The more "people" who have the keys, the more likely they will get snagged by some source that should not have them.
Also if the FBI has keys to BankA, BankB, BankC ..... The FBI becomes a very high value target. And human hacking can be a lot easier than electronic hacking to get things like that.

a) nerds also follow politics
b) a lot of nerds are employed from defense department money

But what they are teaching is safe IP. So on everything presented I am required to ask
a) where did you get this, did you have the rights to access that
b) provide ownership rights traceable back to the original author and sworn statements that the original author did not copy it from someone one
I can't just assume because of the setting that it is ok. I can't just assume that their simple statement that it is ok is enough. I need authenticated documents on everything. I can't assume that what they presented yesterday applies to today.

The whole system is stupid.

Yes you are told to write what you see on the board. But did the teacher copy that from somewhere. Did they have a performance license is it transferable?

If asked to read from a book does the student have to get a performance license first or enquire about the existence of such? Does the teacher have a performance license to read from a book. Does the school have a license to play the recording of the national anthem in the morning?
When passed a test the student should refuse to do anything until the teacher either asserts that the creation of the test was original work and that the copy thus produced was allowed or provide a certified copy of licensing agreement allowing the reproduction of question from the book onto the test.

And you expect grade school kids to catch onto this? Some of them will talk to parents and latch on to things do stuff like the above and drive the whole process to a standstill. Are you going to have the teachers say "we don't worry about that in the class room", if word of that gets out the parent calls the school and reports the teacher.

The Microsoft goal is to flush so much money down the drain it will become plugged up.

We learn by copying. Write what you see on the board. Repeat after me. Read the book aloud ....

Overlaying an "anti-piracy" theme is just going to be confusing and counter to the whole process.

So why are we unable to tap the planets electric field? Can someone explain this a little more. Seems like that is a power source just waiting to be tapped. Unintented consequences like collapsing earths magnetic sphere aside.

"global surface temperature" is not global temperature. Global temperature includes deep sea temperature and high atmosphere temeperatur. It is very easy to heat and cool air. Heating the deep ocean takes decades or longer.

Stop looking at it from a local or even surface point of view. Vertical air circulation is accelerating, this is what causes the arctic ice to close up. Cold air up north does not come from up north, it comes from high in the atmosphere, it just happens to "fall" down up north because that is where the weakest counter push "up" is.

There are dynamics here we are still looking at and learning. Surface temperatures are the thin single layer of the onion when there are many layers of the atmosphere and many layers of the oceans to look at as well.

You missed the "synthetic" they take lots of static pictures with the same point over time.
Then use a computer to skew the images it in all the directions and speeds and do the search.

Can I have my Roomba take my place on the picket line?

Grocery stores "weigh" everything in grams. Grams might be mass but the general populace uses mass interchangeably with weight.

Hmm, can we use the map to get global scale calibrations to a normal mass. It would seem to be unfair that the same amount of material might cost more or less in different places due to scale errors that measure weight and use it blindly as mass.

I have read - http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital-random-number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide

There is no untestable magic there:
1) entropic source
2) digial state algorithm
3) async sampling

"The ES runs asynchronously on a self-timed circuit and uses thermal noise within the silicon to output a random stream of bits at the rate of 3 GHz. The ES needs no dedicated external power supply to run, instead using the same power supply as other core logic. The ES is designed to function properly over a wide range of operating conditions, exceeding the normal operating range of the processor."

The digtal part behind the entropic source is what the article discusses. Digital clouds are fully verifiable with scan, even async ones with proper test logic insertion which breaks loops. Fully analog entropic circuits like the thermal noise source are also verifiable.

What makes it "random" is that it a) has an entropic source and b) runs async to the rest of the design. Both of those are testable with proper test circuits. The pertebations described in the article are commonly tested for faults. If they were nto detected 5-10% of processors would not work at all.

The article talks about it being undetectable because they are only looking at the reduced space random sequence and that is effectively still random. Scan test is able to look at the value of every logic state and how it come about (ok there is not usually 100% coverage, but large portions of the design do get 100% coverage and LFSR type logic is easily covered in scan).

1) computer generated" random numbers" of the type this covers are fully state to state defined they are not random in any way. To make them random you need to seed the initial state and then reduce the output.
2) the automated scan check is bit by bit on the logic it does not care that 64 bits make a random number it looks at the logic cone input for every single bit independently and verifies the functionality. This is done to make sure all the logic works.

These parts would not pass the standard verification process and would be rejected from being assembled into devices.
Standard testing of ICs for functional faults includes a scan process. Per the design specification that the part was supposed to buildt a number of scan vectors are passed through the devices. These scan vectors check as much of the device as possible. The goal is to check every flop and every logic path between flops. The tests are to detect manufacturing errors. And can find single faults in devices.
Typical errors are stuck at 1 or stuck at 0, also shorts and would easily expose modifications of this sort, especially of such a scale as to radically change things.

> Write FTL changes to a log, make changes according to log, mark log as completed. On power up, check log, if it's not completed

You mean you log to the drive you are trying to manage? Where do you put the changes to the FTL due to your writing the log? Back in the log? That is self defeating circular.

In any case maintaining a log results in -
a) amplyfying writes, this has horible performance overheads
b) always something in the not committed log cache, which is the problem in the first place
c) the need to cache stuff before the log gets processed and marked
d) the need to wait for a log flush or search the write cache before you can service a read

SSD's are fast all this slows it down considerably.