I use passphrases - but not the phrases themselves. I come up with a really long sentence and then just use the first one or two letters from each word.

So, like I would come up with a phrase such as "I like Robert Reich, and think he should run for president in 2016" I would have a password "ilrr,athsrfpi2016" that would be easy to remember. Even if it were somehow tangentally related to a site by topic or theme or "feel" it is a whole lot more secure than a combination of dictionary words and numbers, because I'd bet that most people have stupid passwords in the form of "Password1" just to meet complexity requirements that really aren't effective at all because ironically it would only serve to incentivize people try to further simplify their passwords.

The ideal complexity tester would test for dictionary words and leave it at that.

Use a password manager and you:
- Cannot access your accounts without the password manager. Like when you've had everything stolen at an airport and need to transfer some money.
- Lose access to all your passwords in one fell swoop when you lose your password manager, or move to a system where that (by then) old piece of software won't run.
- Lose all your passwords in one fell swoop to any blackhat who manages to brute force or key log your password manager.

Password managers defeat much of the security of having passwords.

Let's be a bit more specific about that.

If they're restricting the length to something like 8 or 12 or 16 instead of 128 or 256 then they are PROBABLY not hashing the passwords.

Which means that your password is PROBABLY being stored in plain text (or possibly encrypted). NEITHER of which are acceptable methods today.

Seconded on the different email addresses. And you don't have to own your own domain for that. Just make some random'ish gmail account and use that ONCE for more secure requirements (like your bank).

The trick is to prepare them in advance. And write them down in a PHYSICALLY secure location.

If you're using the same email account for your bank as you use on Facebook then your security could be improved.

Well because the mass amount of data that would be grabbed in the event of an accident would far overshadow a reasonable amount of capture memory during normal driving, which would utilize a lesser set of sensors and maybe lower grade video, which didn't have to factor into the explanation for the accident.

256GB of flash is just over $100 right now. Storage is not a problem. Even AIRCRAFT do not have a problem with storage and they have a LOT more data to store.

Step 2 would include choices such as hit the breaks if it would work. I just used summary steps to make it easy to understand.

Taking power from the engine is NOT the same a braking.

Taking your foot off the gas is NOT the same as stepping on the brake.

Seriously. Try it on a hill. You might end up going FASTER at the bottom of the hill than at the top.

Your plates store information about your car, hence you know from looking the number up, everything to know about the car via reference lookup.

Make/model/year/VIN/owner/owner's address. And maybe whether it passed inspection or not.

How will knowing the VIN tell you anything about hitting it?

Or the owner's address?

Or the owner's name?

Or any of the other information?

And what happens when the site you're trying to use to look up that useless information is slow?

Which of those steps covers engaging the braking system?

And how does the license plate "determine what would happen if you hit it"?

Why weren't the cameras and sensors on already if the car was operating autonomously?

If not, how will you avoid hitting him if he suddenly decides to sprint and jump infront of your car?

That would be "suicide".

And the sensor logs of the car should be able to show that it was suicide.

But more to the point, how would that situation be any different in a faster-reacting-autonomous-car than in a human-controlled-car?

Or are you postulating a world where there are no cars because someone might try to commit suicide by jumping in front of one?

To prove them, I expect large fleets sponsored by the manufacturer or systems integrator will drive many thousands of hours per-car to establish a baseline, similarly to how an MTBF is established for devices, and that rate of collision or other liability-causing event will factor into the insurance companies' rates for those cars.

I think it will be even easier.

The autonomous cars will be packed with sensors that record EVERYTHING.

If there is an accident then the insurance companies will know which car has a 100% complete record of the incident that SHOULD exonerate it. Such as staying below the speed limit. Keeping a recommended distance from the car in front of it. Staying in the center of its lane. And exact information on how hard the brakes were applied and when and how that affected traction prior to the collision.

In theory, the insurance company for the autonomous car should win ever time (except in cases of software/hardware failure).

