heyy all ppl!

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Seidre

It's true that computers do not share the same bias, but they are not completely random either. Computer programs are pseudo-random, generated using a mathmatical formula that appears to be random. Some use atmospheric noise, which does seem to be much more random than a mathmatical formula since it lacks a definite plan (can't say for sure though since I don't fully understand how the atmospheric noise method works)...But in the end, it's just another form of bias. While the numbers/words/whatever may seem unpredictable to us, they aren't completely random. There is a connection.

I might be wrong, but I believe some programs incorporate a means of compensating for this.
As of yet I've heard nothing to suggest that ERNIE, which I understand makes use of some sound-based mechanism, isn't in effect completely random.

[Desdemona]

Originally Posted by viscus

You don't love to be "random," you love to be "non-sequitur." We also have an intro forum for these sorts of threads.

And I'm going to take a guess and say you're 14 years old.

Hey. I'm not quite THAT illiterate and troll-like am I?

[Seidre]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I might be wrong, but I believe some programs incorporate a means of compensating for this.
As of yet I've heard nothing to suggest that ERNIE, which I understand makes use of some sound-based mechanism, isn't in effect completely random.

Perhaps you are right. I'm not very technologically savvy.=)

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I might be wrong, but I believe some programs incorporate a means of compensating for this.
As of yet I've heard nothing to suggest that ERNIE, which I understand makes use of some sound-based mechanism, isn't in effect completely random.

That's random input, the computer part doesn't introduce randomness itself.

[becky]

must you people judge every thing i say? when i said random, i meant that i say what ever is on my mind at that moment regardless if it has to do with the current topic or not.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by becky

must you people judge every thing i say?

Yes. We're bored. And you're not alone, we judge each other too. Be honored we even bother to post, it means you are part of the forum.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Humane, please respond to my PM.

[HumanePain]

Just now saw this, checking now...

[HumanePain]

OK, responded, sorry for the delay.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by becky

must you people judge every thing i say? when i said random, i meant that i say what ever is on my mind at that moment regardless if it has to do with the current topic or not.

I judge, you judge, everyone judges. Deal with it.

You are non sequitur and also exhibitionist, because you act that way in order to garner attention.

[maggot]

Or, in layman's terms, "random". God damn it. You all are aware I think becky's annoying as all hell, but you guys are so busy trying to flame her, you're obsessing about her semantics. Who really cares if she says "im random" rather than "If it pleases the members of G.net, I would like to inform you all that I'm quite non sequitur and an exhibitionist."

English is NOT a dead language. Words change in meaning. For instance, the term "fit as a fiddle" does NOT mean in shape. When the phrase was coined, 'fit' meant deserving. This is still seen in the vestigial phrase "fit for a king." Therefore, fit as a fiddle meant "just right". (source: http://dcpes.com/?p=89)

My point here? Who really cares that she said "random." She's not the Queen; she's allowed to use layman's terms.


/semantics rant

[Underwater Ophelia]

Fit still means deserving.

[Mr E Nigma]

I'm pretty sure people would try to refute it as so far they have been...

To clarify for you Maximus as far as our technology goes to date computers aren't random. We write a script which the computer follows in order to pick a number from a group. It still makes a decision based on it's processing capability and how long it has to choose said number. It goes through the script and picks a number when we hit start just as much as a slot machine would roll through options until it stops on one. The choosing mechanism whatever it may be gradually slows down until it stops on something. Which is how a number is picked, but as I've said before that's based on the computer itself. Nothing in the world is what we as people perceive the word random to mean. It is however the closest we've been able to get to creating 'randomness.'

Though I sort of think that sentence sort of leads me to also say the reason randomness is impossible by us at least is because anything created is also not random in the true definition of the term.

Once again.. for those of you who go gambling... Casinos love this facade.

