My email address is posted for a reason.;-) Feel free to use it. I'll review your link either later or in the morning. I'd not do it justice by reading it right now so I can't opine on it. Meh, we're this far back from the front page... Why not?
I left Maine, back in September, due to some conversation here on this site. I have been lucky in some ways which means there are consequences. I headed out on the road to just travel around, seemingly at random. I did so in a car that's not too fancy. I stay(ed) at mid-range hotels and not in the best suites.
This had the results that met my goal, in part, where I bumped into a very young female and she stuck. We wrapped up some business and she's joined me on my journey and will, almost certainly, be returning to my home with me when I do return. But, this has meant distractions.
Over the weekend, I'd been in Buffalo since we bumped into each other, I finally meandered down to D.C. with her in tow. We spent today at the Smithsonian (we did the Air and Space) and had a good time but I am mentally exhausted and physically drained. I'd expected the trip here to energize me but it's had the opposite effect and I'm a bit disappointed.
Why do I mention that? Well, it is for that reason that I have simply thrown your link into my "read this" bookmark folder. I prefer, when possible, to take some things serious and with a scholarly bent. Not everything, mind you, but some things. This is a serious subject where I have no specific domain knowledge. I may, also, publish my findings even if it's only available for peer review by personal publication and not in a reputable journal. I'm a mathematician and not a climate scientist, after all.
As I've mentioned, I've a great deal of experience modeling things that are chaotic in nature (pedestrian and vehicular traffic) and was on the cusp of that field which is why I'm in the position I am today. I am fortunate and grateful. Alas, this means I'm not doing anything and this is a subject that I do have some very specific experience with (the modeling and the working with large data sets). My goal is scholarly and not political. I simply want to understand enough to give an informed opinion. From there, I may run my own models and get the results but that's not my objective.
Why? Because my country has been steadily going downhill in many areas over that same time-frame. It has, also, improved in some areas. I suspect that it was the path of least resistance which even accounts for that specific location within the US. I think they've been able to get citizenship since not long after we did some testing there with nuclear weapons? I don't recall the specific year.
Anyhow, my thinking was, "Those folks in the US bombed us and took our rights to use our land from us!" What country would't want the publicity of taking them in? I live in the US because I have ties here and am, at heart, a patriot but I could live anywhere. If I did not have those ties then I can think of places that I'd have put at the top of the list and those places aren't the US. We have our faults and frailties, as do other places, but without ties and a desire to see things through - I'd reside elsewhere. I don't because I am not a coward and hope to continue making changes, however small or large, until I am unable to do so any more. I don't expect that from them.
They quite probably could have had their pick of countries simply by creating some noise in the media. I'm honored that they chose the US but I'm still kind of surprised by this.
Hmm... It's fun to poke at the physics people some times. It's also tempting. Not even a crypto-PRNG is random. It is unpredictable and very good at being so. You could say that it's random for some definition of random but not true random. But, our disciplines have argued this before. (I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics.) It's not really up to me to prove your RNG implementation isn't random. It's up to you to prove that is random.
Now, for all practical purposes, it is 'random enough' to be unpredictable which is the implementation that is "good enough." There's also some Law of Large Numbers to throw in here, but I digress... It's certainly unpredictable but do you *really* think it's random - truly random? Also, I'm going by your email address to presume you're in the physics department. I'm also assuming that you're aware that we (not you and I, personally) have had this debate more than once.
I'm working on defeating entropy and a perpetual motion machine! Err... Don't take this reply too seriously.
However, I think you'd get even more fame from proving the PRNG that you speak of is truly random. If you do so then I should like to read that paper and subscribe to your newsletter. But, from a mathematical view, true random doesn't exist and probably never will. Like infinity, it's a concept with little or no bearing on the real world but it is useful. In this case, with cryptography, it's more than adequate to serve the function needed but it's still unlikely to be random.
Instead, if we must, it's "random enough." I strongly prefer the term "unpredictable" to make things easier. With predictable having, of course, various subsets. I'd suppose that random and true-random might work as well as the former can just assume that it's random enough to the point where we're unable to predict it or explain the mechanism adequately to prove that it is not random.
Anyhow, sorry for poking but, ya know... You crazy physicists! I'm pretty sure this has been hashed out a few times already. Random enough or random to the point where it is too complex for us to make prediction is not true random. A minor point? Perhaps, for the time being. Effective and "good enough?" Absolutely. Random? Probably not - at least by strict definition.
*sighs* I hold you to a higher standard. "...which of course will be random." No, it will be unpredictable. It will not be random. It will only appear random because you don't know the criteria. Oh, it'll be useful and do the job at hand well and beyond what is needed, presumably, but it will not be random. Unless mathematics has been defiled in ways suitable only for pornography, true random is still impossible. For all infants and porpoises, yes - it's random for some value of random. Mostly, though, it's unpredictable.
I am of the opinion that random, true random, is impossible. The most we will ever have is some subset where we can simply conclude that it's random enough and that we either don't have or don't know why it appears random. We can only find that it appears random but, I don't think, random is possible. We've always settled on a subset that's good enough and substituted unpredictable for the same thing. They are not the same. I seem to be in fine company with my beliefs. I confess, I did not read but skimmed this page:
From a quick skim, it appears nothing new has come about and random is still impossible. Above this post, in a sub-thread, I went into greater detail. Sorry, but you're held to higher standards than some of the others, at least by me.;-) Like infinity, random is a concept that doesn't yet seem to have any relationship with reality. I'd recommend that we discard the word for greater understanding but nobody lets me be in charge of anything important. Both concepts are valuable and even needed but they simply don't exist and, likely, never will.
