Another reminder to all May 1st selectees!!!

[raevsky]

Ok, I will go to casino and chose number five and black, and, for example, I have won. You say that there is no random because the number and colour was chosen by human and not used computer software. If it not so you could predict exactly which colour and number need to, and go on dude, you will be a millionere

Here you are absolutely right. Some people do, and right because of that reason. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4069629.stm

Right, I will give you a calculator which can do plus, minus and multiply, give me random numbers, please.

Yes, I need a timer too. Then I could do that. Without a watch or a clock (or another timer) I cannot get a seed for random number generator. All computers have timer.

For us it's a black box and we don't know what is happened in it. Did they use software? Is software selected people?

No, it is not a black box. They did not use software, as they stated. They have the source code that proves the call to random number generator was omitted.

Ok, We see and the fact that 90% of who won are muslim so in your logic we will annulate lottery. Great!

Where do you see that? I have never seen that type of coinsidence, and I do not beleive it is true. Where is the source of that data?

Ohh, my God! There is a phone number of lawyer, please phone him and ask. I think that you are really out of mind.

Am I? Armande & Co endorces Babak Nouri to collect payments. Am I out of mind that he has not transferred the money to the lawyer? If he did, then Armande website is lying now. If he did not, Armande's website lied before (when it was saying Babak would transfer the money).

 

[raevsky]

Right, I will give you a calculator which can do plus, minus and multiply, give me random numbers, please.

Actually, I need division too, I overlooked that.

 

[Veggie3]

Regarding Kurzban

There's seems to be unwillingness to believe that Kurzban is legit or whether his office is "really" behind the appeal.

However, there is no proof those emails really come from that lawyer. That is what the previos posts were saying

More than a month ago I paid $100 to Kurzban's lawfirm by DIRECTLY calling its Miami office, and within less than 24 hours I got an email confirmation from Ms. Plaza, who is in the office's accounting.

The blog had its problems and wasn't transparent (and that's why I didn't give them a dime), but now anyone who pays is dealing directly with one of America's leading immigration lawfirms!!!

It is a difficult case, but this is OUR LAST CHANCE! I'd rather give $100 and know at least I tried rather than blaming others or whining. If Mr. Kurzban loses the cases, so be it, but I don't want to pass over even the smallest chance of getting back our selection.

PLEASE DONATE ASAP!!

 

[Znayko]

Yes, I need a timer too. Then I could do that. Without a watch or a clock (or another timer) I cannot get a seed for random number generator. All computers have timer.

It random if we don't know the law how it works. We know that it is used the Oracle software so we know the mathematical functions. Also we know exactly a date from which lottery will start. Also probably we are making suggestion that before the lottery will be rebooted the computer so we can predict every values of timer. Also we know the average number of records in minute of fiilling. Moreover, we can constantly make 'ping DoS' and know the load of computer and time of response. We can know the operation system is used. Some government, for example China, could make a zero record by DDOS or make garbage records and control the process of filling the database. And there is no random at all. Am I right?

So we come to that there is more random in our case than traditionally. And we don't forget that we not making the difference between age, sexual orientation, religion and a date of filling.

 

[Schoolboy]

@znayko,the selections was never a true or fair random,DOS is just using this to safe themselves from court junction.When i looked at some winners photos,i was totally ashame of DOS most of these winners that i saw,their photos were not up to the photo specification reqiured online as DOS always says.I have some facts to say or proven but dont i have that time,because its all in the past now.One thing i know for sure is that DOS n KCC are not 100% sincere to their rules or random selection.The computer being use for the random selection is called TIMELINE machine and software being use to dectect multiples fraud entries and to check if the photo did or did not meet up to the photo specification reqiured online is called RED EYE PHOTO REMOVER MACHINE.Dont have anything more than this to say.Lastly nothing is honest and sincere in this world we live not even the so called moden sophisticated machine that can proven sincerity but God Almighty that s worthy.

 

[raevsky]

It random if we don't know the law how it works. We know that it is used the Oracle software so we know the mathematical functions. Also we know exactly a date from which lottery will start. Also probably we are making suggestion that before the lottery will be rebooted the computer so we can predict every values of timer. Also we know the average number of records in minute of fiilling. Moreover, we can constantly make 'ping DoS' and know the load of computer and time of response. We can know the operation system is used. Some government, for example China, could make a zero record by DDOS or make garbage records and control the process of filling the database. And there is no random at all. Am I right?

No, this is totally wrong.
There are several different meanings of the word "random". One of them is a formal definition of random, the one defined by DOS, and referred by Congress as "strictly random". Another one is an informal meaning - haphazard. Haphazard is never "strictly random". For a selection to be random it needs to satisfy certain statistical tests. Nothing like that is true for haphazard.
Of course, you cannot predict the time, because what is used is a seed is the number of microseconds since the last full second. That makes the preudo random number generator absolutely equivalent to truly random within any formal definition of random.

So we come to that there is more random in our case than traditionally.

No, what happened is not random. Statistical tests are not satisfied.

And we don't forget that we not making the difference between age, sexual orientation, religion and a date of filling.

BTW, the fact that almost 100% selected are alive is not a result of discriminating of dead. No, the reason is different, basically only alive sumbit applications.

