I cannot believe this is what is blinding you here. You are totally out of context; I have already explained that 3-4 times.
Originally Posted by EVOEx
If I dissolved your body in acid, allowed the remains to solidify, and used radioactive decay, would that data be "less random" because a human produced it?
Think again about what I am talking about. Here is part of this post converted with:
10110010001011010001101101010011000100101011100101 00011101010010100101100100110010000010010011110010 01110001010100111000100111000010011110100101101010 10010001110001011110101001111001110000010001010010 00111001001100011111101001110000101110010100010101 1110010110010100101100010111010*
for (i=0;i<strlen(str);i++) printf("%d", str[i]%2);
Now, there are "non random" patterns in the event -- in fact it is not random at all, it is actual meaningful text. This is what I meant about the radioactive decay event -- which could be something that is totally predictable and full of meaningful, information rich patterns, but also produce random data of a given sort.
Why this is so
It may be hard for humans to avoid repetition in conscious acts and thus we are bad at producing random data. However, it would be very hard EVEN INTENTIONALLY to produce repeated patterns in a bit sequences converted one to one from characters in some text you type, while still using a meaningful sequence of words (ie, you can't go "word word word word" -- you must construct a sentence). Since it will be very difficult just to produce any pattern at all after conversion, I promise: it will be literally impossible to do it by accident. This is what I mean by "out of context".
*for some reason this appeared with spaces in it...