Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-29 18:15 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 215 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
/dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:27 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:49 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 15:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:33 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:52 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:00 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:16 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 08:32 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:34 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:44 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 13:25 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:27 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 19:30 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 01:57 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 20:42 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:33 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 19:50 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-29 05:25 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:12 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:15 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:56 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:29 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 13:43 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 20:15 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-29 08:59 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 09:25 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 20:45 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:38 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 15:10 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:47 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:56 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:17 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 16:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:12 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 21:04 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:58 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:23 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:53 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:52 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:48 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:48 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:44 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-29 23:05 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-30 00:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-30 04:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:06 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:18 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:51 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:56 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 23:34 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:29 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 18:52 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:19 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:29 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:03 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:31 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 00:00 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:44 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:29 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:41 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:40 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:14 -0400
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:48 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:43 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:17 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:18 -0400
Re: ksh Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-28 15:54 +0000
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 20:40 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:14 +0100
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 21:12 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000
Re: ksh Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200
Re: ksh Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200
Re: ksh Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400
Re: ksh Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:38 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:42 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 00:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 04:14 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 19:06 +0100
[OT] Weather Underground (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 08:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Weather Underground David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 18:15 +0100
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 21:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <rNSdnekk36UHEA73nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90809 |
On 8/29/26 05:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 29/08/2026 06:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-08-28, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> A conviction that 'God does not play dice' is quite common. After all >>> our inherent model of the classical world is that every effect has a >>> cause. A conviction that falls apart in the face of both chaotic systems >>> and quantum physics >> >> God not only plays dice, but also sometimes >> throws them where they cannot be seen. >> -- Stephen Hawking >> > God is a bit of a cunt really. > > He could have made things easier Might BE ... for non-human-like Smarter Things. We ARE kind of prisoners of our evolution/environment. That shapes what we perceive, what we think, how we mentally model physics and most everything. The Buddha knew it, even Plato to some extent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 12:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116rre8$28guo$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90711 |
On 28/08/2026 03:16, c186282 wrote: > On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>> random >>>>> numbers >>>> >>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>> >>> >>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>> >>> However note that they DO produce in >>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>> >> No. you cannot >> >> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >> That is, its dead flat > > Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They > DO get all paranoid still about false randomness > and how that can be exploited. > Indeed. but they are not talking about true random: They are talking about *algorithmically generated* random. That I THINK cannot be done. As I said earlier that is the goal of the 'hidden variables' crowd in quantum physics, to find an algorithm that *predicts* quantum events. Like atomic decay. To make seeming randomness an 'emergent property' of a deterministic system. Now as far as metaphysics goes, it is perfectly possible to propose, but like God, awfully hard to pin it down into something that gets the right answer. And so, functionally useless for predictive purposes. Just like God. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 13:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116rvq8$2bmbg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90747 |
