> Whom do you trust with your data?
Me.

And who really owns it?
Me.

What about in 3-6 years from now?
Still me.

How should I make sure that I retain access to today's data 20 years from now?
Keep it on a backup. When your primary starts to die, get a new primary. When your backup starts to die, get a new backup.

Is storing things locally even a reasonable option for most people?
Why not?

Also, if you do still have data in floppies (which, why, they were a great transport medium at the time, but never a particularly great long-term storage medium), you could pick up a usb floppy reader for basically nothing. 3-second google found one for 12 bucks, and I'm sure you could find one for cheaper if you spent more than 3 seconds looking.

Well, there might be *some* airports underwater... I can think of a couple airports that are pretty much at water level. Just flew out of VCE a few months ago, for instance, and it's right on the water. Wikipedia says it's about 2 meters, that's not super high off the ground. Of course if you want to cheat, there's always Amsterdam (Europe's 4th busiest, according wikipedia!)

LA-style traffic jams in Nebraska's hard to swallow, though. What crowd of people would be crazy enough to be living in Nebraska to cause them?

Prohibition of (most) drugs: yes. Prohibition of crazy machine guns, child slavery (or any kind of slavery, really), murder-for-hire, etc... not so much. I'm all for a better, safer drug market, but the way to go is working to lift prohibitions on drugs that shouldn't be illegal, not this.

Your site is amazing. Thanks for linking - just too bad you apparently haven't done anything with it since 2013?

I don't see what's wrong with it. Yes, they may have called, they may also have emailed. Perhaps they wrote a letter, or sent someone down there to talk to them in person. Maybe they did all of those. Does it matter which one they did? No? Then why not have a verb that specifies that they got in touch, but doesn't care how?

It *is* nonviolent. I'd obviously rather not have my cards stolen at all, but if given the choice, I'd rather my cards be stolen by pickpocketing than by mugging, and I'd definitely rather they be stolen by pickpocketing than by someone blowing up an ATM while I might be standing nearby.

"I'm sure society would be better if everyone drove just as fast as they want."
Nope.

"those speed limit rules were made up just to create revenue."

Generally: yes.

Speed limits *in the abstract* are a good idea. However, the vast majority of specific speed limit *numbers* are way lower than they should be, if the purpose was entirely for safety, rather than for revenue. Hence why everyone drives generally between 5-20 mph (depending on location) higher than the posted speed limit if they can get away with it: because they're driving the speed it's actually safe to drive. I'm 100% not for removing all speed limits - that's a great straw-man argument. I'm just for raising them to a more reasonable speed, at which point I would be entirely in favor of actually policing them strongly, which I'm not at all in favor of under their current implementation. That guy going 110mph in a 65 zone absolutely deserves a huge fine at *least*. The guy going 75, though, totally doesn't (under most circumstances).

I've definitely been in plenty of situations where I wanted to charge 2-4 devices at once (my phone, some other device of mine, my wife's phone, some other device of her's). I've never been in a situation where I needed to charge *8*, though... that said, if we were a family with kids, instead of just the two of us, I could totally see it.

There's technically FiOS in my city already, but that doesn't mean I've actually been able to get it either in my current building or the building I lived in before that, nor do I know anyone who has it, so it was already clear they didn't give one crap about doing anything with FiOS other than advertising the crap out of it. Which I seriously don't get - where's the profit in spending a jillion dollars on something that everyone would be happy to pay you for, but you aren't letting them?

I mean, yes, Verizon is an awful company that would do the world a favor by dying in a fire (or at least it would if the result were competition over the ashes, rather than, as is probably more likely, just giving Comcast even *more* of a stranglehold...), but regardless, FiOS would (probably?) be better than the crap internet we have from them now.

Clearly it needs to be user-customizeable - I would totally take a silent car that could be programmed to go "vroom! vroom!" excitedly when I went fast in it.

No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Second-to-none, as in it's the literally the second option in terms of integrity, with "none" as the better option? :p

Wait, what? You want me to put something in the cloud? What possible relevance does that have to this article? :D

Right, it doesn't *come* in buckets... that's just where it goes , duh.

It's not like they would have any reason to try to help us save money, since that money would be directly lost by them if they did. We already see that elsewhere - Verizon, for instance, is technically "happy" to let you not pay for phone service if you don't need it: you can pay like 70 bucks for internet by itself, or alternatively, you can pay *50* bucks for the same internet and also a phone line. But it's *technically* an option...

I'm imagining that the same thing would happen here - yes, you can totally only buy one channel. It'll cost you 500 dollars, but it's *technically* an option... according to our website, not according to any actual logic...

Obviously that's not what anyone wants, and wouldn't reasonably be considered "unbundling" by anyone except a cable company, but still.