But it doesn't stop them from keeping it on a windows machine that isn't properly maintained or isolated.
I really doubt those numbers. I suspect, e.g., that unemployed people are drastically undercounted. (This has been true in the past. I don't KNOW that it's true this time.) I'm certain that income from criminal activities is underreported. Etc. (There's also racial bias in the counts, and even some political bias...though that's usually accidental. You could say that about racial undercounting, also. Census takers are reluctant to interview truculent people in low-income areas, often due to fears of personal safety.)
IFAIK the census *tries* to be accurate. This doesn't mean that it *is* accurate, or that it doesn't have systematic biases.
He included China. He did, however, admit that he couldn't estimate the fraction above the limit. Still, if he's right, and over 1% of Chinese make over $40,000 (due to inequality in distribution), then many on Slashdot may NOT be a part of the global 1%. China is the dominating factor here, and it's an unknown.
I don't think it's so simple as "refactoring is bad". I think i'ts more that 'stopping the delivery of new value to users is bad". Cleaning up as you go along is not only a healthy practice, actually accomplishing something new is healthy for refactoring. It keeps you focused on achieving flexibility that is actually needed as opposed to that which might be useful.
California is already split into numerous pieces. Drawing some lines and formalizing it will allow each of those pieces to govern themselves as they see fit and allow people to stop bitching at each other for tromping on each others "rights".
This is certainly true on paper. In practice California is tied together in ways that aren't easy to undo. Take, for example, disputes over water underlies some of the regional hostility; under the plan region 4 realistically can't gain control of its water resources. It still must supply region 3 and 5 with water lest they dry up and blow away.
A specialized state loses some economic flexibility; in a tech down turn they aren't as buoyed agriculture and vice versa. You lose some economies of scale; wineries in region 2 and farms in region 5 and 6 and biotech companies in region 3 lose access to the life sciences programs at UC Davis. People priced out of region 3 into region 4 will potentially pay income tax in two states.
For better or worse, California is made up of diverse regions that are uncomfortably tied together.
It sounds to me as if you're confusing refactoring, where existing, good, well tested, code is kept, and reorganized so that it's more maintainable, extendible, and better suited to current needs, with rewriting, where good code is thrown out and new code is written introducing new bugs.
Refactoring does not take "years". Ever.
Somehow I don't think you realize how difficult it is to define a good crypto. And how easy it is to end up with a bad one.
One time pads, OTOH, have a lot to reccommend them, if you're in a situation where you can use one. But it was public key that made the web business model possible.
Sorry, but I just don't buy this argument.
You seem to be concentrating mostly on works subject to copyright now, so let's stick with that. Any fool with a bit of programming skill can create a basic game engine. Anyone with a basic command of their language and the slightest imagination can write a story, and anyone with a basic command of their language and some knowledge of a useful subject can write a textbook. Millions of people can play a bit of piano or guitar and make up a song.
But creating a good game or writing a good book or producing a good musical performance take more than that. They take time and hard work, and a lot of it isn't glamorous, and a lot of it isn't particularly enjoyable but needs to be done anyway, and a lot of it isn't necessarily done by the author or musician or game designer who takes most of the credit at the end of the day.
IMHO, the biggest advantage of economic incentives is that it creates a motivation for the editors and the sound technicians and the fact checkers and the typesetters and the hair and make-up people and the guy who drives all the props to today's set. Writers will always write and people who love music will always play, and plenty of them would do it even if they never got paid at all, and the good ones wouldn't need to worry because they'd get paid somehow anyway being the recognisable face of their work. However, there wouldn't be nearly as many good works without everyone else who works behind the scenes, and those are the people who would really lose out if copyright disappeared before some other economic model evolved to replace it.