On 8/28/26 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/08/2026 03:16, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>>> random >>>>>> numbers >>>>> >>>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>>> >>>> >>>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>>> >>>> However note that they DO produce in >>>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>>> >>> No. you cannot >>> >>> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >>> That is, its dead flat >> >> Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They >> DO get all paranoid still about false randomness >> and how that can be exploited. >> > Indeed. but they are not talking about true random: They are talking > about *algorithmically generated* random. That I THINK cannot be done. > It depends on what you want, for cryptology you want unpredictability, for Monte Carlo you just want a good distribution. > As I said earlier that is the goal of the 'hidden variables' crowd in > quantum physics, to find an algorithm that *predicts* quantum events. > Like atomic decay. To make seeming randomness an 'emergent property' of > a deterministic system. > > Now as far as metaphysics goes, it is perfectly possible to propose, but > like God, awfully hard to pin it down into something that gets the right > answer. > > And so, functionally useless for predictive purposes. Just like God. > My favourite theory was the multiverse. The theory that all quantum choices occur, and the universe branches as each path is taken. Contrary to popular belief, this is falsifiable. Hugh Everett, proposed a test. Basically, walk in front of an automatically firing machine gun. If the machine gun jams, you are in the universe where quantum effects caused it to jam. The multiverse exists. Repeat the experiment if you still doubt. Hugh committed suicide, so obviously we aren't in the universe where his test succeeded, for him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 20:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116sq8c$2lr4k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90747 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 28/08/2026 03:16, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>>> random >>>>>> numbers >>>>> >>>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>>> >>>> >>>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>>> >>>> However note that they DO produce in >>>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>>> >>> No. you cannot >>> >>> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >>> That is, its dead flat >> >> Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They >> DO get all paranoid still about false randomness >> and how that can be exploited. >> > Indeed. but they are not talking about true random: They are talking > about *algorithmically generated* random. That I THINK cannot be done. It appears that SOL-nym, as usual, understood about a quarter of what was being discussed, and totally missed the main point regarding the discussion in those pages to which he refers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <18d0170137914ee0$187484$704772$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #90780 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:15:09 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: I just noticed this thread. Are the texts of William Shakespeare a random sequence? Most would disagree that they are a random sequence but the entire output of William Shakespeare, as well as any other "intelligent" author, will inevitably appear in any sufficiently large random sequence of Unicode characters. (Remember the room full of chimps and keyboards.) How large is the issue. Perhaps 10^23 chars. Likely a lot more. But they WILL appear and hence they MUST be random. Thus, randomness can only be defined "locally." That is, a random string of a pre-determined finite length must pass all tests of randomness to be judged random. A sequence of a billion identical chars would appear (very frequently) within a sufficiently large random sequence but would certainly not pass any tests of randomness. IOW, randomness is whatever passes the accepted tests for randomness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 02:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <CvucneXsccqT5Q_3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90787 |
On 8/28/26 17:59, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:15:09 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > > I just noticed this thread. > > Are the texts of William Shakespeare a random sequence? Nah, we're mostly tech geeks ... practical. Bill S ... not 'random' ... unless you are trying to go with some BS "universal perspective". Bill will NOT make any sense to SOME "alien" cultures. Cope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 08:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116u3h7$mbpu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90787 |
On 8/28/26 22:59, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:15:09 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > > I just noticed this thread. > > Are the texts of William Shakespeare a random sequence? > > Most would disagree that they are a random sequence but > the entire output of William Shakespeare, as well as any > other "intelligent" author, will inevitably appear in any > sufficiently large random sequence of Unicode characters. > > (Remember the room full of chimps and keyboards.) > > How large is the issue. Perhaps 10^23 chars. Likely a > lot more. > > But they WILL appear and hence they MUST be random. > Are you claiming any subsequence of a random sequence, is random? That appears to fly in the face of statistics 101. We all know statistical inference doesn't work on cherry-picked samples. That is why data dredging, p-hacking is misleading.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 09:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116u8hp$33oo9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90801 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:59:34 +0100, Pancho wrote: > Are you claiming any subsequence of a random sequence, is random? Surely that follows pretty much by definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 11:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116ubo5$34vf1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90811 |
On 8/29/26 10:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:59:34 +0100, Pancho wrote: > >> Are you claiming any subsequence of a random sequence, is random? > > Surely that follows pretty much by definition. Which definition would that be? I was trying to present an intuitive argument as to why it wasn't true. In real life, we know you can find patterns in random data, and we have to be cautious about attributing significance to them. I don't know how people formerly define a random sequence, it wasn't something I ever needed to do. Sensible definitions seem to be based upon complexity/compressibility. In a random sequence of binary digits it is clear we will find compressible subsequences, e.g. arbitrarily long subsequences of repeating digits. Leroy, himself, presents an argument as to why it is false. So I don't know why he or you suggested it should be true? What do you think a random sequence is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 20:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <nfgunbFprcuU57@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90817 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 11:19:48 +0100, Pancho wrote: > What do you think a random sequence is? While I doubt it's very random in a technical sense I smile when the shuffle mode plays the same song twice in a row.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 22:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116vn1t$3jcff$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90817 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 11:19:48 +0100, Pancho wrote: > On 8/29/26 10:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:59:34 +0100, Pancho wrote: >> >>> Are you claiming any subsequence of a random sequence, is random? >> >> Surely that follows pretty much by definition. > > Which definition would that be? Whatever definition of “random” you meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 15:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <18d04f507c9f7669$199339$821642$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #90801 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:59:34 +0100, Pancho wrote: > > Are you claiming any subsequence of a random sequence, is random? > Yes. If this were not true then practical random number tables could not exist. Before computers, subsequences from random number tables were selected as a basis for random sampling, etc. But your use of the qualifier "any" is a bit vague. The subsequence must be selected properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 21:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <o9OdnRQljZgNFg73nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90801 |
