Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Scientist)   Australian scientists invent true random numbers by splitting beam of light into two beams, measuring the power in each beam, then converting fluctuations into super-fast random number generator. Where's my flux capacitor?   (scientificcomputing.com) divider line 99
    More: Cool, random numbers, random number generators, virtual particles, flux capacitors, National University of Ireland, computer modeling, beam of light, quantum computer  
•       •       •

2386 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Apr 2012 at 6:03 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-13 02:38:15 PM  
Vacuum noise.

Cooler than the headline.
 
2012-04-13 03:12:44 PM  
Easier just to use the background microwave radiation to do it.
 
2012-04-13 03:13:47 PM  

Sgygus: Vacuum noise.

Cooler than the headline.



My cat hates that.
 
2012-04-13 03:39:30 PM  
Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.
 
2012-04-13 03:47:08 PM  
Science!
 
2012-04-13 03:48:01 PM  
media.salon.com
I said SHUT UP!
 
2012-04-13 04:00:25 PM  

slayer199: Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.


You know how I generate random numbers?

i55.tinypic.com

Ten-sided dice. Cryptographically just as secure as any other method, and it only cost me a dollar a die (retail).
 
2012-04-13 04:06:34 PM  

dittybopper: slayer199: Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.

You know how I generate random numbers?

[i55.tinypic.com image 320x240]

Ten-sided dice. Cryptographically just as secure as any other method, and it only cost me a dollar a die (retail).


Damn you got ripped off, they're a dime each over here.
 
2012-04-13 04:07:50 PM  

dittybopper: slayer199: Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.

You know how I generate random numbers?

[i55.tinypic.com image 320x240]

Ten-sided dice. Cryptographically just as secure as any other method, and it only cost me a dollar a die (retail).


Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.
 
2012-04-13 04:21:33 PM  

Elandriel: dittybopper: slayer199: Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.

You know how I generate random numbers?

[i55.tinypic.com image 320x240]

Ten-sided dice. Cryptographically just as secure as any other method, and it only cost me a dollar a die (retail).

Damn you got ripped off, they're a dime each over here.


Meh. It was an experiment, and I went to the first gaming store that I found that had them in stock. Even still, that's pretty cheap for a good random number generator.
 
2012-04-13 04:26:52 PM  

kingoomieiii: dittybopper: slayer199: Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.

You know how I generate random numbers?

[i55.tinypic.com image 320x240]

Ten-sided dice. Cryptographically just as secure as any other method, and it only cost me a dollar a die (retail).

Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.


There are any number of ways to accomplish that, all much faster, and less secure, than rolling dice. Hell, right now I'm listening to random noise (radio is tuned to 14.051 MHz, and there is no signal, just static). I could digitize that and get gobs of random numbers very quickly. It just wouldn't be secure for cryptographic purposes, because they would be generated and stored on a computer.

For other purposes, it would be perfectly fine, though.
 
2012-04-13 04:41:57 PM  
And these lasers will be shined on non random numbers to annoy them
 
2012-04-13 04:47:44 PM  

HR MSG NR 001 CK 24 0413 1646
BT
05231 05231 92092 73036 16767
09374 42290 96139 26217 64824
40156 03800 86873 83429 40353
19507 30392 00838 30914 23496
80422 61523 82287 16089
AR


Everything you need to read that is in my profile.
 
2012-04-13 04:54:54 PM  

kingoomieiii: Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.


What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?
 
2012-04-13 05:01:24 PM  

nekom: kingoomieiii: Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.

What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?


From a cryptological standpoint, you need true random numbers. Any algorithm that produces pseudorandom numbers can be potentially duplicated by someone trying to break the message.
 
2012-04-13 05:06:43 PM  

dittybopper: What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?

From a cryptological standpoint, you need true random numbers. Any algorithm that produces pseudorandom numbers can be potentially duplicated by someone trying to break the message.


Another example:
Link (new window)
 
2012-04-13 05:45:44 PM  

impaler: dittybopper: What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?

From a cryptological standpoint, you need true random numbers. Any algorithm that produces pseudorandom numbers can be potentially duplicated by someone trying to break the message.

Another example:
Link (new window)


Heh, good example.
 
2012-04-13 06:19:49 PM  
 
2012-04-13 06:20:56 PM  
13 24 22557 3467464 9315

I'm doing this in my HEAD!

Is your mind BLOWN?

2976 69464 34646 48465 54646 4 6545451 897984346.54 54545 1484
 
2012-04-13 06:23:11 PM  
There's no such thing as 'random'.

[but what about quantum mechanics]

what ABOUT quantum mechanics? Just because we don't know the rules that govern quantum mechanics doesn't mean that there aren't logical rules.

/determinist
 
2012-04-13 06:31:40 PM  
R.I.P. the grooviest random number generator ever (new window).
 
2012-04-13 06:32:01 PM  

lordargent: There's no such thing as 'random'.

[but what about quantum mechanics]

what ABOUT quantum mechanics? Just because we don't know the rules that govern quantum mechanics doesn't mean that there aren't logical rules.

/determinist


So what you're saying is, God doesn't play dice with the universe?
 
