(Edit)

Downvoted for being atleast twenty times more long-winded than necessary, and still failing to describe what a "free will" without determinism would look like.

Hmmm. Well, that's in the full lenght version of which this is an extract. I notice that EYs disquisition, which is problably longer, doesn't suffer from the problem of being "too long".

Pseudo-random, but I'll let that trivial point slide

Which instance of "random" do you think should have been pseudo random? Note that there are devices commercially marketed as supplying "real" randomness based on quantum physics.

The more significant point is that those random numbers are utterly meaningless in themselves -- the meaning and worth of a program lies in those aspects that are not random,

Says who? Are you saying that the use of randomisation in software is always a misttake, that programmers who feel it is necessary are just incompetent?

that pseudo-randomness is only meaningful in how it's deterministically used.

It is true that a random number is no good in itself, but equally you can't solve every problem with pure determinism. So the value of a deterministic+random algorithm is in its determinsm+randomness.