I think major leaps of density will eliminate platters. Why bother with them at all with their ridiculously slow seek times, heat, power consumption? At high capacities they're more of a risk to data integrity due to slow array rebuild times and it takes dozens of them to equal the IOPS of flash. Even now platters are either useful for their high density as Tier 3 in a SAN or in large numbers to get IOPS.

If there was a huge leap in flash densities I think they would get cheap enough that no one would bother, even if they were "unreliable" consumer MLC technology. Vendors could just double the extra flash used for recovery of bad cells and increase the endurance.

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".

If I say no to my boss, I get fired. That's not slavery.

So you admit that just because there are REPERCUSSIONS it is NOT the same as slavery.

If saying "no" pits me against the government, I get fined or jailed, and anyone who resists is thrown in prison. That is slavery.

No. Slavery is NOT defined as whether or not you will end up in prison.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another person.

Slavery has nothing to do with being fined for refusing to return a library book on time.

Any purchase or sale of goods or labor by an individual is a sole proprietorship.

No.

The sole proprietorship is the simplest business form under which one can operate a business. The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. It simply refers to a person who owns the business and is personally responsible for its debts.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Purchasing food from my grocery store, hiring lawn care, and selling baked goods are all the same kind of business conduct.

No.

Once you get out of high school (and maybe leave high school libertarianism behind) you will learn the difference. Maybe.

Simply put, if you are selling a service, you pay different taxes than in you are purchasing groceries for your personal consumption.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery.

No.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another.

You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired. A real slave does not have the option of being fired. Learn what slavery really is.

Are you done with the emo, now?

It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No. Not "any individual".

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

He would be asked to remove his hood upon entering the store.

If he did not remove it, he would be asked to leave. At which point he is trespassing if he stays.

If he did remove his hood then you'd have a funny story to tell all your friends about who the Grand Wizard is. Want to see it on CCTV?

So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.

I'm sure that, maybe, YOU would be able to think of a business (profitable) that did not have customers that could be referred to as "people" but as for me ... I have no idea what you're talking about.

But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.

Then think about taxes.

Black people pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for the road in front of your business. And the cops who keep your business safe. And so on.

And you are going to take the services provided by the black taxes and then REFUSE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE PAYING THOSE TAXES BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE THEIR SKIN TONE.

Fuck you and your fucked up ideas about YOUR "rights".

Read a history book.

When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.

How is selling a CAKE "repulsive"?

The point is that the baker sells cakes ALL THE TIME. That is what the baker's business is about. Selling cakes.

But he refuses to sell a cake to person X because he does not like person X's race/creed/religion/etc. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Only in YOUR definition of "freedom".

In the USofA, your BUSINESS has to treat everyone the same. Regardless of race/creed/etc.

You can CLAIM that it is an infringement upon your "freedom" to have to serve black people in your business.

You can CLAIM that you should be "free" to only serve white people in your business.

But you would be wrong. And a bigot.

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".

And a white baker should not have to serve a black customer, right?

WRONG!

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

You may not like being "forced" to serve black people.

You may believe that it is an infringement of your "freedom" to be forced to serve black people.

Fuck you.