×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using Lasers To Generate Random Numbers Faster

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-think-what-a-faster-laser-could-do dept.

Encryption 149

Pranav writes "Using semiconductor lasers, scientists from Takushoku University, Saitama University, and NTT Corporation achieved random number rates of up to 1.7 gigabits per second, which is about 10 times higher than the second-best rate, produced using a physical phenomenon. Future work may center on devising laser schemes that can achieving rates as high as 10 Gbps."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

Attention Slashdotters... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26251647)

The "Real Genius" and "sharks" jokes you're about to post are less than 1% as funny and clever as you think they are. And no, you're not making them ironically, you're making them because you really do think they're good jokes. This is because you are retarded.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26251663)

I, for one, welcome our new levelheaded overlord.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251697)

I, for one, welcome our new levelheaded overlord.

Yeah, well. The Frankenstein Monster was levelheaded too.

obligatory (3, Funny)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252935)

No one will need more than 637 kb of random number generation for a personal computer.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26251769)

Minor flamebait, maybe. But the thrust of the post is still worth reading. Austin Powers came out over 10 years ago. At some point (and that point was years ago), making references to it every time you see either the word shark or the word laser becomes old. It's really not funny.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251825)

Austin Powers came out over 10 years ago. At some point (and that point was years ago), making references to it every time you see either the word shark or the word laser becomes old. It's really not funny.

Shhh!

Just know that I've got a whole bag of shhh! with your name on it.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253135)

You're absolutly right! Now, back in line and start worship our new beowolf-clustered-sharks-with-freakin'-lasers-overlords...

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (3, Funny)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253155)

At some point (and that point was years ago), making references to it every time you see either the word shark or the word laser becomes old. It's really not funny.

That's slashdot in a nutshell.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (4, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254031)

No, this is slashdot in a nutshell:

"Help! I'm in a nutshell! How did I get into this nutshell? Look at the size of this bloody great big nutshell."

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (5, Funny)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251861)

Do not look into RNG with remaining eye!

(Hah! Bet you didn't see that one coming!)

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253443)

About parent's signature: Where can you get those coins?

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26254153)

Do not look into RNG with remaining eye!

(Hah! Bet you didn't see that one coming!)

or a very limited time,www.europehandbag.com is offering an unbelievable 40% off
Replica LV Handbags, Fall selection of wNomade Replica Handbags,Louis Vuitton Replica Handbags, LV handbag, Women's bags, 2008 New Collections and accessories. This is a once in a lifetime opporuntity to save on the famous designers fall colection. This is a perfect chance to do some early holiday shopping, gift giving, or just treating yourself to designer handbag at a unheard of price.
http://www.europehandbag.com/

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252013)

The "Real Genius" and "sharks" jokes you're about to post are less than 1% as funny and clever as you think they are. And no, you're not making them ironically, you're making them because you really do think they're good jokes. This is because you are retarded.

I love you. In a platonic heterosexual way, of course.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (1, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252119)

In a platonic heterosexual way, of course.

[citation needed]

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252321)

Hey Larry,
Can you finally stop with the [citation needed] joke? Seriously, it was moderately funny once upon time but now way past its sell by date. If you want to karma whore, get some new jokes in your repertoire.
Although, +1 ironic for adding your lame joke to the thread where somebody complains about other lame jokes.

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (2, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252685)

The "Real Genius" and "sharks" jokes you're about to post are less than 1% as funny and clever as you think they are.

You must be new here. We get very few "Real Genius" jokes around these parts, and many go unrecognized. Quite sad, I'm afraid... ...or in deference to you Kent, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. :-P

Re:Attention Slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253635)

Awwww, did your laser shark bite you?

Ancient (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26251669)

This isn't really different from the methods from earlier 90s already, doing the same using a diodes and polarizing pane of glass (or whatever). Perhaps a bit faster, and more sophisticated, but hardly worthy of a headline.

A Solution in Search of a Problem (4, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251689)

Has anyone out there actually had their system bottlenecked by lack of random numbers? I had thought that the bottleneck in serving large amounts of SSL content was processing the asymmetric part of the cyrpto -- hence the need for SSL accelerator cards. It's a nice invention and a creative application of physical process, but I really want to see just one case where this would be lead to a substantial benefit.

