Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Hacking Input Devices Toys Build Games Hardware

Netbook-Run Dice Robot Can Rack Up 1.3 Million Rolls a Day 280

stevel writes "The owner of games site GamesByEmail.com created Dice-O-Matic, 'a machine that can belch a continuous river of dice down a spiraling ramp, then elevate, photograph, process and upload almost a million and a half rolls to the server a day. ... The Dice-O-Matic is 7 feet tall, 18 inches wide and 18 inches deep. It has an aluminum frame covered with Plexiglas panels. A 6x4 inch square Plexiglas tube runs vertically up the middle almost the entire height. Inside this tube a bucket elevator carries dice from a hopper at the bottom, past a camera, and tosses them onto a ramp at the top. The ramp spirals down between the tube and the outer walls. The camera and synchronizing disk are near the top, the computer, relay board, elevator motor and power supplies are at the bottom.' While not called out in the article, the pictures clearly show a Dell Mini 9 running the show (and performing the optical recognition of the dice values.) No, it's not running Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netbook-Run Dice Robot Can Rack Up 1.3 Million Rolls a Day

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @12:07PM (#28096361) Journal

    Because any developer worth their weight in salt will tell you that RNGs are not truly random.

    No, they are not truly random. Nor is his dice machine, as the dice are possibly imperfect and subject to gravity or the way it reloads them into the hopper. Influences could be anywhere.

    I would be interested in seeing him run this machine for 30 days and then compute the Shannon entropy [wikipedia.org] on the results and then compare this to popular RNGs out there.

    Although I would expect the RNGs (however flawed) to perform better, it would be interesting nonetheless.

  • Accuracy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wangerx ( 1122027 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @12:14PM (#28096447)

    Very cool device! It does lack in accuracy. Pitted dice are off balance and the 1 will land on the bottom more often than not. That is why Vegas does not use that type of die. There is error in the machine; look closely at the video where the dice get stuck at the top.

  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Domint ( 1111399 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @12:15PM (#28096461) Homepage Journal
    True. I'd like to see someone put this machine up against a currently accepted RNG routines and see which one produces more 'believably random' results.
  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wjousts ( 1529427 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @12:49PM (#28096963)

    That's true RNGs are not truly random. But, then again, neither is anything else. Just sufficiently random to be indistinguishable from an actual random event.

    You fail at Quantum Mechanics.

    Hardware random number generators [wikipedia.org]

  • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @01:16PM (#28097327)

    if you donate to the site and are unhappy about the rolls, let me know and I will pull a die out of the machine, melt it flat and mail it to you, as an object lesson to the other dice.

    'nuff said

  • by mrsurb ( 1484303 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @02:17PM (#28098263)
    It's been a decade since I looked at QM...

    Bell's theorem [wikipedia.org] loosely states: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

    Quantum mechanics is inherently statistical and non-deterministic in nature. If Bell's theorem holds (and experiments have so far gone its way), then the only way to retrieve your deterministic universe from the clutches of quantum mechanics is to allow non-local effects - which brings in problems of instantaneous travel, faster-than-light communication etc...

    Sorry Einstein, it looks like God DOES play dice with the universe.

  • Re:Need more stats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bughunter ( 10093 ) <[ten.knilhtrae] [ta] [retnuhgub]> on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @02:33PM (#28098519) Journal

    Sorry - those are all six-sided dice. Clearly, this machine plays GURPS.

    Or maybe Traveller.

    (We need a percentile version of one of these bots for our Rolemaster/Spacemaster games.)

  • Re:A good first step (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LandDolphin ( 1202876 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2009 @04:25PM (#28100223)
    They are socially unpopular because yo uare betting against everyone. Craps, unlike poker, you are all on the same if. If one win, you al lwin type situation. You all want the roller to keep rolling and winning. When someone comes and bets the rolelr will lose, he is at odds with the interests of everyone else at the table.

    That beign said, I love craps. It's a lot of fun. Do I play to win money? No, but it is nice when it happens. I play for the entertainment value. The excitement of when the dice hit my number, the cheering and yelling. What other game at the casino can I stand around with complete strangers (and friends) and yell and scream and generally make an ass of myself? Sure, you get the occational noise from a winnign group at another game, but if you spend any time in a casino you will soon find out that all the noise is coming from the craps table.

    Also, if you bet wise and dont get carried away its pretty easy to play for a long while and break even. But its hard not to get swept up in the game and start betting all crazy. Dont win big if you dont bet big.

    And as for "throwing money into a hole", most entertainment is just that. You spend money on thigns that are enjoyable: A meal, a concert, camping, hookers coke and craps. At the end of each you've lost your money and gained entertment (and possibly a rash)

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...