Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

True Random Number Generator Goes Online

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on

amigoro writes "A 'true' random number generator that relies on the unpredictable quantum process of photon emission has gone online providing academic and scientific community access to true random numbers free of charge."

17 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    Avpr!

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

    uggc://enaqbz.veo.ue/

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

    1. Re:Wow! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Yeah, that's why I always apply it twice for extra security.

    3. Re:Wow! by AmiAthena · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure my mom would be proud if I told her that I'm lost on the math, but I read that in one pass with no problem. *sigh*

  2. 455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 by ferrellcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey! It works!

    1. Re:455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 by Filter · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --

      "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

    2. Re:455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 by ari_j · · Score: 5, Funny
      Thanks! Now, to put it to good use:

      uint128_t rand() {
      /* This number is guaranteed to be random. See http://random.irb.hr/ for details. */
      return 0x455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2;
      }
  3. Wait... by Icarus1919 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why do I keep getting 42?

    1. Re:Wait... by theantipop · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Wait... by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know, but that's pretty improbable. Nonsense. Million-to-one chances occur nine times out of ten!
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Wait... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 5, Funny

      75% of all pie charts resemble Pac-Man.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    4. Re:Wait... by snickkers · · Score: 5, Funny

      The closest we'll get to proof that Shakespeare wasn't a monkey.

      --
      GLORX 3:16
    5. Re:Wait... by Bluesman · · Score: 5, Funny

      >my cat just traipsed on my keyboard and typed "dsafhhrnvcdbqwtrwqerwe897509k;ln b,.cnjhcvdsytwejbhd"

      I've read that one, it sucked. The butler did it and they catch him in the end.

      Your cat should have typed Hamlet.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  4. Finally an improved software estimate methodology by JurassicPizza · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've been waiting on this for a long time.

    --
    --- JurassicPizza
  5. Re:quantum random number generators by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Funny

    You probably don't want to do that for a computer simulation running at a few ghz thou. That's what grad students are for.
  6. Re:Here's what I do by slickwillie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just checksum my Windows registry.

    It's random enough for my purposes.

  7. Web 2.0? monkeys!! by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

    As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."

    So in other words there really is *no* hope that web 2.0 will actually produce anything truly outstanding?

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.