Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Perfectly Random generator

Author
Message
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 13:31 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 13:39
Hey guys!

The Dark Basic command "rnd()" returns a random number. That is true. But it`s not Perfectly random, because it gets its random number based on the system clock. So if you wan`t 3 random numbers at the same time, you will get 3 numbers with the same difference every time.

So I thought I should make something Perfectly random. Humans are an organized random source. Everything they do, is generated by random numbers, which get organized and tell the body and brain, what to do. That`s called "decision". If humans weren`t random, we would be machines. That`s what is fabulous about the universe! It`s random!!!

Here is how it works:
Everyone post FIVE numbers between 1 and 1000. Any numbers. Since humans are random, and everyone is different in thinking, this thread should fill up with at least 500 posts.

There is one rule : Don`t double post! You can only post, if the one above isn`t you.

At the end, I will say when to stop, I will make a program that will process these numbers randomly. So you will get randomly randomly randomly generated numbers.

Quote: ""Why don`t you make the numbers up yourself?""


Because I am only one person. You need many people to generate random numbers. The brain is organized, just like the rnd() command. But many brains make it close to perfectly random

Here are my five numbers:
1,734,800,36,16


Thanks to everyone in advance, for helping out in this project!

TheComet

Oooooops!!! I accidentally formated drive c.
Insanity Complex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2005
Location: Home
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 13:33
I assume that these numbers would be in the same order in an array every time, and therefore there would be some pattern to the randomization...I doubt the possibility of a perfect random. But oh well

50, 278, 252, 973, 768


Getting between me and my morning coffee is suicide...
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 13:35 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 13:38
Quote: "The Dark Basic command "rnd()" returns a random number. That is true. But it`s not Perfectly random, because it gets its random number based on the system clock. "


Not quite. RND() uses a table of values between 1 and 32K. It always starts at the beginning and works through.

If you RANDOMIZE(number), it will start at a different position, and continue from there. Hence, most people use RANDOMIZE(TIMER()) to get a more unpredictable value.

What you are doing is creating an alternative table of random numbers, so you have exactly the same problem as the original solution.

One more issue. If you ask people to pick a number between 1 and 10, you'll have the highest weighting on 3, followed closeley by 7. The same patterns occur for larger number ranges too, but the weightings aren't as exaggerated. Your own numbers are the perfect example - your trend is towards even numbers, a common theme. As is insanity's list
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 13:37
@Batvink.
True, but not Perfectly random. That`s the point of this thread.

My next numbers:
3,859,1000,102,79

Oooooops!!! I accidentally formated drive c.
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 13:39
The point is, your list isn't perfectly random. It has the same flaws as the original method, plus a whole heap of additional flaws based on human tendencies to follow patterns. So technically, it's worse
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 13:56
Quote: "So I thought I should make something Perfectly random"

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a 'perfect' random number generator.

El Goorf
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Sep 2006
Location: Uni: Manchester, Home: Dunstable
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 14:02
http://www.random.org/

http://notmybase.com
All my base are not belong to anyone.
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 14:03
I'm sure there's registers in your PC that could be used, no 2 PC's are exactly the same after all.

Some programs rely on standard random number lists though, I mean look at Elite, it's how it managed to fit onto such small PC's, if not for the standard random number list it would be fairly unpredictable, hell you probably wouldn't be able to visit the same place twice.


less is more, but if less is more how you keeping score?
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 14:55
I don't quite understand the need for anything more random than the standard method + timer. Nobody can set a program running at the exact same millisecond, and follow the precise same logic so as to get the same TIMER() value throughout the course of the program, whilst everything else in Windows remains equal. I can't think of anything that needs this level of accuracy in random number generation either.
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 15:33
The capability of the random number generator, in my opinion is judged by how easy it is to determine what the next number generated will be. If it is difficult to predict then the random number generator has done its job IMHO.

TheSturgeon(playing me at chess) : I will use my powers of the horse and pwnzor you.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:13 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 16:14
Quote: "I don't quite understand the need for anything more random than the standard method + timer. Nobody can set a program running at the exact same millisecond, and follow the precise same logic so as to get the same TIMER() value throughout the course of the program, whilst everything else in Windows remains equal. I can't think of anything that needs this level of accuracy in random number generation either."


It would be useful for encryption... that's about all I can think of.


Hurray for teh logd!
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:24
Quote: "That`s what is fabulous about the universe! It`s random!!! "


Laws of physics? Formulas?

Don't you just hate that Zotoaster guy?
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:28
Quote: "Laws of physics? Formulas?"


Life?

