Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #528949
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.computer.security, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.privacy.anon-server |
| Subject | Re: Better Randomness ? ! |
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D257CB34.61F89%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <n0or5i$btl$1@dont-email.me> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.27{10.41P.Seattle.2015}> <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com> <edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com> <291020151914153294%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
On 10/29/15, 12:14 PM, in article 291020151914153294%timstreater@greenbee.net, "Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio > <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > >> In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com> >> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >>> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as >>> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly. >> >> There is nothing random about radioactive decay. > > In terms of when an individual atom might decay there is. That is > completely random. Well, at least as far as we know. :) > All you know is that the probability that it will > decay in the next time-period of length equal to its half-life is just > 0.5. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Better Randomness ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 22:41 -0700
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-27 22:46 -0700
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 06:50 +0000
Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:34 +0000
Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:48 -0400
Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 18:53 +0000
Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 14:08 -0700
Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 22:36 +0000
Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 -0800
Re: Better Randomness ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
Re: Better Randomness ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:36 -0500
Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:56 -0400
Re: Better Randomness ? ! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:46 -0400
QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 08:28 -0700
Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:48 -0400
RDRAND has numerous problems. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:35 -0700
Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 16:17 +0000
QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:50 -0700
Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:44 +0000
Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 18:01 +0000
Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 18:39 +0000
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:14 +0000
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-29 21:36 +0000
Re: Better Randomness ? ! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 17:24 -0700
Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 21:55 -0400
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:12 +0000
Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:18 +0000
Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0400
csiph-web