Slashdot Mirror


DIY Random Number Generator

Compu486 writes "The guys over at Inventgeek have come up with a project and how artical on building a random number generator that is less than 100.00 utilizing radioactive decay. Using some Linux based open source apps and with a little ingenuity and some parts you probably have laying around your house you can build your own."

227 comments

  1. Geeks getting physical by IntelitaryMilligence · · Score: 0

    Ok so where do we store enough bits to do this system justice?

  2. Typos by fatwreckfan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it should read:

    and how to article on...

    And I have to wonder...that is less than 100.00 what?

    1. Re:Typos by Funkcikle · · Score: 5, Funny

      The "article" was clearly written by a Random English Generator, powered by tritium and chapstick.

    2. Re:Typos by mrami · · Score: 1

      I think it should read:

      "less than 100.00 [% chance of getting you laid] ..."

      which means not worth doing in my book.

    3. Re:Typos by also-rr · · Score: 5, Funny

      And I have to wonder...that is less than 100.00 what?

      Fear not comrade, it's all part of the move to make Slashdot less US centric - this way, rather than just having foreigners confused about how much things cost, everyone gets to be confused about how much things cost.

    4. Re:Typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This summary is the worst I've seen in at least a few weeks...

      Anyone know how much the slashdot editors actually get paid?

    5. Re:Typos by dpninerSLASH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to jump on the wagon here as well.

      How long would it really take to edit each post before submitting it for public consumption? Slashdot is now one arm of OSTG, and as such their content should be held to the same standards as any other "official" publication.

      And please, folks, don't take the easy way out with a generic "slashdot omelet" response: It's the varying points of view that make this site not interesting, not the various manglings of the English language.

      Truthfully.

    6. Re:Typos by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I actually inserted a "percent" after 100.00, and was trying to figure out why an RNG using less than 100% atomic decay was so nifty.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Typos by crazed+gremlin · · Score: 1

      I think that /. cuts out the dollar sign (or pound sign) for some reason.... not cool, /.

    8. Re:Typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think it should read:

      and how to article on...

      Don't you mean it should have read "an how to article on..."? What's with the "and"? It means "with", last time I checked.
    9. Re:Typos by azav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ya, I really wish we had a spelling checker for Slashdot and that the editors would actually spell check the articles they post.

      If you're going to attempt to be viewed as a professional, it helps to be able to pass 5th grade English.

      Cheers,

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    10. Re:Typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The submitter's handle is Compu486, so you can't really expect him to randomly generate a proper paragraph in a reasonable amount of time, do you?

    11. Re:Typos by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Funny

      This $?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    12. Re:Typos by Tatsh · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you'd get funny. LMAO.

    13. Re:Typos by crazed+gremlin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Huh, guess not... Dollar Sign - $ Pound Sign - £ did the pound sign work?

    14. Re:Typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has been working on this submision since 1995.

    15. Re:Typos by espressojim · · Score: 1
      It's the varying points of view that make this site not interesting, not the various manglings of the English language.


      Would the site having one single point of view make it more interesting to you? Or is this satire?

    16. Re:Typos by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, works for me, came through as the HTML character entity for it in the HTML source.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    17. Re:Typos by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative
      In 1999, when Andover bought slashdot, they paid him a salary of $90,000 (with a 3-year employment contract). That doesn't include the $1.5 million paid for /. or the $3.5 million in stock grants.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    18. Re:Typos by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      So it's a price? That's a first clue, I thought it was some measurement for the number spreading and repetition of an RNG.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:Typos by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      that is less than 100.00 what?

      Planck currency units.

    20. Re:Typos by walstib · · Score: 1

      100.00 rads of exposure from the radioactive elements...

      --
      The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
    21. Re:Typos by fatwreckfan · · Score: 1

      Nope...read the article again to see the full context:

      The guys over at Inventgeek have come up with a project and how artical on building a random number generator...

  3. I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hooked up a geiger counter to an old school analog game port.

    I had a simple C program that just spun between 0 and 255, and when a signal came across the game port it would record the current number.

    run that through a hash function of your choice and it worked great.

    dont cpus today have some noise generators built into them though?

    1. Re:I did this in highschool by MustardMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but I bet you were capable of writing a comprehensible summary of the whole setup when you were in high school

    2. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although that may be more or less random by being unpredictable to someone on the other side of the world, it'd be trivial to get about the same results from a spot right next to the geiger counter. While this was a pretty good idea in HS, it has absolutely no practical real world value.

    3. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, um, did you fail basic physics? What are chances of radiation interacted with both geiger counters exactly in sync? 0, that's what.

    4. Re:I did this in highschool by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if YOU knew a bit of just slightly more advanced physics, you'd realize that radiation obeys conservation of momentum, just like everything else. It's very very easy to demonstrate direct correlation between radiation spikes measured when the detectors are the same distance from a sample, but 180 degrees apart. I did this in a sophomore lab in college with some equipment that looked like it was older than I was.

    5. Re:I did this in highschool by Linker3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Commodore 64 had an analogue white noise generator in the SID ship and its value could be read via a port. Simple.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    6. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although your system produces random numbers, those numbers won't be uniformly distributed. They will be biased toward the low end (assuming you start counting from zero) because at any given instant (except when your counter reaches 255) you will have tested more low numbers than high.

      If it is important to get a uniformly random distribution a better method is to measure the elapsed time for two separate detections. If the first time is smaller than the second you get a "1" bit. If the second time is smaller you get a "0" bit. Retry if both intervals are the same. Here, you will be biased toward "1" bits since your sample is decaying and slowing down its emission. Hopefully that will be negligible, but with enough timer precision and knowledge of the decay rate this can be accounted for as well.

    7. Re:I did this in highschool by Bromskloss · · Score: 1
      And if YOU knew a bit of just slightly more advanced physics, you'd realize that radiation obeys conservation of momentum, just like everything else. It's very very easy to demonstrate direct correlation between radiation spikes measured when the detectors are the same distance from a sample, but 180 degrees apart.
      I'm not quite clear on how you say you are placing the detectors. In any case I think we are talking about detecting single particles here. That is, if a particle is is detected in one detector, it is _not_ detected in the other, so neither of them know about when the other detects something. Am I right?
      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    8. Re:I did this in highschool by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even more simple would be hash some posts here on /.

      There are some pretty fricken random posts.

    9. Re:I did this in highschool by CTalkobt · · Score: 1, Funny

      >> Even more simple would be hash some posts here on /.
      >>
      >> There are some pretty fricken random posts

      Uh, actually no - you're almost always guarentted the following:

      1) First Post in the 2nd message. (The first post usually has nothing to do with the article as the person never read it).
      2) The 1, 2, 3, 4) Profit?? posts.
      3) Natalie Portman and Grits.
      4) (Old School) GoatSe posts.
      5) Spwelling und Grammmer Misteaks
      6) In my day we did it with a 1 bit computer that had 1 value posts.

      Nope - Slashdot is far from random. :-)

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    10. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, um, did you fail to develop a sense of humor? What are the chances of you not noticing someone operating a second geiger counter right next to yours?

    11. Re:I did this in highschool by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Not quite right, but It's a moot point - I was thinking about the wrong type of radiation. In the case of positron/electron annihilation, which occurs during the decay of, say, sodium-22 (if memory serves), there is no particle left behind - thus, to conserve momentum, there must be two photons which are emitted in opposite directions. If the two dectors are in a straight line with the sample in the middle, they will detect events at the same time. However, that isn't the case here, as the radiation in question is NOT the result of an annihilation and momentum conservation is satisfied via a slight recoil of the atomic nucleus. Brain fart on my part.

    12. Re:I did this in highschool by VanessaE · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The "random" generator in the C64, at least the one you refer to, was an all-digital shift-and-drop-bits algorithm used by the SID chip's three noise generators, and is accessed by reading the "voice 3 oscillator" register while voice 3 is set to produce noise (the audio from this voice can be silenced if desired, without affecting the algorithm). The algorithm cycles periodically and, if memory serves, can be reset manually if desired. There is no analog component to the noise generator algorithm.


      A good way to get a nice random number is to take advantage of the inherent randomness of the user - initialize your noise generator to run continuously at a high iteration rate, wait for a keyboard, joystick, or mouse event, and then take as many samples from the noise generator as you need. The amount of time the noise generator was left actively running before the key/joy/mouse event will vary with the user's attention and reaction time, and will essentially randomize the values you get.

    13. Re:I did this in highschool by raynet · · Score: 1

      Except it wasn't analogue or truely random, instead SID had a simple pseudo-random generator that loops after X number of samples (I think, can't be bothered to find the article written by designed of the SID chip).

