<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_1653234</id>
	<title>New Method for Random Number Generation Developed</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266867240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Science Daily is reporting that a German team has developed a <a href="http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/EVMciynRuPg/100222082529.htm">new method of random number generation</a> that they hope will improve security.  <i>"The German team has now developed a true random number generator that uses an extra layer of randomness by making a computer memory element, a flip-flop, twitch randomly between its two states 1 or 0. Immediately prior to the switch, the flip-flop is in a 'metastable state' where its behavior cannot be predicted. At the end of the metastable state, the contents of the memory are purely random. The researchers' experiments with an array of flip-flop units show that for small arrays the extra layer makes the random number almost twenty times more 'random' than conventional methods."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science Daily is reporting that a German team has developed a new method of random number generation that they hope will improve security .
" The German team has now developed a true random number generator that uses an extra layer of randomness by making a computer memory element , a flip-flop , twitch randomly between its two states 1 or 0 .
Immediately prior to the switch , the flip-flop is in a 'metastable state ' where its behavior can not be predicted .
At the end of the metastable state , the contents of the memory are purely random .
The researchers ' experiments with an array of flip-flop units show that for small arrays the extra layer makes the random number almost twenty times more 'random ' than conventional methods .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science Daily is reporting that a German team has developed a new method of random number generation that they hope will improve security.
"The German team has now developed a true random number generator that uses an extra layer of randomness by making a computer memory element, a flip-flop, twitch randomly between its two states 1 or 0.
Immediately prior to the switch, the flip-flop is in a 'metastable state' where its behavior cannot be predicted.
At the end of the metastable state, the contents of the memory are purely random.
The researchers' experiments with an array of flip-flop units show that for small arrays the extra layer makes the random number almost twenty times more 'random' than conventional methods.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238620</id>
	<title>A simple Circuit Really</title>
	<author>Gim Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1266844680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A very simple circuit of properly biased IF-MAYBE gates in a feedback loop with OCCASIONALLY-PERHAPS registers will produce an infinite string of perfectly random bits which can then be sampled to give perfect random numbers.  I would swear that every computer I have worked on (going back to a PDP-8i) has had one or more of these somewhere -- undocumented of course...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A very simple circuit of properly biased IF-MAYBE gates in a feedback loop with OCCASIONALLY-PERHAPS registers will produce an infinite string of perfectly random bits which can then be sampled to give perfect random numbers .
I would swear that every computer I have worked on ( going back to a PDP-8i ) has had one or more of these somewhere -- undocumented of course.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A very simple circuit of properly biased IF-MAYBE gates in a feedback loop with OCCASIONALLY-PERHAPS registers will produce an infinite string of perfectly random bits which can then be sampled to give perfect random numbers.
I would swear that every computer I have worked on (going back to a PDP-8i) has had one or more of these somewhere -- undocumented of course...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235780</id>
	<title>This is new?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1266833220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic elements being in non-deterministic states is not new.  In fact, often enough considerable effort must be spent to make sure they \_don't\_ go into nondeterministic states.  And some troll Phillips has actually already patented this, in 2003 (6631390).</p><p>A caveat is that such non-deterministic states are often not completely random; they're influenced by such things as the previous value of the flip-flop, variations in the power supply, the state of nearby circuits, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic elements being in non-deterministic states is not new .
In fact , often enough considerable effort must be spent to make sure they \ _do n't \ _ go into nondeterministic states .
And some troll Phillips has actually already patented this , in 2003 ( 6631390 ) .A caveat is that such non-deterministic states are often not completely random ; they 're influenced by such things as the previous value of the flip-flop , variations in the power supply , the state of nearby circuits , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic elements being in non-deterministic states is not new.
In fact, often enough considerable effort must be spent to make sure they \_don't\_ go into nondeterministic states.
And some troll Phillips has actually already patented this, in 2003 (6631390).A caveat is that such non-deterministic states are often not completely random; they're influenced by such things as the previous value of the flip-flop, variations in the power supply, the state of nearby circuits, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235434</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>JesseL</author>
	<datestamp>1266832200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, hardware random number generators are found in a lot consumer electronics. Typically they use something like a temperature sensor connected to a DAC - just read the least significant bits and you have a pretty good random seed.</p><p>These things are commonly integrated with microprocessors these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , hardware random number generators are found in a lot consumer electronics .
Typically they use something like a temperature sensor connected to a DAC - just read the least significant bits and you have a pretty good random seed.These things are commonly integrated with microprocessors these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, hardware random number generators are found in a lot consumer electronics.
Typically they use something like a temperature sensor connected to a DAC - just read the least significant bits and you have a pretty good random seed.These things are commonly integrated with microprocessors these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237356</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>LainTouko</author>
	<datestamp>1266838380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom. There is virtually no reason to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random as a source of randomness instead of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom. The only difference is that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random blocks if it doesn't like the amount of entropy it's got. While this is highly annoying, there are almost no scenarios in which it is a genuinely useful security precaution. Only use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random if you have a thorough security analysis telling you exactly why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom is dangerous but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random is safe for what you're doing. Don't use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random out of some vague idea that it's 'more secure', this is very rarely the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use /dev/urandom .
There is virtually no reason to use /dev/random as a source of randomness instead of /dev/urandom .
The only difference is that /dev/random blocks if it does n't like the amount of entropy it 's got .
While this is highly annoying , there are almost no scenarios in which it is a genuinely useful security precaution .
Only use /dev/random if you have a thorough security analysis telling you exactly why /dev/urandom is dangerous but /dev/random is safe for what you 're doing .
Do n't use /dev/random out of some vague idea that it 's 'more secure ' , this is very rarely the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use /dev/urandom.
There is virtually no reason to use /dev/random as a source of randomness instead of /dev/urandom.
The only difference is that /dev/random blocks if it doesn't like the amount of entropy it's got.
While this is highly annoying, there are almost no scenarios in which it is a genuinely useful security precaution.
Only use /dev/random if you have a thorough security analysis telling you exactly why /dev/urandom is dangerous but /dev/random is safe for what you're doing.
Don't use /dev/random out of some vague idea that it's 'more secure', this is very rarely the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234262</id>
	<title>Re:20 times more random?</title>
	<author>arndawg</author>
	<datestamp>1266871920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It means that it takes Bruce Schneier an extra 0,019 seconds to figure out how to predict the sequence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means that it takes Bruce Schneier an extra 0,019 seconds to figure out how to predict the sequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means that it takes Bruce Schneier an extra 0,019 seconds to figure out how to predict the sequence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235348</id>
	<title>I need this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266831960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... thank goodness, just in time before I file my taxes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... thank goodness , just in time before I file my taxes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... thank goodness, just in time before I file my taxes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234814</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dedicated hardware random number generators are expensive and therefore aren't found in regular run of the mill consumer electronics.  This is a simple, easy to manufacture, solid state device that improves randomness considerably.  It's almost impossible to have a true random number generator, so we generally use pseudo-random number generators instead, generally software based ones.  The problem is that given a certain seed value, a random number generator will always produce the same outputs.  You might say to yourself "who the hell would go through the time and effort needed to predict the next random number?" but people have done it for everything from Nethack games to Keno machines.  This device removes the seed value from the equation, wrapping the random number in an extra layer of randomness.</p><p>As for something being more or less random, fire up some old VB code and generate a bunch of random numbers, then plot them on a graph.  You'll see a pattern almost instantly.  Newer random number generators are better, but the software the drives them will always be derivable given enough samples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dedicated hardware random number generators are expensive and therefore are n't found in regular run of the mill consumer electronics .
This is a simple , easy to manufacture , solid state device that improves randomness considerably .
It 's almost impossible to have a true random number generator , so we generally use pseudo-random number generators instead , generally software based ones .
The problem is that given a certain seed value , a random number generator will always produce the same outputs .
You might say to yourself " who the hell would go through the time and effort needed to predict the next random number ?
" but people have done it for everything from Nethack games to Keno machines .
This device removes the seed value from the equation , wrapping the random number in an extra layer of randomness.As for something being more or less random , fire up some old VB code and generate a bunch of random numbers , then plot them on a graph .
You 'll see a pattern almost instantly .
Newer random number generators are better , but the software the drives them will always be derivable given enough samples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dedicated hardware random number generators are expensive and therefore aren't found in regular run of the mill consumer electronics.
This is a simple, easy to manufacture, solid state device that improves randomness considerably.
It's almost impossible to have a true random number generator, so we generally use pseudo-random number generators instead, generally software based ones.
The problem is that given a certain seed value, a random number generator will always produce the same outputs.
You might say to yourself "who the hell would go through the time and effort needed to predict the next random number?
" but people have done it for everything from Nethack games to Keno machines.
This device removes the seed value from the equation, wrapping the random number in an extra layer of randomness.As for something being more or less random, fire up some old VB code and generate a bunch of random numbers, then plot them on a graph.
You'll see a pattern almost instantly.
Newer random number generators are better, but the software the drives them will always be derivable given enough samples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234828</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1266830400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seem to be missing quantum mechanics. The noise from a noise diode, a good way of getting real randomness, is a quantum phenomenon and you can only explain it with statistics. There is a probability that any little bit of the junction will avalanche within a certain time, but there is no way for you to say when.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be missing quantum mechanics .
The noise from a noise diode , a good way of getting real randomness , is a quantum phenomenon and you can only explain it with statistics .
There is a probability that any little bit of the junction will avalanche within a certain time , but there is no way for you to say when .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be missing quantum mechanics.
The noise from a noise diode, a good way of getting real randomness, is a quantum phenomenon and you can only explain it with statistics.
There is a probability that any little bit of the junction will avalanche within a certain time, but there is no way for you to say when.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234178</id>
	<title>Re:This is a random comment.</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1266871680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you tell?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you tell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you tell?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234968</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course they used a random piece of hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course they used a random piece of hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course they used a random piece of hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236030</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>TechyImmigrant</author>
	<datestamp>1266833940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More random means harder to predict. If you can predict the next bit with better than 50/50 chance, you don't have perfect entropy. The actual entropy is a function of how well an optimal predictor can predict future output.</p><p>If you can predict 8 out of 10 bits then the bit stream is less entropic than one for which you can predict 7 out of 10 bits. If you can only predict 5 out of 10 bits, then you have perfect entropy. If you can predict fewer than 5 out of 10 bits, you're doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More random means harder to predict .
If you can predict the next bit with better than 50/50 chance , you do n't have perfect entropy .
The actual entropy is a function of how well an optimal predictor can predict future output.If you can predict 8 out of 10 bits then the bit stream is less entropic than one for which you can predict 7 out of 10 bits .
If you can only predict 5 out of 10 bits , then you have perfect entropy .
If you can predict fewer than 5 out of 10 bits , you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More random means harder to predict.
If you can predict the next bit with better than 50/50 chance, you don't have perfect entropy.
The actual entropy is a function of how well an optimal predictor can predict future output.If you can predict 8 out of 10 bits then the bit stream is less entropic than one for which you can predict 7 out of 10 bits.
If you can only predict 5 out of 10 bits, then you have perfect entropy.
If you can predict fewer than 5 out of 10 bits, you're doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234944</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>drewhk</author>
	<datestamp>1266830760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is impossible. If we take the usual definition of random strings, namely incompressibility, then it is quite easy to prove impossibility. If you have an algorithm that can produce random strings of arbitrary length -- like you proposed --, than it is possible to produce a random string that is itself longer than the description of the algorithm that produced it. This is by definition means that your string is compressible, which contradicts its randomness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is impossible .