In other words, nothing is now (or ever will be) random. At best, it will appear random due to an inability to comprehend the inputs, outputs, or processes. Just because it may appear random does not mean that it is. I'd absolutely love to be wrong in this and so many people would love for you to prove this wrong. Every time I see "true random" it kind of tweaks me a little. It should say something like "true unpredictability" or something. Hell, I'm not even sure how they should word it but it's not random. I'd love to be wrong and I'd prove myself wrong but I'm still working on a way to eliminate entropy and perfect my perpetual motion machine so I'm lacking time.
Ah well... I guess, I shouldn't worry about it but I confess to enjoying your posts and must interject once in a while. Perhaps you could say that I do so randomly?
I don't think we've actually got a true random source - just stuff that appears to be true random until we've a greater understanding. I'd also not want to be the person trying to prove something was truly random. I'd say that's neigh on impossible. (For true, absolute, random.)
Also, concerning my above post, I should add to that there's also the time-frame to keep in mind. In other words, "strong randomness" for that time. The field has, as far as I know, improved a great deal in recent history and my last scholarly work was in the late 1980s or early 1990s. After that I needed only a subset and not true random as much as chaos is not, of course, random - it just appears to be until you're able to gather enough information and understand the causes.
I think people might be a good example. Nobody runs around a burning auditorium at random. It may appear so but they've a purpose and a reason. Sure, it's noisy but it is not random. World courts and the UN prohibit me from demonstrating this principle.
Err... I can probably show you the math but I don't think Slashdot supports the markdown/markup so trying to use language to make it easy to grasp isn't my strong suit. It doesn't help that I don't know your level of understanding but you mentioned "true random source" which makes me unsure of what to make for assumptions. Unless there's been a breakthrough, that I'm unaware of, such is impossible at this current time and, likely, forever. Do not confuse unpredictability with randomness - they are not the same and only look the same from someone who hasn't been able to see the problems inherent in the concept of random.
Unless you're a physicist, in which case, I respectfully disagree but that's a topic for another day. As a mathematician, and as an appeal to authority, I strongly submit that there's no true random. It's simply impossible and anything that seems like it is just means that our understanding of the physical is limiting and influencing our conclusions.
I haven't read this in its entirety (I just barely skimmed it) but, if you'll accept it, may give some insight.
Of course, there's practicality and quality. I'd certainly agree that, with varied degrees, we have some levels of unpredictability and those are applicable and of high enough quality that we can assume a random response that is "good enough."
I'd be *very* interested in reading your reply regardless of your scholarly achievements or whatnot. It's not just a nit to pick but an underlying concept that needs understanding if we're to go further in the field. I've tried to articulate this well enough and have re-written parts of it but I'll fill in any needed areas if you want. Again, I'm quite interested in a rebuttal or refutation as there may be something that's changed and I'm unaware of it.
I have not been nearly as productive as I could have been nor have I maintained my ties with academia at a professional level. I've always been fond of the concept and have some unfinished work that I should probably complete and publish before I get too old to remember but real life is often more amusing and I am as impacted by entropy as the rest of the universe.
Anyhow, even my email is available should we need to make use of it. I was, specifically, attempting to avoid a writing a novel but this missive is not too long. Articulation is not my strong suit.
Are you positive about the TRS-80? I thought it capable of strong randomness but, well, let's just say that this was a long time ago. I may be recalling a chip one could put in that was an RNG? It has been a long time. I think the TRS-80 might have also been the system that required adding a chip, increasing bits, so that one could actually type in lowercase letters. But, as I said, it was a long time ago and I've done some stupid things to my thinking organ in the interim.
Perhaps...
X = RND(1)
Which was, of course, predictable. But...
Y = RND(1) X = RND(Y)
Which was considered strong randomness, at the time, but - unfortunately, my memory isn't that good. I also seem to recall that one could make loops of this and increase the randomness. I'm *almost* positive that this was true but it may have had to be implemented a bit differently. FOR Y = RAN(1) AND Z = RAN(1) then average and maybe use more than Y and Z in a loop and then use that to get your random value.
Of course, on a theoretical level, I'm not entirely certain we can ever truly accomplish random. I'm trying to recall all of Bernoulli's (no, not that guy, I'm a mathematician - not a physicist) Theorem or the Golden Theorem but I think I'm conflating it with the LLN. (It has been a very long time.) At any rate, we're not going to get true random - I don't think. If we do develop it then, frankly, I suspect that we're simply not seeing a large enough picture to make that claim and don't know how to look at it. I.e. at best, I don't think we'll ever truly have a law or the likes. Conceptually, it is nice but given that there's probably nothing that's truly random - in the entirety of the universe, I don't think we'll ever get anything above the theoretical level.
I could probably word that better and probably should but it'd take time, be ignored, and would be yet another of my novellas. Alas, I'm tired today. Let it be known that I am not a programmer.;-) I have, however, done a lot of programming and I already apologized to those who had to fix it and work with it. Ten lines of uncommented code is better than three lines and clear comments, after all. Version control? That's for wimps! Push it to production! A cornucopia of drugs and alcohol were involved.
