I completely agree. I have said myself (not here), or to myself, the same.
Intels complete lack of transparency with their hardware random number generator, makes it difficult to use, for some uses.
They could have made many/some/one design errors with it, and it can't be examined by others (outside of Intel and maybe some others). There are so many thousands (or more), of highly complicated mistakes and limitations, which can worsen the quality of the hardware random number generator. Diehard (etc etc) tests, just scratch at the surface, and are really meant for spotting slightly obvious mistakes/limitations of SOFTWARE random number generators.
My method would be to take a few (or more) DIFFERENT modern microcontrollers (with hardware random number generators), on a (custom) PCB. Then merge (e.g. Xor) a set of random numbers, using at least one of each of the different cpus, together.
Ending up with what is hopefully a fully random number ?
(If the Universe etc, will even allow genuine random numbers to be created, but that is another big discussion area).
I think some Physicists?, somewhat recently discovered a new, very rapid/powerful method of generating pure hardware random numbers, using light or something. But it is NOT clear, how much of the article(s) are hype, rather than a really trustworthy random number generator.
EDIT: My hardware idea above, COULD be fundamentally flawed. IF all the microcontrollers, involved were Arm cored, and it turned out that the design of the hardware random number generator, came from the same source. Such as Arm themselves (they do the arm cores, but I'm not sure about the peripherals, such as the hardware random number generator). I would have to research that, if I was taking the design of such a device seriously.
Your independent hardware/software solution, is of course another way of doing it. But it might be a bit slower and more expensive than my solution ?
Yes, I am just inventing a little black box which accepts up to 10,000 names in a comma separated list via a serial port. It then randomly selects one using a state of the art entropy collection system from a noise diode. However, as part of my cunning plan I am also going to register the forum name "This is not a genuine FTDI chip".
You could make a fortune selling this box. random.org provides a drawing service and costs $54.95 for 10,000 names (it gets cheaper for more names, 1 million names costs only $1,149.95).
Is there a problem with just grabbing some numbers from random.org's generator and running the drawing yourself? Not sure if you're being sarcastic...
I realise this is way too late but what the heck.
Query the forum database for 10 random posts that were done in the last 6 months.
The people can vote on the best post of those 10.
Actually 10 may not be many enough for a good post, so make it 20.
How about something geeky like hashing the sorted list of names with a secure hash algorithm, then use mod(hash(names), count(names) ) to select the winner.
If the selected name is not eligible, remove the names and repeat for second draw.
Not at all random, but completely verifiable (if anybody bothers) and pretty much fair.
How about something geeky like hashing the sorted list of names with a secure hash algorithm, then use mod(hash(names), count(names) ) to select the winner.
If the selected name is not eligible, remove the names and repeat for second draw.
Not at all random, but completely verifiable (if anybody bothers) and pretty much fair.
Why not filter not eligible on first hand?
How about something geeky like hashing the sorted list of names with a secure hash algorithm, then use mod(hash(names), count(names) ) to select the winner.
If the selected name is not eligible, remove the names and repeat for second draw.
Not at all random, but completely verifiable (if anybody bothers) and pretty much fair.
Why not filter not eligible on first hand?
Which is trivial to do, if you know some basic SQL. But it could be fun to see entries get checked and discarded live on air.
I'm In I think
Yes you are in, just happens to be the wrong thread.......
Now go away and try again.......
Some of these entries deserve a prize regardless.
How about something geeky like hashing the sorted list of names with a secure hash algorithm, then use mod(hash(names), count(names) ) to select the winner.
If the selected name is not eligible, remove the names and repeat for second draw.
Not at all random, but completely verifiable (if anybody bothers) and pretty much fair.
Why not filter not eligible on first hand?
Which is trivial to do, if you know some basic SQL. But it could be fun to see entries get checked and discarded live on air.
BBM.
This is how Dave has done it in past drawings. That is, he doesn't bother to filter-out ineligible persons until he does the drawing.
He'll use a program that he wrote to pull all the names from the thread, remove any duplicates, and then pick a
potential winner. He does a number of throw-away runs based on a random number (determined by the last digit of a multimeter.) He'll then check all of the posts of the person drawn to ensure that they are eligible.
I haven't seen an ineligible person get picked before but if that happens then I'm sure he just draws another name. I seem to remember that the viewers can see the name of each person drawn so if you're picked but ineligible then everyone will know it.
Yes well in hindsight the WTF might have been a bit harsh, I couldn't find the bugger off emoticon at the time so I had to improvise.
