You have a point, but after the last few days worth of NSA revelations I don't think anyone that isn't seriously paranoid is thinking carefully enough. I know bugger all about the implementation of Linux's random, but my question is simply this: what are the consequences if an attacker were able to manipulate rdrand at will? If the answer is not nothing, well, something needs tackled.

Oh yes, climate myth #7. And sorry, but I'm not going to debate autocorrelation of time series with you.

Please cite the paper from which you have taken this 1 in 100 figure, or the paper that rebuts the 1 in 1000 assertion.

Also, a 1 in 100 event occurring six years apart is still exceptional, but never mind.

RTFL is an option...

Tape requires to be stored correctly. If not you can often get away with tricks like baking, but it is still not a perfect format. Ultimately, and I hate to use the word, some sort of robust cloud based archive will in the long run prove most satisfactory.

Check Scheier's blog on the NSA decryption story and find Clive Robinson's post on airgapping and building provably secure code.

It doesn't work like that. But we do know the NSA has people in place inside every major Western telecoms/data firm. Now think for a second about the capabilities that could be inserted by someone smart enough to be hired by NSA *and* Google.

Because sandwiching encryption or repeating it simply leaves you open to other, more subtle attacks. Often the effect is to amplify theoretical or marginally practical attacks on the algorithm.

There was some discussion on this on Schneier's blog re the NA decryption story. Halfway down the (very erudite) thread this is discussed. The originally leaked PDF is an April's Fool joke but it was based on a real one, now missing. Some further discussion ensued on the security of Truecrypt, sufficiently interesting to make me doubt it.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that large numbers of non-smokers are (a) incepting use of e-cigarettes and (b) unable to stop using them?

In fairness, it's not exactly a normal office. If you're an out of town MP it's more like a hotel without a bed.

Automatic transmissions are now sufficiently robust and well controlled that they are no longer less robust than a manual. Indeed, because there's no driver to hammer the clutch, they usually last longer. The price differential is also pretty non-existent as well due to their widespread take-up.

Yes, with automated cars there will always be freak events that even a moderately competent driver could have dealt with correctly. However, I'd lay good money that the number of accidents arising and their severity is way, way lower than the current 30,000 deaths a year in the US from vehicle accidents. Really, the only argument against it is squeamishness. Not good enough.

Um, Putin jails his political opponents and is attempting to outlaw gays. Please don't talk nonsense in your efforts to use hyperbole.

Dude, sorry, but you're in that dangerous zone where you know enough to talk but not enough to know that what you're saying is nonsense.