|
|
The Showcase
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
We can do better.
in U.S. Healthcare: the Best, the Worst, and the Irrelevant
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but ....
in Scientology: We've had it with you
-
Sick care
in U.S. Healthcare: the Best, the Worst, and the Irrelevant
-
RE: Busy guy
in Catholic Exorcist Points Finger at Vatican
|
RE: Back to Basics by markmcb :: NR7 :: Show
Nice question. I was a comp sci major and this was always an interesting question.
I think by random we tend to mean "pseudo-random" as most people will contend that nothing done by a computer can be truly random.
I think the key is creating a pool of possibilities such that, statistically, choosing one item from the pool seems random in nature. So for example, with computers a clock with several significant digits is used for random things. If we then take a sample from the clock, which is a large pool of possibilities, at some non-related event occurence, like the end of a song in iTunes, then we can say it’s about as random as we need it to be, even though it’s not truly random.
I know much more can and has been written on the topic. It’s very interesting as is math in general. I’m sure there’s a math savvy person out there that can state it better than I can.