Fukushima reactor's unplanned shutdown: Emergency pumps had to be rushed in to keep cooling water running through the core. It's called decay heat: Even if you shove all the control rods in full, it still takes a long time to stop emiting heat. Ramping up is easier, but still not thirty seconds.