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    14. Re:I did this in highschool by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new predictabe slashdotter overlords.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    15. Re:I did this in highschool by Bromskloss · · Score: 1
      OK, I get your point.
      However, that isn't the case here, as the radiation in question is NOT the result of an annihilation and momentum conservation is satisfied via a slight recoil of the atomic nucleus.
      As for the type of radiation, you might be referring to the article. The thread starter, on the other hand, didn't mention the use of any specific radiation source. They might have used what's always around.
      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    16. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't it be easier to get an old satellite dish and point it at some empty space? You'll just get white noise (and some totally random CMB) without having to mess about with radioactive sources.

    17. Re:I did this in highschool by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      That is the checksum for the hashes.

    18. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or just start the counter at a random number between 0 and 255.. oh, wait...

    19. Re:I did this in highschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought most people use this system these days (it should cover all the cliches?):

      Slashdot EeziPost (TM) MK III
      [ ] Another: [ ] Dupe [ ] Slashvertisment [ ] WTF [ ] $editor is a dork
      [ ] Frist psot [ ] link to GNAA [ ] Link to goatse [ ] $random_drivel
      [ ] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment
      [ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too
      [ ] Soul_sucking registration required
      [ ] Mod Parent [ ] up [ ] Down
      [ ] Fsck: [ ] SCO [ ] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [ ] RIAA [ ] Google [ ] Bush [ ] You all
      [ ] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords
      [ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those
      [ ] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!
      [ ] Meh!
      [ ] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [ ] dying
      [ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight
      [ ] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [ ] Amendment rights.
      [ ] You insensitive clod
      [ ] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the album
      [ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1
      [ ] Torrent, anyone?
      [ ] Here's a link to a patch: $random_linux_distro_url
      [ ] Profit!!
      [ ] Still no cure for cancer
      [ ] Coral Cache: XXX.nyud.net:8090
      [ ] Microsoft [ ] Google [ ] YaHoo! [ ] SCO is evil

      [ ] When I was a kid, I used a Apple II and Apple Basic.
      [ ] Apple? Lucky you. When I was a kid, we had to do this in binary.
      [ ] Binary? When *I* was a kid, we had to do it with only 0's.

  4. Only terrorists use random numbers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you have nothing to randomize, you have nothing to fear.

    1. Re:Only terrorists use random numbers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Chernobyl, alpha particles randomize you!

  5. Editors? by AntsInMyPants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know the English may not be the submitter's first language, but it would be nice if the editors....um, you know....*edited* the piece so it made sense.

    Michael (Who now sits back and waits for people to pounce on my spelling/grammatical mistakes)

    1. Re:Editors? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I know the English"--WRONG.
      "I know that English"--RIGHT.
      Hey, you asked for it!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Editors? by lixee · · Score: 0, Redundant
      I know the English may not be the submitter's first language
      It doesn't seem to be yours either.
      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    3. Re:Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know - I've heard people talk of "speaking the English" and such. Nevertheless, there are no real editors at Slashdot, or just about any other modern website or blog. The nu-editors of the web age filter content and select articles for publication, but they don't give a shit about spelling or grammar - even in article titles! What blows my mind is that they don't go back and correct obvious and embarrassing mistakes, even after they're pointed out. Is that supposed to be journalistic integrity or something?

    4. Re:Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, be nice. Just because he don't be speakin' the English...

    5. Re:Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corrections in bold:

      I know that English may not be the submitter's first language, but it would have been nice if the editors ... um, you know, ... edited the piece so it made sense.

      Michael (Who now sits back and waits for people to pounce on his spelling or grammatical mistakes.)

    6. Re:Editors? by Ithika · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough you wouldn't be able to make that claim about Gaelic though: the accepted way of talking about someone who knows that language is "having the Gaelic":

      • Do you have the Gaelic?
      • He has the Gaelic
      • How many people have the Gaelic in the whole of Scotland?
    7. Re:Editors? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Doesn't

      I know the english language may not be the submitter's first language,

      work too?

      I guess the question might be; did leaving the understood laguage part out have anything with the thinking that "that" should have replaced "the". or could they have both worked?

    8. Re:Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct phrase is: "I know teh English"

    9. Re:Editors? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      so it's more or less considered as an affliction then? Sure 'splains a lot...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  6. Cached version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already going slow. Use the Coral Cache - http://inventgeek.com.nyud.net:8090/Projects/alpha rad/overview.aspx

  7. More difficult Rnd() generator by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    I once collected loads of old broken smoke detectors and ripped out the small cell of americium from each of them.
    I placed them into a big ball wrapped in tinfoil (shiney side in), then used my fathers' geiger counter to supply random numbers.

    Its been working well, I've been counting the number of years its been running on my fingers, so far I've got to 13.

    *note, this is totally false, but there was some stupid kid who did something similar.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Oh crap, after reading the article, he did use americium just not as much as I speculated.
      dumb fuck...

      I bet he even tweaked it so the random numbers looked random
      that always confuses people when you show them a random sequence that happens to be all one number of an increasing sequence, "bah its not random"

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by Anthem.uxp · · Score: 5, Interesting
    3. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Its been working well, I've been counting the number of years its been running on my fingers, so far I've got to 13.
      You've got 13 fingers now?! For Christs's sake, throw that thing away. It's not safe!
    4. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've got 13 fingers now?! For Christs's sake, throw that thing away. It's not safe!

      Perhaps he's counting in binary on his fingers, in which case he only needs one hand.

      --
    5. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Where'd the "3" come from if he's counting in binary? Did you pick a non-standard numeral set?

    6. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      13 decimal is 1101 in binary. Four digits. With 5 fingers on one hand, you can count to 31 (or more if you can store more than one bit per finger).

    7. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

      That was the sound of a joke going right over your head, and you missing it.

    8. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      LiquidCooled:
      Oh crap, after reading the article, he did use americium just not as much as I speculated. dumb fuck...

      It's not that dangerous - alpha particles don't even make it through skin. IANAP (I am not a physicist), but I'd say that given the small quantity, it won't hurt you if you treat it with respect. It's nothing compared to the stupid thing he was first planning on doing:

      I started this project with more of an idea of creating a system that would visualize Cherenkov radiation via webcam utilizing a Gamma radiation source and heavy water in some heavy lead shielding to produce the tell tale bursts of blue light.

      Now that's an awesomely bad idea. First of all, gamma radiation (high-energy photons) does not directly yield Cherenkov radiation - only charged particles do. The guy was planning on throwing around gamma radiation (which is quite penetrating and carcinogenic), apparently without knowing what it is. Fortunately for him, it's harder to make.

      LiquidCooled:

      I bet he even tweaked it so the random numbers looked random that always confuses people when you show them a random sequence that happens to be all one number of an increasing sequence, "bah its not random"

      Umm, radioactive decay is truly random. You can model it quite accurately and simply over long timespans (it's just exponential decay, and the half-lives are well-known) but the precise timing of emission events is totally unpredictable.

    9. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because it wasn't funny.

    10. Re:More difficult Rnd() generator by kayditty · · Score: 0
      then used my fathers' geiger counter
      I'm very, very sorry.
  8. Old-school by amliebsch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whatever happened to just mashing your fists on the keyboard?

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    1. Re:Old-school by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not very random, as your fists may tend to fall in certain places when statistically analyzed.

    2. Re:Old-school by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think that's what the submitter did while summarizing the article...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    3. Re:Old-school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Old-school by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if you pound your head on the keyboard instead? Or, *shudder* your butt?

    5. Re:Old-school by Jerf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but the programs that use this don't use just the key distribution. First, they also use the time the keystrokes occur, which is reasonably random.

      Second, you can measure "how random" something is (for suitable definitions of "random") by measuring its "entropy", which is a measure of how many "random" bits is in a given input. The entropy of English text is 1.1 to 1.6 bits per character, which means to safely obtain a 128 bit key from a bit of English text you need almost as many characters as you want bits. "Smashing on the keyboard's" randomness will probably vary even more, from perhaps as low as ~.5 if you smash poorly to 2.5-3 if you smash "randomly", but you also get the entropy from the timing information, which if you use a very-high-resolution clock contributes several bits itself.

