packets

Many real-time applications can tolerate some packet loss, and if packets arrive out-of-order there's no benefit to re-sending them.

Do you mean to just sell packets of postcards?

In a SYN flooding attack, large numbers of SYN packets with fake source addresses are sent.

Basically every 1 second of video is reassembled without importance to the order of packets received.

The infected host A sends infected host B a spoofed UDP packet (or a series of packets with different spoofing options).

You can always kill the rest of the packets after letting a few through.

Host B then sends the master controller which packets it received and now a map can be made of which networks allow spoofing.

If you've already asked, one cool part of that technology is that the order of received packets is not important to assemble the stream.

After all, nothing stops DoS botnets from sending junk TCP packets.

Hail Britannia, I suppose, except instead of owning the waves they now own the packets.

There needs to be a way to route packets to you.

From a first read it sounds like the decisions made in both BSD and Linux could also be adding to the latency problem for the first initial packets.

Here is the chance of that case: "checksum will fail to detect errors for roughly 1 in 16 million to 10 billion packets".

How does this differ from "coherent ray tracing" and "ray packets", like people have been doing the last 15 years?

A P2P application needs to have some way of telling the outside world, "If you want to send packets to me, this is how to do it".

"sent 3 packets instead of 1 because the compiler translated each write of a bitfield member to a write of the whole register" So the problem was the fact that the language gives the impression of having more control than what the hardware is actually offering.