See also the Martingale betting system. It's a *bad* idea. I've heard tales of the RNG at KOL throwing 23 losses in a row. I'm pretty sure the "victim" was crying in real life. She went from one of the wealthiest folks, in the game, to being poor as dirt. Money is meat in KOL so she had no meat left to speak of as she'd let a bot run her betting for her overnight while failing to set the bot to stop after a few tries. I did not check the math to see how much, exactly, 23 results in but I think she had pretty close to maximum meat the night before. She was devastated.
I highlighted your comment, from web-based to cosmic noise" and right clicked on it. I then selected search and followed the very first link at Google. I think figured I'd find out if it was what you spoke of and search to see if they had a way to grab it by bash or Python from the terminal but, I digress.
You are an adult. Go buy more. I had (have?) a friend who'd go into the shop and sit there, for a very long time, rolling individuals until he found the exact ones he wanted to purchase. It was mildly annoying and amusing at the same time.
Back in the late 90s there was a company (it may be the Science one listed but I'd not lay claim to that) who sold a d100 and a few others. They were a bit more expensive but they came with paperwork that listed their results and I think, I'm not positive, that the included documents also indicated they're compared them with other vendor's dice. Somewhere, I have no idea where, I still have that die and paperwork.
I also have scads of source material and many of the books going quite a ways back into the early days of TSR. I was displeased with the selling to WotC and kind of stopped playing not long after, at least any serious playing. I understand they're now a Hasbro property. I've always thought that table top role playing was more than just a game. It was a creative outlet, a chance to be a true thespian. I never got into LARP or anything but led many sessions.
As for the dice? Well, some of the best sessions happened when the dice never left their bags. Strange? Perhaps. I've even let my players make up whatever stats they wanted for character generation. Go ahead, I'll fit a story into it. If I can't then I need to resign my position. It's not my job to limit them, it's my job to enable them. It's my job to enable them to accomplish their goals and, more importantly, to enable us all to enjoy ourselves.
I don't even "need" to know that. I want to know, as much as possible, the maths involved and, honestly, I'm a bit disappointed with the non-contact that I've had and the inability to find the raw research data. They say there's plenty of data available for free and online. This is true. It isn't the data I need. Yes. I can find their models and the outputs of those models, that's readily available. I don't want the results of the research, I want access to their research. That is what I want. It is also what I need if I want to make an informed opinion.
I've never done Firefox in particular but I suspect it's not much more difficult than reading the readme (catchy title, I know) and following the directions. It's probably something akin to:
sudo configure sudo make sudo make install
And maybe, just maybe, tracking down a dependency but chances are good someone will have already compiled and packaged it for you or you can just grab a package from a repo that someone's willing to maintain.
I think any reasonable scientist could empirically conclude that the GUI is bad for facial hair growth. It's probably due to the increase in photons inhibiting growth of facial hair. There should be a study.
To be fair, you've not paid for it - you've paid for a license to use it. With online services, you're just paying for (it seems to me) a more limited license to use it but getting some benefits (like portability, universal access, etc). Do they keep your data or just process it? Is it stored, without exception? In other words, if you like the product, you might as well keep using it *if* you're able to retain reasonable control of your property.
LOL That might be true. I almost hooked up with a chick, long term, and visited a couple of times - with both times being extended durations. I'd have had to pay a goodly sum and then still might not have been granted citizenship even if we married. It was one of the primary reasons that things didn't work out and I ended up not selecting Cann River to retire at.
I'm thinking that these people could have gone to the media and said, "The US nuked our islands [plural, I think we made two inhabitable] and we're being flooded!" At that point, simply for the PR, I'd think even Oz would take 'em - if not the Kiwis would. I'm sure all of W. Europe would have taken them. I'd have actually expected Oz to take 'em as this has been happening for years now and it would look good. I'd have expected them to end up in Eurasia, maybe?
The US? The Ozarks, in all of the US? That is a very strange choice. It appears to have just snowballed and be the path of least resistance. They get granted (I think) citizenship in the US automatically because we, you know, used their home as a nuclear test ground. I understand that but I'd think that they'd be able to go most anywhere with just a little bit of whining on international television.
I should also add that the car is not, to me, a status symbol or the likes. In fact, if you look at the 650s (coupe, I hate convertibles) you'd have no idea what it is and that's one of the reasons that I bought it. I am not always fond of attention. I have flashier cars, included a nice older Porsche, but I'd rather go through life without undue attention in the meat space. If it's cruising along or just sitting there then you'd have no idea that it has 450 ponies under the hood. Now, if I start it up it's a little rumble and the low growl (and it is as awesome as you might think to drive).
I'm a car aficionado, a collector of sorts, who would never drive or own a status symbol. Each and every one of my vehicles is owned for a specific purpose and they're not, mostly, collector cars. I pride myself on owning not one single "trailer queen." Every vehicle gets used and every vehicle gets pushed to its limits. I love the automobile. I love to drive.
I pay dearly to maintain my collection to the point where I have a mechanic that comes to *my* garage and uses mostly *my* tools to maintain *my* collection and they come in once a week even when I am not home. They work a full day, every single Saturday (with few exceptions) and I pay them $400 (well, I pay their boss) per day.