2012-04-13 06:34:08 PM  

lordargent: There's no such thing as 'random'.

[but what about quantum mechanics]

what ABOUT quantum mechanics? Just because we don't know the rules that govern quantum mechanics doesn't mean that there aren't logical rules.

/determinist


According to the Copenhagen Interpretation (which the majority of physicists subscribe to), determinism is not a valid view of quantum mechanics.

The Copenhagen Interpretation holds that objective reality is the combined probabilities of all possible states.
 
2012-04-13 06:35:54 PM  
So, I can now get Google Music to properly shuffle a playlist?

Great!

Where do I download this "Beamsplitter" app? I can't find it in the market.

//seriously shouldn't they have this shait figured out by now?
 
2012-04-13 06:39:02 PM  
Are you sure you want to trust quantum fluctuations? It gives demons a direct handle to manipulate things in bad ways.

/kinda not completely unserious
 
2012-04-13 06:40:32 PM  

lordargent: There's no such thing as 'random'.

[but what about quantum mechanics]

what ABOUT quantum mechanics? Just because we don't know the rules that govern quantum mechanics doesn't mean that there aren't logical rules.

/determinist


Agreed. Everything we know about the universe right up until quantum mechanics is deterministic - there is just so much data involved that it is easier to rely on probability than calculate it; we still end up with a fairly accurate model. We can't tell whether things smaller than the atomic also follow deterministic rules because of the limitations of observations at that level.

I've been told that the uncertainty principle applies even when your are not attempting to make an observation (and affect the energy of the system you're trying to observe), that it is innate to the laws which govern physics at that scale. But if that is true, then the TOE is impossible, because you'll need two separate models to describe the universe, and never the twain shall meet (also, where do you pass from one to the other - maybe based on the object's inertia?).

Not saying my ignorance on the subject necessitates that this condition be impossible, just that [what I understand of] our current understanding of the universe doesn't lend any evidence to such an interpretation.
 
2012-04-13 06:42:16 PM  

nekom: What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?


In the UK we have things called Premum Bonds. They're a bit like a lottery, only that you don't lose - you pay in like £50 and instead of interest it goes into a prize fund which are drawn by a computer and it's not allowed to be pseudo random. The draw has to be done using true randomness (they used to do it based on am amount of radiation coming from signal noise from neon tubes) - the numbers can't be done by an algorithm.
 
2012-04-13 06:47:59 PM  
Fish in a Barrel: So what you're saying is, God doesn't play dice with the universe?

Sure if you believe in that guy.

For me, the universe is a machine that follows a set of rules, some of which we know (at least well enough to make very very accurate predictions). And other parts which we have no clue about.

Some people try to argue that a universe that complex must have had a creator. But I believe that the universe is complex enough as it is without adding an even more complex creator to it

A creator that cares whether or not you bang your neighbors wife, in between impregnating virgins and turning people to pillars of salt.

//and if the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, then that creator is too complex to just exist as well and necessitates a creator as well. And before you know it...

www.nasuni.com

turtles all the way down.
 
2012-04-13 06:48:48 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: 13 24 22557 3467464 9315

I'm doing this in my HEAD!

Is your mind BLOWN?

2976 69464 34646 48465 54646 4 6545451 897984346.54 54545 1484


CSB. Now do a few hundred thousand.
 
2012-04-13 06:49:45 PM  

andrewagill: [i158.photobucket.com image 300x300]

What? This method not good enough for you?


It's published. That makes it useless from a cryptological standpoint.
 
2012-04-13 06:53:24 PM  

nekom: kingoomieiii: Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.

What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?


That lying video game will stop farking over my progress is what it'll do. I've seen some damn broken RNGs in my time and it was just a chore to play the games that had them.
 
2012-04-13 06:54:58 PM  
Apply it to cryptography, and use it to secure the secrets of every government agency in the world. That way if somebody ever cracks it, it will be a huge win for physics.

//Governments, not so much
 
2012-04-13 07:01:26 PM  
Nobody likes a smart-ass.
 
2012-04-13 07:04:48 PM  

ZER0T0THEC0RE: Apply it to cryptography, and use it to secure the secrets of every government agency in the world. That way if somebody ever cracks it, it will be a huge win for physics.

//Governments, not so much


TOO MANY SECRETS.

/Or cooties rat semen, you decide.
 
2012-04-13 07:05:21 PM  
I've got your random number generator right here: I'll give you a wedgie and you tell me how many minutes it takes for the blood from your anus to stop bleeding.
 
2012-04-13 07:10:35 PM  

Niveras: I've been told that the uncertainty principle applies even when your are not attempting to make an observation (and affect the energy of the system you're trying to observe), that it is innate to the laws which govern physics at that scale.


True. The Uncertainty Principle is derived from pure maths. If it's wrong, then logic is wrong.

It does not imply that the attribute does not exist, simply that the error will never be below a certain level.

Niveras: But if that is true, then the TOE is impossible, because you'll need two separate models to describe the universe, and never the twain shall meet (also, where do you pass from one to the other - maybe based on the object's inertia?).


False.