As an aside, computer simulations always use pseudoRNGs like the Mersenne Twister[1]. For a reasonable exponent (I use 19937 in my simulations), this results in a period > 10^6000 and virtually no correlations between adjacent calls. The notion of a computational physicist using a real physical RNG is laughable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister [wikipedia.org]

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (5, Interesting)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251797)

From your link to wikipedia:

Unlike Blum Blum Shub [wikipedia.org], the algorithm in its native form is not suitable for cryptography. Observing a sufficient number of iterates (624 in the case of MT19937) allows one to predict all future iterates.

So MT may be good enough for computational physicists, but not for strong cryptography.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252149)

So MT may be good enough for computational physicists, but not for strong cryptography.

I never claimed otherwise. Cryptography has the need for a real RNG but computational physics only needs psuedoRNGs. That fact greatly undercuts the supposed need for this technology.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

The Real Nem (793299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252413)

The first question that came to my mind after reading the article was are these laser generated random numbers suitable for cryptography? The article just states that random numbers are "vital" to cryptography, not that this method generates cryptographic grade random numbers. Certainly the brief explanation on how it works leaves a lot of room for question.

BTW, CryptMT [wikipedia.org] is a simple stream cipher based on the Mersenne Twister. Sadly, the last time I looked at it it lacked any solid proofs. Nonetheless, Mersenne Twister is an excellent pseudorandom number generator.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (5, Informative)

hweimer (709734) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251803)

Has anyone out there actually had their system bottlenecked by lack of random numbers?

I know some guys doing quantum Monte Carlo simulations. And yes, fast RNGs are crucial for their algorithms.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (0)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251967)

Hmmm, I could do with a lot of random numbers while munching down on Monte Carlo's [ozemartonline.com]. Here, let me give you few for free.

12, 64, 93, 27, 2, 65, 8.

Now you give me more Monte Carlos. Pronto.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252165)

I know some guys doing quantum Monte Carlo simulations. And yes, fast RNGs are crucial for their algorithms.

I will bet you at 100-1 odds that they are using some sort of pseudoRNG like Mersenne Twister. Nobody in computational physics uses real number generators because there's absolutely no reason to.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (3, Informative)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252967)

Not true at all, MC is the best method for doing integration in a multi-dimensional space. My research team used it a lot and it's nearly impossible without a good RNG.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (3, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253817)


My research team used it a lot and it's nearly impossible without a good RNG.

The question on my mind (and on many others I'm guessing) is why you would need a true RNG, and not a pseudo RNG.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252945)

I only have a vague idea of how to do MC, and I thought that the real bottleneck with any computational algorithm is the function evaluation. The purpose of the RNG is to just set some initial parameters, but actually doing something with them is what's the real expense.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252049)

> The notion of a computational physicist using
> a real physical RNG is laughable.

I can confirm this: while the first thing we want
from our Monte Carlo simulations is a good coverage
of the possible inputs, it is also important to be
able to start the PRNG at the same initial state
and repeat a collection of cases.

Makes it *much* easier to debug, if you can repeat
a set of cases.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252081)

Has anyone out there actually had their system bottlenecked by lack of random numbers? I had thought that the bottleneck in serving large amounts of SSL content was processing the asymmetric part of the cyrpto -- hence the need for SSL accelerator cards. It's a nice invention and a creative application of physical process, but I really want to see just one case where this would be lead to a substantial benefit.

As an aside, computer simulations always use pseudoRNGs like the Mersenne Twister[1]. For a reasonable exponent (I use 19937 in my simulations), this results in a period > 10^6000 and virtually no correlations between adjacent calls. The notion of a computational physicist using a real physical RNG is laughable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister [wikipedia.org]

Proof that you can completely fail to understand the subject, (for some reason) post about it anyway, refer to something completely unrelated, and still get a +5 Insightful.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

ORBAT (1050226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252351)

Proof that you can completely fail to understand the subject, (for some reason) post about it anyway, refer to something completely unrelated, and still get a +5 Insightful.

Could you (or anyone else, for that matter) elaborate on what's wrong with the GP's claim? I don't know much about cryptography and even less computational physics, so I have no idea what's wrong with this guy's statement.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

momerath2003 (606823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252113)

If you know anything about the application of random numbers to Monte Carlo simulations, you would know that physically random numbers are unacceptable, unless you wish to never have a chance at reproducing your simulations.