How about something geeky like hashing the sorted list of names with a secure hash algorithm, then use mod(hash(names), count(names) ) to select the winner.
If the selected name is not eligible, remove the names and repeat for second draw.
Not at all random, but completely verifiable (if anybody bothers) and pretty much fair.
Why not filter not eligible on first hand?
Which is trivial to do, if you know some basic SQL. But it could be fun to see entries get checked and discarded live on air.
BBM.
I was stuck on Black Berry Messenger for a *long* time. Then I figured it out...
Yes well in hindsight the WTF might have been a bit harsh, I couldn't find the bugger off emoticon at the time so I had to improvise.
Maybe you should request a new emoticon from Dave? Might be quite popular
Back to the subject at hand, I have not borne witness to previous competitions and suspect that at some point in time the thread will be locked which would then enable the competition watchdog to review and validate entries that meet a certain criteria, those that do stay are included and those that don’t would be deleted, this then leaves only a list of valid entries for the final draw should it be done in a live video type of manner.
I have noticed that a number of entries have already been removed more likely by the initial poster after realising that they did not meet the rules, it could also be that some have removed their early submission to perhaps increase their post count only to re-enter the draw at a later time with a higher number of counts with the presumption of maybe gaining an advantage, this activity is yet to be verified and no doubt Dave is aware of all the dodgy tactics used by some unscrupulous people in these types of events, this would be a real shame if it were the case.
For those of us in Canada dreaming of winning one of these two
highly discounted and used oscilloscopes (they were found in the dumpster room after all, right?
wink, wink), it seems we would only have to pay GST or HST depending on the province you reside, perhaps CA$800 or less plus s&h?. Check out the
Prizes and Awards section on this page:
http://travel.gc.ca/returning/customs/what-you-can-bring-home-to-canadaI think it would be nice and most importantly, fair, to give at least an additional "ballot" to the Aussies and any other "participants" from countries where Keysight for one reason or other could not give scopes away this time around.
It's human nature I'm afraid Muttley. I'm sure Dave would be right on top of those sorts of activities and imagine he would not suffer them or fools lightly!
As I am only a recent convert to the forum (which is where I then found out about the giveaway), I may be removed. Fair enough, my chances would be pretty slim in any case!
It's human nature I'm afraid Muttley. I'm sure Dave would be right on top of those sorts of activities and imagine he would not suffer them or fools lightly!
As I am only a recent convert to the forum (which is where I then found out about the giveaway), I may be removed. Fair enough, my chances would be pretty slim in any case!
But definitely worth to try your luck
He does a number of throw-away runs based on a random number (determined by the last digit of a multimeter.)
LOL, I like it. Floating, high-impedance, bench-top random number generator. Just put a sticker over the Hold button that's labeled "Draw" or "Win".
... and use the low order digits.
I like the flavor of Dave's rules. Shows he is up to that part of the job. I suspect he can handle the picking of the winner as well. Also suspect he can handle all of the whining which will occur afterward.
Best of luck to the winner. I just bought a new scope, so will leave the contest to someone who has more passion or need than I do.
Is there a problem with just grabbing some numbers from random.org's generator and running the drawing yourself?
The drawing service at random.org makes sense, because in theory you could manipulate the drawing. random.org publishes the winners on their website.
Didn't Dave do it live on web cam last time? But still tricky, because the last digit on multimeter could be faked and live using random.org could be faked as well. The only trusted way to do it would be a independent 3rd party random number, which everyone can see, like some national lottery, then hashing the values and using it mod number of EEVblog names to draw a winner, and publishing the EEVblog names prior to the lottery drawing (looks like a market niche for another webservice). But we trust Dave, so no problem with the last multimeter digit
I think it would be nice and most importantly, fair, to give at least an additional "ballot" to the Aussies and any other "participants" from countries where Keysight for one reason or other could not give scopes away this time around.
I'm actually considering that, giving an extra vote to aussies who got screwed over by Keysight's lawyers.
The only trusted way to do it would be a independent 3rd party random number, which everyone can see, like some national lottery [...] (looks like a market niche for another webservice)
For all the random number nerds out there: Of course it is already available on the interwebs, and even free:
https://beacon.nist.gov/home So Dave could announce a time in the future (the source provides 512 quantum random bits every 60 seconds), upload the list of EEVblog forum names (maybe with at least x posts, and only from Australia) and then use the random number of the specified time for the drawing (mod number of EEVblog names). If it is a fake account, use the number of the next minute.
No one has ever questioned the randomness of my Wobulator program or other method. That's insignificance in the bigger question here of who should be included/excluded.