petition to revert to random.org i-cubes

by **khazalid** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:34 am

be a signatory you dense f*ck.

by **owenshooter** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:44 am

khazalid wrote:be a signatory you dense f*ck.

with close to only 8K members, i wonder if they could get a better rate than what they used to pay... hmmmm...
i'm sure when we were floating close to 30K, it had to of cost a pretty penny... wonder if the switch happened when
the numbers dropped and it became to expensive for the number of games being played... there has to be a good reason
for the switch... my guess would be monetary... however, i do miss the random.org dicie-ma-poos, and i never complained
about them... the black jesus is on the fence, because he is certain there is a valid/great reason for the change that
occurred so many years ago...-Jésus noir

p.s.-why didn't you put a poll on this thread? seems like an honest way to keep a tally...

by **Serbia** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:57 am

owenshooter wrote:it had to of cost

Your awful writing is giving me a headache. Don't go targetman on us.

Bollocks.

by **khazalid** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:17 am

i don't want an honest tally, i want signatories. given that about 8 people and a dog are likely to see this thread, i doubt it will matter terribly much.

besides, isn't my 5 year stretch of anecdotal evidence enough for you?

by **Serbia** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:22 am

I like khaz. SIGNED.

Bollocks.

by **khazalid** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:38 am

good timing. i think the ban hammer is coming down in 3, 2, 1...

by **DoomYoshi** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:53 pm

Once I am done censoring Isaiah, I will get around to banning you.

by **owenshooter** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:03 pm

Serbia wrote:
owenshooter wrote:it had to of cost

Your awful writing is giving me a headache. Don't go targetman on us.

um... that is actually proper english... it may not fly down on 8Mile, but it is proper grammar...-Jésus noir

p.s.-put up a poll!!! and i want to know the reason they abandoned random.org (if it isn't top secret)

by **clangfield** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:24 pm

owenshooter wrote:
Serbia wrote:
owenshooter wrote:it had to of cost

Your awful writing is giving me a headache. Don't go targetman on us.

um... that is actually proper english... it may not fly down on 8Mile, but it is proper grammar...-Jésus noir

p.s.-put up a poll!!! and i want to know the reason they abandoned random.org (if it isn't top secret)

No, it is not proper English... it should be "it had to have cost". :ugeek:

by **WingCmdr Ginkapo** on Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:39 pm

Clangfield, you just responded to someone who used the term "proper english" with the term "proper English".

by **Serbia** on Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:53 am

clangfield wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Serbia wrote:
owenshooter wrote:it had to of cost

Your awful writing is giving me a headache. Don't go targetman on us.

um... that is actually proper english... it may not fly down on 8Mile, but it is proper grammar...-Jésus noir

p.s.-put up a poll!!! and i want to know the reason they abandoned random.org (if it isn't top secret)

No, it is not proper English... it should be "it had to have cost".

There it is! At least someone knows the difference between "of" and "have"!

Bollocks.

by **degaston** on Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:11 am

owenshooter wrote:
khazalid wrote:be a signatory you dense f*ck.

with close to only 8K members, i wonder if they could get a better rate than what they used to pay... hmmmm...
i'm sure when we were floating close to 30K, it had to of cost a pretty penny... wonder if the switch happened when
the numbers dropped and it became to expensive for the number of games being played... there has to be a good reason
for the switch... my guess would be monetary... however, i do miss the random.org dicie-ma-poos, and i never complained
about them... the black jesus is on the fence, because he is certain there is a valid/great reason for the change that
occurred so many years ago...-Jésus noir

p.s.-why didn't you put a poll on this thread? seems like an honest way to keep a tally...

Sometimes, software breaks because something changed on the outside - like the Random.org API. I don't know what the cause was, but based on things I heard when the bias was discovered, it seemed to be a surprise to some on the inside that the files were not updated every day.

But even if the site owner didn't want to pay for 50k random.org numbers each day (though I think it would have only been a few dollars per day), they could still get 10k dice intensity cube rolls for free each day from every IP address they have. Even if they only want to use one IP address, after 5 days they'd have the same number of rolls as they're using now.

Or, with a single 10k data file, they could easily generate 25 million rolls by splitting it into two 5k sets, performing MOD(A+B,6)+1 on each pair of numbers at the same position in each set, and then repeating that with one set shifted by 1, etc. It might not be good enough for cryptographic purposes, but it would be much better than what they're doing now. Almost anything they could choose to do - even the standard pseudo-random number generator would be better than what they're doing now.

by **Army of GOD** on Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:27 am

we should hire (unpaid) interns to roll dice IRL when a dice roll request is made and then send in the result.

by **degaston** on Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:55 am

Army of GOD wrote:we should hire (unpaid) interns to roll dice IRL when a dice roll request is made and then send in the result.

Maybe they should build something like this, only for dice:

by **DoomYoshi** on Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:04 pm

"had to" have cost is still barbaric. Must have cost is the better way.

by **khazalid** on Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:00 am

vagaries of grammar aside, what are the chances of getting some reasonable dice back? whatever they're using nowadays is an unabashed clusterfuck

by **Serbia** on Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:12 am

khazalid wrote:vagaries of grammar aside, what are the chances of getting some reasonable dice back? whatever they're using nowadays is an unabashed clusterfuck

I truly love how the British speak. Those two lines above are just pure gold. "An unabashed clusterfuck" is something I shall reuse. It's much more intense than your average, run of the mill clusterfuck... it's an unabashed clusterfuck!

Bollocks.

by **khazalid** on Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:16 am

Serbia wrote:
khazalid wrote:vagaries of grammar aside, what are the chances of getting some reasonable dice back? whatever they're using nowadays is an unabashed clusterfuck

I truly love how the British speak. Those two lines above are just pure gold. "An unabashed clusterfuck" is something I shall reuse. It's much more intense than your average, run of the mill clusterfuck... it's an unabashed clusterfuck!

Bollocks.

truth be told, i don't think i've ever heard anyone use the above noted intensifier, british or otherwise. i'm a special tomato.