If we take the usual definition of random strings , namely incompressibility , then it is quite easy to prove impossibility .
If you have an algorithm that can produce random strings of arbitrary length -- like you proposed -- , than it is possible to produce a random string that is itself longer than the description of the algorithm that produced it .
This is by definition means that your string is compressible , which contradicts its randomness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is impossible.
If we take the usual definition of random strings, namely incompressibility, then it is quite easy to prove impossibility.
If you have an algorithm that can produce random strings of arbitrary length -- like you proposed --, than it is possible to produce a random string that is itself longer than the description of the algorithm that produced it.
This is by definition means that your string is compressible, which contradicts its randomness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235226</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>wertarbyte</author>
	<datestamp>1266831600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.

If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10, then each number would have exactly a 10\% chance of occurring, in order to be truly random.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p> <tt>perl -le '$v = 0; sub random {$v=($v+1)\%10;return $v}'</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Perfectly random?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring .
If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10 , then each number would have exactly a 10 \ % chance of occurring , in order to be truly random .
perl -le ' $ v = 0 ; sub random { $ v = ( $ v + 1 ) \ % 10 ; return $ v } ' Perfectly random ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.
If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10, then each number would have exactly a 10\% chance of occurring, in order to be truly random.
perl -le '$v = 0; sub random {$v=($v+1)\%10;return $v}' Perfectly random?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31240034</id>
	<title>Bah - kids and their flip flops...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266853620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In our days we'd push current through a zener diode backwards, and take the random values sampled from and A2D converter...</p><p>*shakes head*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In our days we 'd push current through a zener diode backwards , and take the random values sampled from and A2D converter... * shakes head *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In our days we'd push current through a zener diode backwards, and take the random values sampled from and A2D converter...*shakes head*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239742</id>
	<title>Unnecessary for most purposes...</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1266851580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are already plenty of entropy sources on a typical PC, and the need for cryptographic strength randomness is rare enough that we can accumulate entropy without adding more hardware.  We've already got timer chips, real time clocks, CPU cycle and instruction counters, mouse positions, graphics memory, audio inputs, accelerometers, rotation rate sensors on fans, temperature sensors on CPUs, motherboards, and disk drives, all the SMART data on the drives, packet checksums, and we currently aren't even using most of those.  If you want to add entropy accumulators, use the ones we already have first.  If they're not enough, it's fairly easy to add a white noise generator to your audio input.  Plug in a radio tuned to static.  Or even tuned to a station.  It doesn't matter.  Either has plenty of entropy.  The sensors chip on my motherboard generates about 31 bits of entropy per read (probably due to spikes and sags on the power supply voltages) when read at 1 Hz.  A drive's SMART data is probably good for a couple bits per second.
</p><p>
And how exactly is a metastable multivibrator a new thing anyway?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already plenty of entropy sources on a typical PC , and the need for cryptographic strength randomness is rare enough that we can accumulate entropy without adding more hardware .
We 've already got timer chips , real time clocks , CPU cycle and instruction counters , mouse positions , graphics memory , audio inputs , accelerometers , rotation rate sensors on fans , temperature sensors on CPUs , motherboards , and disk drives , all the SMART data on the drives , packet checksums , and we currently are n't even using most of those .
If you want to add entropy accumulators , use the ones we already have first .
If they 're not enough , it 's fairly easy to add a white noise generator to your audio input .
Plug in a radio tuned to static .
Or even tuned to a station .
It does n't matter .
Either has plenty of entropy .
The sensors chip on my motherboard generates about 31 bits of entropy per read ( probably due to spikes and sags on the power supply voltages ) when read at 1 Hz .
A drive 's SMART data is probably good for a couple bits per second .
And how exactly is a metastable multivibrator a new thing anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are already plenty of entropy sources on a typical PC, and the need for cryptographic strength randomness is rare enough that we can accumulate entropy without adding more hardware.
We've already got timer chips, real time clocks, CPU cycle and instruction counters, mouse positions, graphics memory, audio inputs, accelerometers, rotation rate sensors on fans, temperature sensors on CPUs, motherboards, and disk drives, all the SMART data on the drives, packet checksums, and we currently aren't even using most of those.
If you want to add entropy accumulators, use the ones we already have first.
If they're not enough, it's fairly easy to add a white noise generator to your audio input.
Plug in a radio tuned to static.
Or even tuned to a station.
It doesn't matter.
Either has plenty of entropy.
The sensors chip on my motherboard generates about 31 bits of entropy per read (probably due to spikes and sags on the power supply voltages) when read at 1 Hz.
A drive's SMART data is probably good for a couple bits per second.
And how exactly is a metastable multivibrator a new thing anyway?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236344</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1266835020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.</p></div><p>This is so utterly, completely, absolutely wrong that it's "not even wrong."</p><p>Please, for God's sake, read up on the concept of random variables before you attempt to make any judgement whatsoever about anything having to do with random number generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.This is so utterly , completely , absolutely wrong that it 's " not even wrong .
" Please , for God 's sake , read up on the concept of random variables before you attempt to make any judgement whatsoever about anything having to do with random number generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.This is so utterly, completely, absolutely wrong that it's "not even wrong.
"Please, for God's sake, read up on the concept of random variables before you attempt to make any judgement whatsoever about anything having to do with random number generation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234658</id>
	<title>The Random Number Generation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are a bunch of slackers.</p><p>Get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are a bunch of slackers.Get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are a bunch of slackers.Get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31242064</id>
	<title>Re:XKCD Bait</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1266917940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know which one <em>you're</em> thinking of, but, thanks to your wording, I'm thinking of <a href="http://xkcd.com/391/" title="xkcd.com">this one</a> [xkcd.com], and I just lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which one you 're thinking of , but , thanks to your wording , I 'm thinking of this one [ xkcd.com ] , and I just lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which one you're thinking of, but, thanks to your wording, I'm thinking of this one [xkcd.com], and I just lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270</id>
	<title>reproducibility</title>
	<author>domulys</author>
	<datestamp>1266871980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While this new technique may improve security, it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications: <b>reproducibility</b>.<br> <br>

Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you'll never be able to reconstruct again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this new technique may improve security , it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications : reproducibility .
Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you 'll never be able to reconstruct again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this new technique may improve security, it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications: reproducibility.
Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you'll never be able to reconstruct again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238250</id>
	<title>Re:XKCD Bait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/221/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">This one?</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This one ?
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one?
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234648</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1266829800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That however doesn't mean that it is any less random.  I can make a random sequence using nothing more than 1's and 0's.  Including the digit 2 would not make it any more random, it would just increase the randomness per character.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That however does n't mean that it is any less random .
I can make a random sequence using nothing more than 1 's and 0 's .
Including the digit 2 would not make it any more random , it would just increase the randomness per character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That however doesn't mean that it is any less random.
I can make a random sequence using nothing more than 1's and 0's.
Including the digit 2 would not make it any more random, it would just increase the randomness per character.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234228</id>
	<title>NOT "true"</title>
	<author>madddddddddd</author>
	<datestamp>1266871860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 times better than "not true" does not equal "true"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 times better than " not true " does not equal " true "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 times better than "not true" does not equal "true"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234350</id>
	<title>Random numbers</title>
	<author>Barlo\_Mung\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1266872160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>9...9...9...9...9...9</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>9...9...9...9...9...9</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9...9...9...9...9...9</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235676</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1266832920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Randomness, put simply, is the degrees of separation from which a given stream resembles Shakespeare.  Or, if you prefer the top-down approach, the degrees it is separated from the plaintext output of a million monkeys at a million typewriters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Randomness , put simply , is the degrees of separation from which a given stream resembles Shakespeare .
Or , if you prefer the top-down approach , the degrees it is separated from the plaintext output of a million monkeys at a million typewriters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Randomness, put simply, is the degrees of separation from which a given stream resembles Shakespeare.
Or, if you prefer the top-down approach, the degrees it is separated from the plaintext output of a million monkeys at a million typewriters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233978</id>
	<title>generation of random numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the generation of random number is too important to be left to chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the generation of random number is too important to be left to chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the generation of random number is too important to be left to chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238812</id>
	<title>A cheaper way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Borrow my teenage son.  I can absolutely guarantee that his moods are far more random and unpredictable than anything modern science can come up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Borrow my teenage son .
I can absolutely guarantee that his moods are far more random and unpredictable than anything modern science can come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Borrow my teenage son.
I can absolutely guarantee that his moods are far more random and unpredictable than anything modern science can come up with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236244</id>
	<title>Good for cryptography, bad for statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA gives an example "Such simulations can test theories of hurricane formation, climate change, and the spread of disease epidemics, for instance."  Which required repeatable random numbers.  <br>
For cryptography its fine though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA gives an example " Such simulations can test theories of hurricane formation , climate change , and the spread of disease epidemics , for instance .
" Which required repeatable random numbers .
For cryptography its fine though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA gives an example "Such simulations can test theories of hurricane formation, climate change, and the spread of disease epidemics, for instance.
"  Which required repeatable random numbers.
For cryptography its fine though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234826</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as it is stable in it's probabilities for each bit, you can construct a 50/50 probability for each bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as it is stable in it 's probabilities for each bit , you can construct a 50/50 probability for each bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as it is stable in it's probabilities for each bit, you can construct a 50/50 probability for each bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234604</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1266829740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they can mathematically calculate how random something is, can't they just mathematically determine what would be the <i>most</i> random series of numbers, and just use that?</p></div><p>Then all that's needed is legislation that requires everyone desiring a random series of numbers to use the one that was pre-calculated for them.  Problem solved!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can mathematically calculate how random something is , ca n't they just mathematically determine what would be the most random series of numbers , and just use that ? Then all that 's needed is legislation that requires everyone desiring a random series of numbers to use the one that was pre-calculated for them .
Problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can mathematically calculate how random something is, can't they just mathematically determine what would be the most random series of numbers, and just use that?Then all that's needed is legislation that requires everyone desiring a random series of numbers to use the one that was pre-calculated for them.
Problem solved!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235688</id>
	<title>Re:20 times more random?</title>
	<author>fizzup</author>
	<datestamp>1266832920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm making a bit of a guess.</p><p>A random process can generate a random bit. If the process is random, then you can't predict with certainty what the next generated bit will be. However, what if the random process generates a one bit 90\% of the time and a zero bit 10\% of the time? Great! It's random, but you can predict what the next bit will be 90\% of the time. I think this is what they mean when they say that a particular generator is not very random. It has a bias. The closer a generator is to having neutral bias, the more "random" it is, because there is less benefit to always picking the biased bit as the one that will come next.</p><p>A poor random source can be improved by combining many results into a single result. This is probably why a bigger array produces less predictable bits. Staying with the 90/10 example above and combining bits using exclusive or, we get the following truth table, with the likelihoods of the outcomes listed:</p><p><tt><br>A xor B = R  [P]<br>0 xor 0 = 0  [1\%]<br>0 xor 1 = 1  [9\%]<br>1 xor 0 = 1  [9\%]<br>1 xor 1 = 0  [81\%]<br></tt></p><p>So by taking two results from this pretty terrible random variable, the combined result is a zero 82\% of the time and a one 18\% of the time. It's less predictable.</p><p>As you combine more and more bits, P(0) and P(1) asymptotically approach 50\%. I'll do a hand waving argument to convince - you can google for the real deal. If you xor a bunch of bits together, the result is one if there are an odd number of one bits and zero if there are an even number of one bits. If you take a really long sequence of bits from a biased random source, the chance of having an even number of one bits is about 50\%. The longer the sequence, the closer the probability is to 50\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm making a bit of a guess.A random process can generate a random bit .