I add that last bit not as a braggart or the likes. No, I add that to explain that I am a true aficionado. I'm truly passionate about the automobile and about my collection (such as it is - it's not one you'd find all that exciting unless you knew what I did with them and why). I don't drive status symbols or vehicles that aren't exactly the best choice for me for the task at hand.
That they are, that they are. You should get into the NW part of Maine (or the coast, or both) and you'll see why I retired there. I'm really missing it but DC is nice this time of year. I may just winter in Florida for a while and then finish the winter up in NV. I'm still missing home.:/ But, I'll almost certainly be in the Ozarks in the near future.
I'm okay with that. I've already been called a skeptic even though I'd said nothing of the sort and I had asked something about why some of the data had been excluded if the margin of error was no higher than other data that was included. If you refresh this particular thread, someone offered me a link that will help me model the climate but I'm not sure that they actually understand what I'm doing. I modeled traffic - I can model the climate if I've enough time and interest. I don't. I want to see what the models are doing, why they are doing it, how the data is massaged, why it is massaged, what algorithms are used to massage the data, what has been tried and what has "failed." as well as what the outcome of those predictions were and how close they matched the existent data.
Some of this information seems to be squirreled away or is poorly indexed or outright not included. I'm past the 'first blush" stage but I'm going to use that phrase. At first blush, it appears that they are not very approachable and I am not surprised that people are skeptical. I'm of the opinion that healthy skepticism is a good thing, I'm not entirely sure why this is seen as a bad thing. Are they conflated with those who are in denial?
I can state that there are some certainties. I am certain that the climate is changing. I am certain that some percentage of this change is due to human activity. I am certain that we should limit our harm.
I am not sure that the predictions are accurate (so far, I'm going with they don't appear that certain either). I'm not certain what percentage is due to human activity. I'm not sure that we have the power to repair it - or even if we could stop the natural projection. I am not sure why they've excluded certain data points. I'm not sure about data collection techniques and their accuracy. I'm not sure that the data being entered into the models is giving an accurate output - I'm sure it's following the model exactly but I need to see what the model does to even begin to comment on it. And I don't mean physically see it, I need to read the model itself and see what "tweaks" have been applied, how, why, and what failed and what the results of those failures were.
Anyhow, I've sent out about two dozen emails now and had nary a single reply. I'm okay with that and I'd buy journal papers for the material but the papers that I've come across that are free don't actually appear to cover the information that I need. You can tell me how you built a table but that doesn't let me know what you tried and failed at and then understand the process you used to truly create your fine table. I've got bandwidth and compute cycles. I'll happily crunch the numbers and submit the results, methodology, and data to the facilities. I'll even write the code so long as you don't need me to make pretty graphics. I can *see* the normalization values, for example, but I don't see why those are in use and what process they used to get them.
That might be worth setting up a Windows VM or buying a Mac for. I'll take a peek at it some more but it's not really answering my question - I can model the climate (with enough time and effort) if I need to. I need to find out which modeling is being done, what predictive models are in use, what the data is being altered to (and why), and why the variables are excluded in some models. I'm a mathematician and working with large data sets is why I'm retired today but my area of expertise is in traffic modeling. I'm not really interested in the output from the models. I am aiming to actually understand the models and how/why the data is massaged. (Data is *always* massaged when you model chaotic systems. I've no problem with that - I'm not stupid. I want to know how and why and I want to find the deterministic methods in use.)
I've posted pics of parts of my collection here before. One of my favorites is a 1988 Honda Accord LX. I actually could not let myself sell that car and then, when I had some money, I *drove* it to California, had it shipped to Japan, and had it completely restored to factory tolerances.
Per your BMW question - they do require you to maintain them. As a percentage cost, it's on par with any other vehicle. People do have some mechanical issues, from time to time, and I suspect that's because they don't maintain them properly. They're excellent driving machines and brilliant tech and that requires that you maintain them.
Alright. I've gotta ask, at this point. What do you (or did you) do for work? So help me, you'd better not say that you're a whaler or something. You really seem to have an affinity for space. I've seen the mouth-breathers calling you a nutter even though I've never seen you actually advocate anything that seems to warrant that status.
It took me a minute to get the gist of your math and I had to look up ISP. ISP is Specific Impulse, yes? It makes sense if that is the Wiki page is correct. Also, I'm not a rocket surgeon but those seem like rather long burn times. I'd wonder if the materials are able to handle those extended durations. Let it be clear, I'm not a materials engineer either. I do, on the other hand, grasp mathematics.
Nifty. It seems like a place to go if you want to try to help or if you want to do a whole lot of nothing. I'm kind of lazy so I'll throw money at stuff and let them do the work - though I sometimes get my hands dirty.
Anyhow, that's a valid point but still doesn't make sense. These people really only needed to get some PR about the US nuking them and *every* country on the planet would take them in as refugees. You've traveled. If you could go, literally, anywhere on the planet then would you choose the Ozarks? Would you even pick the US? How bad does it have to be where the US is your first option???
I'd agree with that. It still doesn't explain why they'd pick the Ozarks except maybe as the path of least resistance. I've made a few other replies since returning, if you're curious then feel free to read them. I'd expect that they could have gone anywhere. Every country would take them just to get the PR points of taking in the poor refugees because the US bombed their friggen island(s) (two that I can think of but I'm not sure if the second one is in the Marshall group) with nukes!
