×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

439 comments

Wow! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907747)

..BZT, qvq nalbar frr gung gb ertvfgre lbh unir
gb fbyir n zngu ceboyrz yvxr:

    qrevingvir bs (5*fva 3k +6pbf(-cv/2))

Avpr!

Urer vf n qverpg yvax gb gur trarengbe, lbh pna
qbjaybnq gur pyvrag sebz urer nf jryy:

uggc://enaqbz.veo.ue/

DEnaq Pbzznaq-yvar Hgvyvgl [i0.2, 2007-07-17]
Abgr 1: Pbzcvyrf haqre Ivfhny Fghqvb naq t++.
Abgr 2: Jvaqbjf rkrphgnoyr vapyhqrq.
Abgr 3: TAH Yvahk rkrphgnoyr vapyhqrq.

Re:Wow! (5, Informative)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907941)

Too bad that's only ROT13:
Not really the hardest of encryptions to crack.

..OMG, did anyone see that to register you have
to solve a math problem like:

derivative of (5*sin 3x +6cos(-pi/2))

Nice!

Here is a direct link to the generator, you can
download the client from here as well:

http://random.irb.hr/ [random.irb.hr]

QRand Command-line Utility [v0.2, 2007-07-17]
Note 1: Compiles under Visual Studio and g++.
Note 2: Windows executable included.
Note 3: GNU Linux executable included.

Re:Wow! (5, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908181)

..OMG, did anyone see that to register you have to solve a math problem like:

derivative of (5*sin 3x +6cos(-pi/2))


7h15 15 345y. 6 * (05(-p1/2) = z3r0), 50 7h3 4n5w3r 15 ju57 15 * (05(3x).

|\/|y m07h3r (0u|d h4v3 d1ff3r3n71473d 7h47.

Re:Wow! (4, Informative)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908217)

Your mother a math teacher or a PhD?
My mother doesn't even know what a sine is, let alone solve that to 15*cos(3x)

Re:Wow! (3, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908293)

Nah, he's just the millionth one. The first 999,999 turned up crap. All 1,000,001 could come up with was, "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times..."

ohw my god can it be true?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907757)

Do I really have the First post???

Re:ohw my god can it be true?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907869)

fail

455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 (5, Funny)

ferrellcat (691126) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907763)

Hey! It works!

Re:455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 (5, Funny)

Filter (6719) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907957)

Step 1: 455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!!!

Re:455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907973)

Oh yeah? How about FE145504229C2CA4935053F92B7B292A ? Beat that!

Re:455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908199)

Thanks! Now, to put it to good use:

uint128_t rand() {
/* This number is guaranteed to be random. See http://random.irb.hr/ for details. */
return 0x455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2;
}

Wait... (5, Funny)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907769)

Why do I keep getting 42?

Re:Wait... (5, Funny)

theantipop (803016) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908083)

I don't know, but that's pretty improbable.

Re:Wait... (5, Funny)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908291)

I don't know, but that's pretty improbable.
Nonsense. Million-to-one chances occur nine times out of ten!

Re:Wait... (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908343)

Thank you, Ruder Boskovic Institute! I won the lottery!!! Them quantum numbers is sweet!

And now I can afford to buy my single-wide! And have smokes, beer, and beef jerky for the rest of my life!

My brother's a Ford mechanic but he ain't never heard of quantums though. WTF is they?

lava lamps at SGI (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907777)

when I think of random numbers, I can't help but remember the 'fishbowl' that had at SGI (mtn view) where an indycam was photo'ing some lavalamps and creating random seeds based on those images.

ah, SGI....

It works in binary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907779)

If you're able to connect to the server, that's a 1. If you're not able to connect, that's a 0. It's a long string of 0's for me.

random.org ? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907785)

Hasn't random.org [random.org] done this for a while already? Perhaps they don't have academic backing, but I do believe they use numbers generated by atomic decay.

Re:random.org ? (5, Informative)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907939)

Indeed. First page:

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. ...

The service has been operating since 1998 and was built and is being maintained by Mads Haahr who is a Lecturer in the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland.

Re:random.org ? (4, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907981)

I do believe they use numbers generated by atomic decay.
The site claims that

The randomness comes from atmospheric noise...
I wonder, how could you know that their numbers are truly random, as they claim?

Don't misunderstand (4, Informative)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907813)

True random number [wikipedia.org] generators have been around in hardware form for a while based on a number of different processes, not quantum only. But this is being offered to the community at large, who may not have the means to procure or pay for a hardware solution.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907855)

relies on the unpredictable quantum process of photon emission
It's 50/50. Either it happens, or it doesn't.