Modelled and rendered in Blender. Free software ftw.
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:33
Who ever said life was random? There are the libertarians that think consious decisions are random and not based on anything, but realistically it's just the neurons in your brain at work.

Don't you just hate that Zotoaster guy?
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:36
Quote: "It would be useful for encryption... that's about all I can think of."


Predictable random sequences are used for encryption. You can create an algorithm that uses the same random sequence at each side, like PGP for example.
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:37
Quote: "That`s what is fabulous about the universe! It`s random!!! "


Lol, dunno who said that but you couldn't be more wrong. Everything is systematic and very much not random Even the lotto isn't truly random! it's so rigged!!

Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 16:59
Human behavior is statistical, you will always get patterns of probability. Why? Because we are all humans and we all live in the same world and thus we share genes and many things affects us the same

As BatVink says using the timer to seed the RND table is as random as anyone here can ask for because it works on milliseconds. Even if you tried to run the program at the exact millisecond every day for a year you are not very likely to get the same numbers. There are 1000 milliseconds on every second and only 365 days on a year

[center]
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 18:59
Quote: "Who ever said life was random?"


I do! Your opinion is correct to. The universe is random, only organized. So you are telling me, we follow our destiny and can not avoid it? That is totally false.

Quote: "Everything is systematic and very much not random"


If that were so, life would be so boring... and if that were so, you could predict everything! You could see into the future! NO. The future has infinite possibilities, and truly perfect randomness can only be so, when there are infinite possibilities.

Although, humans aren`t infinite, so you don`t read perfect randomness.

So, I see not many think a lot of this thread, but it was worth a try.

TheComet

Oooooops!!! I accidentally formated drive c.
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 19:04
Quote: "and if that were so, you could predict everything"

How? By attempting to predict it, you would change it.

Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 19:15
Quote: "we follow our destiny and can not avoid it"


I wouldn't call it destiny, just determinism. Of course, our concience makes things feel like they are our choicel, so what's the problem? The decisions we act on now are exactly the same as they would be otherwise.


Quote: "That is totally false."


Justification?


Quote: "You could see into the future!"


To some extent you can, it's just our knowledge of the universe is so limited. Also, what Benjamin said

Don't you just hate that Zotoaster guy?
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 19:17
Quote: "The universe is random, only organized. So you are telling me, we follow our destiny and can not avoid it? That is totally false."


You can't say why it's organized, so how can you say you know it has infinite possibilities?

Just because the universe is seemingly random does not make it truly random.

True random number generating machines generally use analogous methods for determining random numbers. The numbers it generates therefore fall into the domain of the laws of physics. (Perhaps quantum theory, random number generators are not really my forte)

However, we know that in physics things are generally not random. Chaos theory being a pretty darn reasonable and good theory, it's possible that numbers generated are caused due to butterflies flapping in South America.

I decide to go eat lunch at McDonald's rather than Burger King because I want to eat on the cheap, that's my decision, but in some ways it is not.

There's a possibility that nothing we choose is by chance, and we therefore have no infinite possibilities (other than we don't know what our possibilities are).


Hurray for teh logd!
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 20:15 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 20:19
Quote: "How? By attempting to predict it, you would change it.
"


That`s a clever idea, but consider this:

By predicting, to attempt to predict it, you won`t change it.

(and please don`t quote that and say "by attempting to predict, that to attempt to predict it, you would change it", because I would just say "by predicting to attempt to predict, that to attempt to predict it, you wouldn`t change it.")

Quote: "You can't say why it's organized, so how can you say you know it has infinite possibilities?"


Your right, I can`t say why it`s organized, but we also can`t say it`s chaotic.

I don`t know it has infinite possibilities. It`s the mathematical assumption. There is only so much I know, but this is what I think : What was before the big bang? Nothing.
"The big bang came from nothing"
This is one theory :

The quantum flux theory, in which something can come from nothing.
It is a random fundamental of the physical and the non-physical background in which the universe sits.

This is getting complicated, and I don`t want to go against someone's religion. This is my own theory, and you don`t have to argue any further.

TheComet

Oooooops!!! I accidentally formated drive c.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 20:17
...

Pwnd.


Hurray for teh logd!
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 21:23
Just a little reminder...

Quote: "Due to continuous problems the following subjects are also banned from discussion on all of our forums:

3.7 Debate about religious belief or any tangent of religion
3.8 Debate about any form of pro or anti government sentiments, irrespective of which government
3.9 Debate about any form of creationist / evolutionary theories"
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 21:26
Quote: "By predicting, to attempt to predict it, you won`t change it."

That's an interesting point.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 21:40
Quote: "At the end, I will say when to stop, I will make a program that will process these numbers randomly."