Also maggot - Semantics is funny :]

[Pyre]

The idea of using the term "random" to mean something purely chaotic is ridiculous. When the hell is one ever going to find a use for "random" if nothing is random? Can nature even be considered random, especially when we consider the Butterfly Effect?

I agree with Maggot, however: it's all semantics. Every one of you will argue the legitimacy of the modern use of Goth despite its original meaning, and I am sure all of you use or acknowledge the use of "cool," "gay," "queer," or "fa.ggot" in modern terms. There are many words we use every day that have transformed over time, so to argue a term like "random" that is clearly used and understood by the majority of English speakers is a waste of effort.

[Mr E Nigma]

Yeah, most opinions as far as the meaning of words is purely semantics. But who doesn't love to argue semantics? =P haha

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Pyre

The idea of using the term "random" to mean something purely chaotic is ridiculous. When the hell is one ever going to find a use for "random" if nothing is random?

Some things are random, radioactive decay for one. It does have uses, Gothicus already gave one example, and it can be used in statistics and encryption.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Pyre

The idea of using the term "random" to mean something purely chaotic is ridiculous. When the hell is one ever going to find a use for "random" if nothing is random? Can nature even be considered random, especially when we consider the Butterfly Effect?

No, it's ridiculous to borrow words from physics books and other sciences when you don't know how to use them.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I'm pretty sure computers do work in random patterns. In fact I know they do. That's the whole point of some computers out there.
As GM said, you can program a computer to choose one number from 1 to 36,000 and input the same probability for all numbers to be chosen.
The computer will then choose randomly one number. You never had to input which number will be the first one, and you have no way of knowing which number it will be, not even if you programmed it.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm pretty sure computers do work in random patterns

If something has a pattern then it's not random, so how would you make a random pattern?

[maggot]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Fit still means deserving.

be nice or shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : D

[HumanePain]

The point some posters are making is that if we knew at any one instant the precise location of every atomic particle in the universe, we could predict everything that would happen and so there would be no randomness per se.

But for all practical purposes we do have access to randomness, and observe apparent randomness because we do not know all the variables behind the results.

Long ago weather was thought to be random, but then the seasons were plotted and tracked, and then weather patterns for specific geographic regions was plotted, and then supercomputers were invented and now we not only know when rain will come and how much, but why it rained that particular day, as we now understand the jet stream, solar winds and the Earth's rotation as well as tides and global warming.

Now if we could just predict women...

[maggot]

HP, that'll never happen.

[Mr E Nigma]

Originally Posted by JCC

If something has a pattern then it's not random, so how would you make a random pattern?

True story... when a computer program is scripted for "random selection" it's not random because there are specific limitations. And the processor speed contributes to how fast it picks a number whether you like it or not, even in a hundredth of a second the computer rolls over the numbers at a slow pace, using the algorithm given to it to eventually land on something. We tell the computer where to start and where it can end. By it selecting something in itself obliterates the idea that it can be random. Because it's making a decision. Decisions are planned and chosen. You being asked to pick a number 1-100 and picking a number is just as random as a computer doing the same thing. Point being, that it's not random. You're given a set of instructions and with those instructions you make a choice. So does the computer, you might pick the same number 2 or 3 times in a row, or you might never pick that number out of 120 times. The fact that someone says pick from 1-100 Your brain immediately thinks about that constraint and you have to decide between those constraints.

Decisions are never random. Computers make decisions, we just program what decisions they make, whether we say "hey computer, pick between 1 and 100" or if we tell the computer to do the problem 2+2.

No matter what the computer processes the information and produces a result based on instructions given. How... in anyone's world could any of that be random. I mean, yeah you can call it a random program, but it's not truly random. As that requires no pre-meditation. There are random things in the world, but anything created from humans or humans themselves cannot be random. As far as our technology goes to date.

[The Donor]

Am I the only person who finds it slightly displeasing that the child that started this thread called everyone here "bitchezzzz!"?

[Underwater Ophelia]

"The child?"

As if everyone here doesn't consider you a child yourself?