On 8/29/26 03:59, Pancho wrote: > On 8/28/26 22:59, Leroy H wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:15:09 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: >> >> I just noticed this thread. >> >> Are the texts of William Shakespeare a random sequence? >> >> Most would disagree that they are a random sequence but >> the entire output of William Shakespeare, as well as any >> other "intelligent" author, will inevitably appear in any >> sufficiently large random sequence of Unicode characters. >> >> (Remember the room full of chimps and keyboards.) >> >> How large is the issue. Perhaps 10^23 chars. Likely a >> lot more. >> >> But they WILL appear and hence they MUST be random. >> > > Are you claiming any subsequence of a random sequence, is random? That > appears to fly in the face of statistics 101. We all know statistical > inference doesn't work on cherry-picked samples. That is why data > dredging, p-hacking is misleading. Well, at random, you COULD get 10^23 ones in a row :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 13:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <wwvfqzx3x0y.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #90787 |
Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes: > Rich wrote: > I just noticed this thread. > > Are the texts of William Shakespeare a random sequence? > > Most would disagree that they are a random sequence but > the entire output of William Shakespeare, as well as any > other "intelligent" author, will inevitably appear in any > sufficiently large random sequence of Unicode characters. It’s not inevitable. As a trivial but analogous example, consider the probability P that a bit of value 1 appears in a sequence of random bits (repeated flips of a fair coin, for instance). If the sequence is N bits long and uniformly distributed then the probability that at least one of the bits is 1 is P=1-2^(-N) (i.e. opposite of the probability that all the bits are 0). P can get arbitrarily close to 1 (by making N ‘sufficiently large’), for sure, but there is no integer N for which P=1. The same argument, in a slightly more complex form, applies to Will’s corpus appearing in a sequence of random Unicode characters. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 14:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <6a92ea09$0$10325$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #90787 |
Le 28-08-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit : > On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:15:09 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > > I just noticed this thread. Good thing my IPS let me see your message. > Are the texts of William Shakespeare a random sequence? No. > Most would disagree that they are a random sequence Because it's not. So they would be right and you'll be wrong. As always. > but > the entire output of William Shakespeare, as well as any > other "intelligent" author, will inevitably appear in any > sufficiently large random sequence of Unicode characters. The fact that a random generator can provide anything doesn't mean that anything is random. Shakespeare didn't used words at random: you can understand what he meant. A random generator wouldn't provide only Shakespeare text, it would provide meaningless thing among which the Shakespeare would appear. but you can understand everything Shakespeare provided, so that wasn't random. > (Remember the room full of chimps and keyboards.) Forget about the remembering part. Try to start with the understanding part. > How large is the issue. Perhaps 10^23 chars. Likely a > lot more. No, the issue is the size of your brain. Which is very small, maybe a human being can't find it without special tricks. > But they WILL appear and hence they MUST be random. Yes, but no. Clearly you don't understand what causality is. If I'm asking you the sum of two and three. As you have no clue about simple computation, you will ask the answer to ChatGPT and answer me that it's five. But you could have used a dice instead and with sufficiently enough tries, the dice would ave show you a five. It doesn't mean that ChatGPT used a random generator to provide you the answer. Well, as you don't know how ChatGPT works, you will tell me that ChatGPT is based on statistics and that its answer is random, but it would only show your lack of knowledge. Because if you ask 10 times in a row the sum of two and three, the answer will always be the same. And if you ask the same thing to a dice, the answer would change almost every time. So one is randomly generated when the other isn't. Now, can you tell me which one is and which one isn't? Of course you can't, it was a rhetorical question, but it tells more about you than about what randomness is. > Thus, randomness can only be defined "locally." You are confusing randomness and simultaneity. > That > is, a random string of a pre-determined finite length must > pass all tests of randomness to be judged random. Is the drug you are taking legal? the fucking sangria you are praising so much can't explain that. > A sequence of a billion identical chars would appear > (very frequently) within a sufficiently large random > sequence but would certainly not pass any tests of > randomness. You can't pass the test of randomness. Because sometimes you wold provide smart things. When you are wrong 100% of times, it can't be explained by randomness. Either you are a troll or you are the stupidest things on earth. > IOW, randomness is whatever passes the accepted tests for > randomness. Funny guy. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 16:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <18d05221bff76e57$199370$821642$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #90829 |
On 29 Aug 2026 14:17:45 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > > Shakespeare didn't used words at random: you can > understand what he meant. A random generator wouldn't provide only > Shakespeare text, it would provide meaningless thing among which the > Shakespeare would appear. but you can understand everything Shakespeare > provided, so that wasn't random. > My associate on Planet X^X, with whom I communicate via universal thought patterns, would find the Shakespeare text to be meaningless gibberish. He (or it?) does not comprehend human language and thus the text would seem quite random (although it would not pass many rigorous tests of randomness). OTOH, I presented my associate on Planet X^X with a sequence of digits that passed many rigorous tests for randomness. But he (or it?) immediately recognized it as the real root of a certain math equation. It is well known that "almost all" real numbers are "normal," that is their digit sequences are essentially random. But my associate was able predict every digit in the sequence even though it qualified, through testing, as being quite random.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 22:12 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <nfgspfF3giU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90831 |
On 2026-08-29 18:02, Leroy H wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2026 14:17:45 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> Shakespeare didn't used words at random: you can
>> understand what he meant. A random generator wouldn't provide only
>> Shakespeare text, it would provide meaningless thing among which the
>> Shakespeare would appear. but you can understand everything Shakespeare
>> provided, so that wasn't random.
