20mA will happily kill you. 16mA at 60Hz is the maximum current a person can realistically let go of.
Hmm? I thought the issue with amperage was that with volumes of electrical current at certain levels, the nerve endings get flooded, causing muscle contraction. However, varying the frequency will vary how the current messes with your nervous system; a load above 20mA is just as likely to cause you to reflexively fling the connection away, or if the voltage is fast enough cause burns, or even result in heart seizure or stroke.
While 20mA will happily kill you, I've held a live 110VAC 60Hz 15A line, and the result was my hand being flung away from the contact point. 220VAC 60Hz at 30A on the other hand, would more than likely result in muscle seizures and likely clamping, eventually followed by death by one of the previously mentioned methods.
You're complaining? I've been here fifteen years, and I've never had a submission accepted either!
I have had multiple submissions accepted and rejected, but the one thaat really rankles, is the one in which I took the time to write some new text to describe the article, then someone else copy/pasted my text into another submission that got accepted in place of mine.
Yeah; I've had that happen too. I discovered that the rule is to watch the firehose closely, and time your submissions appropriately.
Pfft, you think electrocution is bad? What about elocution? There's a reason public speaking is the #1 fear of most people in the developed world! We need to end the threat of public speaking before it's too late!
Interesting that electrocution and elocution both result in severe forms of shock....
Apple sells electronic fashion accessories. It's a great business, but automatically it can't be the standard, because they sell the feeling of "being smarter/better than the standard". If some EU directive forces some parts of Apple products to be standard, then don't worry, Apple will find some other way to distinguish itself from the common user.
I disagree... Apple sells electronic fashion appliances, not accessories They license the accessory market to others, as it's not as profitable. Their stuff is designed to just work as designed, with minimal time spent by the consumer trying to get it working as described.
This appliance model doesn't just show up in their hardware (Macs, phones, audio players, DST boxes, mice, keyboards, etc) but also in a lot of the hardware and software components (including things like the AAC standard they helped design and push to market).
All that said though, you're right in your last statement -- if some EU directive forces some parts of Apple products to be standard, they're going to push for it to be THEIR standard, with royalties going to them (often through some working group they're a member of). And they'll find other things that distinguish them in the market -- most likely by using that appliance mentality again instead of the "feature list" mentality that drives many electronics vendors.
Regular paperbacks are generally of noticeably higher quality than "Mass Market Paperbacks" (which are the small-ish versions sold in most supermarkets and such).
The Mass Market variety aren't really designed to last. They're meant to be read once or twice (if ever) and if they tear up after that just toss them.
If you're buying a book for a collection you want to buy a higher quality version.
That said - I'm not sure why they charge what they do for the better versions. Barnes and noble puts out very good quality hard-cover versions of some public domain books for less than $10. That's generally less than the price difference between the MMPB and the hardcover version of most books, so you're actually paying a lot more than just the additional materials cost there.
You're paying copyright fees. With the $10 books, the content is usually public domain, so you're only paying for the price of printing and cost of materials. When you're buying a paperback, you're purchasing the right to read the work for as long as the book lasts (which has been getting shorter and shorter on the mass market paperbacks). With the higher quality hardcover books, often printed on acid-free paper, you're purchasing the right to read the same content for as long as copyright lasts, barring accidental (or intentional) destruction of the book.
Look at the Peterson's Field Guide for a paperback* that bucks this trend, and has a price to reflect it.
*It's not really paper, as they use cotton and plastic in the material as well -- this is a book designed to be dropped in a duck pond or snagged on brambles and come out none the worse for wear.
But how am I supposed to give billions in subsidies to corn farmers then?
By converting their cornfields to switchgrass. They'll need to re-tool, which isn't cheap (which is where the grants and subsidies come in), but in the end, they'll end up with a much cheaper crop that doesn't need the same rotation and fertilizers you require with corn. So even if the subsidies are less, after the initial investment, the profit margin for farmers will be increased.
...of which my 20-year-old paperbacks are already starting to disintegrate, and that's not even taking into account the bindings.*
The good thing about digital books is that it's trivial to "rebind" them when the reader dies. Not so easy with paperbacks.
*My older paperbacks are actually in much better shape, but novel publication appears to have moved to a cheaper paper and binding glue around 20 years ago.