Slashdot Mirror
My email address is posted for a reason. ;-) Feel free to use it. I'll review your link either later or in the morning. I'd not do it justice by reading it right now so I can't opine on it. Meh, we're this far back from the front page... Why not?
I left Maine, back in September, due to some conversation here on this site. I have been lucky in some ways which means there are consequences. I headed out on the road to just travel around, seemingly at random. I did so in a car that's not too fancy. I stay(ed) at mid-range hotels and not in the best suites.
This had the results that met my goal, in part, where I bumped into a very young female and she stuck. We wrapped up some business and she's joined me on my journey and will, almost certainly, be returning to my home with me when I do return. But, this has meant distractions.
Over the weekend, I'd been in Buffalo since we bumped into each other, I finally meandered down to D.C. with her in tow. We spent today at the Smithsonian (we did the Air and Space) and had a good time but I am mentally exhausted and physically drained. I'd expected the trip here to energize me but it's had the opposite effect and I'm a bit disappointed.
Why do I mention that? Well, it is for that reason that I have simply thrown your link into my "read this" bookmark folder. I prefer, when possible, to take some things serious and with a scholarly bent. Not everything, mind you, but some things. This is a serious subject where I have no specific domain knowledge. I may, also, publish my findings even if it's only available for peer review by personal publication and not in a reputable journal. I'm a mathematician and not a climate scientist, after all.
As I've mentioned, I've a great deal of experience modeling things that are chaotic in nature (pedestrian and vehicular traffic) and was on the cusp of that field which is why I'm in the position I am today. I am fortunate and grateful. Alas, this means I'm not doing anything and this is a subject that I do have some very specific experience with (the modeling and the working with large data sets). My goal is scholarly and not political. I simply want to understand enough to give an informed opinion. From there, I may run my own models and get the results but that's not my objective.
Why? Because my country has been steadily going downhill in many areas over that same time-frame. It has, also, improved in some areas. I suspect that it was the path of least resistance which even accounts for that specific location within the US. I think they've been able to get citizenship since not long after we did some testing there with nuclear weapons? I don't recall the specific year.
Anyhow, my thinking was, "Those folks in the US bombed us and took our rights to use our land from us!" What country would't want the publicity of taking them in? I live in the US because I have ties here and am, at heart, a patriot but I could live anywhere. If I did not have those ties then I can think of places that I'd have put at the top of the list and those places aren't the US. We have our faults and frailties, as do other places, but without ties and a desire to see things through - I'd reside elsewhere. I don't because I am not a coward and hope to continue making changes, however small or large, until I am unable to do so any more. I don't expect that from them.
They quite probably could have had their pick of countries simply by creating some noise in the media. I'm honored that they chose the US but I'm still kind of surprised by this.
Hmm... It's fun to poke at the physics people some times. It's also tempting. Not even a crypto-PRNG is random. It is unpredictable and very good at being so. You could say that it's random for some definition of random but not true random. But, our disciplines have argued this before. (I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics.) It's not really up to me to prove your RNG implementation isn't random. It's up to you to prove that is random.
Now, for all practical purposes, it is 'random enough' to be unpredictable which is the implementation that is "good enough." There's also some Law of Large Numbers to throw in here, but I digress... It's certainly unpredictable but do you *really* think it's random - truly random? Also, I'm going by your email address to presume you're in the physics department. I'm also assuming that you're aware that we (not you and I, personally) have had this debate more than once.
I'm working on defeating entropy and a perpetual motion machine! Err... Don't take this reply too seriously.
However, I think you'd get even more fame from proving the PRNG that you speak of is truly random. If you do so then I should like to read that paper and subscribe to your newsletter. But, from a mathematical view, true random doesn't exist and probably never will. Like infinity, it's a concept with little or no bearing on the real world but it is useful. In this case, with cryptography, it's more than adequate to serve the function needed but it's still unlikely to be random.
Instead, if we must, it's "random enough." I strongly prefer the term "unpredictable" to make things easier. With predictable having, of course, various subsets. I'd suppose that random and true-random might work as well as the former can just assume that it's random enough to the point where we're unable to predict it or explain the mechanism adequately to prove that it is not random.
Anyhow, sorry for poking but, ya know... You crazy physicists! I'm pretty sure this has been hashed out a few times already. Random enough or random to the point where it is too complex for us to make prediction is not true random. A minor point? Perhaps, for the time being. Effective and "good enough?" Absolutely. Random? Probably not - at least by strict definition.
No! It's 1 + 1 = 3...
I'll show myself out.
*sighs* I hold you to a higher standard. "...which of course will be random." No, it will be unpredictable. It will not be random. It will only appear random because you don't know the criteria. Oh, it'll be useful and do the job at hand well and beyond what is needed, presumably, but it will not be random. Unless mathematics has been defiled in ways suitable only for pornography, true random is still impossible. For all infants and porpoises, yes - it's random for some value of random. Mostly, though, it's unpredictable.
I am of the opinion that random, true random, is impossible. The most we will ever have is some subset where we can simply conclude that it's random enough and that we either don't have or don't know why it appears random. We can only find that it appears random but, I don't think, random is possible. We've always settled on a subset that's good enough and substituted unpredictable for the same thing. They are not the same. I seem to be in fine company with my beliefs. I confess, I did not read but skimmed this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From a quick skim, it appears nothing new has come about and random is still impossible. Above this post, in a sub-thread, I went into greater detail. Sorry, but you're held to higher standards than some of the others, at least by me. ;-) Like infinity, random is a concept that doesn't yet seem to have any relationship with reality. I'd recommend that we discard the word for greater understanding but nobody lets me be in charge of anything important. Both concepts are valuable and even needed but they simply don't exist and, likely, never will.
