This.
All I keep seeing is proposed delays in seconds or minutes at best.
Trading shares is effectively gaining and selling ownership of a company.
There is no valid case for wanting to own part of a company for mere seconds.
There is no benefit for most companies either, so why do they allow an exchange to permit these risks to their business?
Are there no exchanges that enforce a "minimum ownership duration" rule for the companies they list?

Never ever have to load a new design or program onto the CNC machine?
Using USB isn't safe from malware either.

The question then becomes; what is "acceptable advertising"?
That is a highly subjective matter, but lets try to set up some rules for what is acceptable advertising on the interwebs:

1. It's shown in dedicated areas, not embedded within the text. Certainly not within user-submitted content.
2. It's clearly marked as advertising, with both text and color differentiating it as such.
3. It's descriptive of the product advertised; no deceptive link texts. People should know what they get before clicking a link.
4. It directly pays for the service offered, no piggybacking on somebody elses website for your own advertising.

These all seem reasonable and stuff like Adwords fits all these rules. I guess we can all agree on these rules, can't we?

Don't take all this personal, but your case is just a good one to use for demonstration.

Are you aware that your signature contains advertising and, by your own standards, you should shoot yourself?
Or is that particular link to a commercial product somehow not advertising?

Pretty high actually.
You're already relying on a lot of electronic systems in a car, and they aren't any less reliable than pure mechanical systems.
Remember this has to go through road safety checks for every individual country they want to sell it in.

Either way I'd rather have an error in my sideview camera's than an error in my power steering.

My thoughts exactly.
Without laws and punishments to enforce those laws, there will be no security.
Just make sure those laws don't have loopholes.

I'll assume you mean "sideview" camera, not "rearview", as the comparison would obviously be invalid.
Still, I'd argue the opposite. A good sideview camera would let you see places a sideview mirror won't.
Use a fishbowl lens, multiple camera's, perhaps even eye-tracking. Software can composite it any way you need.

Microsoft already does what everybody thinks Google may do in the future.

We're still talking about email snooping, right?

"Product X is great, you just have to replace it's main features with additional products Y and Z".

Those thoughts are how families get made.

This is the guy that invented Flash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Coincidence?

The difference is that, with the right key information, one can be decoded, the other cannot.

Wouldn't it be equally possibile to assume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by intelligence.

He's suggesting to fix excessive abstraction by introducing more abstraction.
Anything beyond transistors on silicon is abstraction, and even that's just an abstraction of what electrons can really do.
Every layer of abstraction does two things; it makes some things easier and some things (nearly) impossible.
With each added layer of abstraction, fewer things get easier and more things become impossible.
Imagine the amount of abstraction needed to enable "rough solution to a problem" programming, and you can't "program" anything else.

Replacing much smaller and less complicated parts.