>>
>
> My associate on Planet X^X, with whom I communicate via universal
> thought patterns, would find the Shakespeare text to be meaningless
> gibberish. He (or it?) does not comprehend human language and thus
> the text would seem quite random (although it would not pass many
> rigorous tests of randomness).
No, he would not.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 21:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <18d0629725493544$177297$916528$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #90839 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 22:12:31 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > No, he would not. > Would you, an intelligent human (i.e. Homo sapiens), consider the following 1000 char sequence of hexadecimal chars to be random: 3243f6a8885a308d313198a2e03707344a4093822299f31d0082efa98ec4e6c8 9452821e638d01377be5466cf34e90c6cc0ac29b7c97c50dd3f84d5b5b5470917 9216d5d98979fb1bd1310ba698dfb5ac2ffd72dbd01adfb7b8e1afed6a267e96b a7c9045f12c7f9924a19947b3916cf70801f2e2858efc16636920d871574e69a4 58fea3f4933d7e0d95748f728eb658718bcd5882154aee7b54a41dc25a59b59c3 0d5392af26013c5d1b023286085f0ca417918b8db38ef8e79dcb0603a180e6c9e 0e8bb01e8a3ed71577c1bd314b2778af2fda55605c60e65525f3aa55ab9457489 86263e8144055ca396a2aab10b6b4cc5c341141e8cea15486af7c72e993b3ee14 11636fbc2a2ba9c55d741831f6ce5c3e169b87931eafd6ba336c24cf5c7a32538 1289586773b8f48986b4bb9afc4bfe81b6628219361d809ccfb21a991487cac60 5dec8032ef845d5de98575b1dc262302eb651b8823893e81d396acc50f6d6ff38 3f442392e0b4482a484200469c8f04a9e1f9b5e21c66842f6e96c9a670c9c61ab d388f06a51a0d2d8542f68960fa728ab5133a36eef0b6c137a3be4ba3bf0507ef b2a98a1f1651d39af017666ca593e82430e888cee8619456f9fb47d84a5c33b8b 5ebee06f75d885c12073401a449f56c16aa64ed3aa62363f77061bfedf72429b0 23d37d0d724d00a1248db0fea 1000 chars may not be sufficient for meaningful tests but I have to make the cut-off at a reasonable level for this post. It may appear random and it may test random but these are actually the first 1000 hexadecimal digits of Pi. Thus, it is a completely deterministic sequence. My associate from Planet X^X can easily discern this. For him (or it?) it would be Shakespeare.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 00:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116qmge$1u4ip$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90602 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 8/25/26 10:19, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >>> The kernel provides two sources: one that waits if there is not >>> enough random data, and the other that doesn't wait and provides >>> what it can. >> >> /dev/random and /dev/urandom are functionally equivalent today; >> disregarding some details about system startup which don’t apply to >> most use caes, neither will block. >> >>> I call the former "true random". More true random I consider >>> unobtainium and go without. >> >> “True random” means something different, you need to change your >> terminology. > > Yep. "Random" is still kind of unobtanium. Nope. Only if you limit yourself to trying to program a deterministic computer program to create the randomness. > Though only the top-level crypto people worry about it very much. > > "Damned-near Random" can be had quite easily. > > TRUE 'random' ... not even sure quantum trix can deliver that. > Quantum is statistical, which narrows-down potential options. > People with a lot of CPU might take advantage. You can get a true random generator yourself for a relatively small amount of cash. Most are based on counting radioactive decay of some isotope of some element (I am not bothering to look up which one). It seems there's even a Hackaday project about building your own DIY version: https://hackaday.io/project/4628-nuclear-random-number-generator It's not hard, nor difficult, it's just very unnecessary for 99.999% of folks who are doing anything that wants a random number input.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 12:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116rr2l$28guo$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90706 |
On 28/08/2026 01:58, Rich wrote: > You can get a true random generator yourself for a relatively small > amount of cash. Most are based on counting radioactive decay of some > isotope of some element (I am not bothering to look up which one). > Its a lot easier to get a true flat noise generator like a resistor or a Zener diode, that generates noise up into the gigahertz band, amplify it and apply it to a fast comparator. Simply read off a sequence of bits from the comparator. > It seems there's even a Hackaday project about building your own DIY > version: > > https://hackaday.io/project/4628-nuclear-random-number-generator > > It's not hard, nor difficult, it's just very unnecessary for 99.999% of > folks who are doing anything that wants a random number input. Exactly. -- Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web