If the process is random , then you ca n't predict with certainty what the next generated bit will be .
However , what if the random process generates a one bit 90 \ % of the time and a zero bit 10 \ % of the time ?
Great ! It 's random , but you can predict what the next bit will be 90 \ % of the time .
I think this is what they mean when they say that a particular generator is not very random .
It has a bias .
The closer a generator is to having neutral bias , the more " random " it is , because there is less benefit to always picking the biased bit as the one that will come next.A poor random source can be improved by combining many results into a single result .
This is probably why a bigger array produces less predictable bits .
Staying with the 90/10 example above and combining bits using exclusive or , we get the following truth table , with the likelihoods of the outcomes listed : A xor B = R [ P ] 0 xor 0 = 0 [ 1 \ % ] 0 xor 1 = 1 [ 9 \ % ] 1 xor 0 = 1 [ 9 \ % ] 1 xor 1 = 0 [ 81 \ % ] So by taking two results from this pretty terrible random variable , the combined result is a zero 82 \ % of the time and a one 18 \ % of the time .
It 's less predictable.As you combine more and more bits , P ( 0 ) and P ( 1 ) asymptotically approach 50 \ % .
I 'll do a hand waving argument to convince - you can google for the real deal .
If you xor a bunch of bits together , the result is one if there are an odd number of one bits and zero if there are an even number of one bits .
If you take a really long sequence of bits from a biased random source , the chance of having an even number of one bits is about 50 \ % .
The longer the sequence , the closer the probability is to 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm making a bit of a guess.A random process can generate a random bit.
If the process is random, then you can't predict with certainty what the next generated bit will be.
However, what if the random process generates a one bit 90\% of the time and a zero bit 10\% of the time?
Great! It's random, but you can predict what the next bit will be 90\% of the time.
I think this is what they mean when they say that a particular generator is not very random.
It has a bias.
The closer a generator is to having neutral bias, the more "random" it is, because there is less benefit to always picking the biased bit as the one that will come next.A poor random source can be improved by combining many results into a single result.
This is probably why a bigger array produces less predictable bits.
Staying with the 90/10 example above and combining bits using exclusive or, we get the following truth table, with the likelihoods of the outcomes listed:A xor B = R  [P]0 xor 0 = 0  [1\%]0 xor 1 = 1  [9\%]1 xor 0 = 1  [9\%]1 xor 1 = 0  [81\%]So by taking two results from this pretty terrible random variable, the combined result is a zero 82\% of the time and a one 18\% of the time.
It's less predictable.As you combine more and more bits, P(0) and P(1) asymptotically approach 50\%.
I'll do a hand waving argument to convince - you can google for the real deal.
If you xor a bunch of bits together, the result is one if there are an odd number of one bits and zero if there are an even number of one bits.
If you take a really long sequence of bits from a biased random source, the chance of having an even number of one bits is about 50\%.
The longer the sequence, the closer the probability is to 50\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238200</id>
	<title>have another one...</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1266842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>return 4</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>return 4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>return 4</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235324</id>
	<title>Ask Slashdot</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1266831840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>20 times more random? how measurable is that?</i> <p>I think we finally have the answer to Friday's <a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/02/19/147251/What-Knowledge-Gaps-Do-Self-Taught-Programmers-Generally-Have" title="slashdot.org">Ask Slashdot</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 times more random ?
how measurable is that ?
I think we finally have the answer to Friday 's Ask Slashdot [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 times more random?
how measurable is that?
I think we finally have the answer to Friday's Ask Slashdot [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236648</id>
	<title>Re:reproducibility</title>
	<author>ljhiller</author>
	<datestamp>1266835920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While this new technique may improve security, it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications: reproducibility.

Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you'll never be able to reconstruct again.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Oh, come on people. This is a <b>JOKE</b>. It's Funny, not, fercrissakes, Insightful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this new technique may improve security , it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications : reproducibility .
Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you 'll never be able to reconstruct again .
Oh , come on people .
This is a JOKE .
It 's Funny , not , fercrissakes , Insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this new technique may improve security, it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications: reproducibility.
Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you'll never be able to reconstruct again.
Oh, come on people.
This is a JOKE.
It's Funny, not, fercrissakes, Insightful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235506</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>Alef</author>
	<datestamp>1266832500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hardware random number generators are often biased, and there are well known ways to deal with that. (See for example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware\_random\_number\_generator#Dealing\_with\_bias" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware random number generators are often biased , and there are well known ways to deal with that .
( See for example Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware random number generators are often biased, and there are well known ways to deal with that.
(See for example Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234210</id>
	<title>HM</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1266871800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would this beat methods such as leaky diodes or radio noise which some systems use to get random data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this beat methods such as leaky diodes or radio noise which some systems use to get random data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this beat methods such as leaky diodes or radio noise which some systems use to get random data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234444</id>
	<title>QED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If after the "flip", the memory state is purely random, well, QED, right?  You just generated a truly random integer, 0 or 1.  If you need larger numbers, flip again, and use binary.</p><p>It's not just pseudo-random, it's random, right?  So how is this not the end of the story for generating random numbers with a computer?  (Other than perhaps increasing efficiency.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If after the " flip " , the memory state is purely random , well , QED , right ?
You just generated a truly random integer , 0 or 1 .
If you need larger numbers , flip again , and use binary.It 's not just pseudo-random , it 's random , right ?
So how is this not the end of the story for generating random numbers with a computer ?
( Other than perhaps increasing efficiency .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If after the "flip", the memory state is purely random, well, QED, right?
You just generated a truly random integer, 0 or 1.
If you need larger numbers, flip again, and use binary.It's not just pseudo-random, it's random, right?
So how is this not the end of the story for generating random numbers with a computer?
(Other than perhaps increasing efficiency.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237142</id>
	<title>Sounds Sophisticated--or not really random.</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1266837480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, the only truly random things in our universe involve some kind of quantum interaction--everything else is a reaction to something else.</p><p>But on the bright side, if they supplied a large number of quantum elements, they could always keep the other half "in-house" so they'd know when you'd used them all and needed more bits...</p><p>This whole quantum thing confuses me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , the only truly random things in our universe involve some kind of quantum interaction--everything else is a reaction to something else.But on the bright side , if they supplied a large number of quantum elements , they could always keep the other half " in-house " so they 'd know when you 'd used them all and needed more bits...This whole quantum thing confuses me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, the only truly random things in our universe involve some kind of quantum interaction--everything else is a reaction to something else.But on the bright side, if they supplied a large number of quantum elements, they could always keep the other half "in-house" so they'd know when you'd used them all and needed more bits...This whole quantum thing confuses me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234292</id>
	<title>Physical/Metastable Functions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266872040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is hardly new work as it has been around for years in the form of physical/metastable functions. They are "random" as a result in minute differences in the physical fabrication process combined with noise (leakage, power fluctuations, EMI, etc.). Similar approaches utilize free running ring oscillators to extract entropy from and are generally considered more reliable due to how sensitive metastability is. Either way for today's day and age they are plenty random enough especially if you consider them for applications where people don't have physical access to the machines such as servers. Even if you do have access to the device monitoring or trying to guess the operation would be very difficult. As far as the people who are asking if this is only "seemingly random" my answer is "of course". Given enough knowledge about any phenomenon you can figure out what is going to happen, as far as I know there is nothing that is truly random. However, for the most part very complex sources of entropy are good enough to be called practically truly random and more than sufficient for cryptographic applications. Remember big thing with this idea is that its not based on software or user generated source of entropy, that's why its considered a great deal better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is hardly new work as it has been around for years in the form of physical/metastable functions .
They are " random " as a result in minute differences in the physical fabrication process combined with noise ( leakage , power fluctuations , EMI , etc. ) .
Similar approaches utilize free running ring oscillators to extract entropy from and are generally considered more reliable due to how sensitive metastability is .
Either way for today 's day and age they are plenty random enough especially if you consider them for applications where people do n't have physical access to the machines such as servers .
Even if you do have access to the device monitoring or trying to guess the operation would be very difficult .
As far as the people who are asking if this is only " seemingly random " my answer is " of course " .
Given enough knowledge about any phenomenon you can figure out what is going to happen , as far as I know there is nothing that is truly random .
However , for the most part very complex sources of entropy are good enough to be called practically truly random and more than sufficient for cryptographic applications .
Remember big thing with this idea is that its not based on software or user generated source of entropy , that 's why its considered a great deal better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is hardly new work as it has been around for years in the form of physical/metastable functions.
They are "random" as a result in minute differences in the physical fabrication process combined with noise (leakage, power fluctuations, EMI, etc.).
Similar approaches utilize free running ring oscillators to extract entropy from and are generally considered more reliable due to how sensitive metastability is.
Either way for today's day and age they are plenty random enough especially if you consider them for applications where people don't have physical access to the machines such as servers.
Even if you do have access to the device monitoring or trying to guess the operation would be very difficult.
As far as the people who are asking if this is only "seemingly random" my answer is "of course".
Given enough knowledge about any phenomenon you can figure out what is going to happen, as far as I know there is nothing that is truly random.
However, for the most part very complex sources of entropy are good enough to be called practically truly random and more than sufficient for cryptographic applications.
Remember big thing with this idea is that its not based on software or user generated source of entropy, that's why its considered a great deal better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234224</id>
	<title>meh, Schr&#246;dingers bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once upon a time, we used cats for such things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time , we used cats for such things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time, we used cats for such things...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239758</id>
	<title>Re:WiFi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If implemented in this way, I wonder if an attacker with knowledge of the implementation would be able to influence the generation of random numbers using a device that broadcasts known signals on the same frequencies, or jams the signals, or whatever the correct radio terms are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If implemented in this way , I wonder if an attacker with knowledge of the implementation would be able to influence the generation of random numbers using a device that broadcasts known signals on the same frequencies , or jams the signals , or whatever the correct radio terms are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If implemented in this way, I wonder if an attacker with knowledge of the implementation would be able to influence the generation of random numbers using a device that broadcasts known signals on the same frequencies, or jams the signals, or whatever the correct radio terms are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050</id>
	<title>XKCD Bait</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1266871320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets play a game, what XKCD am I thinking of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets play a game , what XKCD am I thinking of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets play a game, what XKCD am I thinking of?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236046</id>
	<title>Re:WiFi</title>
	<author>TechyImmigrant</author>
	<datestamp>1266834000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I always thought the WiFi radio in laptops would be a good thing for generating random numbers.</p><p>It's been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I always thought the WiFi radio in laptops would be a good thing for generating random numbers.It 's been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I always thought the WiFi radio in laptops would be a good thing for generating random numbers.It's been done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235576</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a little box with a Mexican jumping bean in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a little box with a Mexican jumping bean in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a little box with a Mexican jumping bean in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235454</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>tigre</author>
	<datestamp>1266832320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As pointed out elsewhere, 50/50 split is not so important, since that just impacts the \% distribution of outcomes and can be corrected for.  However, acheiving metastability without bias from the previous stable state is tricky, and as you mentioned tricks with the power supplies can make a huge difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As pointed out elsewhere , 50/50 split is not so important , since that just impacts the \ % distribution of outcomes and can be corrected for .