This is why only pseudorandom number generators are used. LCGs and MT are reproducible.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (3, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252317)

Actually, I know quite a bit about (stochastic*) computational physics and the notion that "repeatable" means "can run the exact same simulation with the exact same seed and get the exact same result" is absolutely incorrect. What is meant by "repeatable" is that one can extract from the simulations some sort of macroscopic quantity (usually a thermodynamic quantity or a correlation function) whose average is consistent across many separate runs (known in the biz as the ensemble average). So, for instance, if I'm observing the coalescence of polymers into a hex-phase (as in [1]), I could measure the average number of aggregated copolymer blocks and compare those (as was done in that paper).

Let's make an extended gambling analogy. Suppose I have a new roulette table that I want to certify that it works like it should. One suggestion (akin to what you said), would be to put the entire table under the same initial conditions as a known-good table and see if it gives the same results. A more sophisticated approach would be to make a histogram of results for a large number of independent roles and see if it converges to the proper distribution (or, in case the distribution isn't known theoretically, compare it to the distribution from a different device, also tested a large number of times). I would argue that the second method is much more powerful than the first, because it probes a more relevant value. Nobody cares whether the roulette table gave 00 the first time and 23 the second time -- we are only concerned that, on average, it gives 00 with the same probability as 23.

In stochastic computational simulations, the same story applies. Nobody cares whether a particular simulation did X or Y or Z because that's not relevant. What is relevant is the (converged) probability that, given some starting condition, the systems ends up in X or Y or Z.

* None of these comments apply in any way to solving deterministic systems. You don't need random numbers for those anyway.

** Another commenter pointed out that exact repeatability is incredibly useful for debugging purposes. That is true but that has nothing to do with reproducibility in the scientific sense of the word.

[1] http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/128/184906/1 [aip.org]

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254069)

If a roulette table gives the same result with the same initial conditions you have a problem.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254249)

Wrong.

If exact position was known, if exact velocity of thrown balls was known, and exact velocity of wheel is known, and exact accelerations of balls and wheel was known, we could calculate final position.

That's the key with this: Any source of true randoomness is covered in heavy physics in which if we Knew the states, we could calculate them to their final resting position.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252973)

That's not true, if this is the case then you're doing the integration improperly. Random numbers must be generated over a rectangular space, anything else will give erroneous results.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252507)

The hardest part in handling SSL (or IPSec for that matter) sessions is making sure each packet sent is actually permitted. Not so much the initial key exchange phase or subsequent re-negotiations.

Re:A Solution in Search of a Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253937)

The way I remember 19937 is that by turning it upside down on a calculator, it spells "LEGGI". This is easy for me to remember because it is the way I like my women. (Well, ok, I can dream, can't I?)

Obligatory joke (3, Funny)

Fryth (468689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251709)

They should somehow tap into phpBB. I'm already on some forums that generate more than twice this much bullshit every second :)

Re:Obligatory joke (4, Insightful)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251743)

stop reading DIGG

Re:Obligatory joke (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252169)

or better yet, continue reading DIGG and stop reading slashdot.

FTFA: (5, Funny)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251721)

"Fields and applications that could benefit from their work are numerous, including computational models to solve problems in nuclear medicine, computer graphic design, and finance."

This explains a great deal.

Re:FTFA: (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252139)

"Fields and applications that could benefit from their work are numerous, including computational models to solve problems in nuclear medicine, computer graphic design, and finance."

This explains a great deal.

No kidding. Makes you wonder if they're used in Diebold voting machines.

Re:FTFA: (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252639)

Haha. I can't think why anyone would ever want to build a stochastic financial model...

Re:FTFA: (3, Funny)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252659)

"Fields and applications that could benefit from their work are numerous, including computational models to solve problems in nuclear medicine, computer graphic design, and finance."

This explains a great deal.

No kidding. Makes you wonder if they're used in Diebold voting machines.

No, not at all. Diebold voting machines are specifically designed to eliminate sources of randomness in order to deliver predictable results.

--MarkusQ

But... (0)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251749)

What, no frikkin' sharks?

