I think parking will be less of an issue. Think Uber/Lift with autonomous cars. This would be especially true in cities where parking costs can get ridiculous. The fleet would spread themselves out based on historical data and probabilities on where people are likely to request them from. I could see systems that will automatically call a car while you are waiting at the registers of stores so that by the time you are a the front door, a car is reserved and waiting there.
I think the biggest hinderance to fully autonomous cars will be the illogical nature of the human psyche. At some point, these cars will be advanced enough that they will be significantly safer than human-driven ones and will start making life-and-death decisions based on the rules that will reduce overal loss of life and limb to the human population in general. For example, image that the car as been put in a position where it needs to decide whether it is likely going to kill two people or kill one. Which path should it choose? Most people would say kill the one instead of the two. Now, what if the car is yours and you are the one person?
Even though the chance of a car getting put in that position might be orders of magitude lower with autonomous cars over manual cars, a lot of people will not like the idea of their property chosing to kill them to save two complete strangers.
That's what you say, but it is clearly established that you are wrong.
Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.
Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.
Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.
Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.
If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.
What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?
well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society. From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.
Not sure you second statement is true. By opening the patents of his super charging systems, it encourages other parties to put up more stations. This would make Teslas more enticing to prospective buyers. Sometimes, pro-society and pro-profit are not mutally exclusive.
Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"