However , acheiving metastability without bias from the previous stable state is tricky , and as you mentioned tricks with the power supplies can make a huge difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As pointed out elsewhere, 50/50 split is not so important, since that just impacts the \% distribution of outcomes and can be corrected for.
However, acheiving metastability without bias from the previous stable state is tricky, and as you mentioned tricks with the power supplies can make a huge difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239200</id>
	<title>Does it come with a tree?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh.. Doesn't it suck up oxygen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh.. Does n't it suck up oxygen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh.. Doesn't it suck up oxygen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235808</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>deander2</author>
	<datestamp>1266833280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a bias wouldn't matter.  simply use it as a seed into a fully generative cyclical group with a flat output distribution.  (for example, any good hash function)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a bias would n't matter .
simply use it as a seed into a fully generative cyclical group with a flat output distribution .
( for example , any good hash function )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a bias wouldn't matter.
simply use it as a seed into a fully generative cyclical group with a flat output distribution.
(for example, any good hash function)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235684</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266832920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't pierce that veil with current science.</p><p>That doesn't say anything about whether it is possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't pierce that veil with current science.That does n't say anything about whether it is possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't pierce that veil with current science.That doesn't say anything about whether it is possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234476</id>
	<title>Taken to the next level:</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1266829320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://gamesbyemail.com/News/DiceOMatic" title="gamesbyemail.com">Here</a> [gamesbyemail.com] is a slightly-absurd-but-awesomme dice rolling machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ gamesbyemail.com ] is a slightly-absurd-but-awesomme dice rolling machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [gamesbyemail.com] is a slightly-absurd-but-awesomme dice rolling machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234974</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>karcirate</author>
	<datestamp>1266830820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just reading your sig, and noticed no source for the info in your comment...
</p><p>
Source: Your signature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just reading your sig , and noticed no source for the info in your comment.. . Source : Your signature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just reading your sig, and noticed no source for the info in your comment...

Source: Your signature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238776</id>
	<title>Does it really matter??</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1266845700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times have you ever heard of a cracker breaking a system nowadays because the RNG was not sufficiently random???</p><p>Yes i know there have been instances where a crack was due to TOTAL LACK of an RNG (as in, the RNG was not implemented properly), but due to a  properly implemented RNG with just a lack of entropy? Not that I recall.</p><p>I guess I don't get why there is a market large enough for this to warrant the research. There are several hardware-based RNGs that guarantee as close to "true randomness" as is possible by modern physics, and if you wanted true randomness, you would use one of those, not this half measure.</p><p>For me, my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random based off my network traffic and mouse and keyboard and HD is good enough, thanks. Color me unconcerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times have you ever heard of a cracker breaking a system nowadays because the RNG was not sufficiently random ? ?
? Yes i know there have been instances where a crack was due to TOTAL LACK of an RNG ( as in , the RNG was not implemented properly ) , but due to a properly implemented RNG with just a lack of entropy ?
Not that I recall.I guess I do n't get why there is a market large enough for this to warrant the research .
There are several hardware-based RNGs that guarantee as close to " true randomness " as is possible by modern physics , and if you wanted true randomness , you would use one of those , not this half measure.For me , my /dev/random based off my network traffic and mouse and keyboard and HD is good enough , thanks .
Color me unconcerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times have you ever heard of a cracker breaking a system nowadays because the RNG was not sufficiently random??
?Yes i know there have been instances where a crack was due to TOTAL LACK of an RNG (as in, the RNG was not implemented properly), but due to a  properly implemented RNG with just a lack of entropy?
Not that I recall.I guess I don't get why there is a market large enough for this to warrant the research.
There are several hardware-based RNGs that guarantee as close to "true randomness" as is possible by modern physics, and if you wanted true randomness, you would use one of those, not this half measure.For me, my /dev/random based off my network traffic and mouse and keyboard and HD is good enough, thanks.
Color me unconcerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150</id>
	<title>Uhm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 times more random?  how measurable is that?</p><p>I mean, its either random, or not</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 times more random ?
how measurable is that ? I mean , its either random , or not</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 times more random?
how measurable is that?I mean, its either random, or not</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234418</id>
	<title>Re:20 times more random?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266872340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>20 times more random?</p></div><p>I don't get it either. First they claim it's a true random generator that generates "purely random" numbers.</p><p>Then they proceed to explain that</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... The degree of randomness possible depends on the size of the array<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Can anybody tell me how this works?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 times more random ? I do n't get it either .
First they claim it 's a true random generator that generates " purely random " numbers.Then they proceed to explain that ... The degree of randomness possible depends on the size of the array ...Can anybody tell me how this works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 times more random?I don't get it either.
First they claim it's a true random generator that generates "purely random" numbers.Then they proceed to explain that ... The degree of randomness possible depends on the size of the array ...Can anybody tell me how this works?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234540</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're talking out of something, but I don't think it's your mouth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking out of something , but I do n't think it 's your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking out of something, but I don't think it's your mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234222</id>
	<title>20x more random than (radioactive decay) random?</title>
	<author>smoothnorman</author>
	<datestamp>1266871800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One person's random is another's expectation value</htmltext>
<tokenext>One person 's random is another 's expectation value</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One person's random is another's expectation value</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31240910</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1266862080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?<br></i><br>Hard to say, since it wasn't defined in the article.  One possibility is a measurement of entropy.   Source A produces 100 bits, with 80 bits of entropy.  Source B produces 100 bits, with 90 bits of entropy.  Source B is considered "more random" than Source A.  In this context you can think of entropy as how much the bits lack any pattern.  Passwords are a good example.  Typical passwords only have a few bits of entropy per character, rather than the full 7 or 8 bits it might take to store each character.  So for a password you'd expect to only search through a few bits of space to correctly guess the password, since typically people pick passwords that form a pattern, so you can eliminate huge possibilities while guessing.</p><p>I think you're right that that once a source is "purely random", it can't be any more random.  I'd also agree that this development isn't likely to make anything more secure.  Security is always based on the weakest attack point.  That's very very rarely the quality of randomness of an RNG.  If you care about that sort of thing, cheap HW RNGs have been available for a decade at least.  I've got one in my cheap VIA PC.  It was fun to play around with, but I don't think for a minute it made anything much more secure on my server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly does " more random " mean in the summary ? Hard to say , since it was n't defined in the article .
One possibility is a measurement of entropy .
Source A produces 100 bits , with 80 bits of entropy .
Source B produces 100 bits , with 90 bits of entropy .
Source B is considered " more random " than Source A. In this context you can think of entropy as how much the bits lack any pattern .
Passwords are a good example .
Typical passwords only have a few bits of entropy per character , rather than the full 7 or 8 bits it might take to store each character .
So for a password you 'd expect to only search through a few bits of space to correctly guess the password , since typically people pick passwords that form a pattern , so you can eliminate huge possibilities while guessing.I think you 're right that that once a source is " purely random " , it ca n't be any more random .
I 'd also agree that this development is n't likely to make anything more secure .
Security is always based on the weakest attack point .
That 's very very rarely the quality of randomness of an RNG .
If you care about that sort of thing , cheap HW RNGs have been available for a decade at least .
I 've got one in my cheap VIA PC .
It was fun to play around with , but I do n't think for a minute it made anything much more secure on my server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?Hard to say, since it wasn't defined in the article.
One possibility is a measurement of entropy.
Source A produces 100 bits, with 80 bits of entropy.
Source B produces 100 bits, with 90 bits of entropy.
Source B is considered "more random" than Source A.  In this context you can think of entropy as how much the bits lack any pattern.
Passwords are a good example.
Typical passwords only have a few bits of entropy per character, rather than the full 7 or 8 bits it might take to store each character.
So for a password you'd expect to only search through a few bits of space to correctly guess the password, since typically people pick passwords that form a pattern, so you can eliminate huge possibilities while guessing.I think you're right that that once a source is "purely random", it can't be any more random.
I'd also agree that this development isn't likely to make anything more secure.
Security is always based on the weakest attack point.
That's very very rarely the quality of randomness of an RNG.
If you care about that sort of thing, cheap HW RNGs have been available for a decade at least.
I've got one in my cheap VIA PC.
It was fun to play around with, but I don't think for a minute it made anything much more secure on my server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235112</id>
	<title>Or just flip a coin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266831240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flip a coin - it's 50/50</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flip a coin - it 's 50/50</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flip a coin - it's 50/50</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236354</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266835080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brings me back to the time when hackers were cutting punched cards and swapping vacuum tubes, good ol' days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brings me back to the time when hackers were cutting punched cards and swapping vacuum tubes , good ol ' days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brings me back to the time when hackers were cutting punched cards and swapping vacuum tubes, good ol' days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237058</id>
	<title>Looks way too "classical physics" style.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266837120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see a quantum physics approach to this. You know, acknowledging probabilities in measurements, quantization of state, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see a quantum physics approach to this .
You know , acknowledging probabilities in measurements , quantization of state , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see a quantum physics approach to this.
You know, acknowledging probabilities in measurements, quantization of state, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236512</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1266835560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/dev/random, at least on a Linux box, is truly random. That's what's so cool about it. Network I/O, current system time, noise in the processor temperature measurement... the list goes on. You can even write to it IIRC.</p><p>But as you say, it's really slow. I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom uses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random as a seed, and it never blocks. So it's still good enough for like a SSH key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/dev/random , at least on a Linux box , is truly random .
That 's what 's so cool about it .
Network I/O , current system time , noise in the processor temperature measurement... the list goes on .
You can even write to it IIRC.But as you say , it 's really slow .
I think /dev/urandom uses /dev/random as a seed , and it never blocks .
So it 's still good enough for like a SSH key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/dev/random, at least on a Linux box, is truly random.
That's what's so cool about it.
Network I/O, current system time, noise in the processor temperature measurement... the list goes on.
You can even write to it IIRC.But as you say, it's really slow.
I think /dev/urandom uses /dev/random as a seed, and it never blocks.
So it's still good enough for like a SSH key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239370</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1266849120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the era when <a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25" title="dilbert.com">Dilbert</a> [dilbert.com] was funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the era when Dilbert [ dilbert.com ] was funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the era when Dilbert [dilbert.com] was funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235192</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>rkit</author>
	<datestamp>1266831480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A cryptographic device might perform online statistical checks to detect this kind of tampering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A cryptographic device might perform online statistical checks to detect this kind of tampering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A cryptographic device might perform online statistical checks to detect this kind of tampering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236128</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1266834300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This depends on which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics you believe in.  You seem to be a Copenhagen Interpretation guy.  Many Worlds [EGW] would agree with you on results, but disagree on reasoning.  Hidden Variables has been having some trouble in the last decade or so, but may recover.  He would disagree with you.  Super Determinism would also disagree, and has been doing quite well, thank you, even if he's not very popular.  And Solipsism<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, what can one say about him.  He's consistent, but nobody else believes in him.</p><p>Then there's the Virtual Worlds hypothesis (which, I suppose, is a variant on Hidden Variables that HASN'T run into any problems).</p><p>None of these say that you can predict the result, but some of them disagree about it being random.  And some of them waffle..  Super Determinism and Hidden Variables don't even say that there won't ever be any way to make a prediction.  At least not clearly enough to be understood.</p><p>Of all these interpretations, only Copenhagen unreservedly states that the results are random.  (Many Worlds agrees with him, but so redefines the term that they are in essential disagreement.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This depends on which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics you believe in .