The lesson we keep ignoring is that the root of the overwhelming vast majority of these cases is the same: mental health. Our country continues to completely ignore the elephant in the room. Until we improve access to mental health care, and de-stigmatize the pursuit of mental health treatment, we will continue to have unstable individuals in our society who will do this to us. We don't necessarily need to lock them all up, many can be treated; but they all need access to help.
Our current health care system fails miserably at this. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 (aka "affordable care act", aka "Obamacare") does almost nothing for this problem.
This would be a good moment to point out that there is no "we" and "they" -- while some mental conditions are life-long, almost everyone will have someone during their life who they care for who needs help dealing with mental issues. For that matter, most people will actually BE that person at one point or another.
These are issues that used to be (mis)handled by the atomic family and surrounding community; nowadays, there isn't really any social structure guaranteed to be in place to support people with mental struggles. This is really a social issue, with the stigmatization you refer to going extremely deep., even further than the stigmatization that relates to drug abuse.
The problem with that argument as it pertains to cell phones, is that the government maintains a monopoly on the airwaves which it licenses out to cell providers. It would be like the government licensing out all roads to be toll roads and then getting to track your movements because they were part of a business dealing.
"That opens the door to the SCOTUS's other favorite "get out of hard decisions free" card: they can declare the point moot since their decision won't un-bankrupt the corporations."
No, it doesn't, because they don't have any way around the "chilling speech" issue.
Sure they do...
"With a name like Snowden, it is obvious that this is a criminal who not only chills things, but steals and hides them too. As we cannot allow such criminal activity of speech chilling to exist in the US, we MUST give the NSA the full powers duly needed to stamp out such abuses of our constitutional rights."
Who's going to call them on it (in a way that will make a difference)?
The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.
There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of saying, what you think it should be and how it is is not always clear cut. There's always the possibility of a Split decision by the Supreme Court, where an opinion of the court states that in the time of war, or potential war, the Executive Branch may be delegated certain abilities. Defining when hostile threats are likely or not, that's not the purview of the court.
It will certainly, no matter how it is ruled, be interesting reading.
All this, whether true or not, only tangentially matters in real life.
You see, this case falls under the purview of "National Security" -- which means that all judges sitting on this case will also be under the umbrella of "National Security" -- which means they will be directly impacted by whatever decision is reached.
This makes it personal, and in the SC's best interests to get it right. Because now that they're involved, they have no privacy from the NSA until they rule otherwise. This also means that it's in their best interests to get it right sooner rather than later, because until they rule on the specific rights the NSA has, the NSA is operating with whatever rights it claims -- with a "legal" claim to spy on the court judges themselves.
This should indeed be an interesting ruling. The actual outcome, as you obliquely point out, probably won't be as interesting as the ruling.
Right. If it's only 60 Americans, why are you building a massive data center in Utah?
Because they're trying to capture 100% of data on all individuals for which they're 51% or greater certain aren't American?
Incidentally, because of where they're located, this will also capture the other end of the communication, which is with an American. But that's not the target, that's just the fringe benefit. Then they can use the metadata to tie all this communication together, so that even though the targets weren't on US soil, there's a complete -- and legal -- meta-web of information that links all those domestic data points.
So... if you've arguably never communicated with someone who the NSA was 49% or less confident to be an American, they don't have your data stored, beyond the metadata of where you go, who you contact, and when. Any detailed information that would portray you as an average American won't be captured -- just the potentially incriminating data gathered while targeting others.
That would work on a national level, but it would kill the lucrative overseas market for series. Stations here in Europe tend to wait a little and see how a series does in the USA (or wherever it airs first), then pick it up if successful. And they pay a deal less for content that has already been distributed by some other means (streaming / DVD).
Of course, revenue from streaming to overseas customers might make up for lost sales to TV stations there. Plenty of viewers here seem willing to pay to watch episodes when they want, especially if they can do so at the same time or soon after it has aired in the USA.
A few things here... The "wait a little and see how a series does" method is dead, even if they don't know it yet. As TFA mentions, many people watch the first episode and then wait for the season to end to watch the rest. Seeing how a series does is something that is better measured on Facebook than via traditional Neilson ratings.