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252505)

Didn't you get the memo? Management said that sharks with laser beams aren't funny any more, and they require a more up-to-date joke.

Quantum Choas (4, Interesting)

physburn (1095481) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251789)

I'm busy trying to get my head around, why partially reflecting laser light back into the laser, induces a chaotic signal. It doesn't seem right, there's a laser frequency and two reflection distances, (remember lasers have a mirror at each end). It doesn't seem complex enough to be chaotic.

If it is chaotic and you believe in the Everett Interpretation, they've just produced the worlds fastest world splitter.

Re:Quantum Choas (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251853)

Going out of a limb here, but maybe it's like this.
You shine your laser, it reflects, it interferes with itself. And now the interfered laser reflects back and so on and so forth. Maybe its possible to track it through the first few given the exact starting conditions, but it would be impossible to look at a few samples in the middle and work back to the initial start condition (thus chaotic).

Re:Quantum Choas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252299)

Except that light doesn't interfere with itself...

Re:Quantum Choas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252431)

That's news to me...

Re:Quantum Choas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252957)

Gaseous lasers have a mirror at each end (well, ruby lasers do too). Solid state lasers don't, to my knowledge--they're essentially just LEDs.

Going out on a different limb than the other reply here, I'd say just as an electron crossing the diode junction causes a photon to be emitted, absorbing a photon can cause an electron to cross the other way.

Partially reflecting laser light back, you've got probability of a photon being reflected back or passing through and a probability of it being absorbed back into the diode, creating noise in the current. Those are quantum processes and thus random.

(I didn't RTFA, but I did major in physics.. IAAP?)

Enough with the date/times already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26251791)

WTF, do we really need the date and time twice on every story... Fix it Taco...

No second guessing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26251845)

Surely this will give sharks the edge over humans when their attack patterns become highly unpredictable. These researchers are giving our mortal enemies a huge advantage.

Don't believe everything you read (5, Informative)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251847)

First off, this is old news -- the article is copyright 2007.

Next, the article claims...

Generating random numbers using physical sources -- which can be as simple as coin-flipping and tossing dice -- are preferred over other methods, such as computer generation, because they yield nearly ideal random numbers: those that are unpredictable, unreproducible, and statistically unbiased.

This is garbage -- there are applications where people prefer physical sources, but those of us doing simulation work realized long ago that good algorithmic sources are far better for our needs: 1) It's mighty hard to debug a complex simulation model without reproducibility; 2) You can use the reproducibility to induce covariance between runs, greatly reducing the standard error of your estimates for a given sampling effort; 3) The distributions of algorithmically generated pseudo-random numbers are provably uniform, whereas for physical sources the best you know is that they haven't (yet) failed a hypothesis test for uniformity. Finally, the last statement about being "statistically unbiased" is utter nonsense -- unbiasedness is a property of an estimator, not a distribution.

Re:Don't believe everything you read (2, Funny)

invisiblerhino (1224028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251983)

Agreed. Someone once told me about one of John Ellis [wikipedia.org]'s students asking them to do a Monte Carlo simulation, and sending the results back saying "it's not random enough". Ignorance about random number generators is everywhere.

Re:Don't believe everything you read (2, Informative)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252755)

While slashdot is often not on the bleeding edge, this news isn't exactly ancient: the article itself is dated just last week, and correctly cites a paper which was only published a month ago. Don't believe everything you read in a copyright tag.

As for the rest of it, yes, much of the article is rather terrible.

Re:Don't believe everything you read (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254073)

Sometimes an estimator is a distribution [wikipedia.org]...

That is to say, the distribution of variates generated by a pseudoRNG should resemble in all ways the distribution it claims to simulate. There is no reason not to call, then, the pseudoRNG as an estimator of an ideal distribution.

(Although I should remark, that statistical unbiasedness of the first order is not that difficult to achieve, by say von Neumann's method for biased coins. Thus it's a little misleading to claim that you need fullblown hardware RNGs for it; but it's definitely not nonsense.)

scary (4, Funny)

ascari (1400977) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251875)

I suspect encountering the words "random" and "laser" in the same sentence would be rather disconcerting to an eye surgeon. Maybe I'm off topic...

