Excess capacity summons its own uses.
You assume that your movies and videos cost only their storage space. But what if you switch to a finegrained snapshotting filesystem? That could use up a great deal of space depending on how much you download, modify, and delete.(With space no longer an issue, longevity becomes an issue. I'd rather lose half the space on an oversized hard disk if that means that 20 years from now I will still have my files.)
You assume you'll only store what sort of things you currently do. But what if you scan all your books to save space? High resolution book scans can easily consume hundreds of megabytes a piece. I was thinking of scanning an art book at best resolution, and calculated that its ~500 pages would use up around 20 gigabytes in TIFFs.
And what of new electronic stuff? Lifelogging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelogging) is currently the stuff of experiments and early tentative ventures by the likes of Gordon Bell. But just yesterday the NY Times covered a small camcorder which uses 2GB for 72 minutes of video and costs ~$200; not useful, no, but useful in a few more years/cranks of Moore's law. Lifelogging is easily a gigabyte a day. That's peanuts, of course, and ever cheaper - but the point is that it will soon burst the seams of your 500GB drive.
And so on. Right now you think your needs are met. But there's always something more one could store, and needs change. Maybe, just maybe, you *are* right and 500GB is all you'll ever need; but for the rest of us, that's as sensible as Gates's mythical '540k is enough for anyone'.
> Though my idea would be to have the justices only review secrets that specifically pertain to legal cases.
And what is to stop regulatory capture*? Your court is akin to the FISC authorizing wiretaps, and it is famous for rarely ever rejecting requests:
"Movable Type is a dead end. In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end."
> Evolution requires that there be variation in individuals, and that there be selection.
That's odd. My vague memories of reading people like Dawkins keep whispering things like 'evolution is changes in allele frequency in a gene pool', which is obviously nonsense because that says nothing about 'individuals'.
"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."