      So, basically, this "statistical analysis" problem is extremely well known, and very well quantified, down to the fractional number of bits of randomness that you can extract from a bit of text. Since these fractional bits can just be added together (four "English text characters" at 1.5 bits apiece gives you 6 strongly-"random" bits), the solution turns out to be very simple: Smash on the keyboard longer, until you've got at least as much entropy as you have bits. Voila, a strongly-random key suitable for almost all purposes. (It probably is suitable for all purposes, but taking a key from radioactive decay has the advantage of letting you know the key is random, whereas with this technique you can only be "very, very, very sure".)

      Handled properly, it's not a problem.

      Many, if not most, modern systems will also maintain an "entropy pool" at the OS level, which uses interrupt timings and other such events to feed the pool, which can then be drawn on by programs in lieu of reading the keyboard directly. This works nicely, and among the inputs used is keyboard and mouse events.

      The nice thing about the entropy pool is the input can really come from anywhere. It doesn't have to be totally random to contribute, it just can't be totally predictable.

    6. Re:Old-school by andrewman327 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about you roll two dice? 2D10 will generate 100 numbers.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    7. Re:Old-school by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to just mashing your fists on the keyboard?

      FreeBSD still does this (at least it lets you). In fact, it gives you an opportunity on first boot to hammer away to kick-start the entropy before it generates RSA key pairs.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    8. Re:Old-school by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Then the probability of pressing any given key would quickly approach 100%.

    9. Re:Old-school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when I ran a Apple II Apple's Basic had a random generator. I used to get off running two random numbers and using the values in a plot statement. Use a third random number to determine colour. This was before I smoked and drank I was just a crazy kid.

  9. Not as geek but safer by click2005 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This project seems to work well... http://www.lavarnd.org/

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    1. Re:Not as geek but safer by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      To: All Employees
              From: Executive Management
              Date: Sun Aug 13 09:33:39 2006
              Subject: Important Announcement

                        Surely, we can conclude that the technological method of empowerment indicates that the dialogue dramatically blows them away. We are ahead of the the product lines curve. I think that the paradigms impact the multimedia based key players.

                        This is the a web browsing tool we've all got to be galvanized around as a team going forward. With our desktop to Terra-flops strategy, the parallel human resource allocation gets your input on the performance Internet service provider. We feel that the UI critical path will enable the dealer channels.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    2. Re:Not as geek but safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a number of shortcomings to the lavarnd method. The lamps are fragile and tends torwards breaking. They are large and not very portable. They can get very hot (thus safer can be debatable here). They can not run continuously, with an on for 8 hours and off four hours cycle.

      All of which is over come by this article's setup with the radioactive source/webcam.

      The lavarnd is a notable (and obviously geeky) achievement none the less.

  10. Are these guys doing it the hard way on purpose... by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

    ...or are they just slow?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  11. There is more... by decadre · · Score: 1

    "Laying"...

    Lying perhaps?

  12. Here's the money graph by patio11 · · Score: 5, Informative

    >>
      One of the applications I have envisioned for this project is a cheap and easy genuine random number generator. True random numbers in computing are nearly impossible, and successful solutions are very expensive systems based on radioactive decay or atmospheric measurements, for example. Using a small / relatively safe radioactive source and a high res CCD or CMOS sensor and assigning a value to each pixel and perhaps mixing in an algorithm or two with an inexpensive practical PCI card that is capable of generating genuine random numbers. Applications that could greatly benefit from this would be encryption, security applications, Computer AI and the Gambling establishment to name a few.
    >>

    Actually, no, none of these really benefit from "truly random numbers". The applicability of randomness to AI is... spurious at best? For gambling, you just have to be reasonably sure that someone can't predict in advance what your random sequence is going to be, and the Mersenne Twister plus any unknown piece of data as a seed is good enough at resisting everything our current understanding of mathematics can throw at it. (Yes, thats security through obscurity... in the same way that hiding your server behind locked doors, a firewall, and a secure password is security through obscurity. Its both necessary and sufficient.)

    Encryption, similarly, would not benefit from transitioning from an "almost perfect" pseudo-random generator to a "perfect" random generator. For your security to fall based on random numbers, someone needs to be able to not just come up with a theoretical imperfection (ahah, 200 million runs of this random number generator and you'll notice it slightly skews away from these five integers!) but have to crack it wide open. Yay, yawn.

    Now, radiation + poorly understood mathematics = geek high, I know. But in terms of practical application this gets a near zero.

    1. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Mersenne Twister plus any unknown piece of data as a seed is good enough at resisting everything our current understanding of mathematics


      Isn't Blum-Blum-Shub still a better choice of algo for encryption?
    2. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In addition, the downside of true random numbers is that they are... random. We use (particle physics) vast amounts of random numbers in large Monte-Carlo simulations. But I can tell you, you really want to get that same sequence starting form the same seed, if you ever want to cross check things. What we need are not true random numbers, we need damn-good pseudo-random numbers. Which we have of course ;-)

    3. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mersenne Twister is not suited for cryptography. (Read the Wikipedia page or the authors' page on this). That is, it's possible to figure out its state by observing values, even values mod something. You could take a cryptologically secure hash of it to get secure random numbers, but that slows it down, or you could get guaranteed security by using a truly random process.

    4. Re:Here's the money graph by portmapper · · Score: 1

      > One of the applications I have envisioned for this project is a cheap and easy genuine random
      > number generator. True random numbers in computing are nearly impossible, and successful
      > solutions are very expensive systems based on radioactive decay or atmospheric measurements, for example.

      In newer VIA CPUs there are instructions for pretty good randomness, but neither AMD nor
      Intel seems to be willing to make similar instructions available.

    5. Re:Here's the money graph by maird · · Score: 1

      Intel has had the same thing on its chipsets for many years, i.e. an I/O device rather than a CPU instruction. IIRC, it takes around 5ms per bit. On the subject of the practical utility of the "invention", does the author now have an excellent source of one time pads for encryption? That knock at the door is the NSA or the CIA, start the fire now.

    6. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is when are you "reasonably sure" that your numbers are unpredictable. Most random number generators used in practice are based on vague unsubstantiated claims about the randomness that occurs in various environments.

      It is not at all true that it is sufficient for random sequences to be unpredictable to be useful. In many application knowing even one bit of information about a purported random sequence can destroy its usefulness.

      As for the necessity of randomness in various applications, it is actually essential for many things. In particular for encryption, true randomness is vital. If an encryption scheme is proved to work well when truly random sequences are used, the proof (usually) says nothing about sequences which are simply unpredictable.

      For a more detailed discussion, check out:

      http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/r+c.html

    7. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Isn't Blum-Blum-Shub still a better choice of algo for encryption?

      Actually it's even better to run the algorithm three times over the same data. This is called the blum-blum-shub-blum-blum-shub-blum-blum-shub algorithm. (sorry)
    8. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The applicability of randomness to AI is... spurious at best?"

      Actually, randomised search is perhaps one of the most effective paradigms in a good number of AI problems: just look at any of the literature on the use of local search with restarts. Heck, it better had be, or I have to choose another topic for my PhD thesis!

      Instead of making a systematic search for a solution to a problem, make a series of greedy searches guided by a heuristic, using randomness to break ties between decisions with equal heuristic values; and to, occasionally, make a random decision rather than a heuristically good decision. Restart search from scratch when a certain 'boredom threshold' has been reached - so-many steps without heuristic improvement, etc., keeping the best result found so far. The result? In many search problems, a solution can be found much faster than if the randomness was not present - the greedy search would be deterministic, returning the same solution each time, and would not take the alternative paths to potentially better solutions that the randomness introduces.

      Does it need to be true randomness though, rather than pseudo-random? No, not really; and besides, it's always useful to be able to reproduce tests by using the same seed. I really wouldn't like my segfaults to be produced by a truly random process - it would make reproducing them statistically infeasible.

    9. Re:Here's the money graph by bcomisky · · Score: 1
      ...The applicability of randomness to AI is... spurious at best?...

      Perhaps the author is referring to something like evolutionary computation. For example genetic algorithms (GAs) use random numbers extensively in selection, crossover, and mutation operations. Though I agree a good pseudo-random generator would work fine here.
    10. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's conceivable that AI could use cheap, truly random number generators. Stochastic approximation techniques are becoming quite popular in many areas of AI and, while psuedo-RNGs are good enough for most research projects, real RNGs could be quite handy.

      Basically, one technique used in some parts of AI is called Markov Chain Monte-Carlo. MCMC is a way to randomly draw samples from complex probability distributions and the theoretical results say that we don't actually get samples from that distribution until the chain has run forever. In reality we get close as the Markov Chain runs over time. Psuedo-RNGs can introduce extra correlation and could slow the convergence of the chain.

      How much this really matters is another question, but it's conceivable that in some applications it might be worth removing every bit of extra correlation possible by using a real RNG.

