OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS - VMS ; Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right locations on the forms). Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81

Thread: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

  1. OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    locations on the forms).

    Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(

    So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.

    :-) :-) :-) :-)

  2. Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 7, 8:53*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    > locations on the forms).
    >
    > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(
    >
    > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.
    >
    > :-) :-) :-) :-)


    Now everyone knows that MAC OS-X is based upon BSD UNIX so can we
    assume that you've gone over to the dark side?

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

  3. Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Neil Rieck wrote:

    > Now everyone knows that MAC OS-X is based upon BSD UNIX so can we
    > assume that you've gone over to the dark side?


    You call it the "dark side". I call it the "bright side". The lights are
    shining far brighter on OS-X than they are on VMS. There is plenty of
    marketing, growth, applications and more importatly, a vendor who is
    clearly committed to it.

    HP sent a very very very clear signal last year when it got Cerner to
    abandon VMS.

    And consider that much of the TCPIP stack on VMS comes from Unix (all
    those utilities like nslookup, dig etc). And consider that they no
    longer really case about security since the allowed software such as
    IMAP to come out without intrusion detection.

    I was extremely loyal to VMS for years, and really hoped HP would come
    to its senses and bring VMS back to life. Loyalty in this case only
    hurts the loyal person since the vendor doesn't give one iota. In fact,
    it appears HP doesn't appreciate those who are loyal to VMS when you
    look at their attitude towrads comp.os.vms


    Just because I am moving to OS-X at a leasurely pace doesn't mean that I
    feel it is an "upgrade".

    On VMS, I found myself trying to fight to live "modern". The fact that
    MAIL isn't being developped anymore mean that receiving binary
    attachements was always time consuming. Couldn,t quite work with PDF
    documents (just because XPDF could open them doesn'T mean that you could
    be productive with it) etc etc etc.

    At one point, you realise it isn't worth fighting to remain on VMS,
    especially when the owner isn't lifting a finger to help VMS.

    And these conversions are not productive. You spend your time
    re-inventing the wheel instead of improving it. I need to learn Apache
    and test configs so I can move the web site over, instead of spending
    time to improve the web site. I need to learn those newfangled scripting
    languages instead of writing DCL or ALLIN1 scripts to provide dynamic
    web content. etc etc etc.

    But in the long term, once I am proficient on Unix, I will have
    marketable skills, and because I will be able to use modern tools, I
    will have access to modern open source stuff and will no longer have to
    fight to get stuff to run on VMS.

  4. Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <7d72e66f-ba9e-4ac4-a628-42b6fc0582f0@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Neil Rieck writes:
    >On Mar 7, 8:53=A0pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    >> lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    >> locations on the forms).
    >>
    >> Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    >> because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    >> whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    >> generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=3D(
    >>
    >> So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.
    >>
    >> :-) :-) :-) :-)

    >
    >Now everyone knows that MAC OS-X is based upon BSD UNIX so can we
    >assume that you've gone over to the dark side?


    Nah, it's just not well lit!

    Mac OS X/BSD is the purgatory between VMS heaven and Micro$oft hell.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  5. Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article
    <7d72e66f-ba9e-4ac4-a628-42b6fc0582f0@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
    >,

    Neil Rieck wrote:

    > On Mar 7, 8:53*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    > > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    > > locations on the forms).
    > >
    > > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    > > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    > > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    > > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    > > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(
    > >
    > > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.
    > >
    > > :-) :-) :-) :-)

    >
    > Now everyone knows that MAC OS-X is based upon BSD UNIX so can we
    > assume that you've gone over to the dark side?


    It is also based on the Mach micro kernel Just Like Digital OFS/1,
    aka Digital UNIX, aka Compaq Tru64 UNIX, aka HP Tru64 UNIX.

    It is a Mach micro kernel, with FreeBSD layer on top (where as
    Tru64 UNIX has BSD with some System V components). Then on top of
    that are all the Apple GUI frameworks.

    Bob Harris
    Former Tru64 UNIX
    AdvFS developer

    > Neil Rieck
    > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    > Ontario, Canada.
    > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/


  6. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    > locations on the forms).
    >
    > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(
    >
    > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.


    Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the winning
    numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!


  7. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    John Vottero wrote:
    > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    > news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    >> lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    >> locations on the forms).
    >>
    >> Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    >> because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    >> whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    >> generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(
    >>
    >> So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.

    >
    > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the
    > winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!


    The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing
    machine.

    I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS.