You seem to be a Copenhagen Interpretation guy .
Many Worlds [ EGW ] would agree with you on results , but disagree on reasoning .
Hidden Variables has been having some trouble in the last decade or so , but may recover .
He would disagree with you .
Super Determinism would also disagree , and has been doing quite well , thank you , even if he 's not very popular .
And Solipsism ... well , what can one say about him .
He 's consistent , but nobody else believes in him.Then there 's the Virtual Worlds hypothesis ( which , I suppose , is a variant on Hidden Variables that HAS N'T run into any problems ) .None of these say that you can predict the result , but some of them disagree about it being random .
And some of them waffle.. Super Determinism and Hidden Variables do n't even say that there wo n't ever be any way to make a prediction .
At least not clearly enough to be understood.Of all these interpretations , only Copenhagen unreservedly states that the results are random .
( Many Worlds agrees with him , but so redefines the term that they are in essential disagreement .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This depends on which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics you believe in.
You seem to be a Copenhagen Interpretation guy.
Many Worlds [EGW] would agree with you on results, but disagree on reasoning.
Hidden Variables has been having some trouble in the last decade or so, but may recover.
He would disagree with you.
Super Determinism would also disagree, and has been doing quite well, thank you, even if he's not very popular.
And Solipsism ... well, what can one say about him.
He's consistent, but nobody else believes in him.Then there's the Virtual Worlds hypothesis (which, I suppose, is a variant on Hidden Variables that HASN'T run into any problems).None of these say that you can predict the result, but some of them disagree about it being random.
And some of them waffle..  Super Determinism and Hidden Variables don't even say that there won't ever be any way to make a prediction.
At least not clearly enough to be understood.Of all these interpretations, only Copenhagen unreservedly states that the results are random.
(Many Worlds agrees with him, but so redefines the term that they are in essential disagreement.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236096</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1266834180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where all those scratch monkeys went.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where all those scratch monkeys went .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where all those scratch monkeys went.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234684</id>
	<title>Re:20 times more random?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How random can you get?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How random can you get ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How random can you get?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234474</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more random means &gt; entropy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more random means &gt; entropy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more random means &gt; entropy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235892</id>
	<title>Re:WiFi</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1266833520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do your random number generators really use only a single entropy source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do your random number generators really use only a single entropy source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do your random number generators really use only a single entropy source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1266871500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a question about bits of entropy:</p><p>If they can mathematically calculate how random something is, can't they just mathematically determine what would be the <i>most</i> random series of numbers, and just use that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a question about bits of entropy : If they can mathematically calculate how random something is , ca n't they just mathematically determine what would be the most random series of numbers , and just use that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a question about bits of entropy:If they can mathematically calculate how random something is, can't they just mathematically determine what would be the most random series of numbers, and just use that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172</id>
	<title>20 times more random?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>20 times more random?<br>
<br>
umm.. errr... wha?</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 times more random ?
umm.. errr... wha ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 times more random?
umm.. errr... wha?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235172</id>
	<title>Weather...</title>
	<author>BattleApple</author>
	<datestamp>1266831420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Weather forecasters [...] also use random numbers</p></div><p>Here in New England, it sure seems like they already pick the next forecast out of a hat.. I think more randomness may actually make the forecasts more accurate</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Weather forecasters [ ... ] also use random numbersHere in New England , it sure seems like they already pick the next forecast out of a hat.. I think more randomness may actually make the forecasts more accurate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weather forecasters [...] also use random numbersHere in New England, it sure seems like they already pick the next forecast out of a hat.. I think more randomness may actually make the forecasts more accurate
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234304</id>
	<title>That's Cheating!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266872040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creating random numbers with a special hardware setup is cheating. Else any lottery machine with computer interface would also be quite a good random number devices.</p><p>Maybe their special feature is the speed at which they can generate random numbers? Sounds like that can put a big memory module to that kind of state and create lots of random data at the same time.</p><p>But that's also cheating. That's just parallel application of multiple random number generators.</p><p>Maybe it's cheap at least...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating random numbers with a special hardware setup is cheating .
Else any lottery machine with computer interface would also be quite a good random number devices.Maybe their special feature is the speed at which they can generate random numbers ?
Sounds like that can put a big memory module to that kind of state and create lots of random data at the same time.But that 's also cheating .
That 's just parallel application of multiple random number generators.Maybe it 's cheap at least.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating random numbers with a special hardware setup is cheating.
Else any lottery machine with computer interface would also be quite a good random number devices.Maybe their special feature is the speed at which they can generate random numbers?
Sounds like that can put a big memory module to that kind of state and create lots of random data at the same time.But that's also cheating.
That's just parallel application of multiple random number generators.Maybe it's cheap at least...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233988</id>
	<title>Why not use the ultimate random number generator?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pull random slashdot threads at -1 and hash that.  Can't get more random than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pull random slashdot threads at -1 and hash that .
Ca n't get more random than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pull random slashdot threads at -1 and hash that.
Can't get more random than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234562</id>
	<title>Re:reproducibility</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1266829560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well...if you need a predictable stream, then maybe you should capture a single stream, and keep feeding that into the program? Then you can feed the same sequence every time.</p><p>Certainly you are right but... with a very small amount of work (a facility for switching out the randomness source), you can work around it easily.</p><p>There are plenty of applications where, a strong source of randomness is needed, and reproducibility is not needed at all.</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well...if you need a predictable stream , then maybe you should capture a single stream , and keep feeding that into the program ?
Then you can feed the same sequence every time.Certainly you are right but... with a very small amount of work ( a facility for switching out the randomness source ) , you can work around it easily.There are plenty of applications where , a strong source of randomness is needed , and reproducibility is not needed at all.-Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well...if you need a predictable stream, then maybe you should capture a single stream, and keep feeding that into the program?
Then you can feed the same sequence every time.Certainly you are right but... with a very small amount of work (a facility for switching out the randomness source), you can work around it easily.There are plenty of applications where, a strong source of randomness is needed, and reproducibility is not needed at all.-Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239000</id>
	<title>This is what you get for failing EE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266847020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ususally designers go out of their way to prevent their circuts from being effected by droop, crosstalk, leakage, thermal noise...etc.</p><p>The article reads like..well if we intentionally muck up a sane design we'll get hapazard random behavior... and while we're at it lets claim this is a novel discovery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ususally designers go out of their way to prevent their circuts from being effected by droop , crosstalk , leakage , thermal noise...etc.The article reads like..well if we intentionally muck up a sane design we 'll get hapazard random behavior... and while we 're at it lets claim this is a novel discovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ususally designers go out of their way to prevent their circuts from being effected by droop, crosstalk, leakage, thermal noise...etc.The article reads like..well if we intentionally muck up a sane design we'll get hapazard random behavior... and while we're at it lets claim this is a novel discovery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233964</id>
	<title>Re:This is a random comment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just half random: The title isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just half random : The title is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just half random: The title isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235162</id>
	<title>Re:reproducibility</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1266831420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Horses for courses. If you want reproducible, you don't want true random. If you want security, you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Horses for courses .
If you want reproducible , you do n't want true random .
If you want security , you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horses for courses.
If you want reproducible, you don't want true random.
If you want security, you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234416</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1266872340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He never said what the encoding was</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He never said what the encoding was</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He never said what the encoding was</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234508</id>
	<title>Line-in on your soundcard...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once used the line-in on my soundcard as an RNG. For each sample I took the LSB - seemed pretty random to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once used the line-in on my soundcard as an RNG .
For each sample I took the LSB - seemed pretty random to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once used the line-in on my soundcard as an RNG.
For each sample I took the LSB - seemed pretty random to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239832</id>
	<title>SImple, good RNG</title>
	<author>dannycim</author>
	<datestamp>1266852240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made a pretty darn good rng a while ago.  Simply have three independent white noise generators made with two transistors and an op-amp each.  The noise is generated by a transistor going into avalanche mode, and that's basically influenced by quantum states.  The problem with using just one is that its output isn't 50/50.  So you XOR two.  You can stop there but if you're really paranoid, use a third to clock a latch so you can't event predict when the random bit changes.  All in all the whole circuit fit in a box smaller about 2" x 3" x 1".</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard\_tests" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard\_tests</a> [wikipedia.org] were quite happy with the output.</p><p>With<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random &amp; urandom, I don't care about it anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a pretty darn good rng a while ago .
Simply have three independent white noise generators made with two transistors and an op-amp each .
The noise is generated by a transistor going into avalanche mode , and that 's basically influenced by quantum states .
The problem with using just one is that its output is n't 50/50 .
So you XOR two .
You can stop there but if you 're really paranoid , use a third to clock a latch so you ca n't event predict when the random bit changes .
All in all the whole circuit fit in a box smaller about 2 " x 3 " x 1 " .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard \ _tests [ wikipedia.org ] were quite happy with the output.With /dev/random &amp; urandom , I do n't care about it anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a pretty darn good rng a while ago.
Simply have three independent white noise generators made with two transistors and an op-amp each.
The noise is generated by a transistor going into avalanche mode, and that's basically influenced by quantum states.
The problem with using just one is that its output isn't 50/50.
So you XOR two.
You can stop there but if you're really paranoid, use a third to clock a latch so you can't event predict when the random bit changes.
All in all the whole circuit fit in a box smaller about 2" x 3" x 1".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard\_tests [wikipedia.org] were quite happy with the output.With /dev/random &amp; urandom, I don't care about it anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236188</id>
	<title>Re:reproducibility</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266834420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While this new technique may improve security, it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications: reproducibility.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's rather the point of having an RNG rather than a PRNG. For applications that want reproducibility (and which therefore do not want actual randomness) you use a PRNG. For applications that want actual randomness you use an RNG.</p><blockquote><div><p>Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you'll never be able to reconstruct again.</p></div></blockquote><p>If there isn't a security reason to keep the random stream secret, you can always capture it as its generated and play it back if you need to reproduce results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this new technique may improve security , it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications : reproducibility.That 's rather the point of having an RNG rather than a PRNG .
For applications that want reproducibility ( and which therefore do not want actual randomness ) you use a PRNG .
For applications that want actual randomness you use an RNG.Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you 'll never be able to reconstruct again.If there is n't a security reason to keep the random stream secret , you can always capture it as its generated and play it back if you need to reproduce results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this new technique may improve security, it seems to lack one important property of pseudo-random numbers that is required by many applications: reproducibility.That's rather the point of having an RNG rather than a PRNG.
For applications that want reproducibility (and which therefore do not want actual randomness) you use a PRNG.
For applications that want actual randomness you use an RNG.Good luck finding the bug in your program with a stream of randoms you'll never be able to reconstruct again.If there isn't a security reason to keep the random stream secret, you can always capture it as its generated and play it back if you need to reproduce results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084</id>
	<title>Hardware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA fails to state whether they used existing memory types or if they intend to use a custom piece of hardware on board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA fails to state whether they used existing memory types or if they intend to use a custom piece of hardware on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA fails to state whether they used existing memory types or if they intend to use a custom piece of hardware on board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234060</id>
	<title>obligatory xkcd</title>
	<author>fuo</author>
	<datestamp>1266871380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>always been one of my favorites...