    11. Re:Here's the money graph by khallow · · Score: 1
      But as I recall, these Monte-Carlo methods also on occasion found flaws with various pseudo-random generators. An obvious compromise is to use a large but storable amount of true random numbers as a seed to a big pseudo-random generator. I assume this is often done.

      A second problem is the speed of random number generation. It is always substantially behind the speed of pseudo-random generators in use, often by several orders of magnitude compared to the quick and dirty generators, I think.

    12. Re:Here's the money graph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, wasn't that called FDIV?
      (AAAAHHHAHAHAHAH.. I'm *so* gonna get my +5 now)

    13. Re:Here's the money graph by asuffield · · Score: 1

      The author is almost certainly referring to that, and it's bogus. There are pseudo-random number generators (L'Ecuyer's Tausworthe generators are commonly used ones) which have been proven to be as good as you can get for such statistical purposes, in that given a sequence of random numbers from that generator, you cannot tell what generator it came from or otherwise distinguish it from 'true' entropy. Given the knowledge of the generator algorithm and a sufficiently long sequence from it, you can determine its state and predict the next number, but that's the cryptographic problem - for simulation purposes, all you need is for it to be indistinguishable without knowledge of the algorithm, which is much easier.

  13. Re:Does anyone read these?... by Threni · · Score: 0

    > and arical?..

    Where does it say "arical"?

  14. Why not using a live webcam? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Why not use a live webcam? Select a number of pixels as source, label them as you wish and start compute. I mean, incoming photons ought to be fairly random too.

    1. Re:Why not using a live webcam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That would be an interesting research topic, combining output from multiple webcams as a source of entropy. What are the chances of securing funding for myself and some hawt camgirls?

    2. Re:Why not using a live webcam? by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Informative

      This has actually been done, using the fluctuations of lava lamps as a photon seed. http://www.lavarnd.org/

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  15. Clarification regarding Twister by patio11 · · Score: 5, Informative

    P.S. Clarification: if you're using the Mersenne Twister in a *real life* application that plus a seed value is good enough for a gambling application. For example, if you're generating nice big integers and then taking %6 to get the value of a die or using them to shuffle one or ten or a hundred decks of cards. If, on the other hand, you have some contrived game where you are passing the output directly to the player and continue in the same sequence for a rather improbably long time a player could figure out what sequence the Twister was on and then successfully predict all numbers in advance. But this is one of those earn-you-bonus-points-with-your-CS-professor-and-n ever-use-again pieces of trivia, because in the real world you have to basically design the system to fail for it to fail in this manner.

  16. apparently by frieko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IIRC Random.org just uses a soundcard and a radio tuned in between channels and collects atmospheric noise. Sounds much simpler/safer.

    1. Re:apparently by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...a soundcard and a radio tuned in between channels and collects atmospheric
      > noise.

      Depends on what you are using the random numbers for. An opponent could transmit known patterns on that frequency, or the vagaries of radio propagation could replace the noise with a station.

      > Sounds much simpler...

      Simpler is a noise diode and a comparator. Sticking the americurium to the diode might up its output a bit.

      > ...safer.

      There is no significant risk.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  17. More precious than gold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'd rather the $100 rather than the random numbers.

  18. Pretty cool, but by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For a practical solution, I'd just get a VIA Nehemiah CPU. The later ones have an embedded RNG, and do AES at truly amazing speeds. The actual CPU performance is quite bad compared to pretty much anything else, but it makes a nice quiet box if you don't need vast amounts of CPU power.

    And besides, why the emphasis on shielding the camera? You'd think that for a RNG interference is good as it adds more randomness.

    1. Re:Pretty cool, but by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      That depends if the interference is random.

      I can think of lots of non-random interference sources - Mains 50Hz, CPU Clock, USB Clock, other data signal on the USB cable, etc.

    2. Re:Pretty cool, but by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      Don't downgrade your CPU for a thermal noise based RNG. Just drop one of these in your machine of choice and enjoy the Quantum derived random numbers :-D

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    3. Re:Pretty cool, but by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      I just googled around, and while no price seems to be quoted on the page, a posting in a newsgroup mentions this thing costing $1200. Right. For that price I can get the VIA board, plus a full upgrade to my computer. And my Tyan Tiger MPX which cost about $250 contains a RNG as well.

    4. Re:Pretty cool, but by tkw954 · · Score: 1
      And besides, why the emphasis on shielding the camera? You'd think that for a RNG interference is good as it adds more randomness.
      I'd suspect that it is to avoid the nonrandom 60 Hz mains noise.
    5. Re:Pretty cool, but by Shanep · · Score: 1

      And besides, why the emphasis on shielding the camera? You'd think that for a RNG interference is good as it adds more randomness.

      Not if the interferance consists of some or many repetitive signals. They may colour the output with something other than white. That is why RNG's are sometimes put through compression functions, to minimize that. I'd rather also shield, since specific compression functions tend to be good at compressing specific types of data but not some others. Leaving some coloured randomness in the output.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  19. units by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Less than 100.00! I've waited at least the past 8 for something like this!

    1. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've waited at least the past 8 for something like this!

      Please don't exaggerate. No way it could have been more than 4.

      alternate silly reply: When I was kid we waited 16, and we liked it.

    2. Re:units by Gnavpot · · Score: 1
      Less than 100.00! I've waited at least the past 8 for something like this!
      You should buy more than one. I have heard that they only last 1½-2.
  20. I seem to remember by npcompleat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a study done that asked a group of people to come up with a string of random ones and zeros. Unsurprisingly, after statistical analysis, they weren't very good. But the fantastic bit was to ask another group to pair off and for each of them to try to outguess the other: let your opponent see your string of ones and zeros so far and then try to make the next bit the opposite to the one they are likely to pick. Amazingly, these random strings were impressively more random. Perhaps we've evolved special pseudo-random number generators to allow us to be sneaky.

    [I know, a reference would have been nice, but age does terrible things to your internal bibtex database]

    1. Re:I seem to remember by gardyloo · · Score: 3, Informative

      This was referenced in the book Complexity by Waldorf. At least in that context, it was about a competition among computer programs and genetic algorithms. It may also have shown up in Hofstadter's Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. Of course, it may have been done far earlier than the mid-80's, but those are the two books I'd look at first.

  21. cheap alternatives by flok · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you find building something yourself to much of a hassle and you have either a webcam or a soundcard lying around, you could give audio-entropyd or video-entropyd a try.

    --

    www.vanheusden.com - home of Multitail, HTTPing, CoffeeSaint, EntropyBroker, rsstail, bsod, listener, nagcon, nagi
    1. Re:cheap alternatives by khallow · · Score: 1

      One thing appealing about the radioactive method for generating random numbers is that it's inherently tied to quantum processes. This is thought to be more likely to be nondeterministic than methods dependent on classical sources of randomness. So audio entropy in particular is classical. The video entropy is partly dependent on classical entropy. Additional problems are that you may need to worry about subtle correlations in your random noise source. A simple architecture with an almost truly random source is far less likely to have hidden correlations than a source that started out with a lot of structure.

  22. Another approach by FlyByPC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    John Walker, of Autodesk fame, did a similar project, although with a simpler count-the-clicks approach. I copied it using an off-the-shelf Geiger counter and a piece of Autunite; it works well.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  23. Mersenne Twister instead by grikdog · · Score: 1

    And this is better than Mersenne Twister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister) with improved initialization because...? Even completely determinate, MT is preferable because brute force searching the number of starting states exceeds heat death of the universe. Full discussion at http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/em t.html

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    1. Re:Mersenne Twister instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MT isn't cryptographically strong. To crack it you don't need to go as far as brute forcing.

  24. No analysis? by rotenberry · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a well done hardware project, but there was no analysis demonstrating that he could generate random numbers using this hardware.

    For example, see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_g enerator

    http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/rand_rate.php

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3742/i s_200201/ai_n9046353

  25. Typically silly by m.dillon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Randomness exists in nature all over the place. In fact, in every single atom, simply because we are not living in a world that is anywhere near a temperature of absolute zero. A johnson noise generator costs a few cents. In analog electronics, keeping randomness *OUT* is actually the harder problem.

    Frankly, you don't need all that much true randomness to generate random numbers. You just need to be able to continuously seed a CSPNG from a random source, and not even at a very high rate. A few bits a second is plenty.