Maybe they mean the unpredictable set of environmental conditions which surrounds the tipping point between "doesn't happen" and "does happen".

Re:Don't misunderstand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907961)

I believe the operand here is "when" X will happen...not if.

Re:Don't misunderstand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908089)

Not suprising he didn't know that. His claims to being a chemist and expert on everything have no backing...

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908127)

Maybe you should learn about quantum electrodynamics sometime, as you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908191)

Because quantum electrodynamics is not a study which dictates the outcome of Schroedinger's cat. You can talk quantum electrodynamics all day long, until you're blue in the face, but the outcome is still 50/50, and it's still determined every bit as much by the surroundings as it is by the nuclei making the emission.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

kahanamoku (470295) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908315)

My thoughts exactly... If it's based on something (Anything!) then it isn't truly random.

just because it is 'impossible to predict' doesn't mean there's not a pattern to it that humans are just too dumb to figure out!

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908367)

I always thought that the perfect random number generator would be the interval between prime numbers. If we can't predict whether or not a number will be prime then, by definition, the interval between one prime and the next should be random.

Graphing various mathematical transformations of a sequence of prime numbers (take, for example, the first ten thousand and do crazy things with interval, logarithms, and statistical analyses) leads me to lend plenty of credibility to what you've said:

just because it is 'impossible to predict' doesn't mean there's not a pattern to it that humans are just too dumb to figure out!
That's bordering on conspiracy theory. :)

Re:Don't misunderstand (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907911)

Don't Via C3 chips have a hardware random number generator, that uses quantum-level fluctuations in the chip (i.e. the kind of noise that most of the rest of the chip is specifically designed to try to avoid) to produce noise as output? Since these cost under $100, I can't see a researcher not being able to afford one. You obviously can't use this service for cryptography, since relying on someone else for your entropy is just asking for trouble.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907975)

I wonder if this be subject to Benford's Law? http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=210 [damninteresting.com] Namely that the most common first digit will be one, two will be the next most common first digit, then three and so on. Apparently this happens with random numbers pulled from real life.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908041)

Apparently this happens with random numbers pulled from real life.

No, it doesn't. To quote the article you linked to:

In a highly variable set of numbers such as those found in taxes, one would think that the leading digits would all be equally common. One would expect to find roughly the same amount of numbers starting with a 1 as, say, an 8. In a set of totally random numbers such as the lottery, that is exactly what one would discover; but when it comes to non-random real-life numbers, unless the data set is too constrained, a lot more numbers start with a one than any other digit.


Given that this device is intended to produce "totally random numbers", I'd say it's output most certainly *won't* follow Benford's Law.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908061)

I'm posting this using a VIA C7 x86 compatible processor which has a nice whitened true random generator build in. It wasn't that costly. Most smart cards have RNG's build in, to give you an idea of the costs. Having a rng online is kind of defeating the purpose. I would like to see more processors include random number generators (and other cryptographic primitives). They do not rely on outside data (a keyboard or HDD will not be part of my flash based, headless server), provide good randoms at great speeds, and they are not that difficult to implement. The randomness of these generators is good enough for 99% of the tasks - and even then I would primarily use it as a seed for a software based pseudo RNG, such as /dev/urandom.

Re:Don't misunderstand (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908079)

True random number generators have been around in hardware form for a while based on a number of different processes, not quantum only.
Yes, and this one [xkcd.com] even reveals its source!

- RG>

Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907817)

I bet they just couldn't be arsed and linked a CGI script to /dev/urandom.

</cynic>

Hopefully (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907825)

it works faster than /dev/random. I'm tired of having to perturb the mouse every time I make a damn ssh connection!

uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907833)

Don't tell my GM about this. He may require me to use it in place of my 'lucky dice'.

Brilliant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907837)

Doing crypto using a random number I obtain over the internet.. nah I don't see a problem there

quantum random number generators (5, Informative)

Wise Dragon (71071) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907851)

This is neat but there have been other quantum random number generators online for years. This one by id Quantique springs to mind... [randomnumbers.info] I'm not sure what this new service provides that others don't. If you REALLY want secure random numbers you should buy a QRNG PCI card and make them yourself so you're the only one with a copy.

Re:quantum random number generators (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908099)

Actually, making random numbers good enough for encryption isn't all that difficult. For most applications you only need to generate a few thousand bits that are difficult for a third party to predict. The real problem with random numbers comes when you want a gigabyte [per second] of good random numbers for a scientific simulation, and the margin of error of your experiment needs to be a couple of orders of magnitudes bellow the output.

