 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/
I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava lamps,
and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random streams. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava
> lamps, and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random
> streams. :-)
Depends on how unbreakable you believe SHA-1 to be. (Assuming you wanted
to use the random data for cryptographic purposes anyway. But then,
collectin random data from a public source is probably a dumb idea in
that case...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava
>> lamps, and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random
>> streams. :-)
>
> Depends on how unbreakable you believe SHA-1 to be.
You could certainly take (say) one byte or one bit from the end of the hash.
And breaking SHA-1 still isn't going to give you any non-random results,
unless you find correlations within different parts of the outputs of SHA-1,
rather than the usual search which is correlations between inputs and outputs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava
> lamps, and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random
> streams. :-)
Yes, but at what *rate* can you produce random numbers with that method?
--
A day without fusion is like a day without sunshine.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava
>> lamps, and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random
>> streams. :-)
>
> Yes, but at what *rate* can you produce random numbers with that method?
It is easily parallelizable. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/
>
> I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava
> lamps, and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random
> streams. :-)
>
I think beta decay is probably a bit more random. After all, there is
that whole uncertainty thing .. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/
>>
>> I liked better the one that had a camera pointed at half a dozen lava
>> lamps, and took the sha-1 of the webcam's output to generate random
>> streams. :-)
>>
>
> I think beta decay is probably a bit more random.
Hard to say. It's certainly less amusing to watch, and certainly harder to
explain to a layman. :-)
> After all, there is that whole uncertainty thing .. :)
What do you think drives the randomness of lava lamps? Pixies?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> What do you think drives the randomness of lava lamps? Pixies?
>
Fluid Dynamics? Heat?
Oh, hell, just take a shot of the back of the lens cap every so often
(at high ISO), You'll get plenty of quantum randomness there. Or,
amplify an idle input from the sound card to a great extent. More
randomness, there, or a radio tuner tuned to a non-station, and use the
universe as your source of randomness. Plenty of sources. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you think drives the randomness of lava lamps? Pixies?
>>
>
> Fluid Dynamics? Heat?
And ... those in turn are caused by ... ?
Granted, individual atom decay is less likely to exhibit statistical
groupings. And you rarely have your radioactive source get too cold to be
random. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What do you think drives the randomness of lava lamps? Pixies?
>>>
>>
>> Fluid Dynamics? Heat?
>
> And ... those in turn are caused by ... ?
>
electron motion converted to heat by squeezing them through a thin
filament of tungsten? Molecules of water and wax interacting with each
other once the wax is liquid.
> Granted, individual atom decay is less likely to exhibit statistical
> groupings. And you rarely have your radioactive source get too cold to
> be random. :-)
>
Right, and occasionally my lava lamp acts completely non-random. It
forms a single blob that just hangs there.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Right, and occasionally my lava lamp acts completely non-random. It
> forms a single blob that just hangs there.
I saw a laval lamp in a shop that had been left on for, like, the entire
day or something.
Do you know what a homogenous wax/water emulsion looks like? I do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Do you know what a homogenous wax/water emulsion looks like? I do.
Someone shook it, I bet.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Do you know what a homogenous wax/water emulsion looks like? I do.
>
> Someone shook it, I bet.
Well, the instruction on mine do say not to run it for too long. And,
just once, I accidentally left it on too long and it did emulsify to
some degree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Do you know what a homogenous wax/water emulsion looks like? I do.
>>
>> Someone shook it, I bet.
>
> Well, the instruction on mine do say not to run it for too long. And,
> just once, I accidentally left it on too long and it did emulsify to
> some degree.
Mine always eventually became one single amorphous blob that would just
sit there.. But, didn't emulsify. I did shake it once just for fun. That
emulsified it. Took days for the wax to settle out of the water.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Do you know what a homogenous wax/water emulsion looks like? I do.
>>>
>>> Someone shook it, I bet.
>>
>> Well, the instruction on mine do say not to run it for too long. And,
>> just once, I accidentally left it on too long and it did emulsify to
>> some degree.
>
> Mine always eventually became one single amorphous blob that would just
> sit there.. But, didn't emulsify. I did shake it once just for fun. That
> emulsified it. Took days for the wax to settle out of the water.
Interesting. After mine emulsified, I just turned it off, and fairly
quickly (about 20 minutes) all the wax sank to the bottom and co...
uh... no, sorry, I can't spell that word. :-S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