    Move along,

    -Matt

    1. Re:Typically silly by bitrex · · Score: 2, Informative

      For anyone interested in doing some experimenting, an NPN transistor connected to a power-supply through a large resistor, with its emitter and base connected to ground makes a great johnston noise source. Take the ouptput from the collector, amplify with an op amp and low-pass filter it, and feed it to an A/D converter and you've got a good starting point for experimentation.

  26. We use /dev/urandom by the_duke_of_hazzard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's good enough to have been passed by all the regulators and is used by our online gaming systems.

    1. Re:We use /dev/urandom by grikdog · · Score: 1

      On Mac OSX systems at least, /dev/urandom is Yarrow, so it's no wonder.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    2. Re:We use /dev/urandom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's good enough to have been passed by all the regulators and is used by our online gaming systems.
      Diebold fess-up at last!
  27. Software? by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    So that was the hardware. What about some software to use this source? I.e.: gather the pictures, do some hasing, etc? This would be a nice addition to audio-entropyd.... :-) http://www.vanheusden.com/aed/ http://www.vanheusden.com/ved/ perhaps?

  28. Don't try this at home, folks! by iansmith · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few things of note about dealing with smoke detector sources.

    First, removing the source from a smoke detector is illegal in the US. I'm not aware of anyone being put in jail for doing it, but with the state of affairs currently I would not go posting the fact that you did it all over the internet.

    Second, those sources can be very dangerous if mishandled. The source is coated in a THIN layer of gold and/or silver.. only a few atoms thick. If you touch it with anything you will break the seal and contaminate the object. If you then happen to touch it, you have a good chance of ingesting or inhaling it. This is bad. Am-231 is what is called a bone-seeker. It will be used in new bone growth and eventually kill you by causing bone tumors and other cancers.

    Now with a little care you can be pretty safe, but the article in question should have been a little more explict about the dangers involved here.

    1. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      There was not too long ago someone in the Detroit area that assembled a great number of the innards of smoke detectors. He was trying to build something, I forget what. The net effect was that his adventure with smoke detectors required a NEST team to come in and clean up. It was not a trivial matter.

      He also managed to get his hands on some other radiation sources as well, so it wasn't just some smoke detectors. However, smoke detectors are nothing to fool around with disassembling.

    2. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by iansmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, that was David Hahn who used quite a bit of social engineering to get information and equipment to build his own little breeder reactor in his mothers garden shed. A very interesting story. Lots of writeups all over the web.

    3. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I forget what. The net effect was that his adventure with smoke detectors
      > required a NEST team to come in and clean up.

      It got such a team. Whether it required one is another question entirely.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      He didn't build any sort of reactor.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Elaborate please. I find that the slashdot crowd doesn't like bald statement of fact. Especially when the statement is wrong.

    6. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It was no more a reactor than saying the radon gas in your basement decaying is a nuclear reactor. He just amassed some various radioactive things, and was messy about it, and the government and media blew the story way out of proportion.

      You can order plenty of radioactive things to do demonstrations and experiments with from united nuclear.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It was closer to a reactor than you think. Technically it did qualify as a reactor but with an extremely low k value; fortunately for south east Michigan. He did manage to start an easily measureable fission reaction, not with the Americium which is a red herring. In fact the only reason he stopped was when his radiation detector was picking up elevated readings a block away from his lab.

    8. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by hr+raattgift · · Score: 3, Informative

      On the contrary, he had assembled the pieces of a small and subcritical but reasonably efficient 232Th-fuel-cycle reactor that was happily, if slowly, breeding 233U.

      With some attention to geometry, which is suggested by his parcelling of ash, his 232Th had a reasonable probability of capturing slow neutrons from his small emitter, becoming 233Th, which quickly beta decays into 233Pa which in some days beta decays into 233U . His neutron spectrum was sufficiently fast that more 233U fission than actinide production is plausible. Apart from the low neutron flux of his initiating neutron source, nowhere near enough neutrons are produced in this Thorium cycle to maintain a fast neutron chain reaction, so his reactor would have remained subcritical while still breeding 233U.

      His apparatus was not particularly conventional, but was clearly a breeder reactor, in the form: Th-232+n -> Th-233 (22 m) -> Pa-233 (27 d) -> U-233 (1.6*10^5 a).

      Incidentally, breeding 233U from 232Th is the long term strategy for India, and some small experimental piles there (and in the West in the 50s and 60s) may have looked much like Hahn's description of his own.

      What he might have done next is anybody's guess, but he may have made some gains making a powdered mixture of his 9Be with his 241Am or his 226Ra as is done in some conventional neutron generators.

      He was clearly pretty bright (no pun intended), and good at learning and improvising as he went along.

      Unfortunately for him, Uranium in general is chemically hazardous, and he is also likely to have been accumulating some 232U which has many alpha and gamma emitters in its decay chain. These were obvious and dangerous environmental hazards (not just to him), not least of which is the reactivity surge from 233U production after shutting down and dismantling his reactor, thanks to the relatively long half-life of 233Pa.

    9. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      Actually, the chemical toxicity of uranium is much higher than the radioactive toxicity, and it would take a lot of the stuff to make you sick.

      The kidney is apparently relatively resistant to the potential toxic effects of uranium, and relatively high intakes are required before any signs of chemical toxicity occur. Indeed, before the discovery and availability of insulin, uranium was used therapeutically for the treatment of diabetes; relatively high doses were administered by mouth to patients, but there were no reports of kidney toxicity.

      Finally, it bears mention that uranium is only poorly absorbed from the gut, so even if a large dose is swallowed, only about 1% or so will be absorbed--sort of a natural protective mechanism against potential toxic effects on the kidney.

      http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1906.htm l
    10. Re:Don't try this at home, folks! by hr+raattgift · · Score: 1
      Well, obviously he didn't get terribly sick, but he was certainly playing with fire.

      Actually, the chemical toxicity of uranium is much higher than the radioactive toxicity, and it would take a lot of the stuff to make you sick


      There are other hazards than direct toxicity, chemistry-wise. Hahn started with uranium dioxide samples, some of which he pulverized and nitrated. Uranyl nitrate is fun stuff; if mixed with oxidizable fuels and subjected to shock or heat, it will combust (possibly explosively). UO2(NO3)2 is also much more poisonous than UO2.

      His breeder reactor was essentially producing 232Th.O2 -> 233U.O2 at low temperatures (so it was a MOX rather than a ceramic). His uranium dioxide compound would be finely divided by the nature of transmutation and crushing his mail-order samples with a hammer. Small grains of uranium dioxide are pyrophoric, so there was a fire risk in air at room temperature. Water would aggravate this.

      Other than the uranyl nitrate, the major toxicity risks to him and others was via inhalation, not ingestion, and inhaling a sizable amount of 232Th.O2 ash wouldn't be too healthy for the lungs, despite being a negligible radiation risk and not very toxic from a chemical reactivity standpoint. Nobody loves pneumoconiosis. Uranium dioxide aerosolizes readily and tends to stick around in the lungs, although studies focus on the probably stickier (and certainly less-soluble) ceramic Depleted Uranium aerosols. If UO2 washes out readily, then it would have been excreted through the kidneys as per your referenced URL.

      Radiotoxicity in general depends strongly on isotope (and mass).

      With respect to the breeding products, the 233Pa decay (beta + gamma, 22d half life) would be a much bigger radiation risk than the 233U it decays into (1.6e5a half life), but inevitably some 232U would have been produced in his pile, and that nuclide has a decay chain with strong gamma emitters (especially 208Tl). You don't want any of that in you at all.

      As to mass, we can only guess at that, although Hahn claimed progressively hot GM counter readings (through concrete even) over the course of several weeks, which isn't hard to believe from a checkerboard fuelling layout.

      Finally, his radium and americium samples were also pretty hazardous.

      As he adjusted the geometry and composition of his pile trying to maximize GM counter readings, and as his "ignition match" neutron source was uncontrolled, and as he was playing around with neutron moderators, this garden shed project could have become one of the nasty nuclear accidents which injured or killed a person through radioactive contamination. It would have "only" been similar to a radiotherapy patient receiving the wrong dose of gamma radiation, however, or perhaps a fire.

      However, in the end, he frightened himself early enough that he was never really in the sort of danger that the Radium Girls suffered, let alone Slotin.

