No one said anything about having one central auth server for everyone. People or enterprises should be able to run their own, alongside competitive offerings. You simply point to the one you want used when you create an account. A password safe requires you to carry it everywhere.

Yea, I realized I was looking at the wrong product.

Will you make any decisions based on the source networks? e.g. even with a single local Inet link to a single ISP, there might be benefit to then splitting out to multiple Connectify servers located in different BGP peers, routing around peering chokepoints and creating transits which might otherwise not be available.

How about a home appliance, sitting in front of the router to the ISP (or on a Linux router)?

I was disappointed to see that Linux support seems to be limited to high end solutions, and that the offerings were for "single user," and not "single family/home."

Oh, yea. Obligatory Dilbert (better than XKCD in this case).

is not more reliance on passwords, but an infrastructure which replaces all of that.

I don't pretend to be a security expert, but why not ask for a public key instead, so I can authenticate with my private one, as with SSH? Or provide a pointer to some authentication server, so I can have a safely "shared" yet easily changed password for multiple sites? (and I am NOT talking about Facebook)

I went the the Connectify site, and based my comments on Dispatch. My bad.

You may wish to correct the impression given by the summary (packet by packet basis). While decisions may be made by examining individual packets, it's really balancing sockets, which is what makes it possible.

(and you might want to provide a more terse, less marketecture oriented explanation on your website)

I'd settle for a Linux fembot with a penchant for evil.

That rules out a 'bot from Apple, Microsoft (Linux), and Google (evil). Who's gonna make it?

it's not about the tools, but how well you use them. If you're more productive with old tools than your peers are with new ones, why worry? It's easier to move forward than backward, so you'll always have a bigger tool belt than those who didn't bother learning/understanding the capabilities of "old school."

When they hire you, they don't care if you have an education, only a degree. There's a significant difference.

'What kind of work will they do instead?'

I, for one, will be serving my robotic overlords.

No, their primary purpose is to assert the force of government.

You're referring to numerals, not numbers.

Whoosh.

It's ambiguous. I choose to read it as the unicorns are ordered to stop the farting rainbows. Rainbows do fart, just watch a Skittles ad.

If you stop rainbows from farting, where will Skittles come from?

"Simulated," yes, as in imitating, not duplicating. You can simulate a wheel, but that doesn't mean you've violated the wheel patent. And, contrary to what's implied by your claim, that simulation is math, even if the wheel itself isn't. Conversely, taking something physical and simulating it on a computer shouldn't make it subject to patent (the common "x, but on a computer" patents).