In other words, nothing is now (or ever will be) random. At best, it will appear random due to an inability to comprehend the inputs, outputs, or processes. Just because it may appear random does not mean that it is. I'd absolutely love to be wrong in this and so many people would love for you to prove this wrong. Every time I see "true random" it kind of tweaks me a little. It should say something like "true unpredictability" or something. Hell, I'm not even sure how they should word it but it's not random. I'd love to be wrong and I'd prove myself wrong but I'm still working on a way to eliminate entropy and perfect my perpetual motion machine so I'm lacking time.
Ah well... I guess, I shouldn't worry about it but I confess to enjoying your posts and must interject once in a while. Perhaps you could say that I do so randomly?
I don't think we've actually got a true random source - just stuff that appears to be true random until we've a greater understanding. I'd also not want to be the person trying to prove something was truly random. I'd say that's neigh on impossible. (For true, absolute, random.)
Also, concerning my above post, I should add to that there's also the time-frame to keep in mind. In other words, "strong randomness" for that time. The field has, as far as I know, improved a great deal in recent history and my last scholarly work was in the late 1980s or early 1990s. After that I needed only a subset and not true random as much as chaos is not, of course, random - it just appears to be until you're able to gather enough information and understand the causes.
I think people might be a good example. Nobody runs around a burning auditorium at random. It may appear so but they've a purpose and a reason. Sure, it's noisy but it is not random. World courts and the UN prohibit me from demonstrating this principle.
Err... I can probably show you the math but I don't think Slashdot supports the markdown/markup so trying to use language to make it easy to grasp isn't my strong suit. It doesn't help that I don't know your level of understanding but you mentioned "true random source" which makes me unsure of what to make for assumptions. Unless there's been a breakthrough, that I'm unaware of, such is impossible at this current time and, likely, forever. Do not confuse unpredictability with randomness - they are not the same and only look the same from someone who hasn't been able to see the problems inherent in the concept of random.
Unless you're a physicist, in which case, I respectfully disagree but that's a topic for another day. As a mathematician, and as an appeal to authority, I strongly submit that there's no true random. It's simply impossible and anything that seems like it is just means that our understanding of the physical is limiting and influencing our conclusions.
I haven't read this in its entirety (I just barely skimmed it) but, if you'll accept it, may give some insight.
Of course, there's practicality and quality. I'd certainly agree that, with varied degrees, we have some levels of unpredictability and those are applicable and of high enough quality that we can assume a random response that is "good enough."
I'd be *very* interested in reading your reply regardless of your scholarly achievements or whatnot. It's not just a nit to pick but an underlying concept that needs understanding if we're to go further in the field. I've tried to articulate this well enough and have re-written parts of it but I'll fill in any needed areas if you want. Again, I'm quite interested in a rebuttal or refutation as there may be something that's changed and I'm unaware of it.
I have not been nearly as productive as I could have been nor have I maintained my ties with academia at a professional level. I've always been fond of the concept and have some unfinished work that I should probably complete and publish before I get too old to remember but real life is often more amusing and I am as impacted by entropy as the rest of the universe.
Anyhow, even my email is available should we need to make use of it. I was, specifically, attempting to avoid a writing a novel but this missive is not too long. Articulation is not my strong suit.
Are you positive about the TRS-80? I thought it capable of strong randomness but, well, let's just say that this was a long time ago. I may be recalling a chip one could put in that was an RNG? It has been a long time. I think the TRS-80 might have also been the system that required adding a chip, increasing bits, so that one could actually type in lowercase letters. But, as I said, it was a long time ago and I've done some stupid things to my thinking organ in the interim.
Perhaps...
X = RND(1)
Which was, of course, predictable. But...
Y = RND(1)
X = RND(Y)
Which was considered strong randomness, at the time, but - unfortunately, my memory isn't that good. I also seem to recall that one could make loops of this and increase the randomness. I'm *almost* positive that this was true but it may have had to be implemented a bit differently. FOR Y = RAN(1) AND Z = RAN(1) then average and maybe use more than Y and Z in a loop and then use that to get your random value.
Of course, on a theoretical level, I'm not entirely certain we can ever truly accomplish random. I'm trying to recall all of Bernoulli's (no, not that guy, I'm a mathematician - not a physicist) Theorem or the Golden Theorem but I think I'm conflating it with the LLN. (It has been a very long time.) At any rate, we're not going to get true random - I don't think. If we do develop it then, frankly, I suspect that we're simply not seeing a large enough picture to make that claim and don't know how to look at it. I.e. at best, I don't think we'll ever truly have a law or the likes. Conceptually, it is nice but given that there's probably nothing that's truly random - in the entirety of the universe, I don't think we'll ever get anything above the theoretical level.
I could probably word that better and probably should but it'd take time, be ignored, and would be yet another of my novellas. Alas, I'm tired today. Let it be known that I am not a programmer. ;-) I have, however, done a lot of programming and I already apologized to those who had to fix it and work with it. Ten lines of uncommented code is better than three lines and clear comments, after all. Version control? That's for wimps! Push it to production! A cornucopia of drugs and alcohol were involved.