Re:scary (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252225)

I suspect encountering the words "random" and "laser" in the same sentence would be rather disconcerting to an eye surgeon. Maybe I'm off topic...

You are, but it was in the form of a lame joke that wasn't funny so the mods rewarded you for it.

A perfectly parallelizable problem (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251889)

random number rates of up to 1.7 gigabits per second, ... Future work may center on devising laser schemes that can achieving rates as high as 10 Gbps."

Oh, I can get 3.4 gigabits right here. I'll take a second such laser.

Or, ten of them. A 17 Gbps device instead of your hoped for 10 Gbps one.

Random generator needed in semi-conductors (3, Insightful)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251985)

We really, really need more hardware random number generators (RNG's) within CPU's. I think this is one of the more important things for Intel and AMD to work on (VIA and Intel have already working hardware RNG's for x86 as far as I know, with Intel though it is only for an embedded processor).

Otherwise we will have to rely on "commodity" hardware to generate enough randomness to seed our pseudo-RNG's. And since a keyboard, harddisk and video cannot be trusted to be in a machine, and since using the NIC has too big a tie with the outside world, we are quickly running out of entropy sources. So a hardware RNG is definitely a very good idea.

That does not mean that these guys have struck gold. There are already fine RNG's available for use within CPU's. I don't know how secure their device is (what happens when it is underpowered/cooled etc) but speed is not really a problem right now. Of course, if it is easy to implement in current designs: why not?

So, we are not doomed, after all. (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252371)

we are quickly running out of entropy

Sorry, I thought I had a joke there, but my mind seems to be failing with age. Anyhow, that sentence fragment amused me, so I am quoting it out of context for my own enjoyment. Consider this reply my contribution to randomness.

Re:So, we are not doomed, after all. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253161)

Consider this reply my contribution to randomness.

p982y3nc98qwyfegsdjkbvlkiu2uy87t29c8nwgmoieygfcn9q3ncqwgefygsohgouyf iu o3rg2o87t q8263r cuy uwglg oyg oiYF IUF IG OUF OIGBGKS GOIG97r8&FTYGOIUg976r645w657rcog9^R*&%$%$£"%$£ puh oi oyg iug iuYF OIUG it fh Ouyf l DD gSDF S ufd lkg oybeorwqteififgqerGEGWEaaeGewagerwrgrqrgQhrQergoeagui (&TN(&fuytfb86rd&^Rdiytf8yrs75Sd8ytcOUYouy 9uy fd67 dfoIB kJb UYs^$

Re:Random generator needed in semi-conductors (2, Interesting)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253203)

Reverse-biased zener diodes make an excellent noise source for true physical randomness. You want quantum quality? Use a tunnel diode. And some military radios use FM discriminator or PLL noise as a generator for crypto.

Re:Random generator needed in semi-conductors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253661)

This is not a typical problem. Those that do need an entropy source can easily add hardware and have the driver for that hardware provide additional entropy to the kernel (at least on Linux, this is trivial to do). I don't see a major need for this in desktop processors. At best, it'll simply add to the cost of developing the chip for no added benefit to the customer.

Doing my part for science (5, Funny)

Snorfalorpagus (1321189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252053)

247

Re:Doing my part for science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253595)

I think you mean 42.

Re:Doing my part for science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26254157)

Nine

Entropy? (1)

TyFighter (189732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252099)

There is no mention of entropy or testing for randomness. 1.7 Gbits could be complete garbage because the entropy necessary for encryption isn't there.

Does not pass peer review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252277)

I tried to duplicate the experiment, but the data doesn't match at all.

I Can Do Twice Their Rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252515)

Meh. Whatever method they use, I can use two of them and produce random numbers at twice the rate that they can.

grease his palm (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253085)

obama is for sale to the highest bidder.

Truly random? (1)

nbates (1049990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253193)

Some people is commenting on the article that even if it is quantum generated randomness, it may turn out not be truly random(because "nobody knows, right?").

I guess that the scientists who developed this fantasize with finding correlations in their random number sequence. That would actually be something more interesting than the actual intentions.

10d6 at lightspeed (2, Funny)

Veggiesama (1203068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253497)

This is going to make my D&D games kick ass.

Re:10d6 at lightspeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26254221)

'tis going to make someone else's R&D kick ass too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...