The spec has to have a rock-solid security model required for implementors, and a good security test suite must be freely available. Without these, the database will turn out to be a major hack vector. With a great security model, we only have to worry about bugs. As it stands, the spec covers security very lightly.

The spec has these sections that mean people are at least thinking about security. I hope there are actual security experts involved:

• 4. Privacy
• 5. Authorization - especially:
• 5.3 Implementation risks
  "Thus, strictly following the origin model described in this specification is important for user security."

If you want this thing to succeed, you have an interest in the security model.

Yes, although as looking through some of the electronics on some of these (depending on the severity and type of hearing loss obviously), there are some that use rather sophisticated adaptive filtering methods and feedback loops to remove noise from having the system so compact and rigidly affixed to the ear. Getting all that so small and power efficient isn't as easy as it might seem. The book I'm using for my source here is "Digital Hearing Aids" by James Kates (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Hearing-Aids-James-Kates/dp/159756317X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268529085&sr=1-4).

It's very peculiar that nowhere in the discussion here or Chamberland's video does anyone mention NOAA's Aquarius habitat, in operation since 1988: http://www.uncw.edu/aquarius/ . Aquarius has been in operation as a civilian research station underwater off Key Largo for years. Before that it was in the Virgin Islands. It is operated by NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) for marine biology research and NASA training. It's an amazing place where researchers get to do 10-day research projects that would be difficult or impossible to run from the surface.

But what's not mentioned by Chamberland or anyone involved in his little promo piece is that living underwater is grueling. You're in a single-wide trailer equivalent with multiple other people. Going outside is wonderfully liberating, but y'know, it's cold. Even in Florida, once you've been in the water for a few hours, you're cold. Then you do it again. And again. It's humid and pretty much everyone gets skin problems after a few days.

And you can't come up. You've saturated to 55-foot depth after a day, so you'd get the bends if you surfaced. So all your diving is done with cave-diving rigs that are designed for diving where there's no surface to go to. If you get in trouble, you have to get back to the habitat, not the surface. Oh, you'd probably survive if you had to surface, but it wouldn't be healthy or pretty. At the end of the 10-day mission it takes 18 hours to decompress to surface pressure.

That said, it is really truly astounding to live underwater for a while. Looking out through the window at dinner at the fish, and realizing that they're looking at you: you're the one in the aquarium. It's a trip.

But it's an incredibly resource-intensive thing to do. Rough estimates I recall from my Aquarius trips were that it cost about US$10,000 per day to support four researchers in the habitat. That's not sustainable for daily life.

As far as I can tell, Dennis Chamberland wants to set up some sort of high-end hotel-like underwater facility. More power to him. But don't pretend that we're all going to have the chance to go live under the ocean.

Suggestions, if you care about the code you will write in your career:

1) Figure out whether you're learning deep CS fundamentals in your undergrad program. A good Masters program will teach you CS fundamentals that make you a better software engineer in a real job. Some undergrad programs don't do that, and knowing the difference should help you decide.

2) Research (really research) the curricula at some graduate programs. They differ. You can probably tell if any of them sound like you'd learn a lot.

3) If you target the Masters degree, GET IT FAST. Make it a goal to finish the degree and start using it. Do as much programming as possible during the degree program, so you're ready to code for real. Use it as a powerup.

But I can painlessly quit whenever I feel like it. I use a modified binary exponential backoff algorithm. For example, if I'm drinking 1 cup a day:

• Take it down to .75 dose: Drink less than a full cup for 1-2 days.
• Then drink a half cup for 2-3 days.
• Then drink half that, == a soda or half a tea for 2-3 days.
• Then don't drink any.

Backing the dosage off slowly completely avoids headaches. For me. YMMV, but give it a shot. If you usually drink more, you might want to take a few more days (2 days per binary step).

Such extortionate practices should be punished. Disallowing future misdeeds isn't good enough. The RIAA should be (legally) punished for bad behavior. Otherwise there's no real incentive for organizations like that to stop.

I would not say this:
"2) It's hard to do stealthy reentry."

We don't know how hard it is, or whether it's already easy enough. That's the beauty of stealthiness. For example, if a military were doing stealthy re-entries all the time, you might not know.

Before the F-117 and B-2, stealth aircraft were considered too hard to do. But there they are.