What EU distributors should be doing these days is getting the telemetry on how many people are streaming the US release, and purchase the ones people want for immediate rebroadcast and/or value-added full seasons available for streaming/download/purchase. Because if they don't do this, they'll be relegated to no "new" US content, having to depend on dubbed reruns and non-US content to make up the bulk of the airtime.
Any way you look at it, the original networks are chasing the long tail with overseas broadcast sales these days. I can't see that being profitable for very long, when they now have the ability to stream directly to the phone/tablet of the average person in South Africa or Laos.
I would not rule out the possibility of your ISP intentionally degrading your Netflix experience.
I would blame Amazon or Netflix for the occasional problem. If it's something more pervasive, I would be inclined to blame the network provider. Sabotaging the competition...
I had similar problems with DNS cutting out until I switched my DNS to 8.8.8.8 -- that was years ago, and I rarely have problems now.
If you don't like Google knowing everything you do, use an OpenDNS local NS instead of Google; you'll still get better service and do an end-run around a lot of the shenanigans that go on at your ISP.
During playoffs I can spend that $1200 that I saved by cutting cable out at the bar.
Which doesn't work when the finals of NHL ice hockey are shown on cable's NBC Sports Network, and you're not 21 (or you are 21 but your kid wants to watch too).
OK; let's put it differently then... save the $1200, and instead of watching NHL finals, buy tickets to all the junior league games. Trust me... they're much more exciting and entertaining. NHL has become more like Reality TV mixed with UFC and chess. Junior games actually have people making mistakes, teams with unbalanced strengths due to population distribution rather than which team pays out the most in contracts, etc. And you get to watch the stuff between the periods:)
I cut the cord years ago, and find I get out more and support actual teams and players, rather than passively watching and supporting the sports networks.
I'm willing to bet Microsoft would buy you outright (see: Bungie), Nintendo would want an exclusive license and Sony would just steal it and release their own version of it later.
You forgot Apple: they'll wait a few years and release one "done right".
Yes; this is mostly right -- except for the fact that a stream of zeroes can still be completely random; just highly unlikely. The trick is whether that stream of zeroes can be accurately predicted or not, not what the actual value is. As such, not affecting the output is a perfectly random thing to do.
you just...answered why it wouldn't work. If that much garbage is actually coming into the conditioned power, it will kill the system in very little time.
Why? Is there something I need to know about electromagnetics and primary transformer coils being unable to handle variance in the amperage and voltage?
The DC provided by the PSU is by definition conditioned to some degree -- the transformer does this by using induced current to step down the voltage, then passes it through the rectifier (diode-cathode ring) which should smooth things out even further.
Unless you're saying that if there's enough garbage (read: degree of variance in amperage and voltage, vs frequency of change) to get through the transformer, you're going to kill your PSU, which is true.
And if you're not sure that either one is secure, are you really gaining anything by using two - maybe you should spend some time finding a lock that you *do* trust.
There is no PRNG, Yarrow included, that we can say with 100% certainty that is not (or will not be) broken. The point of using multiple PRNGs is so that even if one or more of the components is compromised, it doesn't compromise the entire system. To use your metaphor: if your options are a padlock and a keyed lock, and there's a 25% chance each that a burglar could bypass them -- wouldn't you use both locks to reduce the probability of being robbed to 1/16 instead of 1/4?
That's not quite it, as we're not dealing with locks here, but patterns. And as you know, humans are pretty good at spotting patterns in the randomness.
The end result is that if you choose the wrong combination of PRNGs, you can end up with a result that has a decidedly non-random pattern embedded in it that can be exploited to do predictive analysis of the crypto. Layering more PRNGs on can actually help to isolate the pseudoness instead of the randomness. At some point, you need to use some algorithm to randomly select from the PRNGs, and do so in a way that eliminates the pseudo-generative effects of those sources while failing to introduce its own. The best way to do this is to use something very contextual, where it is highly unlikely an attacker would have access to all the variables.
Slashdot Mirror
I take a train to work (and home again) that has no driver. Yet, to a person, everybody disagrees with me that a robot drives me to work.
I don't... am I a robot?
My Roomba ordered me to get off my "lazy human ass" and vacuum the house myself.
You'll know it has reached sentience when it spends most of its time in front of the TV.
Oh wait -- that's more likely because that's the hardest-to-clean spot in the house....
20mA will happily kill you. 16mA at 60Hz is the maximum current a person can realistically let go of.