<a href="http://xkcd.org/221/" title="xkcd.org" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.org/221/</a> [xkcd.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>always been one of my favorites.. . http : //xkcd.org/221/ [ xkcd.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>always been one of my favorites...

http://xkcd.org/221/ [xkcd.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236968</id>
	<title>Re:generation of random numbers</title>
	<author>chrism238</author>
	<datestamp>1266836760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While this has been rated as Funny, it would have been respectful to acknowledge the source: <a href="http://codequotes.com/2006/08/14/coveyou-random-numbers" title="codequotes.com" rel="nofollow">http://codequotes.com/2006/08/14/coveyou-random-numbers</a> [codequotes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this has been rated as Funny , it would have been respectful to acknowledge the source : http : //codequotes.com/2006/08/14/coveyou-random-numbers [ codequotes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this has been rated as Funny, it would have been respectful to acknowledge the source: http://codequotes.com/2006/08/14/coveyou-random-numbers [codequotes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234196</id>
	<title>You want random?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'll give you random:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'll give you random :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'll give you random:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238394</id>
	<title>Redeeculous.</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have perfectly good physical random-number generators -- your basic Boltzmann (Johnson) thermal noise is just the ticket.  Hook  any resistor above absolute zero to a A/D converter and you  have a few microvlots of random noise-- after an A/D converter, a nice stream of random numbers.   Well, not quite, A/D converters are less than perfect, so you'll just get semi-random numbers with a slight bias towards the A/D converter's nonlinearities.   But pretty darn good.</p><p>If that's too weal a signal, you can avalanche a diode and get VOLTS of noise.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or you could metastable some flip/flops....  but if you do you'll get HORRIBLE random numbers, as the metastable state amplifies and unbalances in the flip/flops.  i.e. if one flip flop has one microvolt of unbalance towards the "1" state, the unbalance increases exponentially in just a few nanoseconds, making it most likely it will go into the "1" state solidly a very high percent of the time..</p><p>Stick to Johnson  (resistor) noise, avalanche diodes, or even beta emitters.    Forgit the metastable flippers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have perfectly good physical random-number generators -- your basic Boltzmann ( Johnson ) thermal noise is just the ticket .
Hook any resistor above absolute zero to a A/D converter and you have a few microvlots of random noise-- after an A/D converter , a nice stream of random numbers .
Well , not quite , A/D converters are less than perfect , so you 'll just get semi-random numbers with a slight bias towards the A/D converter 's nonlinearities .
But pretty darn good.If that 's too weal a signal , you can avalanche a diode and get VOLTS of noise .
... or you could metastable some flip/flops.... but if you do you 'll get HORRIBLE random numbers , as the metastable state amplifies and unbalances in the flip/flops .
i.e. if one flip flop has one microvolt of unbalance towards the " 1 " state , the unbalance increases exponentially in just a few nanoseconds , making it most likely it will go into the " 1 " state solidly a very high percent of the time..Stick to Johnson ( resistor ) noise , avalanche diodes , or even beta emitters .
Forgit the metastable flippers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have perfectly good physical random-number generators -- your basic Boltzmann (Johnson) thermal noise is just the ticket.
Hook  any resistor above absolute zero to a A/D converter and you  have a few microvlots of random noise-- after an A/D converter, a nice stream of random numbers.
Well, not quite, A/D converters are less than perfect, so you'll just get semi-random numbers with a slight bias towards the A/D converter's nonlinearities.
But pretty darn good.If that's too weal a signal, you can avalanche a diode and get VOLTS of noise.
... or you could metastable some flip/flops....  but if you do you'll get HORRIBLE random numbers, as the metastable state amplifies and unbalances in the flip/flops.
i.e. if one flip flop has one microvolt of unbalance towards the "1" state, the unbalance increases exponentially in just a few nanoseconds, making it most likely it will go into the "1" state solidly a very high percent of the time..Stick to Johnson  (resistor) noise, avalanche diodes, or even beta emitters.
Forgit the metastable flippers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234532</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1266829500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary? I think something is either random or it isn't. Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".</p></div><p>True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.</p><p>If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10, then each number would have exactly a 10\% chance of occurring, in order to be truly random.</p><p>If instead some numbers have a 10.001\% chance of being chosen, and some others have a 0.999\% chance of being chosen, then while the result might appear to be just as random, it is less random than the first case.</p><p>Of course anything else that adjusts the outcome and enables further prediction also makes the results less random.</p><p>Sometimes, less random is good enough, say for a video game AI.  It is worth it to spend less resources generating a less random number, when that amount of randomness is good enough.<br>Not so much for encryption however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly does " more random " mean in the summary ?
I think something is either random or it is n't .
Perhaps this claim should just make us " more skeptical " .True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10 , then each number would have exactly a 10 \ % chance of occurring , in order to be truly random.If instead some numbers have a 10.001 \ % chance of being chosen , and some others have a 0.999 \ % chance of being chosen , then while the result might appear to be just as random , it is less random than the first case.Of course anything else that adjusts the outcome and enables further prediction also makes the results less random.Sometimes , less random is good enough , say for a video game AI .
It is worth it to spend less resources generating a less random number , when that amount of randomness is good enough.Not so much for encryption however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?
I think something is either random or it isn't.
Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10, then each number would have exactly a 10\% chance of occurring, in order to be truly random.If instead some numbers have a 10.001\% chance of being chosen, and some others have a 0.999\% chance of being chosen, then while the result might appear to be just as random, it is less random than the first case.Of course anything else that adjusts the outcome and enables further prediction also makes the results less random.Sometimes, less random is good enough, say for a video game AI.
It is worth it to spend less resources generating a less random number, when that amount of randomness is good enough.Not so much for encryption however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233882</id>
	<title>This is a random comment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>uixon8wg2gvw</htmltext>
<tokenext>uixon8wg2gvw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uixon8wg2gvw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235090</id>
	<title>Re:XKCD Bait</title>
	<author>soulsteal</author>
	<datestamp>1266831180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.virtualp.us/Dilbert-Oct\_25\_001.jpg" title="virtualp.us">Is this your card?</a> [virtualp.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this your card ?
[ virtualp.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this your card?
[virtualp.us]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236566</id>
	<title>That must mean...</title>
	<author>DJCouchyCouch</author>
	<datestamp>1266835680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've developed 30-sided die?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've developed 30-sided die ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've developed 30-sided die?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236594</id>
	<title>Whatever it is - you need Dice-O-Matic</title>
	<author>peterofoz</author>
	<datestamp>1266835800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
This 7 ft tall automatic dice roller reads the rolls with a camera and laptop and serves them for game play.
<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5270195/automatic-dice-machine-records-13-million-rolls-a-day" title="gizmodo.com">http://gizmodo.com/5270195/automatic-dice-machine-records-13-million-rolls-a-day</a> [gizmodo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This 7 ft tall automatic dice roller reads the rolls with a camera and laptop and serves them for game play .
http : //gizmodo.com/5270195/automatic-dice-machine-records-13-million-rolls-a-day [ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This 7 ft tall automatic dice roller reads the rolls with a camera and laptop and serves them for game play.
http://gizmodo.com/5270195/automatic-dice-machine-records-13-million-rolls-a-day [gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234502</id>
	<title>Re:WiFi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when you're generating your keys, all I have to do is blast your wifi and I can pick your keys for you? Cool!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when you 're generating your keys , all I have to do is blast your wifi and I can pick your keys for you ?
Cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when you're generating your keys, all I have to do is blast your wifi and I can pick your keys for you?
Cool!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237088</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1266837180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is false.  Using a physics-based approach (relying on the fact that many natural processes are truly random), one can generate random numbers by sampling natural processes.</p><p>Common approaches include measurement of Zener diode noise, ring oscillator drift.</p><p>Less common approaches include taking a picture of a lava lamp and hashing the pixel values using SHA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is false .
Using a physics-based approach ( relying on the fact that many natural processes are truly random ) , one can generate random numbers by sampling natural processes.Common approaches include measurement of Zener diode noise , ring oscillator drift.Less common approaches include taking a picture of a lava lamp and hashing the pixel values using SHA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is false.
Using a physics-based approach (relying on the fact that many natural processes are truly random), one can generate random numbers by sampling natural processes.Common approaches include measurement of Zener diode noise, ring oscillator drift.Less common approaches include taking a picture of a lava lamp and hashing the pixel values using SHA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234560</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>joggle</author>
	<datestamp>1266829560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Numerical Recipes for C they list several benchmarks for determining how good one random number generator is compared to another (based on various statistics measures) so it certainly is possible for one method to be more random than another. Read chapter 7 of that book for all the details you could possibly want on this subject (with references to even more information).</p><p>One way of generating a good random number in Linux is using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random (which uses a hardware-based random signal as its source, I don't recall the details). However, it isn't fast enough for most applications, outputting only a few bytes per second of random information, although it can serve as a useful seed for other random number generators. Just run 'cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random &gt; random\_bytes.bin' to see its output.</p><p>I'm curious what rate random information can be generated using the method in the article. I'm presuming it's fast enough that an application could rely solely on this data without having to use it as a seed for a pseudo-random number generator. The question is how long does it take for the hardware to get to the state where its next value is unpredictable--in the case of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random it's relatively long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Numerical Recipes for C they list several benchmarks for determining how good one random number generator is compared to another ( based on various statistics measures ) so it certainly is possible for one method to be more random than another .
Read chapter 7 of that book for all the details you could possibly want on this subject ( with references to even more information ) .One way of generating a good random number in Linux is using /dev/random ( which uses a hardware-based random signal as its source , I do n't recall the details ) .
However , it is n't fast enough for most applications , outputting only a few bytes per second of random information , although it can serve as a useful seed for other random number generators .
Just run 'cat /dev/random &gt; random \ _bytes.bin ' to see its output.I 'm curious what rate random information can be generated using the method in the article .
I 'm presuming it 's fast enough that an application could rely solely on this data without having to use it as a seed for a pseudo-random number generator .
The question is how long does it take for the hardware to get to the state where its next value is unpredictable--in the case of /dev/random it 's relatively long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Numerical Recipes for C they list several benchmarks for determining how good one random number generator is compared to another (based on various statistics measures) so it certainly is possible for one method to be more random than another.
Read chapter 7 of that book for all the details you could possibly want on this subject (with references to even more information).One way of generating a good random number in Linux is using /dev/random (which uses a hardware-based random signal as its source, I don't recall the details).
However, it isn't fast enough for most applications, outputting only a few bytes per second of random information, although it can serve as a useful seed for other random number generators.
Just run 'cat /dev/random &gt; random\_bytes.bin' to see its output.I'm curious what rate random information can be generated using the method in the article.
I'm presuming it's fast enough that an application could rely solely on this data without having to use it as a seed for a pseudo-random number generator.