    Arne

  8. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 8, 6:39 pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > John Vottero wrote:
    > > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    > >news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > >> Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    > >> lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    > >> locations on the forms).

    >
    > >> Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    > >> because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    > >> whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    > >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    > >> generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(

    >
    > >> So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.

    >
    > > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the
    > > winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!

    >
    > The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing
    > machine.
    >
    > I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS.
    >
    > Arne


    Probably always. I'd think you'd have serious credibility issues if
    the computer picked it. Since computers actually use pseudorandom
    number sequences, the credibility issue only gets worse. To be really
    fair, you need the usual machine with the balls bounding around or
    perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, but I think
    most people would trust the ball machine more, and I understand why.

    AEF

  9. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    AEF wrote:
    > or
    > perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    > radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,


    You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    very likely.

    Arne

  10. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > (or with CGI, they can probably generate the whole
    > video in one shot


    CGI ?

    In this forum that would usually mean Common Gateway Interface, but
    I guess you mean Computer Generated Imagery.

    Arne

  11. Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 8, 8:28*am, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Neil Rieck wrote:

    [...snip...]

    >
    > You call it the "dark side". I call it the "bright side". The lights are
    > shining far brighter on OS-X than they are on VMS. There is plenty of
    > marketing, growth, applications and more importatly, a vendor who is
    > clearly committed to it.
    >
    > HP sent a very very very clear signal last year when it got Cerner to
    > abandon VMS.
    >
    > And consider that much of the TCPIP stack on VMS comes from Unix (all
    > those utilities like nslookup, dig etc). *And consider that they no
    > longer really case about security since the allowed software such as
    > IMAP to come out without intrusion detection.
    >
    > I was extremely loyal to VMS for years, and really hoped HP would come
    > to its senses and bring VMS back to life. Loyalty in this case only
    > hurts the loyal person since the vendor doesn't give one iota. In fact,
    > it appears HP doesn't appreciate those who are loyal to VMS when you
    > look at their attitude towrads comp.os.vms
    >
    > Just because I am moving to OS-X at a leasurely pace doesn't mean that I
    > feel it is an "upgrade".
    >
    > On VMS, I found myself trying to fight to live "modern". The fact that
    > MAIL isn't being developped anymore mean that receiving binary
    > attachements was always time consuming. Couldn,t quite work with PDF
    > documents (just because XPDF could open them doesn'T mean that you could
    > be productive with it) etc etc etc.
    >
    > At one point, you realise it isn't worth fighting to remain on VMS,
    > especially when the owner isn't lifting a finger to help VMS.
    >
    > And these conversions are not productive. You spend your time
    > re-inventing the wheel instead of improving it. I need to learn Apache
    > and test configs so I can move the web site over, instead of spending
    > time to improve the web site. I need to learn those newfangled scripting
    > languages instead of writing DCL or ALLIN1 scripts to provide dynamic
    > web content. etc etc etc.
    >
    > But in the long term, once I am proficient on Unix, I will have
    > marketable skills, and because I will be able to use modern tools, I
    > will have access to modern open source stuff and will no longer have to
    > fight to get stuff to run on VMS.


    I was just kidding you, of course. Here in Waterloo region (the home
    of RIM, Open Text, Dalsa, Ratheon, Sandvine, just to name a few) you
    can find UNIX systems everywhere although the MAC is a different kind
    of cat. It still is weird to see someone with a UNIX-based PC surf the
    net without any antivirus protection etc.

    I still think that UNIX systems provide some level of job protection
    for technical people. Last night I was asked to clean out some temp
    files from a SUN box with no graphical interface. Here is what I
    typed:

    find . -name aaa\*.TMP -a -ctime +10 -exec rm -i {} \;

    Sometimes typos will give you an error message but most times they
    don't. The terms MUST be in the order I've showm. Special characters
    must be escaped by preceeding them with a backslash.

    ~~~

    Now if this was an OpenVMS box, my boss could have done it by
    entering:

    delete/confirm/before=23-feb aaa*.TMP

    With this command the terms can be in any order and any typo will
    throw an error then stop.

    ~~~

    I prefer working on OpenVMS systems but must remember that I do have a
    family to feed.

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

  12. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <75c06824-6e08-4180-b139-7541398f868f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
    AEF writes:
    > On Mar 8, 6:39 pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    >> John Vottero wrote:
    >> > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >> >news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> >> Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    >> >> lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    >> >> locations on the forms).