Wait, so you want us to give you so-called real random numbers, so your program can process them randomly. But the program will process them using the "imperfect" randomness that you detest, making the entire thing just as bad as using Rnd()


David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 21:51
Computers are deterministic, obviously, so getting truly random numbers (directly from a computer) is near-impossible. Same input = Same output


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 22:39
Life is not random but that doesn't mean that it's set on a path either. Every person can make his own decisions and affect any number of other people. However, a large number of people can be predicted using statistics. Well, even a single person's choices can be predicted to some extent, should you know all about him. Statistics are not exact but they are also not random, there are probabilities for everything.

If you want something random then roll a dice.

[center]
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 22:50 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 22:51
Just to note, in case there's some confusion, I said pwnd because that was a perfect answer counteracting my own thoughts, and that was the only word that came to mind...

Since when has hard up science been a questioned topic? We're not saying "the universe was/was not created by god", we're just pondering whether it was created to offer/not offer infinite possibilities.


Hurray for teh logd!
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 22:50
Truly random using a computer? Impossible.
Random enough? Definitely.

The idea behind this post? Not a chance. By making a list of 'random' choices of numbers, you are providing a list of valid numbers that can be predicted by someone else with the same list. And that's not random!

ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 22:56
Putting the word "perfectly" in bold several times does not make your point more valid. Humans are not random; even a completely insane person would have some kind of (flawed) logic behind him. Computers are incapable of generating a random number because they must follow a set rule on how to generate it. However, computers can generate difficult-to-predict numbers, which in my opinion are just as useful as a true random number.

bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 22:59 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 23:01
Quote: "Putting the word "perfectly" in bold several times does not make your point more valid. Humans are not random; even a completely insane person would have some kind of (flawed) logic behind him. Computers are incapable of generating a random number because they must follow a set rule on how to generate it. However, computers can generate difficult-to-predict numbers, which in my opinion are just as useful as a true random number."


A computer can generate difficult-to-predict numbers. So can humans... I fail to see your point.

Computers follow a preset set of instructions, logical code. The possibility is there that this is the case with humans as well, on a much grander scale and that events have been set in motion that cannot change. A fatalistic idea I guess.


Hurray for teh logd!
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 23:03
My point is in my post, humans cannot generate a true random number (the point of the thread).

bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 23:04
Then predict a number I am going to post.

I promise I won't look at what you predict. If it's right, we'll.. uh, stare at you in shock and wonder.


Hurray for teh logd!
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 23:25
Nothing is random. That doesn't mean the universe is boring; everything is constantly changing all the time but in a controlled way.

I agree with BatVink on the "not-so-perfect" randomness of this project. Although people seem to act randomly we are very bad at being random, you could say we act fairly randomly. The problem is we all have active brains and are influenced by so many things that it is almost impossible to be random. Even reading other peoples numbers will change the ones we pick ourselves.

My Numbers:
1,1,1,1,1

bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Mar 2008 23:31 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2008 23:32
Quote: "My Numbers:
1,1,1,1,1"


Dammit I read them, now I've been poisoned. Anyways, I agree.

Carl Sagan, when talking about astrology vs astronomy, said something along the lines of (badly paraphrased), Astrology is interesting, but astronomy has the upper hand, because it's true

In this case we don't know what's true or not, but it's interesting, and would be all the more interesting if we did discover it, because it'd be true.


Hurray for teh logd!
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 01:29
J2d, you are confusing "random" with "unpredictable." A random number has absolutely no reason or logic behind it, while an unpredictable number is just impossible or difficult to predict. Every number a person thinks of is based on something, like those that Batvink brought up.

da power pwnerer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jul 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 01:34
7.0,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4

Hardy har har
*Clears throat* Sorry, that was my stupid moment...




-Dan


http://Freewebs.com/noobisoft
Come to Noobisoft's website today!
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 01:38
Quote: "J2d, you are confusing "random" with "unpredictable." A random number has absolutely no reason or logic behind it, while an unpredictable number is just impossible or difficult to predict. Every number a person thinks of is based on something, like those that Batvink brought up."


Good point. My point is that a truly random number may not exist, due to those numbers being influenced by earlier events, dating all the way back to the beginning of the universe, perhaps.


Hurray for teh logd!
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 01:52
This thread broke my existentialism.

I totally agree with Jerico, I don't think there can be such a thing as a truly random number. Even the big bang most likely happened because of some sort of natural algorithm, and maybe everything that happened since then, from Einstein's theory of relativity to the timing of my keystrokes, is based on some sort of "universal timer." Again, this thread broke my existentialism lol.

bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 02:03
There's still hope. If science (and no doubt they may have already) found a mechanism that is in fact truly and verifiably random, then it throws my whole argument into question and totally disproves determinism.