Heck, if you really wanted to you could generate a relatively strong private key using pen and paper and a set of scrabble tiles. You probably don't want to do that for a computer simulation running at a few ghz thou.

Re:quantum random number generators (4, Funny)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908257)

You probably don't want to do that for a computer simulation running at a few ghz thou.
That's what grad students are for.

Yawn... (2, Interesting)

justasecond (789358) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907857)

John Walker (AutoDesk founder) has had a true random number generator available for web access for quite a long time. Looks like his site's currently down, but check out www.fourmilab.ch [fourmilab.ch] when it's sorted -- in addition to the random number generator he has a number of other cool gadgets and info. available.

Oh, and this line from the FA is priceless: "...is connected to the internet through advanced computer technologies such as computer clusters and GRID network." Don't get too technical on me...

Better quote from Fourmilab (2)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908195)

To crank up the bit generation rate to something usable for a server accessible on the Internet, we need a radiation source more intense than background radiation. Rummaging around in the well-endowed Fourmilab junk box turned up a 60 microcurie Jordan Nuclear Krypton-85 (85Kr) source capsule, model BB-0005.

Random... or UNPREDICTABLE?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907859)

*Spooky Music*

So what's not "random" about other processes? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907873)

I mean, it's not the first RNG available on the Internet. There is, after all, HotBits and several other ones available. HotBits uses the simple decay of a radioactive element, while others rely on pure noise (I believe one uses a webcam trained at nothing and is just picking up noise).

I believe there are even commercially available RNGs based on the same principles available at fairly low costs.

Wasn't there also a project that tried to see if the scope of human consciousness could affect these random events?

Other sources of true random numbers (4, Informative)

i_like_spam (874080) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907879)

Atmospheric noise [random.org]
Lava lamps [lavarnd.org]
Radioactive decay [fourmilab.ch]
Entropy [hd.org]

Re:Other sources of true random numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908029)

None of those are truly random.
All of them use a physical source to provide a seed for the random number generator.
In theory you could rig the noise, lava lamp etc to affect the outcome.

With a quantum random number generator, you cannot 'know' how to affect the outcome before you have seen the results.

Re:Other sources of true random numbers (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908057)

I'm a source too, and the first 5 are free:

45
7
183
33
23

send me $100 for each addition random number.

ok bonus day

44

I wonder (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907891)

how random it truly is. That is, I wonder if it maybe favors 1's more than 0's. When dealing with the physical world, even on a quantum level, it is often hard to get a perfectly even probability split between two (or more) values.

Re:I wonder (2, Interesting)

JesseL (107722) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907999)

These things usually use a natural noise source as a random seed and then mathematically normalize them to produce random numbers that are useful. It's pretty standard stuff.

An external random number generator? (5, Insightful)

solevita (967690) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907895)

Call me paranoid, but I think I'd rather use a local pseudo random number generator than an external true random generator. My security concerns associated with using a local pseudo random number generator are outweighed by my privacy concerns of contacting a third party every time I want to establish a SSH connection or use my credit card online.

Great for research though, of course.

Re:An external random number generator? (1)

A non-mouse Coward (1103675) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908141)

Agreed. Not only that, but what about the security concerns of authenticity? How do I know that I am talking to the real true random number generator and not some MITM? We could use HTTPS to get to the true random number generator web page, that way I can have authenticity, but ah, wait ... how do I know the private key in the SSL cert was truly randomly generated? And what about the SSL session keys, would they be randomly generated? I don't think I can trust that I am receiving truly random numbers from the truly random number generator. I think psuedo-random is about as good as it gets.

Why pseudo-random for research? Reproducibility! (3, Informative)

edbaskerville (1060908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908379)

For scientific research, there's a very good reason to use pseudo-random numbers: reproducibility.

If you're analyzing a stochastic model, you want to be able to generate lots of runs with different random sequences and gather statistics from the ensemble. But if you see interesting behavior in a particular run and want to take a closer look, you want to be able to go back and run it again, exactly as it happened the first time. In this case, you don't want real randomness, you want pseudo-randomness with good statistical properties. I'm currently checking through my code to make sure you can do just that when using this tool [edbaskerville.com].

extremly high tech (1)

Jookey (604878) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907897)

'Quantum Random Bit Generator' that relies on the unpredictable quantum process of photon emission.

um... do you mean a webcam with the lense cap on.

wtf? (1)

zCyl (14362) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907917)

Some article author doesn't know what he's talking about... I quote:

"Ordinary random number generators found in most computers in use today are 'pseudo-random' numbers that use various algorithms to pick the numbers from large pre-compiled databases of numbers obtained by methods such as rolling the dice."