A theory of everything requires the unification of the four basic forces of the universe: Gravity, E&M, strong and weak nuclear interactions.

We can measure the strong and weak interactions to much, much larger magnitudes than the 6*10**34 error levels we can see. The twain can meet up pretty well, actually.
 
2012-04-13 07:14:55 PM  

BKITU: Easier just to use the background microwave radiation to do it.


OK, crypto people, I've never seen a good answer for this: what's wrong with using microtime() (choose your system software) as a seed for a PRNG? Certainly the time at which you click the mouse is pretty noisy already if measured to the microsecond. What's more noisy about this than the CMB or air noise etc.? And does the increased noisiness in that seed really make things more secure?

Also, this: Dice-O-Matic (new window)
 
2012-04-13 07:17:16 PM  

casual disregard: nekom: kingoomieiii: Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.

What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?

That lying video game will stop farking over my progress is what it'll do. I've seen some damn broken RNGs in my time and it was just a chore to play the games that had them.


Your fault for not exploiting it.
 
2012-04-13 07:18:26 PM  

LazarusLong42: BKITU: Easier just to use the background microwave radiation to do it.

OK, crypto people, I've never seen a good answer for this: what's wrong with using microtime() (choose your system software) as a seed for a PRNG? Certainly the time at which you click the mouse is pretty noisy already if measured to the microsecond.


What if your system polls the mouse interface once every 300 microseconds, knowing that the user couldn't tell the difference even if the system could?
 
2012-04-13 07:19:46 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: Petit_Merdeux: 13 24 22557 3467464 9315

I'm doing this in my HEAD!

Is your mind BLOWN?

2976 69464 34646 48465 54646 4 6545451 897984346.54 54545 1484

CSB. Now do a few hundred thousand.


I've got this one...

100,000
100,000
100,000
;-)
 
2012-04-13 07:25:59 PM  

andrewagill: LazarusLong42: BKITU: Easier just to use the background microwave radiation to do it.

OK, crypto people, I've never seen a good answer for this: what's wrong with using microtime() (choose your system software) as a seed for a PRNG? Certainly the time at which you click the mouse is pretty noisy already if measured to the microsecond.

What if your system polls the mouse interface once every 300 microseconds, knowing that the user couldn't tell the difference even if the system could?


Well, true, obviously the system would have to poll that often, but clicking a button on a web page adds that noise to the system easily, and is no less secure than random.org
 
2012-04-13 07:32:16 PM  
LazarusLong42: Well, true, obviously the system would have to poll that often, but clicking a button on a web page adds that noise to the system easily, and is no less secure than random.org

Not if they keep clicking the same spot.

Redisplay/refresh comments
 
2012-04-13 07:43:07 PM  

lordargent: LazarusLong42: Well, true, obviously the system would have to poll that often, but clicking a button on a web page adds that noise to the system easily, and is no less secure than random.org

Not if they keep clicking the same spot.


Um... what does the spot being clicked have to do with the time the webserver receives the click?
 
2012-04-13 07:51:11 PM  
int getRandomNumber()
{
return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll. guaranteed to be random.
}
 
2012-04-13 07:53:01 PM  

TheOriginalEd: casual disregard: nekom: kingoomieiii: Well, the challenge is to get numbers that random electronically, and do so extremely fast.

What advantage does a `TRUE' random number (if there even exists such a thing) have over a pseudorandom number in any application whatsoever? Don't get me wrong, it's neat and all that but of what use is it?

That lying video game will stop farking over my progress is what it'll do. I've seen some damn broken RNGs in my time and it was just a chore to play the games that had them.

Your fault for not exploiting it.


Blah. In multiplayer games, that is usually against the rules.
 
2012-04-13 07:57:30 PM  
LazarusLong42: Um... what does the spot being clicked have to do with the time the webserver receives the click?

I must have missed/skipped over whoever you were originally quoting, and assumed they were polling to get the X/Y coordinates of the mouse click :P
 
2012-04-13 08:10:03 PM  
World's Fastest Random Number Generator Developed from Sounds of Silence

How do Simon and Garfunkel fit into this?
 
2012-04-13 08:11:46 PM  

ZER0T0THEC0RE: Apply it to cryptography, and use it to secure the secrets of every government agency in the world. That way if somebody ever cracks it, it will be a huge win for physics.

//Governments, not so much


Nah, it'll get used in somebody's trading algorithm so it can take a trillion random positions per second.
 
2012-04-13 08:16:51 PM  

dittybopper: slayer199: Seems like a bit of overkill. Typical of mathematicians and physicists.

That being said, I can see this being handy for cryptography.

You know how I generate random numbers?

[i55.tinypic.com image 320x240]

Ten-sided dice. Cryptographically just as secure as any other method, and it only cost me a dollar a die (retail).


You know as well as I do, that unless those dice have perfectly uniform mass that they're not "truly random." They might be close enough random for practical purposes, but just engraving the digits on the faces means that they're not uniform.

/Unless the material was non-uniform in a way
//That specifically offset the differences in masses
///Nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine
 
2012-04-13 08:22:41 PM  
I'm having a nice cup of really hot tea right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these comments.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report