RIP Philo

### How to violate every copyright in the world

Observe:

cat /dev/random > /dev/null

Congratulations, you are a criminal.

Given enough time, on your machine will have generated a copy of every single copyrighted work that has ever been and ever will be.

Furthermore, you will also be in possession of national secrets, threats to every living person including heads of state, and videos of murder, rape, torture, child sex and drug use.

You sick fuck.
Michael B
March 10th, 2007 12:20pm
I'm suing for patent infringement.
An infinite # of monkeys
March 10th, 2007 2:04pm
Oh Horatio my secret is out!
Shakespeare
March 10th, 2007 2:09pm
unfortunately, your plan won't work because random is usually deterministic and will begin to cycle at some point.
a2800276
March 10th, 2007 2:35pm
static u_long next = 1;

int
rand()
{
/* LINTED integer overflow */
return (int)((next = next * 1103515245 + 12345) % ((u_long)RAND_MAX + 1));
}

void
srand(seed)
u_int seed;
{
next = seed;
}
NetBSD: rand.c,v 1.10 2003/08/07
March 10th, 2007 2:50pm
/dev/random, on Linux, guarantees randomness.

It is not the same as libc rand() at all.
Michael B
March 10th, 2007 3:13pm
True randomness requires generation at the quantum level, something like a noisy diode is often used.
Billx
March 10th, 2007 3:31pm
I think Linux ships with a noise diode now.
zed
March 10th, 2007 3:33pm
But the criminal had made one final mistake, he had left the noisy diode intact for the detectives to find.
LinuxOrBust
March 10th, 2007 7:53pm
Sequential works just as well as random & will cover every possibility of X size quicker too.

26^8 will get you every word up to 8 letters long.
~~~x
March 10th, 2007 8:22pm
You're right, to generate every possible string doesn't require randomness, in fact, thinking about it, it's a pretty stupid way of doing it.
Billx
March 11th, 2007 4:56am
This is the kind of thing radical CS professors give their students in lecture?

A math professor would be laughing.
strawberry snowflake
March 11th, 2007 11:16am
We have kind of covered this already :P

http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=11980
Masiosare
March 12th, 2007 9:21am
> You're right, to generate every possible string
> doesn't require randomness, in fact, thinking about
> it, it's a pretty stupid way of doing it.

Yeah, but sequential series aren't nearly as mystique as RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS.
Michael B
March 12th, 2007 3:41pm
"This is the kind of thing radical CS professors give their students in lecture?

A math professor would be laughing."

No, he won't. Everything knew before 1800 are garbage :)