  29. Re:Natural Language - Integer Value by cheese-cube · · Score: 1
    The next step is to write a dataset for solving simple word problems.
    Googles already done that. Example: Nine plus two.
  30. Give Him a Break by justinchudgar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article, it seems that he was creating something to satisfy his personal curiosity. He put together a good simple plan and actually made it work. That is interesting, fun, and admirable. I did not get the feeling that he set out to save the world from pseudo-randomness; as many have noted, it does not need saving. If he made some over-enthusiastic claims about the utility of his creation, who cares, he made it and it works; and, that is cool. Now, if next week, he starts hawking them at $250.00 each for the Ultimate Internet Privacy Shield, then give him hell. :)

    --
    WARNING: Smoking this sig may cause lowered IQ, insanity or short term memory loss. It is also really bad for your monit
  31. e-Passport as source for randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a cheap and quite good random number generator, you may want to get a new e-Passport and a contactless reader. Almost any passport, at least in Europe, America etc. will implement Basic Access Control. This uses a challenge response mechanism, and the challenge is almost certainly generated by a rather strong hardware random number generator. Obviously, you may want to be sure that nobody else can eavesdrop the random numbers.

    To prevent eavesdropping an alternative may be to setup the secure messaging channel first. This has the drawback that the GET CHALLENGE command may not be available within the secure messaging channel. Another method is to use the 16 byte random number present within the MUTUAL AUTHENTICATE command. This is normally used to set up the session keys, but it can also be used as a random number source.

    Anyway:
    Get ATR (answer to reset)
    SEND 00A4040C07A0000002471001 (SELECT the application)
    RETURNS 9000 (OK)
    SEND 0084000008 (GET CHALLENGE command)
    RETURNS 8 random bytes and 9000 (OK)
    repeat GET CHALLENGE until you have enough bytes (some e-Passports may support up to 256 byte challenges).

  32. Wrong. Encryption is a valid application. by njdj · · Score: 1

    Actually, no, none of these really benefit from "truly random numbers"

    A random number generator is the best way to generate good cryptographic keys. Pseudo-random numbers are not good enough, in fact that is the commonest kind of "snake oil" in the encryption world. See Bruce Schneier's site for examples.

    A very long random sequence can be used as a one-time pad, giving completely unbreakable encryption if the sequence is truly random.

    1. Re:Wrong. Encryption is a valid application. by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1) The problem with one time pads isn't generating random text to XOR with, it's getting that text from A to B without relying on weaker crypto.

      2) Pseudo-random number generators (with a sufficiently random seed) aren't good enough? Then maybe you'll be able to tell me what comes next after this base64 encoded output of the /dev/urandom implementation on FreeBSD:
      QPoiNHKXSHYGks3IreT4sGsZgnBTdLEt6OknLOoePAmAjNof yJtbv7Jgl0KOdIqjmUwXiBzOWGaT HCJZaPGdcyVKtQk6nRGej5explzMc/GDNk1AnyDdtPP+talfMT lMjI7AThTRprNdzphOcAbwY18l r0MUKM9Y/pEbR2N1/bKd12VTc+xzNzvRB/9q4QMaDYvyzWYfkx 0UGUkxCCBWYOokUOXtFWoHI+Ki
      No, the grandparent is right. By avoiding our excellent pseudo-random number generators and going with this hacked together entropy generator you're more likely to decrease your security because of flaws in the hardware than gain a practical increase in security.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Wrong. Encryption is a valid application. by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about how /dev/urandom works on FreeBSD, but on Linux it's not a pure PRNG. /dev/urandom on Linux grabs entropy from /dev/random (which is a true RNG) and reverts to using PRNG when it's out of entropy.

    3. Re:Wrong. Encryption is a valid application. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      h

  33. Not practical? by twitter · · Score: 1

    the Mersenne Twister plus any unknown piece of data as a seed is good enough at resisting everything our current understanding of mathematics can throw at it. ... [blah blah blah] ... in terms of practical application this gets a near zero.

    Oh, so you would not want to have an $85 seed generator would you? If 1.3 million possible combinations are not good enough for you, you could always combine more hits to get any resolution you wanted. Then you feed that back into your twister or whatever. This eliminates the non random nature of your seed, which is a traditional weak point.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Not practical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, you're stupid. Nobody's ever going to fucking guess the output of a mersenne twister just because they had a statistically meaningless effect on the seed. If your algorithm is used someplace where someone can see 100 values in a row, you're fucked anyway.

  34. Why does Inventgeek hate our freedom? by FatSean · · Score: 1

    If we cannot show the government that we are responsible enough to use our smoke detectors in a safe manner, they will take them away from us!

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Why does Inventgeek hate our freedom? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Nah... the Fire Department wouldn't let them unless there was an alternative.

    2. Re:Why does Inventgeek hate our freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Optical smoke detectors exist.

    3. Re:Why does Inventgeek hate our freedom? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      they don't behave the same way as the ionic ones, the types of fire you expect to warn against should be your guide as to the type of detector to get. The ionization detectors are most sensitive to small smoke particles, and the photoelectic ones to large particulates.

  35. Radiation/Science/Geek combo by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Funny

    There seems to some possiblity for the creation of a superhero here. Wonder what his ability would be?

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    1. Re:Radiation/Science/Geek combo by biscon · · Score: 1

      Ehm he would be called RandomMan and bore all villains to dead with his endless reciting of boneseeking radioactive random numbers or something. As well as constantly fighting off his evil twin Dr. Integer.

  36. Nitpicking correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Am-231 is what is called a bone-seeker

    The isotope used in smoke detectors is Am-241, not Am-231. Am-231 is too unstable to be listed in standard isotope tables.

    Of course, all isotopes of Americium are bone-seekers, so your point remains valid, though I find it a bit nannying. The quantity of Am-241 in a smoke detector is really minute.

  37. Is radioactive decay really random? by dpbsmith · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For the better part of a century, radioactive decay is what scientists always use when they want to invoke a natural process that is "random." But is radioactive decay really random... that is, are there, say, well-established quantum-mechanical equations that predict this? Or is it merely chaotic, or not known to be predictable... like the popping of kernels of popcorn in a microwave, or, for that matter, the spins of a roulette wheel?

    1. Re:Is radioactive decay really random? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > But is radioactive decay really random...

      Yes.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Is radioactive decay really random? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radioactive decay is perfectly random (not just chaotic).
      Basically, the time-dependant Schrodinger's equation tells us that after a certain time, an excited atom is in a superposition of |excited> and |relaxed> state (which is the state after the decay). If you measure the state of the atom after exactly one half-life period, you have a 50% chance of finding the atom in either the excited or relaxed state. In quantum mechanics, there is absolutly no way you can predict in which state the atom will be.

    3. Re:Is radioactive decay really random? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Informative
      For the better part of a century, radioactive decay is what scientists always use when they want to invoke a natural process that is "random." But is radioactive decay really random... that is, are there, say, well-established quantum-mechanical equations that predict this?
      The decay of an atom is a fundementally probability-driven process. You can predict the half-life of a material on a large scale, but it is impossible to predict the decay of an individual atom. And, every signal received by your detector comes from an individual atom decaying, so it's impossible for someone to predict or duplicate.

      A chaotic system would be something where the difficulty in predicting it comes from the complexity of the system, and the ability of small changes to significantly influence the outcome. Radioactive decay doesn't work like that. There's simply a particular event that either happens or doesn't.
      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  38. Re:Natural Language - Integer Value by amliebsch · · Score: 1

    Even more impressive is its automatic units conversion. 100 volts / 200 milliamps

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  39. don't need radiation by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't need radiation to make a randomizer from a camera. How about pointing the camera out of a window at a road. The cars, the people and other objects (birds) will move around supplying you with random data. Or you could have a transparent plastic box full of mosquitos or flies and point the camera at that ;)

    How about using a soundcard and ambient noise? Or you could use an AM radio receiver for static noise. There are plenty of other sources of randomness.

    1. Re:don't need radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think the issue with those things is that people concerned with cryptographic-safety would argue that if anyone can possibly control the seed to your random number generator, they can indirectly control the output of your system, which constitutes a vulnerability, as it means they could control random password hashes your systems generate, for example.

    2. Re:don't need radiation by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      so how are you supposed to control the traffic on the street or ambient noise or a box of flies?

    3. Re:don't need radiation by gr8dude · · Score: 1

      Hmm, but if I know that the camera is pointed to the road, I can bias your randomizer by driving the same car on the same path, at regular intervals; or by placing an object near the camera (taking up most of the picture, thus minimizing the impact of the truly random objects in the picture).

    4. Re:don't need radiation by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      light reflected from the cars will always be different.

  40. True random number from random.org by objekt · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:True random number from random.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also see random.hd.org which uses an entropy pool and can use noise from /dev/audio quite happily.

  41. Like a monkey by aniefer · · Score: 1

    Some random data is needed to generate a cryptographic identity for you.

    Please bang on the keyboard like a monkey.