See also the Martingale betting system. It's a *bad* idea. I've heard tales of the RNG at KOL throwing 23 losses in a row. I'm pretty sure the "victim" was crying in real life. She went from one of the wealthiest folks, in the game, to being poor as dirt. Money is meat in KOL so she had no meat left to speak of as she'd let a bot run her betting for her overnight while failing to set the bot to stop after a few tries. I did not check the math to see how much, exactly, 23 results in but I think she had pretty close to maximum meat the night before. She was devastated.
I highlighted your comment, from web-based to cosmic noise" and right clicked on it. I then selected search and followed the very first link at Google. I think figured I'd find out if it was what you spoke of and search to see if they had a way to grab it by bash or Python from the terminal but, I digress.
Is this the service that you speak of?
https://www.random.org/history...
You are an adult. Go buy more. I had (have?) a friend who'd go into the shop and sit there, for a very long time, rolling individuals until he found the exact ones he wanted to purchase. It was mildly annoying and amusing at the same time.
I don't know who you are but you're dead to me AC, dead to me!
Back in the late 90s there was a company (it may be the Science one listed but I'd not lay claim to that) who sold a d100 and a few others. They were a bit more expensive but they came with paperwork that listed their results and I think, I'm not positive, that the included documents also indicated they're compared them with other vendor's dice. Somewhere, I have no idea where, I still have that die and paperwork.
I also have scads of source material and many of the books going quite a ways back into the early days of TSR. I was displeased with the selling to WotC and kind of stopped playing not long after, at least any serious playing. I understand they're now a Hasbro property. I've always thought that table top role playing was more than just a game. It was a creative outlet, a chance to be a true thespian. I never got into LARP or anything but led many sessions.
As for the dice? Well, some of the best sessions happened when the dice never left their bags. Strange? Perhaps. I've even let my players make up whatever stats they wanted for character generation. Go ahead, I'll fit a story into it. If I can't then I need to resign my position. It's not my job to limit them, it's my job to enable them. It's my job to enable them to accomplish their goals and, more importantly, to enable us all to enjoy ourselves.
I don't even "need" to know that. I want to know, as much as possible, the maths involved and, honestly, I'm a bit disappointed with the non-contact that I've had and the inability to find the raw research data. They say there's plenty of data available for free and online. This is true. It isn't the data I need. Yes. I can find their models and the outputs of those models, that's readily available. I don't want the results of the research, I want access to their research. That is what I want. It is also what I need if I want to make an informed opinion.
I've never done Firefox in particular but I suspect it's not much more difficult than reading the readme (catchy title, I know) and following the directions. It's probably something akin to:
sudo configure
sudo make
sudo make install
And maybe, just maybe, tracking down a dependency but chances are good someone will have already compiled and packaged it for you or you can just grab a package from a repo that someone's willing to maintain.
I think any reasonable scientist could empirically conclude that the GUI is bad for facial hair growth. It's probably due to the increase in photons inhibiting growth of facial hair. There should be a study.
To be fair, you've not paid for it - you've paid for a license to use it. With online services, you're just paying for (it seems to me) a more limited license to use it but getting some benefits (like portability, universal access, etc). Do they keep your data or just process it? Is it stored, without exception? In other words, if you like the product, you might as well keep using it *if* you're able to retain reasonable control of your property.
LOL That might be true. I almost hooked up with a chick, long term, and visited a couple of times - with both times being extended durations. I'd have had to pay a goodly sum and then still might not have been granted citizenship even if we married. It was one of the primary reasons that things didn't work out and I ended up not selecting Cann River to retire at.
I'm thinking that these people could have gone to the media and said, "The US nuked our islands [plural, I think we made two inhabitable] and we're being flooded!" At that point, simply for the PR, I'd think even Oz would take 'em - if not the Kiwis would. I'm sure all of W. Europe would have taken them. I'd have actually expected Oz to take 'em as this has been happening for years now and it would look good. I'd have expected them to end up in Eurasia, maybe?
The US? The Ozarks, in all of the US? That is a very strange choice. It appears to have just snowballed and be the path of least resistance. They get granted (I think) citizenship in the US automatically because we, you know, used their home as a nuclear test ground. I understand that but I'd think that they'd be able to go most anywhere with just a little bit of whining on international television.
I should also add that the car is not, to me, a status symbol or the likes. In fact, if you look at the 650s (coupe, I hate convertibles) you'd have no idea what it is and that's one of the reasons that I bought it. I am not always fond of attention. I have flashier cars, included a nice older Porsche, but I'd rather go through life without undue attention in the meat space. If it's cruising along or just sitting there then you'd have no idea that it has 450 ponies under the hood. Now, if I start it up it's a little rumble and the low growl (and it is as awesome as you might think to drive).
I'm a car aficionado, a collector of sorts, who would never drive or own a status symbol. Each and every one of my vehicles is owned for a specific purpose and they're not, mostly, collector cars. I pride myself on owning not one single "trailer queen." Every vehicle gets used and every vehicle gets pushed to its limits. I love the automobile. I love to drive.
I pay dearly to maintain my collection to the point where I have a mechanic that comes to *my* garage and uses mostly *my* tools to maintain *my* collection and they come in once a week even when I am not home. They work a full day, every single Saturday (with few exceptions) and I pay them $400 (well, I pay their boss) per day.
