SCTP sadly isn't deployable in a world with NATs. It is definitely one of the solutions we examined before embarking on this journey.
Things like UDT (and other non-TCP protocols) are very interesting... but not yet deployable, which means that these kinds of changes are further down the line.

FYI, the compression of headers in SPDY actually compresses headers down to ~10% of their original size on average.

SPDY goes further-- not only are requests and responses on separate streams asynchronous, but the parts of the different responses can be interleaved. The only head-of-line blocking here is based on the TCP buffering or the maximum frame size for SPDY (we typically use 4k frames).

Using SPDY, servers are able to publish a setting (whenever they want, including at connect time) which advertises how many concurrent streams are allowed. In all cases SPDY gives more control than HTTP.

And, if you multiplex connections over one SPDY connection, you often end up using less resources overall (including memory) as compared to HTTP connections.
The average page uses ~40 connections, nowhere near just one connection!

If you don't care about resource utilization, it still speeds web up web pages...

As one of the creators of SPDY..

No, HTTP suffers from head-of-line blocking. There is no way around that.
HTTP also doesn't have header compression (which matters quite a bit on low-bandwidth pipes) nor prioritization to ensure that your HTTP, javascript and CSS load before the lolkittens :)

mod this one up please.

The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it doesn't guarantee anything. It specifies something.
The Gov't is supposed to follow the specification, at which point we have a guarantee.

Wish it were so.

That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard-- MOST creative people do it for the joy of having creating. A minority of them are in it only for the money.
And today that is what we have. A bunch of people who are only in it for the money (many of them creative enough only to purchase patents) suing people who are creative and who likely just though whatever the heck it was is so obvious that it didn't cross their minds that it should be patentable.

The Judge's test is a poor one.
He should have held up some random combinations of ipads and galaxy tabs and asked if he was holding up two of the same thing.
The important part is that they're different, not that you can pick which one is the tab.

That was a horribly shitty experiment.

How is it different to having politician's random falsehoods enter into my brain against my will?
You can carry these analogies to ridiculous extremes without trying.

Using the above (access to my brain), the obvious choice is to ensure that the politicians cannot contact my brain by turning off the communications device.

FYI, it has been done before. The computer did better than the GPs (and this was decades ago), however, noone was wanting to be the liable party.. and so, it never saw real use outside the study.

Score some more "benefit" for lawyers and the people who litigate.

This.

Damn, that is one of the funniest comments I've seen in a LONG time!

increment/decrement is *extremely* cheap.