But then you'd need to reboot to load it, I'd assume.

I shutter to think of how this would impact the development/debug cycle of an otherwise simple device driver.

>>C++ can't guarantee a binary API from one > to the next

Oh, you mean like Linux does with Device Drivers...

Compressed is faster on the wire, but takes more CPU time to decompress. If I have a 100GbE network connection coming into a server - my network bandwidth might outpace my compute abilities.

That doesn't mean anything. Were you running on a 3GHz Ivy Bridge server, or a little PIC IoT device? How much CPU time did it take? How many did your application need/require? Did the net result of header decompression along with the easier parsing of the binary header take more or fewer CPU resources then the older uncompressed, ASCII header? etc..etc..etc..

I can't possibly envision ever making Facebook privy to ANY health issues whatsoever. They would gladly shill that information out for profit - undoubtibly why they're doing it. With something such as health issues which are so confidential, making Facebook privy to any of this would be absolutely terrible.

Seems like the efficiency you gain parsing the binary header would be lost with the need to first decompress it ;-)

Are you implying that the US Government overpays, spending money and managing projects in a wasteful or inefficient manner? I say good day to you sir!

Creatures that use this form of population do it only for "bursts" - like to escape a predator. They cannot sustain this speed. If they used this form of propulsion for a submarine, that would be one hell of a jerky ride.

If there is one thing Steve Jobs taught me,is that Apple isn't about "the technology". The view as a "technologist" may not even be germain as you think. He's always been about "usability" - but it's more than just that. Even this article talks about Apple as a battery company, a manufacturing company, a machine tool company, etc. Even the last video saw on the watch made me realize that I was more impressed with it a piece of jewelry than a piece of technology. With Apple,you often have to look at it from a perspective that has nothing to do with "technology" to really understand it.

Just Tuck and Roll...

I concur with the previous post saying you "can't change" biometric stuff if your password is "compromised" - but my further point is that biometrics are "secure" in an "embedded" world when you have a physical scanner attached to a physical device. When you're on the "open internet" - and such biometric data has to be collected and shuttled accross "the 'net" - you now have the same sort of issue as with "traditional" passwords - i.e. someone snarfing and/or "replying" that data.

So whereas biometrics might replace a traditional "password" - we need more systems which aren't vulnerable to the type of 1.8-billion-password-stealing-Russian-problems we see all over the place. I have been a big fan of much of the two-factor stuff, and some of the hashing schemes out there. It will be interesting to see what kind of other solutions could exist - though I don't think anything "static" like biometrics gets us anywhere.

Google Authenticator is an open source, RSA-soft-token-like system for two-factor authentication. Free applications exist for iPhone, Android, etc to act as your "key fob", and free, open-source PAM and Apache plug-in modules exist to allow you to require the tokens for SSH or web login.

I'd include links - but there are a lot of them depending on what you want (Linux, PAM, Apache, Andoird, iOS, etc) - So, "Just Google it!"

Very poor fast-forwarded, un-narreted video of how to load it. No video of it actually working. I'm assuming it did - but kind if think if it really worked well - they'd show that - or show how to use it. I kind of wonder how it worked - and it if it actually did at all.

I've been doing Linux development for about 15 years - including lots of kernel work. I never have, nor ever would posted anything to the kernel mailing lists. With a few exceptions - like when I can hand it off to someone else or go through a third-party - is rather have one of my patches die - than to submit it. Reason? I've seen this kind of attitude and "abuse" and - quite frankly - would never want to subject myself to this kind of abuse should anything I say or submit be erroneous and have to tolerate listening to how "retarded" I or my work is. Personal feelings aside - I wouldn't want such very public commentary about me or my work living in such a perminant and searchable archive - say by some future employeer. I wonder if I'm alone. I wonder if others have the same attitude. I wonder if some of the actual smartest people in the world (not me) might have done some great work - but would be too shy to ever let themselves be noticed.