I add that last bit not as a braggart or the likes. No, I add that to explain that I am a true aficionado. I'm truly passionate about the automobile and about my collection (such as it is - it's not one you'd find all that exciting unless you knew what I did with them and why). I don't drive status symbols or vehicles that aren't exactly the best choice for me for the task at hand.
That they are, that they are. You should get into the NW part of Maine (or the coast, or both) and you'll see why I retired there. I'm really missing it but DC is nice this time of year. I may just winter in Florida for a while and then finish the winter up in NV. I'm still missing home. :/ But, I'll almost certainly be in the Ozarks in the near future.
I'm okay with that. I've already been called a skeptic even though I'd said nothing of the sort and I had asked something about why some of the data had been excluded if the margin of error was no higher than other data that was included. If you refresh this particular thread, someone offered me a link that will help me model the climate but I'm not sure that they actually understand what I'm doing. I modeled traffic - I can model the climate if I've enough time and interest. I don't. I want to see what the models are doing, why they are doing it, how the data is massaged, why it is massaged, what algorithms are used to massage the data, what has been tried and what has "failed." as well as what the outcome of those predictions were and how close they matched the existent data.
Some of this information seems to be squirreled away or is poorly indexed or outright not included. I'm past the 'first blush" stage but I'm going to use that phrase. At first blush, it appears that they are not very approachable and I am not surprised that people are skeptical. I'm of the opinion that healthy skepticism is a good thing, I'm not entirely sure why this is seen as a bad thing. Are they conflated with those who are in denial?
I can state that there are some certainties. I am certain that the climate is changing. I am certain that some percentage of this change is due to human activity. I am certain that we should limit our harm.
I am not sure that the predictions are accurate (so far, I'm going with they don't appear that certain either). I'm not certain what percentage is due to human activity. I'm not sure that we have the power to repair it - or even if we could stop the natural projection. I am not sure why they've excluded certain data points. I'm not sure about data collection techniques and their accuracy. I'm not sure that the data being entered into the models is giving an accurate output - I'm sure it's following the model exactly but I need to see what the model does to even begin to comment on it. And I don't mean physically see it, I need to read the model itself and see what "tweaks" have been applied, how, why, and what failed and what the results of those failures were.
Anyhow, I've sent out about two dozen emails now and had nary a single reply. I'm okay with that and I'd buy journal papers for the material but the papers that I've come across that are free don't actually appear to cover the information that I need. You can tell me how you built a table but that doesn't let me know what you tried and failed at and then understand the process you used to truly create your fine table. I've got bandwidth and compute cycles. I'll happily crunch the numbers and submit the results, methodology, and data to the facilities. I'll even write the code so long as you don't need me to make pretty graphics. I can *see* the normalization values, for example, but I don't see why those are in use and what process they used to get them.
That might be worth setting up a Windows VM or buying a Mac for. I'll take a peek at it some more but it's not really answering my question - I can model the climate (with enough time and effort) if I need to. I need to find out which modeling is being done, what predictive models are in use, what the data is being altered to (and why), and why the variables are excluded in some models. I'm a mathematician and working with large data sets is why I'm retired today but my area of expertise is in traffic modeling. I'm not really interested in the output from the models. I am aiming to actually understand the models and how/why the data is massaged. (Data is *always* massaged when you model chaotic systems. I've no problem with that - I'm not stupid. I want to know how and why and I want to find the deterministic methods in use.)
I've posted pics of parts of my collection here before. One of my favorites is a 1988 Honda Accord LX. I actually could not let myself sell that car and then, when I had some money, I *drove* it to California, had it shipped to Japan, and had it completely restored to factory tolerances.
Per your BMW question - they do require you to maintain them. As a percentage cost, it's on par with any other vehicle. People do have some mechanical issues, from time to time, and I suspect that's because they don't maintain them properly. They're excellent driving machines and brilliant tech and that requires that you maintain them.
Alright. I've gotta ask, at this point. What do you (or did you) do for work? So help me, you'd better not say that you're a whaler or something. You really seem to have an affinity for space. I've seen the mouth-breathers calling you a nutter even though I've never seen you actually advocate anything that seems to warrant that status.
It took me a minute to get the gist of your math and I had to look up ISP. ISP is Specific Impulse, yes? It makes sense if that is the Wiki page is correct. Also, I'm not a rocket surgeon but those seem like rather long burn times. I'd wonder if the materials are able to handle those extended durations. Let it be clear, I'm not a materials engineer either. I do, on the other hand, grasp mathematics.
Nifty. It seems like a place to go if you want to try to help or if you want to do a whole lot of nothing. I'm kind of lazy so I'll throw money at stuff and let them do the work - though I sometimes get my hands dirty.
Anyhow, that's a valid point but still doesn't make sense. These people really only needed to get some PR about the US nuking them and *every* country on the planet would take them in as refugees. You've traveled. If you could go, literally, anywhere on the planet then would you choose the Ozarks? Would you even pick the US? How bad does it have to be where the US is your first option???
I'd agree with that. It still doesn't explain why they'd pick the Ozarks except maybe as the path of least resistance. I've made a few other replies since returning, if you're curious then feel free to read them. I'd expect that they could have gone anywhere. Every country would take them just to get the PR points of taking in the poor refugees because the US bombed their friggen island(s) (two that I can think of but I'm not sure if the second one is in the Marshall group) with nukes!