Hmm? I thought the issue with amperage was that with volumes of electrical current at certain levels, the nerve endings get flooded, causing muscle contraction. However, varying the frequency will vary how the current messes with your nervous system; a load above 20mA is just as likely to cause you to reflexively fling the connection away, or if the voltage is fast enough cause burns, or even result in heart seizure or stroke.
While 20mA will happily kill you, I've held a live 110VAC 60Hz 15A line, and the result was my hand being flung away from the contact point. 220VAC 60Hz at 30A on the other hand, would more than likely result in muscle seizures and likely clamping, eventually followed by death by one of the previously mentioned methods.
I have had multiple submissions accepted and rejected, but the one thaat really rankles, is the one in which I took the time to write some new text to describe the article, then someone else copy/pasted my text into another submission that got accepted in place of mine.
Yeah; I've had that happen too. I discovered that the rule is to watch the firehose closely, and time your submissions appropriately.
Electrocution = Electro + execution = dead! There's nothing mild about dead!
Pfft, you think electrocution is bad? What about elocution? There's a reason public speaking is the #1 fear of most people in the developed world! We need to end the threat of public speaking before it's too late!
Interesting that electrocution and elocution both result in severe forms of shock....
Sure, it adds a redundant extra connector to the chain, but it's proof that patents simulate innovation!
FTFY :)
Apple sells electronic fashion accessories. It's a great business, but automatically it can't be the standard, because they sell the feeling of "being smarter/better than the standard". If some EU directive forces some parts of Apple products to be standard, then don't worry, Apple will find some other way to distinguish itself from the common user.
I disagree... Apple sells electronic fashion appliances, not accessories They license the accessory market to others, as it's not as profitable. Their stuff is designed to just work as designed, with minimal time spent by the consumer trying to get it working as described.
This appliance model doesn't just show up in their hardware (Macs, phones, audio players, DST boxes, mice, keyboards, etc) but also in a lot of the hardware and software components (including things like the AAC standard they helped design and push to market).
All that said though, you're right in your last statement -- if some EU directive forces some parts of Apple products to be standard, they're going to push for it to be THEIR standard, with royalties going to them (often through some working group they're a member of). And they'll find other things that distinguish them in the market -- most likely by using that appliance mentality again instead of the "feature list" mentality that drives many electronics vendors.
Regular paperbacks are generally of noticeably higher quality than "Mass Market Paperbacks" (which are the small-ish versions sold in most supermarkets and such).
The Mass Market variety aren't really designed to last. They're meant to be read once or twice (if ever) and if they tear up after that just toss them.
If you're buying a book for a collection you want to buy a higher quality version.
That said - I'm not sure why they charge what they do for the better versions. Barnes and noble puts out very good quality hard-cover versions of some public domain books for less than $10. That's generally less than the price difference between the MMPB and the hardcover version of most books, so you're actually paying a lot more than just the additional materials cost there.
You're paying copyright fees. With the $10 books, the content is usually public domain, so you're only paying for the price of printing and cost of materials. When you're buying a paperback, you're purchasing the right to read the work for as long as the book lasts (which has been getting shorter and shorter on the mass market paperbacks). With the higher quality hardcover books, often printed on acid-free paper, you're purchasing the right to read the same content for as long as copyright lasts, barring accidental (or intentional) destruction of the book.
Look at the Peterson's Field Guide for a paperback* that bucks this trend, and has a price to reflect it.
*It's not really paper, as they use cotton and plastic in the material as well -- this is a book designed to be dropped in a duck pond or snagged on brambles and come out none the worse for wear.
But how am I supposed to give billions in subsidies to corn farmers then?
By converting their cornfields to switchgrass. They'll need to re-tool, which isn't cheap (which is where the grants and subsidies come in), but in the end, they'll end up with a much cheaper crop that doesn't need the same rotation and fertilizers you require with corn. So even if the subsidies are less, after the initial investment, the profit margin for farmers will be increased.
...of which my 20-year-old paperbacks are already starting to disintegrate, and that's not even taking into account the bindings.*
The good thing about digital books is that it's trivial to "rebind" them when the reader dies. Not so easy with paperbacks.
*My older paperbacks are actually in much better shape, but novel publication appears to have moved to a cheaper paper and binding glue around 20 years ago.
The lesson we keep ignoring is that the root of the overwhelming vast majority of these cases is the same: mental health. Our country continues to completely ignore the elephant in the room. Until we improve access to mental health care, and de-stigmatize the pursuit of mental health treatment, we will continue to have unstable individuals in our society who will do this to us. We don't necessarily need to lock them all up, many can be treated; but they all need access to help.
Our current health care system fails miserably at this. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 (aka "affordable care act", aka "Obamacare") does almost nothing for this problem.
This would be a good moment to point out that there is no "we" and "they" -- while some mental conditions are life-long, almost everyone will have someone during their life who they care for who needs help dealing with mental issues. For that matter, most people will actually BE that person at one point or another.
These are issues that used to be (mis)handled by the atomic family and surrounding community; nowadays, there isn't really any social structure guaranteed to be in place to support people with mental struggles. This is really a social issue, with the stigmatization you refer to going extremely deep., even further than the stigmatization that relates to drug abuse.
The problem with that argument as it pertains to cell phones, is that the government maintains a monopoly on the airwaves which it licenses out to cell providers. It would be like the government licensing out all roads to be toll roads and then getting to track your movements because they were part of a business dealing.
I do wish you hadn't pointed this out...
So much for "free" roads.
Yeah, the part that I thought was particularly distasteful was spying on Airbus and giving all the secrets to Boeng.
I think that was to do with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_affair
"That opens the door to the SCOTUS's other favorite "get out of hard decisions free" card: they can declare the point moot since their decision won't un-bankrupt the corporations."
No, it doesn't, because they don't have any way around the "chilling speech" issue.
Sure they do...
"With a name like Snowden, it is obvious that this is a criminal who not only chills things, but steals and hides them too. As we cannot allow such criminal activity of speech chilling to exist in the US, we MUST give the NSA the full powers duly needed to stamp out such abuses of our constitutional rights."
Who's going to call them on it (in a way that will make a difference)?
The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.
There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of saying, what you think it should be and how it is is not always clear cut. There's always the possibility of a Split decision by the Supreme Court, where an opinion of the court states that in the time of war, or potential war, the Executive Branch may be delegated certain abilities. Defining when hostile threats are likely or not, that's not the purview of the court.
It will certainly, no matter how it is ruled, be interesting reading.
All this, whether true or not, only tangentially matters in real life.
You see, this case falls under the purview of "National Security" -- which means that all judges sitting on this case will also be under the umbrella of "National Security" -- which means they will be directly impacted by whatever decision is reached.
This makes it personal, and in the SC's best interests to get it right. Because now that they're involved, they have no privacy from the NSA until they rule otherwise. This also means that it's in their best interests to get it right sooner rather than later, because until they rule on the specific rights the NSA has, the NSA is operating with whatever rights it claims -- with a "legal" claim to spy on the court judges themselves.
This should indeed be an interesting ruling. The actual outcome, as you obliquely point out, probably won't be as interesting as the ruling.
Right. If it's only 60 Americans, why are you building a massive data center in Utah?
Because they're trying to capture 100% of data on all individuals for which they're 51% or greater certain aren't American?
Incidentally, because of where they're located, this will also capture the other end of the communication, which is with an American. But that's not the target, that's just the fringe benefit. Then they can use the metadata to tie all this communication together, so that even though the targets weren't on US soil, there's a complete -- and legal -- meta-web of information that links all those domestic data points.
So... if you've arguably never communicated with someone who the NSA was 49% or less confident to be an American, they don't have your data stored, beyond the metadata of where you go, who you contact, and when. Any detailed information that would portray you as an average American won't be captured -- just the potentially incriminating data gathered while targeting others.
That would work on a national level, but it would kill the lucrative overseas market for series. Stations here in Europe tend to wait a little and see how a series does in the USA (or wherever it airs first), then pick it up if successful. And they pay a deal less for content that has already been distributed by some other means (streaming / DVD).
Of course, revenue from streaming to overseas customers might make up for lost sales to TV stations there. Plenty of viewers here seem willing to pay to watch episodes when they want, especially if they can do so at the same time or soon after it has aired in the USA.
A few things here...
The "wait a little and see how a series does" method is dead, even if they don't know it yet. As TFA mentions, many people watch the first episode and then wait for the season to end to watch the rest. Seeing how a series does is something that is better measured on Facebook than via traditional Neilson ratings.
What EU distributors should be doing these days is getting the telemetry on how many people are streaming the US release, and purchase the ones people want for immediate rebroadcast and/or value-added full seasons available for streaming/download/purchase. Because if they don't do this, they'll be relegated to no "new" US content, having to depend on dubbed reruns and non-US content to make up the bulk of the airtime.
Any way you look at it, the original networks are chasing the long tail with overseas broadcast sales these days. I can't see that being profitable for very long, when they now have the ability to stream directly to the phone/tablet of the average person in South Africa or Laos.
I would not rule out the possibility of your ISP intentionally degrading your Netflix experience.
I would blame Amazon or Netflix for the occasional problem. If it's something more pervasive, I would be inclined to blame the network provider. Sabotaging the competition...
I had similar problems with DNS cutting out until I switched my DNS to 8.8.8.8 -- that was years ago, and I rarely have problems now.
If you don't like Google knowing everything you do, use an OpenDNS local NS instead of Google; you'll still get better service and do an end-run around a lot of the shenanigans that go on at your ISP.
During playoffs I can spend that $1200 that I saved by cutting cable out at the bar.
Which doesn't work when the finals of NHL ice hockey are shown on cable's NBC Sports Network, and you're not 21 (or you are 21 but your kid wants to watch too).
OK; let's put it differently then... save the $1200, and instead of watching NHL finals, buy tickets to all the junior league games. Trust me... they're much more exciting and entertaining. NHL has become more like Reality TV mixed with UFC and chess. Junior games actually have people making mistakes, teams with unbalanced strengths due to population distribution rather than which team pays out the most in contracts, etc. And you get to watch the stuff between the periods :)
I cut the cord years ago, and find I get out more and support actual teams and players, rather than passively watching and supporting the sports networks.
I'm willing to bet Microsoft would buy you outright (see: Bungie), Nintendo would want an exclusive license and Sony would just steal it and release their own version of it later.
You forgot Apple: they'll wait a few years and release one "done right".
Yes; this is mostly right -- except for the fact that a stream of zeroes can still be completely random; just highly unlikely. The trick is whether that stream of zeroes can be accurately predicted or not, not what the actual value is. As such, not affecting the output is a perfectly random thing to do.
oh brother. is that what passes for sagely advice?
I wrote it, and I have the same reaction to the moderation 8|
you just...answered why it wouldn't work. If that much garbage is actually coming into the conditioned power, it will kill the system in very little time.
Why? Is there something I need to know about electromagnetics and primary transformer coils being unable to handle variance in the amperage and voltage?
The DC provided by the PSU is by definition conditioned to some degree -- the transformer does this by using induced current to step down the voltage, then passes it through the rectifier (diode-cathode ring) which should smooth things out even further.
Unless you're saying that if there's enough garbage (read: degree of variance in amperage and voltage, vs frequency of change) to get through the transformer, you're going to kill your PSU, which is true.
And if you're not sure that either one is secure, are you really gaining anything by using two - maybe you should spend some time finding a lock that you *do* trust.
There is no PRNG, Yarrow included, that we can say with 100% certainty that is not (or will not be) broken. The point of using multiple PRNGs is so that even if one or more of the components is compromised, it doesn't compromise the entire system. To use your metaphor: if your options are a padlock and a keyed lock, and there's a 25% chance each that a burglar could bypass them -- wouldn't you use both locks to reduce the probability of being robbed to 1/16 instead of 1/4?
That's not quite it, as we're not dealing with locks here, but patterns. And as you know, humans are pretty good at spotting patterns in the randomness.
The end result is that if you choose the wrong combination of PRNGs, you can end up with a result that has a decidedly non-random pattern embedded in it that can be exploited to do predictive analysis of the crypto. Layering more PRNGs on can actually help to isolate the pseudoness instead of the randomness. At some point, you need to use some algorithm to randomly select from the PRNGs, and do so in a way that eliminates the pseudo-generative effects of those sources while failing to introduce its own. The best way to do this is to use something very contextual, where it is highly unlikely an attacker would have access to all the variables.
Why would they need black helicopters to fly over your bedroom when they can just get them directly from your email?
You know they are.
Not the free ones.
True governance comes at a price. Always.