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.

Lesson learned for how to draw up future contracts, I guess.

Hahaha - if the contracts were designed to produce on-time, on-budget they would be written that way (fixed price, fixed requirements, penalties for late delivery). Their intended purpose is quite the opposite of that. If something useful happens to be generated in the process of funneling money from taxpayers to the MIC, so much the better excuse for the next contract.

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?

Seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Or maybe attitudes towards workplace abuse have changed just a little in the last 27 years?

Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

I guess it's different because I pay for conferences out of my own pocket, but I'm not going to go to all the hassle and expense of attending an Expo to waste my time at a vendor booth which spends its marketing dollars on objectifying women. The women may be there of their own free will and the whole arrangement may be perfectly morally straight (for the sake of argument), but the vendor is clearly disrespecting its customers' intelligence, and that itself makes me feel uncomfortable and want to avoid their booth.

Each time I've experienced the 'booth babe' phenomenon, never once did any of them know what an ARP reply was or how many key exchanges TLS modes use. This isn't a matter of nerd-quiz, it's that talking to them serves no purpose for why I go to an expo.

While several I've encountered have been both nice and pretty, I never once imagined that I was going to scurry off to a corner to make out with one or that they might suddenly provide useful product information, so a polite smile, the briefest of small-talk to let them know that I value them as a human being, and a thank-you and I was on to the next booth to talk to a sales engineer. Did the booth-babe vendor have something useful to sell me? Maybe, but I only have so much time, and this wasn't why I was there. I don't care if the sales engineer has a spare tire and a scraggly mustache, because I'm not there to make out with him (or her) either.

That booth babes is a thing tells me a few things: 1) target customers don't get to talk to pretty women much unless they're being paid (Jesus people, try being kind and friendly for a change) 2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and 3) they probably play the Lottery and go to strip clubs too, for all their investment is worth (but I guess they have nothing better to do).

There would be no booth babes if they didn't provide value, and that they do is an indictment of the crowd attending. RSA might be putting up a roadblock, but the industry only needs to look itself in the mirror if it wants to find someone to blame. Stop being creepy and get a girlfriend, people.

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?

It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.

The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.

Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.

I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.

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".

Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.

Nothing. Both I and the people who wrote it completely understand the context in which it's used. YOU on the other hand, are inventing a completely new interpretation of the constitution wherein the document they wrote to limit the government's ability to infringe on your rights is suddenly (but just in this case!) suddenly the exact opposite. Which part of "shall not be infringed" are YOU have trouble with? Again, please link to any - even ONE - writing by a single author of the constitution that suggests, for a moment, that they intended the second amendment, let along the entire document, to be a limit on the people, in stead of a limit on the government. Go ahead, cite some heretofore undiscovered writings. Please!

What? You can't find any? I thought so.

The founders intent was to make sure that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? Because they also had to stand up an army ("militia") on occasion, and didn't want ANYONE (especially people like you) to be confused and begin to think that it was only the militia that would be allowed to keep and bear arms. Your inability to read 18th century writing in the context in which it was written doesn't change the entire purpose of the constitution into a regulatory document that limits your freedoms. It's exactly the opposite.

So, go ahead: cite a single piece of correspondence, a single page from the federalist papers, ANYTHING that begins to support your inability to parse the language. You won't even bother to try, because you know you're just making stuff up in hopes that someone else reading your posts will think the constitution is a freedom limiting, rather than a freedom protecting document. You're just pretending that you don't understand that the constitution leaves it up to the states to pass legislation that sets forth criminal penalties for things like murder. Why you want to look so dumb is a bit of a mystery.

So, fire away. Let's see something other than your backwards assertions. You claim to know the founders' intent, but you cannot trouble yourself to actually cite a single passage from any of them that backs up what you say. Go for it. Show that you're not a liar by doing something other than stamping your feet.

So you're saying the FBI is lying now? Please show your evidence - not just you having another fit - that indicated where, precisely, they are incorrect in their reporting. No? You don't have any, do you?

Tens of thousands of people are killed using knives, pipes, and cars, etc. Have you just not got around to finding a way to re-interpret the constitution to claim the founders wanted people to be well trained in their use? You keep dodging that question. Why? Because you know you're deliberately trying to mislead on this topic.

OK! Ready for your links to historical writings. Go.

If you want, you can start by finding some opposition to the people who wrote the huge body of documents surrounding the forming and adoption of the amendments.

Here's a typical example, from Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution from 1789: "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Case in point. They're talking about the amendment preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms, privately, specifically because there will also be a government-armed/trained militia/army. You are deliberately flipping their intent upside down in an attempt to reinvent the constitution to suit your tastes.

How about Samuel Adams, clarifying things for you, in 1788: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." That sums up the first round of amendments nicely, and makes it plainly clear (to everyone but you, because you're trying to wish it away, and assume that they wrote just one of those amendments as a regulation requiring limits rather than protecting liberty) that ALL of those amendments are intended to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER. To prevent the government from infringing on things like freedom of speech, freedom to keep their own arms, assembly, etc.

You're probably thinking of some other founders, right? You wouldn't want to involve people like Jefferson, probably, because it would ruin your narrative? Jefferson loved to quote Beccaria, incuding this one: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

I'll look forward to you citing a specific example of the second amendment being described by any of the people who wrote and implemented all of those contemporary amendments, as protecting a right that was in ANY way conditional on passing some sort of government test of skill. You seem certain that intent exists: put up, or shut up. Show the thinking that defines the founders' concepts of a skill test for individual gun ownership, something that they repeatedly say shall not be infringed.