> If you really have a need for a better random value ... you can be assumed to already know ... and can be trusted to search for a better substitute.
Oh, if only that were true.
"If all scientific papers whose results are in doubt because of bad rand()s were to disappear from library shelves, there would be a gap on each shelf about as big as your fist." (From Numerical Recipes, which ironically has given at least its share of bad advice on random number generation, though the latest edition isn't too bad. Actually, the quotation is from an earlier edition because the latest edition puts it more accurately but less concisely.)
Well ... strictly speaking it's perfectly true that you can be assumed to know, and can be trusted to search for something better. The trouble that the assumption and the trust would be very unwise.
Oh, if only that were true.
"If all scientific papers whose results are in doubt because of bad rand()s were to disappear from library shelves, there would be a gap on each shelf about as big as your fist." (From Numerical Recipes, which ironically has given at least its share of bad advice on random number generation, though the latest edition isn't too bad. Actually, the quotation is from an earlier edition because the latest edition puts it more accurately but less concisely.)
Well ... strictly speaking it's perfectly true that you can be assumed to know, and can be trusted to search for something better. The trouble that the assumption and the trust would be very unwise.