but can accurately detect where they are.

From what range, 2 inches? Maybe if you lined up A-J across the road edge-to-edge it would have a hard time getting around them, but I'd like to believe that the sensors would be able to observe an obstruction from far enough ahead that it would be able to stop safely in this event. So instead you have A-J moving about. The laws of physics mean that nothing can simply teleport in front of us, nor can anything attain infinite acceleration, so we can detect the vehicle, child and/or dog that is moving towards our current path well before it cuts us off.

D) would probably be the worst hazard of the lot, since being light-weight it would be able to accelerate and change direction much faster than most of the other obstacles. Worst case, having come to a complete stop to wait for it to cross the road, the vehicle is blocking the breeze that was pushing it in the first place, leaving us at a standstill.

For example, hitting an elderly person in order to avoid hitting a small child.

Or maybe it will just note the existence of an object moving at x m/s to the right towards the current lane while the obstacle is y meters away while establishing a list of the smoothest paths out of the infinitely many paths that would prevent the vehicle from striking any of the obstacles.

Definitely easier than trying to determine whether the first obstacle is a baby carriage and the second obstacle is granny. Believe it or not, that light pole did NOT just "jump out in front of you" no matter how drunk you insist you aren't. Neither did granny and/or the baby.

You are speculating on a system that would be able to correctly identify ALL THE OBJECTS IN THE AREA and that is never going to happen.

It doesn't have to identify all the objects in the area, it simply has to not hit them.

Do you honestly think that a business is going to sink billions of dollars in capital outlays to make a gigantic automated factory which produces crap that no one can buy?

How many billions of dollars were sunk into building houses nobody could afford the mortgages on?

What people don't seem to realize is that the robots that replace workers will be cheap

Why?

To replace workers, they don't have to be cheap, they simply have to be cheapER than the worker they replaced. Just because I make $x/yr doesn't mean I can afford a robot that costs ($x-$50).

But do you real want bob to be working 0 hours and have jack working 60-80 all the time?

If he's Bob, of course!
If he's Jack, of course not!

If he's hiring Jack, of course he wants to hire Jack to work 80 hours a week in an overtime exempt position so they don't have to pay two people to do the work one person can do.

We're not throwing you in jail without a trial, we're merely restricting your "privilege" to travel more than 6 feet in any direction.

So you don't know if they're read it, yet you categorically state that someone is wrong in assuming they haven't read it since it's not stated that they have?

I didn't read your post, I just randomly clicked around on the screen and mashed on my keyboard with my fists and yet not only did I manage to quote your post, I formed a perfectly valid reductio ad absurdam by demonstrating how absurd it is to state that I haven't read your post while quoting it and replying to it's content.

I have no idea if it supports data: URIs but I've used HTMLDOC to turn html tables into PDF (since every PDF library I've ever used is absolutely shit at tables compared to HTML). It supports inline styles and <style type="text/css"> tags. It's not quite dead, but this year's update was the first since 2006.

I am sorely disappointed that clicking that link did not take me to a diatribe about how we are all educated stupid.

Just like honey, I assume.

News for trolls, pageviews that matter.

Feinstein is only against spying when it happens to her. You're on your own.

Since you're not sharing, I'm guessing you're imagining some sort of multiplexing scheme where the node would take say 100 bytes from 14 different sources and combine them into one packet and send that. It's an intriguing idea that would slow down metadata analysis but it would have a lot of overhead to keep track of, but that "keeping track of" becomes an attack vector again especially with subverted nodes, since node B will need to know that the next 8 packets from node A will have 100 bytes of data that need to be kept together and sent on to node C.

If the network is busy it should actually not be bad for interactive small-packet connections. If the network is idle there could be a timer before the node fills unfilled slots with random data and sends it.

And sure as hell it is impossible to develop a mixnet that will generate Camouflage traffic

It would have to generate traffic in equal amounts for every flow, which would halve network speed to give an attacker a 50/50 chance of guessing the correct flow. Those fake flows would also have to be carried to something that looks like a reasonable endpoint as well.

PRISM-level metadata collection makes it trivial to see which computer sent the original 682-byte request (recurse as necessary until the 800 byte request starts at the "sender") as well as which computer the multi-megabyte response was sent to (recurse as necessary until the multi megabyte response returns to the requesting computer). Camouflage traffic can't fix this on its own, it's easy to exclude the data that wasn't requested from the analysis.

I think that Tor's best bet while maintaining performance at this point would be to round all packets up to the nearest MTU (lets say 1400 to account for PPPoE, VPNs, and other layers on ethernet), so every request and response becomes a multiple of 1400 bytes, would make most tracking rely on packet timing. The next step would be to introduce packet delays at each hop, but that will slow the already slow network down.