    >>
    >> >> Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    >> >> because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    >> >> whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%>> >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    >> >> generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(

    >>
    >> >> So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.

    >>
    >> > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the
    >> > winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!

    >>
    >> The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing
    >> machine.
    >>
    >> I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS.
    >>
    >> Arne

    > Probably always. I'd think you'd have serious credibility issues if
    > the computer picked it. Since computers actually use pseudorandom
    > number sequences, the credibility issue only gets worse. To be really
    > fair, you need the usual machine with the balls bounding around or
    > perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    > radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, but I think
    > most people would trust the ball machine more, and I understand why.


    I prefer the German style ball machine (spinning with a rail to pickup
    a ball) as opposed to the air powered bouncing ball machines common in
    the US. I guess people have already forgotten that these machines are
    easily rigged. But then, I don't play the lottery (frequently called
    a tax on the stupid) so it really doesn't much matter.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  13. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
    Arne Vajh°j writes:
    > AEF wrote:
    >> or
    >> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    >> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,

    >
    > You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    > know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    > very likely.


    Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
    pick them and that method precludes true randomness.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  14. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
    > Arne Vajh°j writes:
    >> AEF wrote:
    >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    >>> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,

    >> You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    >> know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    >> very likely.

    >
    > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
    > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.


    Not true.

    Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
    radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
    deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
    guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
    to understand).

    Arne

  15. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <75c06824-6e08-4180-b139-7541398f868f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
    > AEF writes:
    >
    >>On Mar 8, 6:39 pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    >>
    >>>John Vottero wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >>>>news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    >>>>>lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    >>>>>locations on the forms).
    >>>>
    >>>>>Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    >>>>>because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    >>>>>whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%>> >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    >>>>>generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(
    >>>>
    >>>>>So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.
    >>>>
    >>>>Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the
    >>>>winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!
    >>>
    >>>The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing
    >>>machine.
    >>>
    >>>I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS.
    >>>
    >>>Arne

    >>
    >>Probably always. I'd think you'd have serious credibility issues if
    >>the computer picked it. Since computers actually use pseudorandom
    >>number sequences, the credibility issue only gets worse. To be really
    >>fair, you need the usual machine with the balls bounding around or
    >>perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    >>radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, but I think
    >>most people would trust the ball machine more, and I understand why.

    >
    >
    > I prefer the German style ball machine (spinning with a rail to pickup
    > a ball) as opposed to the air powered bouncing ball machines common in
    > the US. I guess people have already forgotten that these machines are
    > easily rigged. But then, I don't play the lottery (frequently called
    > a tax on the stupid) so it really doesn't much matter.


    Don't knock the lotteries!!! Would you rather they took it out of YOUR
    pocket??????


  16. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <63ieaaF27tahbU4@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >{...snip...}
    >PA's is done live, on TV with an audience. Of course, that doesn't
    >preclude cheating but it does prove the drawings are done as people
    >expect them to be.


    As are those here in the people's republic of New Jermany. However,
    knowing the proNJ's propesity for corruption of all things affiliated
    with its government, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that that audience
    isn't some cabal of paid to stay hush-mouthed participants. Who me?
    A cynic?

    For further information on the proNJ's culture of corruption, visit:

    http://www.TheSopranoState.com

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  17. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 9, 10:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
    > Arne Vajh°j writes:
    >
    > > AEF wrote:
    > >> or
    > >> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    > >> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,

    >
    > > You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    > > know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    > > very likely.

    >
    > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
    > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


    Well, a non-rigged ball machine is random enough for the purpose.

    As for true physical randomness, processes on the atomic scale and
    smaller are truly random according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
    The probability distribution of various outcomes of a given event are
    determined by the wave function which has to satisfy the Schroedinger
    equation (well, for non-relativistic QM, anyway), but for a reaction
    that can produces multiple outcomes, the particular outcome is purely
    random in the strongest sense of the word, but with the probability of
    each particular possible outcome given exactly by the wave function
    according to QM.

    For example, the time of an actual decay of a radioactive nucleus is
    purely random. The average decay time is given by the laws of QM, but
    the moment any given decay cannot be predicted, even in principle.
    When looking for "hidden variables" that somehow can produce this
    randomness you get into things like satisfying the Bell inequality and
    the GHZ paradox. Experiments have been done and there is almost no
    doubt about the validity of QM and that there can be no hidden
    variables that explain the experimental results.