  42. Random Functioning Editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice work Taco. Please consider taking a remedial English course sometime in the near future. If that doesn't work for you, consider taking a job with the OSTG janitorial staff -- they need help scooping out all the residual MS FUD ads /. has been bathing in these past few years.

  43. The internal version is a bad idea by chriso11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't recommend the internal PCI version - you shouldn't place a gamma emmitter (yes, for the pedantic, Am241 is PRIMARILY an alpha emmitter) inside your case. You will be increasing the odds of a memory bit flip or such.

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:The internal version is a bad idea by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1
      Am241 is PRIMARILY an alpha emmitter

      Americium 241 is indeed primarily an alpha emitter, but that isn't the end of the story. It goes through a whole bunch of intermediate radionuclides before ending up as stable bismuth 209. And some of those intermediaries are far more radioactive than plain old americium.

      It was the same story when Marie Curie started working with uranium. Uranium 238 is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, not very radioactive at all. In between uranium and lead are substances like radium and polonium. Play with those too much and you're in trouble.

      It is a common mistake to conclude that radioactive == BAD. The applications may be bad, but that's not intrinsic to the substance itself. Radioactive substances have their uses.

      ...laura who sometimes takes her geiger counter to the supermarket

  44. You did, as well. by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you parse the original sentence, it is still technically correct (if a little odd); we often do not use the definite article 'the' to describe something like a language, but it is implicit, especially when making normative standards, that there is a definite object to compare. 'The English' refers to an objective standard; whether such an object even exists is another matter not even vaguely related to the question at hand, and irrelevant, since properly constructed statements may refer to virtual or non-sensical subject matter and still be syntactically well-formed. Interestingly, the difference between "the" and "that", while substantially changing the structure of the sentence, does not much change its content; it basically means the same thing!

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    1. Re:You did, as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it basically means the same thing!" - wrong
      "it basically means that same thing!" - right

    2. Re:You did, as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "it basically means the same thing!" - wrong
      "it basically means that same thing!" - right

      no, you see, it's this same thing; that same thing was the same thing yesterday. Drat the bloody thing, never stays the same.
    3. Re:You did, as well. by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Examples:

      I have some bad news: you have a scorching case of the syphilis.
      -OR-
      My bloog sugar is getting high, so I have to watch out for the diabetes.

    4. Re:You did, as well. by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Wow, I thought I was picky about precise language, but you are a grammar Nazi of exceptional eloquence.

    5. Re:You did, as well. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Eloquence is technically a characteristic of speech, not writing.

    6. Re:You did, as well. by Jonner · · Score: 1

      According to WordNet and Wikipedia, eloquence can be a characteristic of written, as well as spoken, language.

  45. Wet Hot American Summer by blake213 · · Score: 2, Funny

    No dungeon master worth his weight in geldings goes anywhere without his... twenty-sided die!

    --
    mund freud.
  46. Europe by Searinox · · Score: 1

    Too bad you can't get an ionization smoke-detector almost anywhere in Europe...

    1. Re:Europe by Paolone · · Score: 1

      In every U.K. home you need at least 2 of them. I had one at my granny home in Italy as well.

    2. Re:Europe by rkww · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Europe by Searinox · · Score: 1

      OK, that should've been "almost nowhere in Germany"...

  47. Come on, it's Taco by blueZ3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Notorious throughout the slashdot community for malapropisms and misspellings.

    Funny thing is, I read an interview with Rob where he said he's currently using a Mac. As far as I know, all recent Macs have the option of turning on spell checking across the OS -- so for instance, typing this on my Powerbook I see red underlines under misspelled words in the "Comment" text box on the submission page. Which means that he's either too lazy to turn this feature on -- or worse, too lazy to try and correct misspellings and typos that are already clearly marked.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:Come on, it's Taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spellchecking and all the other fancy services that can be attached to controls or invoked pretty much only work if you're using a Cocoa app, and he might not be using a cocoa-ized browser.

  48. I used a photo of smoke over Beirut as the source by wsanders · · Score: 1

    and it repeated itself after 400 iterations.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  49. Coincidence photons are from positron decay... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    They are emitted 180 degrees apart, and have nothing to do with alpha interactions from Americium. Completely different decay process.

    This also has nothing to do with conservation of momentum, alpha decays cause the nucleus to recoil slightly, but since the atomic weight of the remaining nucleus is much larger than the alpha prticle, it doesn't move much. Photons have energy, hv, but by definition, no mass; i.e. no momentum.

    These photons would go thru the ccd and would be very unlikely to show a blip.

    But a chunk of cerium-doped sodium iodide would make nice flashes for the camera.

    Obviously you had no idea what you were doing in high school, or have learned anything about it since, and you're giving HIM shit about not knowing advanced physics?

    Twit.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Coincidence photons are from positron decay... by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're half right... the experiment in question was indeed positron decay... BUT it was completely a result of momentum conservation. There is no particle left behind so the momentum has to be carried away in a pair of photons, and not a single one.

      You're also right that this doesn't apply to aplha decay, because momentum is conserved via the slight recoil in the nucleus - that was a brain fart on my part remembering which type of radiation we're dealing with here.

      What you are COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG about, though, is photons having no momentum. If you had ever studied special relativity, you would know that it's possible to have momentum without mass, and the momentum of a photon is defined as P=E/c, or h*v/c.

      Perhaps before you sit here calling me a twit, you should spend half a second googling for the word "photon", fuckwad.

    2. Re:Coincidence photons are from positron decay... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you are correct about the momentum thing; I forgot about Compton...Been awhile.

      But, you still got the equation wrong:

      A simple method to derive the expression for the momentum of a photon is given below.

      from special relativity
      DE = Dmc2

      momentum = p = (E / c2)(v)
      but v = c, therefore p = E / c

      since E = hf = h (c / l),
                    p = (hc / l) / c
      p = h / l

      I still think you're a twit.

      we were talking about Alpha decays.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    3. Re:Coincidence photons are from positron decay... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Mine was still correct, you simply tried to show how elite you are by putting it in a different form. Big fucking whoopdie doo. You're still a fuckwad.

    4. Re:Coincidence photons are from positron decay... by althai · · Score: 1

      "If you had ever studied special relativity, you would know that it's possible to have momentum without mass, and the momentum of a photon is defined as P=E/c, or h*v/c." This is completely true, although I'm not quite sure who you say "is defined". Momentum is a defined quantity (albeit one with a natural definition, just like mass and energy), but once you have defined what is meant by momentum in general, the momentum of a photon is not "defined" but rather a consequence of conservation of momentum. (Although I suppose you could say that massless particle momentum is defined, and conservation of momentum is a consequence if you wanted to.) For a concrete example of the momentum of photons, consider solar sail craft, which accelerate by recieving the momentum of impacting photons. (Yes, this is concrete. Solar sails have been launched, although their success has been limited.)

      --
      David
  50. A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptography by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I put together a simple random number generator in the late '90s using avalanche noise from the reverse break-down of a cheap transistor's emitter/base junction. I amplified it with a simple supply noise insensitive 4-transistor amplifier, and pushed it through an 8-bit 40 megabit/sec Analog Devices A/D converter. I xor-ed 80 samples together, while rotating bits in between samples. I used a $3 Lattice PLD to interface the board to an old PCs ISA bus.

    I generated a CD full of random data, which anyone is willing to have if they want it. I've tested it against the "Die Hard" tests, and almost all the 10-meg files pass. There is one test that failed now and then, so I contacted the statistics professor who wrote it. I showed him that his own random number generator, thought to be nearly foolproof, failed the same test with the same probability. It seems I found a bug in his program!

    Total cost for components is $10. Anyone who is interested can have schematics for free. Contact me at bill@billrocks.org.

    The theory behind it is simple... who cares if the bits from the source are completely random? It turns out you just need a LITTLE true randomness from the source. By xoring bits together that have some randomness, you quickly approach truly random. By my estimate, only God would ever know the difference for the data I generated from perfectly random data, since the board could generate data for billions of years before accumulating even one bit of non-random data in it's output.

    Mathematical proof:

    Two semi-random bits b1 and b2 each contain small amounts of
    non-random noise which we can call d1 and d2. Note that d1 and d2 can
    be correlated, and usually are. The notation P(expression) means the
    probability that the expression will be 1.

