From: kludge@panix.com   
      
   Richard Kettlewell   wrote:   
   >A lot of people are pushing QRNGs of various kinds right now. I’ve yet   
   >to be convinced, personally.   
      
   The QRNG may not in fact be random, but if they turn out not to be random   
   this indicates some sort of currently-unknown determinism in the   
   universe and that in itself is really interesting... far more interesting   
   than the mere quality of a random number generator.   
      
   One of the traditional high-entropy RNGs has been related to the decay   
   of a radioactive source since you can never tell when an atom in a sample   
   is going to decay.  If you COULD tell, it would be extremely useful and   
   worth a Nobel at the absolutely minimum.   
   --scott   
      
   --   
   "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)