In actuality, PRNGs typically operate based on a function with a very long periodicity, not a pre-compiled list of dice rolls. And what I consider to be a typical state-of-the-art contemporary random number generator is closer to /dev/random [wikipedia.org], which functions as a true random number generator on all standard Linux installations.

Umm.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19907955)

..running a transistor "backwards" and capturing the noise via a sample-and-hold->A/D device is also entirely unpredictable, and has been used in computers long, long, long ago. Also, it can be done in very, very few components integrated in a circuit - can this monstrous quantum device be that? Soon they will call it a testament to science, I'm sure...

already discovered (1, Funny)

d3l33t (1106803) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907965)

int getRandomNumber(){ return 4; //chosen by fair dice roll //guarantees to be random }

Patent (1)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907969)

I patent it. All random numbers are mine, unless you pay me a random fee. And who is to say that all software which are 1s and 0s, are not really ripping me off by stealing my random numbers! How about mp3s - also just a bunch of numbers - there mine too! However you look at it - PAY ME! Thank you for your support.

Re:Patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908387)

I think that's a very fair deal your offering up there, sign me up.

BTW, when I randomly generated the fee to pay you, it came up $-62,952,306.71, so... when can I expect to complete this transaction with you?

Captchas require calculus (3, Interesting)

poszi (698272) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907993)

Look at the signup page [random.irb.hr]. You not only need to prove that you are a human but also that you have elementary knowledge of calculus.

Re:Captchas require calculus (2, Funny)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908177)

I got the partial derivative of cos(4x) wrt x evaluated at 0. That's pretty trivial. You could guess at that and do well.

Yeah, right. (1)

Champ (91601) | more than 6 years ago | (#19907997)

I bet this is actually the CIA providing faux-random numbers in order to gain access to sensitive data encrypted using these numbers as seeds.

Boy, this tinfoil hat sure is itchy.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

JoeInnes (1025257) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908095)

Tinfoil hats aside, there is, as mentioned above, a serious security risk with connecting to the internet to fetch a seed. I'd be happier to see a tiny hardware RNG built into every computer. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to implement.

But how does this compare to the classic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908117)

...madman with a bank of colored buttons?

"what's the monkey wrench for, sir?"

"That's to turn him off, Ensign."

Only God (0, Troll)

karlandtanya (601084) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908121)

can generate "truly" random numbers.

Re:Only God (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908173)

Are you saying he didn't make the things we're collecting random numbers from? I only object to this being called a random number generator - it's a random number collector.

Page loading... ... ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908131)

True random number generator goes offline.

Server Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908153)

I got this:

function.mysql-connect: Too many connections in H:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\www\random.irb.hr\db_connect. php on line 3

Wow!

Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908183)

I must admit that I'm skeptical of this. The article states with a puzzling tone of certainty that this is a "non-deterministic" process. I highly doubt they can make that claim. I believe all aspects of physics is deterministic, even if we have no clue just yet as to how quantum events can be calculated precisely. It might appear random to us, since we're not even close to developing technology that can determine the outcome of a photon emission, but they're still driven by good ol' "cause and effect", in my humble opinion.

Re:Skeptical (1)

martin_henry (1032656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908381)

I must admit that I'm skeptical of this.

That's a reasonable response from someone who isn't qualified to speak authoritatively.

even if we have no clue just yet as to how quantum events can be calculated precisely.

If we have "no clue" then I think it's fair to classify it as non-deterministic, unless you want to get specific and say that it's not-yet-deterministic...

Done my part - slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19908235)

Ha!

I suppose it doesn't really matter... (1)

do_kev (1086225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908243)

...but unpredictable does NOT equal random.

close (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908405)

"Random" is a word used when an event has too many unknowns to reasonably no the outcome.

To use a very simple random event: Flipping a coin.

If you know all the variables, you will know what the outcome will be.
How heavy is the coin? what side is up at the moment of the flip? whats the air density? how hard was it flipped? etc. . .

Not exactly rocket science. (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 6 years ago | (#19908313)

Whopdee doo. You can do the same thing by tuning your FM radio to an unused spot.
The hiss you get is the amplified QUANTUM NOISE of the first RF amplifier stage.

If you need more bandwidth, tune your TV card to an unused channel. That'll give you about six megabits per second of really good noise.

 
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...