No, it assumes memory for which all access are *at worst* a certain equal cost - in other words, memory for which accesses have an upper bound. Knuth's analysis still holds if certain pieces of memory are FASTER than the norm. If we take memory access going through swap as the normal, worst case, upper-bound cost of memory access, and RAM and cache hits as special better cases, the analysis still applies to the real world.

Doesn't it? The theoretical worst case corresponds nicely to the real-world worst case of all memory coming from swap. The (typical) case in which there is also a bunch of fast RAM and even faster CPU caches is just not the worst case.

Really? It is exactly the reason that made me never buy a console: consoles have all the DRM nastyness PC games have, except that I can't avoid it with cracks.

It is entirely accurate - assuming you have access rights to the target process. To summarize it mostly accurately, you have access rights to the target process if it's yours (started from your account), if you have admin rights, or if you have global debugging rights (which requires admin rights to grant).

In other words, it isn't insecure at all. Of course, this point becomes moot if the malware runs from the same account as the user, or even with admin rights, as is common on Windows. But that's an entirely different problem which is orthogonal to the issue described here.

Note that the truth of your statement does not change when you replace "R" by "python" (and remove the word "statistical"). Nevertheless, I would still call python a programming language.

As the owner of a domain, I possess a countably infinite number of email addresses. All of them are mine, and I can use them when I feel like it. If I ever were to appear on this list, I suspect the USA government will run out of disk space before I run out of email addresses.

The same holds for anyone with a gmail account, by the way, with the *+username@gmail.com addressing scheme and all.