The question is how long does it take for the hardware to get to the state where its next value is unpredictable--in the case of /dev/random it's relatively long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236996</id>
	<title>Re:generation of random numbers</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1266836880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you are Robert R. Coveyou, you should have attributed that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are Robert R. Coveyou , you should have attributed that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are Robert R. Coveyou, you should have attributed that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31241104</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266864060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Randomness is about the generation, not the result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Randomness is about the generation , not the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Randomness is about the generation, not the result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934</id>
	<title>Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>AtomicDevice</author>
	<datestamp>1266871080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say based on the fact that all your characters were lower case, and the overwhelming proportion of characters to digits, there are significantly fewer bits of entropy in your so-called random comment than you would have us believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say based on the fact that all your characters were lower case , and the overwhelming proportion of characters to digits , there are significantly fewer bits of entropy in your so-called random comment than you would have us believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say based on the fact that all your characters were lower case, and the overwhelming proportion of characters to digits, there are significantly fewer bits of entropy in your so-called random comment than you would have us believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233962</id>
	<title>Statistically,</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1266871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this one too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this one too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this one too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218</id>
	<title>WiFi</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1266871800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought the WiFi radio in laptops would be a good thing for generating random numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought the WiFi radio in laptops would be a good thing for generating random numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought the WiFi radio in laptops would be a good thing for generating random numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234574</id>
	<title>YOU FAIL IT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>\same year, BSD NetBSD posts on are aatending a IMPLEMENTATION TO</htmltext>
<tokenext>\ same year , BSD NetBSD posts on are aatending a IMPLEMENTATION TO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>\same year, BSD NetBSD posts on are aatending a IMPLEMENTATION TO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31245108</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>svtdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266944040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once read a detailed account of an experiment to this end, involving a heart of gold, an ape-descended life form, and digital watches.  <p><div class="quote"><p>The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molicules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.
<br> <br>
Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once read a detailed account of an experiment to this end , involving a heart of gold , an ape-descended life form , and digital watches .
The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer ( say a nice hot cup of tea ) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molicules in the hostess 's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left , in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy .
Many respectable physicists said that they were n't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science , but mostly because they did n't get invited to those sort of parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once read a detailed account of an experiment to this end, involving a heart of gold, an ape-descended life form, and digital watches.
The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molicules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.
Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238648</id>
	<title>RANDOM.ORG</title>
	<author>rbannon</author>
	<datestamp>1266844860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive games and gambling sites, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998 and was built and is being operated by Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland.</p><p><a href="http://www.random.org/" title="random.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.random.org/</a> [random.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet .
The randomness comes from atmospheric noise , which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs .
People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings , lotteries and sweepstakes , to drive games and gambling sites , for scientific applications and for art and music .
The service has existed since 1998 and was built and is being operated by Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College , Dublin in Ireland.http : //www.random.org/ [ random.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet.
The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.
People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive games and gambling sites, for scientific applications and for art and music.
The service has existed since 1998 and was built and is being operated by Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland.http://www.random.org/ [random.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234744</id>
	<title>Link to actual paper</title>
	<author>scovetta</author>
	<datestamp>1266830100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://pv.fernuni-hagen.de/docs/fechnerb\_attack.pdf" title="fernuni-hagen.de">http://pv.fernuni-hagen.de/docs/fechnerb\_attack.pdf</a> [fernuni-hagen.de]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //pv.fernuni-hagen.de/docs/fechnerb \ _attack.pdf [ fernuni-hagen.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://pv.fernuni-hagen.de/docs/fechnerb\_attack.pdf [fernuni-hagen.de]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235374</id>
	<title>I always just used a Geiger Counter....</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1266832020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....wired to a serial port. Worked fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....wired to a serial port .
Worked fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....wired to a serial port.
Worked fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238126</id>
	<title>Aw heck I got an easier method</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1266841800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sample the last n number of twits on Twitter at any given second.  That is true randomness for sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sample the last n number of twits on Twitter at any given second .
That is true randomness for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sample the last n number of twits on Twitter at any given second.
That is true randomness for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</id>
	<title>What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>onionman</author>
	<datestamp>1266871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The team adds that the efforts of a cracker attempting to influence the array will be wholly obvious to a simple statistical analysis as -- depending on the type of attack -- either the whole array or single elements will be disturbed, whereas these are again selected randomly. So this true random number generator can protect systems against third-party snooping, potentially making private and sensitive transactions on the Internet more secure.</p></div><p>Now I'm really skeptical.  A cracker who is able to "influence" the array might be able to influence it with a <b>pseudo</b>random number generator that he/she can predict.</p><p>I think that hardware based RNGs, such as those detecting radioactive isotope decay, have been around for a while.  I'm not sure how this one can provide more security, especially if the attacker has access to the hardware.  I think that most gate transition thresholds can be influence by simple things like temperature anyway.</p><p>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?  I think something is either random or it isn't.  Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The team adds that the efforts of a cracker attempting to influence the array will be wholly obvious to a simple statistical analysis as -- depending on the type of attack -- either the whole array or single elements will be disturbed , whereas these are again selected randomly .
So this true random number generator can protect systems against third-party snooping , potentially making private and sensitive transactions on the Internet more secure.Now I 'm really skeptical .
A cracker who is able to " influence " the array might be able to influence it with a pseudorandom number generator that he/she can predict.I think that hardware based RNGs , such as those detecting radioactive isotope decay , have been around for a while .
I 'm not sure how this one can provide more security , especially if the attacker has access to the hardware .
I think that most gate transition thresholds can be influence by simple things like temperature anyway.What exactly does " more random " mean in the summary ?
I think something is either random or it is n't .
Perhaps this claim should just make us " more skeptical " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The team adds that the efforts of a cracker attempting to influence the array will be wholly obvious to a simple statistical analysis as -- depending on the type of attack -- either the whole array or single elements will be disturbed, whereas these are again selected randomly.
So this true random number generator can protect systems against third-party snooping, potentially making private and sensitive transactions on the Internet more secure.Now I'm really skeptical.
A cracker who is able to "influence" the array might be able to influence it with a pseudorandom number generator that he/she can predict.I think that hardware based RNGs, such as those detecting radioactive isotope decay, have been around for a while.
I'm not sure how this one can provide more security, especially if the attacker has access to the hardware.
I think that most gate transition thresholds can be influence by simple things like temperature anyway.What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?
I think something is either random or it isn't.
Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235546</id>
	<title>Re:Judging by your comment...</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1266832560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.  This is akin to the definition the NP complexity class in computing science.  You see, a problem is in the NP complexity class if any given solution can be *verified* using a polynomial time algorithm.  However, *finding* the solution may be arbitrarily hard.</p><p>As an example, it's dead easy to determine if a number is the product of two specific primes (just multiply them together).  However, it's extremely difficult to actually find those two prime numbers in the first place.</p><p>Similarly, while it may be easy to calculate the overall entropy of some sequence of data, it may be hard to actually generate that data in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
This is akin to the definition the NP complexity class in computing science .
You see , a problem is in the NP complexity class if any given solution can be * verified * using a polynomial time algorithm .
However , * finding * the solution may be arbitrarily hard.As an example , it 's dead easy to determine if a number is the product of two specific primes ( just multiply them together ) .
However , it 's extremely difficult to actually find those two prime numbers in the first place.Similarly , while it may be easy to calculate the overall entropy of some sequence of data , it may be hard to actually generate that data in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
This is akin to the definition the NP complexity class in computing science.
You see, a problem is in the NP complexity class if any given solution can be *verified* using a polynomial time algorithm.
However, *finding* the solution may be arbitrarily hard.As an example, it's dead easy to determine if a number is the product of two specific primes (just multiply them together).
However, it's extremely difficult to actually find those two prime numbers in the first place.Similarly, while it may be easy to calculate the overall entropy of some sequence of data, it may be hard to actually generate that data in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234734</id>
	<title>Somebody should name a law after this phenomenon</title>
	<author>Man On Pink Corner</author>
	<datestamp>1266830040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every x years, someone will find and publish a way to cure cancer... in mice.</p><p>Every y years, someone will invent and publish a way to treat phase velocity as if it were group velocity.</p><p>Every z years, someone will discover and publish a way to use metastable flip-flops to produce random numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every x years , someone will find and publish a way to cure cancer... in mice.Every y years , someone will invent and publish a way to treat phase velocity as if it were group velocity.Every z years , someone will discover and publish a way to use metastable flip-flops to produce random numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every x years, someone will find and publish a way to cure cancer... in mice.Every y years, someone will invent and publish a way to treat phase velocity as if it were group velocity.Every z years, someone will discover and publish a way to use metastable flip-flops to produce random numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235364</id>
	<title>Re:Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>ooooli</author>
	<datestamp>1266832020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You're confusing Shannon entropy and true randomness. If you have a string of bits that are created by a process that is truly random but has a bias, it's easy to transform it into an unbiased (but shorter) string.
</p><p>
The problem with pseudo-random generators is that they're really not random at all: They're determinstic functions that map a seed onto a sequence of random bits. If you know the function and the seed, you can predict all of it, which leads to potential vulnerabilityies. The point of truly random numbers is that there's no possible information you could have that would enable you to predict it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing Shannon entropy and true randomness .
If you have a string of bits that are created by a process that is truly random but has a bias , it 's easy to transform it into an unbiased ( but shorter ) string .
The problem with pseudo-random generators is that they 're really not random at all : They 're determinstic functions that map a seed onto a sequence of random bits .
If you know the function and the seed , you can predict all of it , which leads to potential vulnerabilityies .
The point of truly random numbers is that there 's no possible information you could have that would enable you to predict it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You're confusing Shannon entropy and true randomness.
If you have a string of bits that are created by a process that is truly random but has a bias, it's easy to transform it into an unbiased (but shorter) string.
The problem with pseudo-random generators is that they're really not random at all: They're determinstic functions that map a seed onto a sequence of random bits.
If you know the function and the seed, you can predict all of it, which leads to potential vulnerabilityies.
The point of truly random numbers is that there's no possible information you could have that would enable you to predict it.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410</id>
	<title>Metastable Flip flops still have bias</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1266872340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no way they can prove that these flip flops don't have bias one way or the other. Even if you could design a perfect circuit it would be subject to the imbalances between p-type and n-type transistors and process variations. This makes it impossible to create a perfect Gaussian metastability function or to place a device at the apex of that function such that the probability is 50/50  of switching to 1 or 0. Hence, you will not achieve truly random results. Metastability is also affected by the power supply voltage and current. A cryptographic device employing this technique could be subject to attack by lowering or modulating the power supply in such a way as to create predictable "random" numbers. i.e. make sure all the flip-flops transition to 1 or 0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way they can prove that these flip flops do n't have bias one way or the other .
Even if you could design a perfect circuit it would be subject to the imbalances between p-type and n-type transistors and process variations .
This makes it impossible to create a perfect Gaussian metastability function or to place a device at the apex of that function such that the probability is 50/50 of switching to 1 or 0 .
Hence , you will not achieve truly random results .
Metastability is also affected by the power supply voltage and current .
A cryptographic device employing this technique could be subject to attack by lowering or modulating the power supply in such a way as to create predictable " random " numbers .
i.e. make sure all the flip-flops transition to 1 or 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way they can prove that these flip flops don't have bias one way or the other.
Even if you could design a perfect circuit it would be subject to the imbalances between p-type and n-type transistors and process variations.
This makes it impossible to create a perfect Gaussian metastability function or to place a device at the apex of that function such that the probability is 50/50  of switching to 1 or 0.
Hence, you will not achieve truly random results.
Metastability is also affected by the power supply voltage and current.