    Einstein always felt uneasy about this and thought that somehow a more
    complete theory would return us to deterministic physics, but with
    recent advances in experiments, even he would probably be convinced
    now. He wouldn't like it, but the evidence is very, very compelling.

    Lots of people, including many of the brightest, have tried to outwit
    QM in this respect. They try to find a way to explain the data in
    terms of "hidden variables", but QM always wins. Feynman has an
    excellent argument against the possibility of hidden variables in his
    wonderful book "The Character of Physical Law", Chapter 6. Also, the
    GHZ experiment has shown explicitly that even in a single reaction,
    hidden variables cannot explain the results. (Other experiments
    require a statistical analysis of many events and doubters claim that
    perhaps the events that were missed would allow hidden variables, but
    even in these experiments, the room for error has gotten too small for
    reasonable doubt.

    Here's a reasonable explanation of the GHZ experiment given by Tez:

    http://www.physicsnerd.com/misc002.htm

    Oops, I've meandered on from true randomness to hidden variables, but
    hidden variables would be needed to allow for a deterministic
    formulation to replace current QM. And it is also useful in showing
    just how weird and almost magical QM is.

    Remember, much of our modern technology -- esp. electronics technology
    and lasers (lasers in particular are a very QM thing) -- wouldn't work
    if QM were somehow wrong. Well, QM is right enough for modern
    technology to work.

    Regardless, assuming there is no cheating going on, the ball machine,
    properly done, is random enough: there is no practical way to predict
    the outcome and the winning numbers are uniformly distributed over all
    possible numbers (not exactly, but damn near closely enough). Not
    being truly, exactly random is not the same as cheating. But I think
    using pseudorandom number sequences in a computer is (1) not something
    the public can really watch, and (2) in need of very strict controls
    ala electronic slot machines as the winning numbers can be easily
    generated for future drawings, esp. by someone who knows the function
    (or algorithm, if you prefer) used to generate the psuedorandom
    numbers, etc. (Yes, someone from the gov't supposedly actually checks
    that electronic slot machines are fair (so I've read) -- probably from
    the same dept. that ensures that items at the grocery store have
    correct net weights, gasoline pumps measure correctly, etc.)

    AEF

  18. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 8, 6:02 pm, "John Vottero" wrote:
    > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >
    > news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >
    > > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    > > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    > > locations on the forms).

    >
    > > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    > > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    > > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    > > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    > > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(

    >
    > > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.

    >
    > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the winning
    > numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!


    The lottery "random number" generators have nothing to do with
    selecting the winners; they generate "quick-pick" numbers.

  19. OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 9, 2:04 pm, AEF wrote:
    > On Mar 9, 10:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
    > > Arne Vajh°j writes:

    >
    > > > AEF wrote:
    > > >> or
    > > >> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    > > >> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,

    >
    > > > You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    > > > know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    > > > very likely.

    >
    > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
    > > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.

    >
    > > bill

    >
    > > --
    > > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > > University of Scranton |
    > > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

    >
    > Well, a non-rigged ball machine is random enough for the purpose.
    >
    > As for true physical randomness, processes on the atomic scale and
    > smaller are truly random according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
    > The probability distribution of various outcomes of a given event are
    > determined by the wave function which has to satisfy the Schroedinger
    > equation (well, for non-relativistic QM, anyway), but for a reaction
    > that can produces multiple outcomes, the particular outcome is purely
    > random in the strongest sense of the word, but with the probability of
    > each particular possible outcome given exactly by the wave function
    > according to QM.




    This almost-Haiku thing I wrote some time ago is all I'll post this
    time. Some will "get it" and some won't:

    ################################

    Searching for Random


    -Observability-

    A forest of trees
    A seed grows beneath an elm
    We cannot see it
    (But yet it is there)

    -Probability-

    Buds on tree branches
    From where leaves will one day grow
    Should nature allow
    (It is Probable)

    -Causality-

    A leaf on a branch
    Autumn comes with frosty breath
    So soon the leaf falls
    (Event follows cause)

    -Predictability-

    The leaves on a tree
    Which will be the next to drop
    We cannot yet know
    (Unpredictable)

    -Certainty-

    A leaf on the ground
    From which twig the leaf once grew
    We cannot be sure
    (It is Uncertain)

    -Randomness-

    Still it hides

    ####################################
    (D. L. Phillips)

  20. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > "generate" numbers that are truly random.


    In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
    initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
    would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
    less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
    the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
    a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
    to be a specific value.

    But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
    20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
    randomness in any seed you would use.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast