Ray Dillinger wrote:
> >> Here's an interesting thought, though. There are all kinds of
> >> number generators already hanging in the sky, and some of them
> >> are fairly random, so this thing might actually have a prayer
> >> of working.
> >
> >that, of course, requires that you trust THOSE. now it is highly
> >unlikely (though not impossible) that the NSA thought of this, say, 10
> >years ago, and it would be an extremely costly operation to secretly
> >modify those birds, but that only gives confidence, not trust.
>
> I was not talking about artificial satellites. I was talking about
> chaotic processes observable with telescopes.
I was talking about the satellites used to observe these processes. I
didn't get that you were going for earth-bound telescopes.