A cryptographic device employing this technique could be subject to attack by lowering or modulating the power supply in such a way as to create predictable "random" numbers.
i.e. make sure all the flip-flops transition to 1 or 0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235942</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm</title>
	<author>TechyImmigrant</author>
	<datestamp>1266833700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I detect BS.</p><p>1 flip flop in a metastable state can produce at most 1 bit of entropy.</p><p>1 flip flip in a metastable state tends to produce in excess of 0.5 bits of entropy. It depends on many things, but done properly a normal circuit of this type wouldn't be producing anything nearly as small one 20th of a bit of entropy per flip flop.</p><p>The gains from combining an array of 20 flip flops to produce one really good entropic bit will only asymptotically take the randomness towards 1 bit per bit.</p><p>
&nbsp; TFA doesn't cite references, so it's hard to go and check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I detect BS.1 flip flop in a metastable state can produce at most 1 bit of entropy.1 flip flip in a metastable state tends to produce in excess of 0.5 bits of entropy .
It depends on many things , but done properly a normal circuit of this type would n't be producing anything nearly as small one 20th of a bit of entropy per flip flop.The gains from combining an array of 20 flip flops to produce one really good entropic bit will only asymptotically take the randomness towards 1 bit per bit .
  TFA does n't cite references , so it 's hard to go and check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I detect BS.1 flip flop in a metastable state can produce at most 1 bit of entropy.1 flip flip in a metastable state tends to produce in excess of 0.5 bits of entropy.
It depends on many things, but done properly a normal circuit of this type wouldn't be producing anything nearly as small one 20th of a bit of entropy per flip flop.The gains from combining an array of 20 flip flops to produce one really good entropic bit will only asymptotically take the randomness towards 1 bit per bit.
  TFA doesn't cite references, so it's hard to go and check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234946</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1266830760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no such thing as a random number generator, only a psuedo-random number generator.  Therefore these numbers appear to be more random than for instance software based techniques to generate a psuedo-random number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as a random number generator , only a psuedo-random number generator .
Therefore these numbers appear to be more random than for instance software based techniques to generate a psuedo-random number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as a random number generator, only a psuedo-random number generator.
Therefore these numbers appear to be more random than for instance software based techniques to generate a psuedo-random number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31242734</id>
	<title>Re:Taken to the next level:</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1266927600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As I promised earlier, if you donate to the site and are unhappy about the rolls, let me know and I will pull a die out of the machine, melt it flat and mail it to you, as an object lesson to the other dice. Tangible revenge. </i></p><p>Twisted; I like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I promised earlier , if you donate to the site and are unhappy about the rolls , let me know and I will pull a die out of the machine , melt it flat and mail it to you , as an object lesson to the other dice .
Tangible revenge .
Twisted ; I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I promised earlier, if you donate to the site and are unhappy about the rolls, let me know and I will pull a die out of the machine, melt it flat and mail it to you, as an object lesson to the other dice.
Tangible revenge.
Twisted; I like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235010</id>
	<title>Re:20 times more random?</title>
	<author>Strilanc</author>
	<datestamp>1266830940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just going to assume they meant "can generate 20 times more entropy per second per cost-of-hardware than existing methods".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to assume they meant " can generate 20 times more entropy per second per cost-of-hardware than existing methods " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to assume they meant "can generate 20 times more entropy per second per cost-of-hardware than existing methods".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>ticklemeozmo</author>
	<datestamp>1266829500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?  I think something is either random or it isn't.  Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".</p></div><p>Nothing can be ever be considered random.  If it is, it's just in a state of "we just don't have a means of measuring it's next value."</p><p>You can call me guessing a "number between 1 and 10" random, but that's just because you don't know my method of choosing. If you did, it wouldn't be random at all.  If you knew the order of the deck of cards, and precisely each transition of the shuffle, then the next card could easily be predicted.  Since you don't have that power, it's considered "random".</p><p>Same thing with network traffic, moving the mouse or memory contents; if you had a way to quickly and accurately measure all the inputs and knew it's method of generation, you could very easily guess the outputs.  In all these cases, "random" only means "you cannot guess the outcome with any statistical significance."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly does " more random " mean in the summary ?
I think something is either random or it is n't .
Perhaps this claim should just make us " more skeptical " .Nothing can be ever be considered random .
If it is , it 's just in a state of " we just do n't have a means of measuring it 's next value .
" You can call me guessing a " number between 1 and 10 " random , but that 's just because you do n't know my method of choosing .
If you did , it would n't be random at all .
If you knew the order of the deck of cards , and precisely each transition of the shuffle , then the next card could easily be predicted .
Since you do n't have that power , it 's considered " random " .Same thing with network traffic , moving the mouse or memory contents ; if you had a way to quickly and accurately measure all the inputs and knew it 's method of generation , you could very easily guess the outputs .
In all these cases , " random " only means " you can not guess the outcome with any statistical significance .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary?
I think something is either random or it isn't.
Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".Nothing can be ever be considered random.
If it is, it's just in a state of "we just don't have a means of measuring it's next value.
"You can call me guessing a "number between 1 and 10" random, but that's just because you don't know my method of choosing.
If you did, it wouldn't be random at all.
If you knew the order of the deck of cards, and precisely each transition of the shuffle, then the next card could easily be predicted.
Since you don't have that power, it's considered "random".Same thing with network traffic, moving the mouse or memory contents; if you had a way to quickly and accurately measure all the inputs and knew it's method of generation, you could very easily guess the outputs.
In all these cases, "random" only means "you cannot guess the outcome with any statistical significance.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234500</id>
	<title>I propose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266829380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, to tap into pure randomness they should just utilize Cuil search results instead and convert them if only to numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , to tap into pure randomness they should just utilize Cuil search results instead and convert them if only to numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, to tap into pure randomness they should just utilize Cuil search results instead and convert them if only to numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235358</id>
	<title>Re:What is "more random"?</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1266832020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What exactly does 'more random' mean in the summary? I think something is either random or it isn't."</p><p>See statistical classifications such as the BSI Evaluation Criteria:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom\_number\_generator#BSI\_evaluation\_criteria" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom\_number\_generator#BSI\_evaluation\_criteria</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has established four criteria for quality of deterministic random number generators. They are summarized here:</p><p>K1 -- A sequence of random numbers with a high probability of containing no identical consecutive elements.<br>K2 -- A sequence of numbers which is indistinguishable from 'true random' numbers according to specified statistical tests. The tests are the monobit test (equal numbers of ones and zeros in the sequence), poker test (a special instance of the chi-square test), runs test (counts the frequency of runs of various lengths), longruns test (checks whether there exists any run of length 34 or greater in 20 000 bits of the sequence) -- both from BSI2 (AIS 20, v. 1, 1999) and FIPS (140-1, 1994), and the autocorrelation test. In essence, these requirements are a test of how well a bit sequence: has zeros and ones equally often; after a sequence of n zeros (or ones), the next bit a one (or zero) with probability one-half; and any selected subsequence contains no information about the next element(s) in the sequence.<br>K3 -- It should be impossible for any attacker (for all practical purposes) to calculate, or otherwise guess, from any given sub-sequence, any previous or future values in the sequence, nor any inner state of the generator.<br>K4 -- It should be impossible, for all practical purposes, for an attacker to calculate, or guess from an inner state of the generator, any previous numbers in the sequence or any previous inner generator states.</p><p><div class="quote"></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What exactly does 'more random ' mean in the summary ?
I think something is either random or it is n't .
" See statistical classifications such as the BSI Evaluation Criteria : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom \ _number \ _generator # BSI \ _evaluation \ _criteria [ wikipedia.org ] The German Federal Office for Information Security ( BSI ) has established four criteria for quality of deterministic random number generators .
They are summarized here : K1 -- A sequence of random numbers with a high probability of containing no identical consecutive elements.K2 -- A sequence of numbers which is indistinguishable from 'true random ' numbers according to specified statistical tests .
The tests are the monobit test ( equal numbers of ones and zeros in the sequence ) , poker test ( a special instance of the chi-square test ) , runs test ( counts the frequency of runs of various lengths ) , longruns test ( checks whether there exists any run of length 34 or greater in 20 000 bits of the sequence ) -- both from BSI2 ( AIS 20 , v. 1 , 1999 ) and FIPS ( 140-1 , 1994 ) , and the autocorrelation test .
In essence , these requirements are a test of how well a bit sequence : has zeros and ones equally often ; after a sequence of n zeros ( or ones ) , the next bit a one ( or zero ) with probability one-half ; and any selected subsequence contains no information about the next element ( s ) in the sequence.K3 -- It should be impossible for any attacker ( for all practical purposes ) to calculate , or otherwise guess , from any given sub-sequence , any previous or future values in the sequence , nor any inner state of the generator.K4 -- It should be impossible , for all practical purposes , for an attacker to calculate , or guess from an inner state of the generator , any previous numbers in the sequence or any previous inner generator states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What exactly does 'more random' mean in the summary?
I think something is either random or it isn't.
"See statistical classifications such as the BSI Evaluation Criteria:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom\_number\_generator#BSI\_evaluation\_criteria [wikipedia.org] The German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has established four criteria for quality of deterministic random number generators.
They are summarized here:K1 -- A sequence of random numbers with a high probability of containing no identical consecutive elements.K2 -- A sequence of numbers which is indistinguishable from 'true random' numbers according to specified statistical tests.
The tests are the monobit test (equal numbers of ones and zeros in the sequence), poker test (a special instance of the chi-square test), runs test (counts the frequency of runs of various lengths), longruns test (checks whether there exists any run of length 34 or greater in 20 000 bits of the sequence) -- both from BSI2 (AIS 20, v. 1, 1999) and FIPS (140-1, 1994), and the autocorrelation test.
In essence, these requirements are a test of how well a bit sequence: has zeros and ones equally often; after a sequence of n zeros (or ones), the next bit a one (or zero) with probability one-half; and any selected subsequence contains no information about the next element(s) in the sequence.K3 -- It should be impossible for any attacker (for all practical purposes) to calculate, or otherwise guess, from any given sub-sequence, any previous or future values in the sequence, nor any inner state of the generator.K4 -- It should be impossible, for all practical purposes, for an attacker to calculate, or guess from an inner state of the generator, any previous numbers in the sequence or any previous inner generator states.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234514</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware?</title>
	<author>tippe</author>
	<datestamp>1266829440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or if said hardware remains random in the presence of process, voltage or temperature variations (all of which affect the operation of "regular" flip-flops).  It's one thing to "harness" the randomness of a register's metastability in the lab and quite another to do the same thing in mass-produced silicon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or if said hardware remains random in the presence of process , voltage or temperature variations ( all of which affect the operation of " regular " flip-flops ) .
It 's one thing to " harness " the randomness of a register 's metastability in the lab and quite another to do the same thing in mass-produced silicon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or if said hardware remains random in the presence of process, voltage or temperature variations (all of which affect the operation of "regular" flip-flops).
It's one thing to "harness" the randomness of a register's metastability in the lab and quite another to do the same thing in mass-produced silicon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234286</id>
	<title>Dilbert regarding randomness</title>
	<author>VMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1266871980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg" title="random.org">http://www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg</a> [random.org]</p><p>I find randomness scary... like infinity...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg [ random.org ] I find randomness scary... like infinity.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg [random.org]I find randomness scary... like infinity...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31240910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31242064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31245108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31242734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31241104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1653234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31239758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31233934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31241104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31245108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31240910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31237088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31242734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1653234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31234050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31242064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31236594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31238250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1653234.31235090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