To me, Open Source represents the perfect example of what happens when you take away the major commercial incentives. Lots of geeks still write software for fun and/or the satisfaction of solving some problem. Some of that software is technically very good, because it's written by geeks who care about that sort of thing. On the other hand, poor to non-existent documentation is almost universal, user interfaces are often unpolished, many of the most successful OSS projects are merely imitations of successful commercial products rather than truly innovative alternatives, and ultimately the software is more driven by the needs or wishes of its creators than anyone else who might use it. There's nothing wrong with that, of course -- the world doesn't owe anyone their perfect software -- but the wider market isn't generally as well served by this model as by traditional commercial development where there is a direct financial incentive to give the market what it wants.
And now, here's the kicker. The exceptions, the big success story OSS projects that are run more professionally and do produce more polished results on par with other commercial offerings, are mostly developed by people whose funding comes from other sources (often backed by commercial IP) and then shared with GPL-style licences that prevent others from taking advantage in certain ways (also protected by IP).
It really depends on your application.
Given enough computational resources, and the knowledge of the algorithm, and depending on the ration of pseudo-random bits to random jumps, this might well be crackable. It just wouldn't be easy. For many purposes it would be sufficient.
Focus a camera on a candle, and overdrive the amplification to where you're amplifying noise. (Does ovedriving the amplification still work? If not you need to pick a set of pixels that are on about half the time, and use them.) Knowing what you're doing, or the algorithm, doesn't help. But, as with any real random generator it requires a hardware assist. (In this case the camera and the candle.)
N.B.: This is just ONE approach. but it's one that lets you generate reasonably large quantities of actually random numbers with easily accessible equipment. If you live near a freeway, you could probably do something similar with a microphone, but as before you need to standardize the numbers against a background. Otherwise you get variation by time of day. Or buy a geiger counter, and have the mic listen to that. But that gives you a lower rate of accumulation.
Thermal noise from an overdriven amplifier is one decent source of noise. But it requires hardware support. So does any other source of true randomness (as opposed to psuedo-randomness),
One method that works in many applications is to use a low bit-rate source of true randomness (disk seek times, keyboard timing, etc. to amplify a pseudorandom source. I think that
government intervention in the scientific process...
Involvement is not the same as intervention.
Scientific research is a public good.
I'm sure if you grew up in San Francisco, you'd be delighted to clear out of your hometown and let the newcomers enjoy it. I remember San Francisco before the dot com boom. It had all the charm, but it was a lot more affordable to live there. Likewise I've seen Key West go from a place where funky people lived to a place where the people who serve you your drink have to commute from an hour further north.
I was once privileged to visit Hawaii on work. I say "privileged", because I got to work with Hawaiian people rather than just have them open my car door for me. One guy took me up to the mountain headwaters of the Lao Stream, where his uncle used to drop him from a footbridge into a deep pool. He used to inner tube from there down to the ocean then hitchhike back up to the state park. Now the lower reaches of the river look like this. Why? Because the pineapple plantations have been converted to condos, and the resulting immigration boom has sucked the river dry. Meanwhile higher housing prices have forced many of his childhood friends to move to California. And you think they're happy about that because their housing dollar stretches further in Fresno than Wailuku?
The reason the free market works so efficiently is that it is, in effect, an unbeatable rationing mechanism. It mercilessly restricts the consumption of goods and encourages the production of goods where demand his high. But what happens when you commoditize a community? When the thing that makes a place special is the people, and they can't afford to live there anymore? You end up with an EPCOT center replica of what the place used to be.
You can see this in a place like Waikiki. Sheraton has mall there which is called (without any intended irony) the "Sheraton Hawaiian Village". But you won't meet any Hawaiians there, unless they're twirling fire baton or cleaning your hotel room. It's really no different from an upscale mall in Palm Springs -- with a little more swimming, a little less golf.
I really doubt that they are complete. The internal electronics are probably broken, plastics deteriorate with age, etc. But the real loss is the skill sets needed to build it. There were a LOT of failures before we got a working version.
FWIW, I believe that NASA has officially said that they couldn't build another Saturn.
Sorry, but what's wrong with the aggregated information? If information is properly aggregated, you can't use it to identify individuals. Perhaps you meant a different term? Only, I can't guess what term you meant.