    I define P(b1) and P(b2) as:

    P(b1) = 0.5 + d1
    P(b2) = 0.5 + d2

    Both d1 and d2 have a range of -0.5 to 0.5. Xoring b1 and b2 together gives:

    P(b1 ^ b2) = P(b1 & !b2) + P(!b1 & b2) = P(b1)*P(!b2) + P(!b1)*P(b2)
    = (0.5 + d1)*(0.5 - d2) + (0.5 - d1)*(0.5 + d2)
    = 0.25 - 0.5*d2 + 0.5*d1 - d1*d2 + 0.25 + 0.5*d2 - 0.5*d1 - d1*d2
    = 0.5 - 2*d1*d2

    Squaring a small number makes it very small indeed. If d1 and d2 are
    already 0.01, then xoring b1 and b2 together results in a random bit
    noise level 0.0002. This leads to the following equation for the
    amount of non-random noise defined as n(bits) given the number of bits
    in the xor sum:

    n(1) = d
    n(2) = 2*n(1)^2 = 2*d^2
    n(4) = 2*n(2)^2 = 2*(2*d^2)^2 = 2^3*d^4
    n(8) = 2*n(4)^2 = 2*(2^3*d^4)^2 = 2^7*d^8 ...
    n(i) = 2^(i-1)*d^i = .5*2^i*d^i = .5*(2*d)^i

    Here's how you can use this equation. Lets say you believe you have
    non-random noise levels of no more than d. You want the noise level
    to be less than N. We want to compute the number of bits needed, i:

    N = n(i) = .5*(2*d)^i
    2*N = (2*d)^i
    log(2*N) = i*log(2*d)
    i = log(2*N)/log(2*d)

    So, for example, if you feel your non-randomness per bit is less than 10%,
    but you need less than 1 part per billion, we compute the number of bits
    needed in the xor-sum:

    i = log(2*10^-9)/log(2*.1) = 12.5

    In other words, just xor together at least 13 bits.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  51. so, what happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did the cat die?

  52. soundcards by mu22le · · Score: 1

    Almost every pc nowdays has a built-in (johnson) noise generator, it's called a soundcard
    (just make sure there is no jack plugged in)

  53. Silly... by rthille · · Score: 2, Funny


    I just use a female-mood-detector. That's _my_ source of high-grade randomness.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    1. Re:Silly... by sunweight · · Score: 1

      I just use a female-mood-detector. That's _my_ source of high-grade randomness.

      Does anyone know how Slashdotters can get hold of this mysterious substance called "female".

    2. Re:Silly... by rthille · · Score: 1

      LOL.
      Actually, getting a hold of is difficult, but the mood-detector works at a distance. The funny thing, as a geek if I get too close it throws off the randomness and the result of the mood detector is always 'piss off you geek!' :-)

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  54. I did this in elementary school by vishbar · · Score: 1

    Granted, the setup was simpler and it required a bit of trust from all participants, but I've had a home-made random number generator for years now.

    --
    Ride the skies
    1. Re:I did this in elementary school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is strange that you would say that, since the depicted item has been available only since 2004...

    2. Re:I did this in elementary school by vishbar · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. I'm 10.

      --
      Ride the skies
  55. Atmospheric noise... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...in certain bands aggregates as totally random. Use that. You know how Madam Curie died, don't you? ;)

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Atmospheric noise... by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

      Isn't it now accepted that Curie's significant exposure to unshielded X-ray generators and such forth whilst working as a radiologist during WW1 contributed more to her illness than exposure to radioactivity?

    2. Re:Atmospheric noise... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      X-rays are a form of radiation, but I was under the impression that her direct experimentation (not sure at what stage) with radiological materials was the most likely cause of her untimely death.

      --
      Loading...
  56. random numbers, yah cool, but Cherenkov Radiation! by cathector · · Score: 1

    i may be misreading the results, but "If you look closely you will be able to see the white flashes that are one pixel in size, as well as faint blue streaks" does indeed sound/look an awful lot like Cherenkov Radation! Which normally you don't get to see for less than a hundred thousand clams, at the least.

  57. Re:random numbers, yah cool, but Cherenkov Radiati by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

    The alpha from Am-241 has an energy of 5.638 MeV, which corresponds to a velocity of 0.053c or so, using the standard classical formula for kinetic energy, and taking the alpha mass to be 4GeV, off the top of my head. There is no way that could be fast enough, as far as i'm aware, to cause Cherenkov radiation.

  58. Re:random numbers, yah cool, but Cherenkov Radiati by cathector · · Score: 1

    huh. i'm sure you're right. there are pretty/almost clear blue flashes in the animated .gif tho; i wonder if it's some other artifact of the alpha skittering across the CCD.

  59. Re:random numbers, yah cool, but Cherenkov Radiati by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's interesting, i don't know why it creates the response it does. CCD's aren't exactly designed to detect particle raditation, so anything is possible. Personally i think that over time the radiation would damage the CCD, eventually rendering it useless.

  60. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by Plastik · · Score: 1

    I built the same circuit with a parallel port interface to the raw (non-XORed) output, and it cost even less. However with that design, you need to do the XORing or hashing in software. We ended up writing a daemon that would feed the Linux kernel's entropy pool whenever it was low.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20021121031201/http://w illware.net/hw-rng.html (see "Nifty Postscript")

  61. Could one skew Random.Org ? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Looking at the FAQ for www.random.org, I see that they acquire their entropy from a radio tuned to an un-used channel. That just begs a question - what frequency? (and of course, where are they?)

    Because they discard the high-order bits of their stream and only retain the low-order bits, it would be difficult to to deliberately inject bias into it, but it would be an interesting project to try. But correspondingly, wouldn't failure indicate that their ultimate source of randomness isn't the radio signal, but is the thermal noise in the amplifiers/ bias circuits/ etc in the microphone input and digitiser for their Sun?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  62. Re:random numbers, yah cool, but Cherenkov Radiati by Paolone · · Score: 1

    Well, actually I used to do work with (IT support, nothing fancy) for part of the SUCIMA http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/d03/papers/ CT09.pdf team (Badano, Ferrando e Pezzetta).
    Well, the monitor uses a CCD indeed. Problem with CCDs is that usually it's a destructive monitor (it destroys the particle beam), so you must do some tricks (read the pdf) if you want to keep it.

  63. Oblig quote by sunweight · · Score: 1

    The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. -- Robert R. Coveyou, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1969

  64. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

    I remember finding your circuit on-line! I actually built yours first, but my inverters made oscillators, rather than amplifiers. Also, the parallel interface was slower than the ISA bus.

    However, my main improvement was using a 40-mhz 8-bit A/D converter. The samples are highly correlated, but who cares? By only taking the MSB (the least random), the old circuit loses most of the available noise. The 40-Mhz samples get highly random LSBs (less than 10% correlation).

    Thanks for the circuit, especially the initial noise source stage, which I duplicated exactly (first two transistors, resistor, coupling cap)! It's a great noise source, good for probably 1MByte/sec with proper sampling. My biggest remaining concern for the circuit is just how much the first two transistors vary as a noise source, as the beta is fairly uncontrolled, as is the noisiness of the emitter-base breakdown.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  65. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by strikethree · · Score: 3, Funny

    I generated a CD full of random data, which anyone is willing to have if they want it.

    640 megabytes is a little much for my connection to handle right now. Could you compress it and send it to me please? :P

    strike

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  66. Better yet.... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    You can use a zener diode reverse biased right at the knee. Amplify the output for a nice random signal full of noise from a quantum source - the diode junction. This was used for noise generation on a lot of old arcade games (Space War, Star Castle, etc...). It's low frequency, but it is truely random and costs well under a dollar.

    Old school wins again...

  67. The English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have lived among the English, but I don't really KNOW them.

    Does the knowledge depress you?

    Wally, a Texan in Lancashire
    --
    The English, the English, the English are best,
    So up with the English and down with the rest -- Flanders & Swann

  68. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    LOL. Best. Post. Ever. Especially after the whole "Compress Wikipedia and Win Big!" story.

  69. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Dude I so wish I had mod points right now! Please someone mod this as funny.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  70. It's called "Woman" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could be more random and unpredictable than that?

    (Of course that isn't an inexpensive solution...)

  71. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

    LOL!!!

    It compresses really well! In fact, to one byte: 42

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  72. Re:A simple 1/ megabit/sec generator for cryptogra by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

    For anyone interested, I'm developing a web-site to document my old RNG at http://www.billrocks.org/rng. Enjoy!

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  73. fake swears are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    frickin? I don't like fake swears. Try to refrain from swearing, but if you must, it's "fucking"

  74. Re:random numbers, yah cool, but Cherenkov Radiati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a color ccd camera which has a red, green, and blue cells. The radiation is simply striking one of the blue cells.