It's even easier than that.

Do YOU want to be the person dragged into court because YOU wrote the program that INTENTIONALLY HIT AND KILLED someone?

No? Then write the code to be 100% neutral. The code will ONLY attempt to stop the vehicle as fast as possible.

If pedestrians are within X meters of the car then the car should slow to Y. If they get closer then the car should stop.

But the code should NEVER have the option "hit object X".

No, a "troll" is someone who persists in a contrary position, no matter if they are proven wrong. If they cannot defend their position, they simply move to a new position while claiming they were "not answered" or that "wasn't the question they asked." Trolls will also claim that a response was given that was never made. You have engaged in all this behavior.

My first posting said quite clearly that the explosions at Fukushima were not inside the reactor but inside the building that housed it. I cannot make it simpler than that. Your willful ignorance as to the difference between those two is stunning.

When you raged that there was no difference, I tried a simple analogy, which you then criticized as not the same thing. This is the "not answered" claim.

I then proceeded to give another example, more simple than the analogy, namely "The explosion spread zero material." You then claimed this was impossible, and that I was now claiming the explosion was in the reactor. There was no possible way to read the answer that way, but that's the way you read it. This fulfills the "response given that was not made" troll logic.

Finally, I laid out, with scientific documents backing me, the difference between a pressure explosion from burning hydrogen and a true detonation explosive, and showed why the reactor vessel would have suffered no damage from the low overpressure at Fukushima.

In response, you claimed I was saying Fukushima was a "perfectly run site" and I was "endorsing nuclear power." This perfectly fulfills the "Not what I asked" and the "response not given" troll meme.

You have called me such wonderful names as "Coder Boy", "idiot", and "fucking stupid." You might note that, other than the now proven "troll" moniker, I did not use any such epithets towards you, even when you created a false dichotomy of "Saying it was perfect is either being an idiot or pretending to be one in the hope of tricking others..."

At this point, since you were the one who added the word "perfect" to the conversation, I'd almost agree with that statement, since I made no such claim. I merely said that the main cause of the Fukushima Daishi disaster was a lack of accessible backup generators.

It's interesting to note that the Fukushima Daini plant, a mere 11 miles away which had waterproofed generators survived the earthquake and tsunami without major incident because it was able to maintain cooling through the disaster, even though it was hit by the same earthquake and same 14.5m tidal wave. It uses the same BWR4 reactor cores as the Fukushima Daishi plant. Both plants SCRAMmed their reactors moments after the start of the earthquake, but F. Daishi lost all of its diesel generation capacity in the tidal wave. F. Daini did not. That was the critical difference.

So, as I said in the other message. I only pursued this chain to see just how far down this rabbit hole you'd go. I see now that there's no bottom. I'm sure you will reply to this so you can have the "Last Word" in the conversation. Enjoy it, because at this point you are Macbeth's, "poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage". Tell us your final tale.

Five times I explained to you that the hydrogen did no explosion damage to the reactor. I have restated over an over as to why this is the case. I have corrected your misinformation repeatedly about the nature of what happened.

In return you have claimed that I said things that I did not say. You have mis-read or simply ignored information I've presented, including links to supporting data. You have created arguments out of whole cloth and resorted, even in your first message to ad-hominem attacks.

I've kept this up only because I wanted to see how far you would go trying to defend your invalid position. I am, frankly, amazed at the depths you have plumbed.

I've looked at your history and found claims that you are everything from a material engineer to a rocket scientist at SpaceX. Every one of your messages follows the same form of ad-hominem and shaky science. You attack science in dozens of threads and are almost always wrong, or simply throwing "verbal hand-grenades" into conversations.

Everyone who has bothered to follow this thread this far is quite clear about what happened. You are stubbornly denying it. And then calling me childish. If I've acted in any way childish, it was only because I was trying to talk down to your level of understanding. Yet even that has failed. That leaves only willful ignorance as your modus operandi. In that case, further discussion is pointless.