Did you have any right to the data? Moral / legal / procedural ? If publicly funded, most people should have right to the data, but there might be a procedure to access it, I wouldn't blame anyone for establishing a light procedure to bug their scientists.

Exactly. You're the one that does NOT invest in space travel. Could it have been simpler?

There is always someone who does not invest in some crashing or upcoming industry. You're the one for this space industry. You could even have a hobby - not investing in space travel. A great conversation point, I am sure.

Isn't your "true" randomness, a Random Of The Gaps? With perfect understanding of the universe, is there anything truly random?

A NEW car salesman cannot afford to say that reusing cars is a perfectly valid option. And that of course if you reuse old cars, they don't start easily in winters, and rattle a bit when you drive, and leak in rains. That it is all perfectly normal for the car industry.

If Microsoft reused code, why am I being sold a NEW software ? I expect used software prices. Microsoft skimped on effort (code reuse), resulting in a poor product (shared security bugs with ancient software). Why does that not result in much cheaper software, or at least a sticker "Refurbished"? Why is this perfectly normal for the software industry? Why are you defending it?

If they had built better, newer software, it wouldn't share bugs with a 13 year old software, would it? And if they haven't been able to build better, newer software, why are you so sure they will after discontinuing XP support ?

What's the answer? Lower cost of currency exchange, limited unofficial acceptance of a few different currencies by businessmen, cooperation between countries to catch counterfeiting in other countries too.

Cost of currency exchange is not fundamentally high, but common currency is fundamentally infeasible.

Problems being there doesn't mean non-solutions(long term) should be adopted, especially ones difficult to undo.

This is fundamentally infeasible. The reason it is ok for a country to have common currency all over is that they largely represent an "economy", economically. Economic culture is likely similar, economic decisions by the "government" are identical etc. So a country with "better" economy, in the sense that other countries want to do a lot of business with it, leads to its currency appreciating over time. Now imports are easier, and exports are harder. This gives the countries with worse economies a better chance (incentive) to be able to export more, and import less. A stable equilibrium, if you will.

With a common currency, but different economic decisions and greatly different economic culture, this equilibrium is not stable any more. No one wants to do business with Portugal (say), but that doesn't give it the benefit of a depreciating currency to encourage exports because people would kill to do business with Germany which uses the same currency. So the Portuguese economy does not "improve", and STILL no one wants to do business with Portugal.

Given a perfect understanding of the universe (all reasons including quantum mechanical and other for the thermal noise in the said amplifier, for example), there is nothing "pure" random. It is really random of the gaps that we call "pure" random.

Do you have a definition of "pure" random other than one based on random of the gaps ?

1. For preserving randomness from independent sources, multiplication and division are rarely useful. These operations at times reduce randomness - take for example, the well known, multiplication by zero. Otherwise what was very good randomness, is destroyed. Even multiplication by a very small number takes away much of the randomness derived from other sources. If a Slashdot topic is not conducive to AC posting (or any posting at all), there goes all other randomness in the bin.

Similarly division - division by large numbers have similar effects as multiplication by small numbers.

XOR is typically better. But then one has to be careful that the "independent" sources have very low correlation - otherwise probability of zero bits increases drastically.

2. You need random, and you need it quick. The hunger of modern computer systems is difficult to satiate simply by the sources you suggest - at least initially. E.g., if you want to download all these figures from the internet, would you want to download such sensitive stuff in plaintext ? Of course not, you need SSL. For SSL, you need random. So you are stuck with good quality hardware RNG for best results, bad quality randomness without that, or depend on system entropy.

Once you get SSL, you could store lots of random numbers, but then you get into the problem of people / attack vectors trying to read that store. Performance vs. non-storage is a tough problem to solve.

If you are capable of committing the crime, and have the antisocial tendency, how about this :

1. Give warning of crime.
2. Actually commit the crime according to the warning.

Now you not only have succeeded in committing the crime , which you wanted to do anyway, you have granted a tool in the hands of your antisocial friends who are themselves not capable of committing the crime. They will now be able to send society into a tizzy just by giving a false warning of the crime about to be committed.

Ok, so at least you retract your statement that it IS the best name today.

As for the past, do you assert that the females gazing at women didn't exist in the past? Note that you have provided no evidence that it WAS the best name either.

One apple will give you less than 10% of RDA of most vitamins and minerals. If the top 30 vitamins and minerals are being considered, apple 75c is a big wastage. Some other fruits would score at least 70% of a few top-30 vitamins and minerals, leaving 30% for rest of the food, which is reasonable. Not apple, though.

Apple is not even value for money if fibre is what you are after.

Yes, I know later people were able to do it. But phoronix being unable to do it for a while is proof that the question being asked :

Does not have an answer "yes". For sane values of "easy".

And this question being asked does not have anything to do with SecureBoot, so I have no idea why you deemed it necessary to bring it up here. (U)EFI , or at least its particular implementation, is the problem, as you yourself mention.

Then Steam OS IS Debian.

That doesn't explain why

"the "male gaze" remains the best name".

Are you admitting that "male gaze" is not the best name, and retracting your earlier statement ?