alternative to rand()

[Sweety]

hello,
Is there any alternative of rand() function i.e i mean any source
avilable to perform same as rand()without using any built in function,
plz reply,
thanks in advance,
bye.

 

[Alan Balmer]

hello,
Is there any alternative of rand() function i.e i mean any source
avilable to perform same as rand()without using any built in function,
plz reply,
thanks in advance,
bye.

Of course there is. Do some reading about random number generators,
pick an algorithm you'd like to try, learn a programming language,
then implement the algorithm.

If you're looking for a ready-made function, try a google search on
"PRNG source" or "random number generator source."

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

hello,
Is there any alternative of rand() function i.e i mean any source
avilable to perform same as rand()without using any built in function,

There are many alternatives. You can use www.google.com to search for
them on the Web, or groups.google.com to search for both links and code
that have been posted to this newsgroup.

plz reply,

The above line is impolite.

thanks in advance,

The above line is impolite.

bye.

Bye.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_de_Paula?=]

Em Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:01:47 -0700, Alan Balmer escreveu:
<snip>

This should go to the FAQ, if it isn't already there...

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Is there any alternative of rand() function i.e i mean any source
avilable to perform same as rand()without using any built in function,

http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc

 

[Dan Pop]

The above line is impolite.

Bullshit. It is such a common courtesy phrase that it even has a
"standard" abbreviation: TIA.

Dan

 

[Eric Sosman]

Bullshit. It is such a common courtesy phrase that it even has a
"standard" abbreviation: TIA.

TALII.

 

[Eric Sosman]

Bullshit. It is such a common courtesy phrase that it even has a
"standard" abbreviation: TIA.

TAPII.

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Bullshit. It is such a common courtesy phrase that it even has a
"standard" abbreviation: TIA.

FOAD is also a "standard" abbreviation and I wouldn't call that polite.

 

[Alan Balmer]

Em Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:01:47 -0700, Alan Balmer escreveu:

<snip>

This should go to the FAQ, if it isn't already there...

If you snip everything I wrote, why leave the attribution? You should
have just replied directly to the OP ;-)

 

[Dan Pop]

FOAD is also a "standard" abbreviation and I wouldn't call that polite.

Bad logic. FOAD was not supposed to be the abbreviation of a courtesy
phrase in the first place. TIA, was.

Dan

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Bad logic. FOAD was not supposed to be the abbreviation of a courtesy
phrase in the first place. TIA, was.

I'd call it good logic, seeing as the only argument you've presented
for "thanks in advance" being polite is it having an abbreviation.
To make it more clear: "It is such a common courtesy phrase"... It's
certainly common, but why is it a courtesy phrase?
I can't explain why it's *not*, but then, probatio incumbet te, non me.

 

[Dan Pop]

I'd call it good logic, seeing as the only argument you've presented
for "thanks in advance" being polite is it having an abbreviation.
To make it more clear: "It is such a common courtesy phrase"... It's
certainly common, but why is it a courtesy phrase?

If you *really* can't answer this question, you have a big problem.

Dan

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

Bullshit. It is such a common courtesy phrase that it even has a
"standard" abbreviation: TIA.

Dan

You may consider my claim incorrect, and welcome "thanks in advance."
That's your privilege.

Nonetheless, the phrase "thanks in advance" presumes an unwarranted
obligation on the part of the person to whom it is addressed.

It is used in Usenet postings by people to avoid responding to help they
may receive. That is actually the wrong lazy approach. The right one
is either not to bother (and I know that probably 90% of the helpful
messages I post are unacknowledged) or to thank all those who have
helped after that help has been given.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_de_Paula?=]

Em Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:53:10 -0700, Alan Balmer escreveu:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:23:54 -0300, José de Paula


If you snip everything I wrote, why leave the attribution? You should
have just replied directly to the OP ;-)

Errare humanum est.

 

[Alan Balmer]

You may consider my claim incorrect, and welcome "thanks in advance."
That's your privilege.

Nonetheless, the phrase "thanks in advance" presumes an unwarranted
obligation on the part of the person to whom it is addressed.

It is used in Usenet postings by people to avoid responding to help they
may receive. That is actually the wrong lazy approach. The right one
is either not to bother (and I know that probably 90% of the helpful
messages I post are unacknowledged) or to thank all those who have
helped after that help has been given.

I thought it was a consequence of the usenet custom of discouraging
content-free postings such as "Thanks", and "Me too."

 

[Neil Cerutti]

You may consider my claim incorrect, and welcome "thanks in advance."
That's your privilege.

Nonetheless, the phrase "thanks in advance" presumes an unwarranted
obligation on the part of the person to whom it is addressed.

It is used in Usenet postings by people to avoid responding to
help they may receive. That is actually the wrong lazy
approach. The right one is either not to bother (and I know
that probably 90% of the helpful messages I post are
unacknowledged) or to thank all those who have helped after
that help has been given.

I agree. The thing to do at the end of a detailed question is to
thank people for *reading* it.

 

[Dan Pop]

Nonetheless, the phrase "thanks in advance" presumes an unwarranted
obligation on the part of the person to whom it is addressed.

1. On Usenet, posts are not addressed to any particular person. It's
an abbreviation for "thanks in advance to whomever might reply to my
question" and there is no unwarranted obligation towards anyone
presumed.

2. In real life interactions, it is not uncommon for polite persons to
say "thank you" (honestly, not sarcastically) even when the other
person could not provide any help. This debunks your interpretation
even for the cases when TIA is used in private email.

It is used in Usenet postings by people to avoid responding to help they
may receive.

I find followups along the lines of "thank you to all those who
answered my question" a lot more obnoxious.

Personally, I prefer the simpler "thanks" formula. It can be interpreted
as "thanks for reading my post" by those who don't intend to reply and
as "thanks for answering my post" by those who post helpful replies

Dan