Hurray!


Hurray for teh logd!
Sunflash
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 04:54 Edited at: 4th Mar 2008 04:55
Anyways,
My biggest problem with such a random number system that TheComet is suggesting, is that say, even if we get a ton of numbers into this array, when we try to generate a random number, and we get, say, "666." Oh dang, what if we wanted a number between 1 and 10? We then realize that since we all submitted "random" numbers between 1-1000, some numbers will be missing! What if we want to make a game where something happens every time a specific number is generated? Then consider if no one submitted that specific "random" number... we are quite screwd...

The logical way to fix this problem is to have us all submit the 5 numbers until the 1000 number array is TOTALLY filled... then we realize that we wasted our time because:

1. We still can't generate random numbers above 1000
2. We could have just used a For..Next loop to create the array

Either way, we are again, screwed.

Mountain Dew, happyness in a bottle.
Satchmo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 05:05
Want a random number? Close your eyes and shove it into the numpad.

dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 08:56
Quote: "My biggest problem with such a random number system that TheComet is suggesting, is that say, even if we get a ton of numbers into this array, when we try to generate a random number, and we get, say, "666." Oh dang, what if we wanted a number between 1 and 10?"


You could easily scale numbers down to fit within the range of 1-10 from 1-1000 it's just *0.01.

Quote: "Want a random number? Close your eyes and shove it into the numpad."


This isn't random though, just unpredictable. If you were to do this again with your head in the same place, keyboard in the same place, move your head in exactly the same way thus being the exact same thing then the numbers would be the same every time, thus they aren't random. If you had foreknowledge of how your would head hit the numpad then you could predict what numbers would be pressed, the problem is that humans are very complex and grasping the idea of replicating what we do exactly is hard to comprehend.

Let's say I had some supercomputer with amazing computational power and I simulated an ant in an enclosed room and in real-life I did the same thing, let's say my supercomputer simulated everything that could possibly affect anything within that room and modelled the ant exactly, molecule for molecule as well as all the chemical interactions and everything. Obviously such a task is currently way beyond the scope of our technology but if we essentially create this ant and his room within a computer so there is no difference at all, we should be able to predict exactly what the ant will do(assuming we can simulate faster than real-time). Therefore nothing the ant will do is random and is predictable, does this not go for humans and everything too?

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 09:51
I think the most random thing we can do is randomly sort a list of already random numbers, then we can be a lot more random than standard.

Like if you populated an array with random numbers, then step through and swap each number with another one (shuffle them, if you like), say based on the timer as a randomize seed. It would still be the standard list of random numbers, but mixed up based on a seed rather than just starting at a seed. Much harder to predict than standard randoms but could still be replicated with a seed number.


less is more, but if less is more how you keeping score?
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 13:55
Quote: "Life is not random but that doesn't mean that it's set on a path either. Every person can make his own decisions and affect any number of other people. However, a large number of people can be predicted using statistics. Well, even a single person's choices can be predicted to some extent, should you know all about him. Statistics are not exact but they are also not random, there are probabilities for everything."


I totally agree with that.

Quote: "If you want something random then roll a dice."


The Dice can be affected by wanting it to roll to the number you desire.

You have all convinced me that total randomness can not be achieved, and before I break any more AUP`s, I would be thankful for a mod to lock this thread.

Many thanks to every one, TheComet

Oooooops!!! I accidentally formated drive c.
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 14:50
I didn't read the whole thread so excuse me of this was already suggested...

To create a genuine random seed you could get a human to perform an action and use the time it took the human to perform it as the seed.

No two humans, even the same one will be able to perform the action again to the exact same number of micoseconds with a high probability.

DinoHunter (still no nVidia compo voucher!), CPU/GPU Benchmark, DarkFish Encryption DLL, War MMOG (WIP), 3D Model Viewer
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 16:13
Quote: "To create a genuine random seed you could get a human to perform an action and use the time it took the human to perform it as the seed."


...But most people will just load a different game, that uses a faster method of initialising
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 4th Mar 2008 16:24
How about you record the atmospheric noise from a microphone port and use that as the random numbers, and then use the same thing to get a seed? Would be rather hard to predict I'd imagine.

TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 18th Mar 2008 19:54
Quote: "How about you record the atmospheric noise from a microphone port and use that as the random numbers, and then use the same thing to get a seed? Would be rather hard to predict I'd imagine."


That would be hard to set up, but it would work

Oooooops!!! I accidentally formated drive c.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-20 04:44:55
Your offset time is: 2024-11-20 04:44:55