 

[raevsky]

So, what White and Kurzban are trying to reach is a total absurd. Let's assume the law says "Kremlin makes the lottery selection". Every year that was Moscow Kremlin who made the selection, and it was the only kremlin that came up with selections before, but this year Tula kremlin came up with it's own selection two and a half months earlier than Moscow Kremlin. White and Kurzban are saying "Kremlin did the May selection, so it is valid". The court says it is Moscow Kremlin who makes the selection, because DOS defined so, not any other kremlin. White and Kurzban disagree. Moreover, Kurzban said that when Tula kremlin's selection was announced invalid, no legal analysis was done. DOS should have spent months explaining why Tula kremlin's selection was disqualified, and it should have been done not in the form of public announcement.
It is absolutely obvious Moscow Kremlin is the one who meant to make the selection. By stating that any kremlin would do White's action was fairly called by court an attempt "to make a hash of the statute and defy common sense".

 

[Znayko]

No, this is totally wrong.
There are several different meanings of the word "random". One of them is a formal definition of random, the one defined by DOS, and referred by Congress as "strictly random". Another one is an informal meaning - haphazard. Haphazard is never "strictly random". For a selection to be random it needs to satisfy certain statistical tests. Nothing like that is true for haphazard.
Of course, you cannot predict the time, because what is used is a seed is the number of microseconds since the last full second. That makes the preudo random number generator absolutely equivalent to truly random within any formal definition of random.

Show me where is written about "to satisfy certain statistical tests" in the Law. Read again if you can't understand, we choose people, not date, not numbers, we choose people who was registered in the lottery. How you use statistics to live humans? Its the weight, color of eyes, and etc? What you are saying is totally absurd.

And in Windows if call GetTickCount() WINAPI the minimum is seconds, and if GetSystemTime() the minimum is also seconds. Where do you find microseconds?

Three parts:
1) filling out of internet application and storing it to the database
2) the process of selection using random numbers
3) check the winning status online

Obviously, random numbers and winning status is not same. For random function we can use statistical tests. When we consider people's choose we only could ask the reason why they have chose this date and time, after it try to evalute the correlation between 'won' and reason why they chose this date, if we get low correlation so we success ours statistical tests. Physically we can't use the statistical tests for results, because they valid only for random function.

If Mr. Raevsky says that the result and random number are same thing please give to us function how translate this:
random: 1) 0.64865; 2) 0.4657; 3) 0.9 ; 4) 0.64865 and there are 10 registered people from 1 to 10. How translate people to random and random to people?

 

[raevsky]

Show me where is written about "to satisfy certain statistical tests" in the Law.

22 CFR 42.33 says:

Upon completion of the numbering of all petitions, all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose

Any standard software for random number generation satisfies certain standard statistical benchmarks.

Read again if you can't understand, we choose people, not date, not numbers, we choose people who was registered in the lottery. How you use statistics to live humans? Its the weight, color of eyes, and etc? What you are saying is totally absurd.

And in Windows if call GetTickCount() WINAPI the minimum is seconds, and if GetSystemTime() the minimum is also seconds. Where do you find microseconds?

We choose random numbers and select entries, not people. You are wrong.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724408(v=vs.85).aspx

Retrieves the number of milliseconds that have elapsed since the system was started, up to 49.7 days.

Even milliseconds is more than enough. But microseconds are available as well.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa393695(v=vs.85).aspx

The Microseconds property of the SWbemDateTime object gets or sets a value that represents the microseconds component of the datetime value.

Three parts:
1) filling out of internet application and storing it to the database
2) the process of selection using random numbers
3) check the winning status online

Obviously, random numbers and winning status is not same. For random function we can use statistical tests. When we consider people's choose we only could ask the reason why they have chose this date and time, after it try to evalute the correlation between 'won' and reason why they chose this date, if we get low correlation so we success ours statistical tests.

I do not understand. What correlation? Nobody knows the reason. How would you calculate correlation?

Physically we can't use the statistical tests for results, because they valid only for random function.

All standard programs use statistical tests. That is what standard software is.

If Mr. Raevsky says that the result and random number are same thing please give to us function how translate this:
random: 1) 0.64865; 2) 0.4657; 3) 0.9 ; 4) 0.64865 and there are 10 registered people from 1 to 10. How translate people to random and random to people?

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking me how to generate 4 random numbers (between 0 and 1) in a row so that those 4 numbers in consecutive order would be 0.64865; 0.4657; 0.9 ; 0.64865 ?
Is the key that the first number and 4th number are the same? That never happens like that. All numbers are different. The cycle when they start repeating in several billion numbers. Then they really repeat themselves in a loop
It could be like that:
0.64865; 0.4657; 0.9 ; 0.64864
When you convert those numbers to numbers from 1 to 10,
that would become:
7 5 10 7

 

[Znayko]

22 CFR 42.33

Limitation on number of petitions per year. No more than one petition may be submitted by or on behalf of, any alien for consideration during any single fiscal year.

So every record is a live human and it's not a just number.

Entries received during the petition submission period established for the fiscal year in question and meeting all of the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section will be assigned a number

We must have a criteria how make difference between people, so we assigned a number. It's make sense.

Upon completion of the numbering of all petitions, all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose

For us it's a black box with input and output, the input is filled application and output we won or not. As it was random in original so without any changes it will be random too. We don't have a source code of green card lottery program.

Randomness is often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties, such as a lack of bias or correlation.

There is no correlation between 'won' and why people have chose the date. So statistically it's strong random.

It is generally accepted that there exist three mechanisms responsible for (apparently) random behavior in systems:
Randomness coming from the environment (for example, Brownian motion, but also hardware random number generators)
Randomness coming from the initial conditions. This aspect is studied by chaos theory and is observed in systems whose behavior is very sensitive to small variations in initial conditions (such as pachinko machines, dice ...).
Randomness intrinsically generated by the system. This is also called pseudorandomness and is the kind used in pseudo-random number generators. There are many algorithms (based on arithmetics or cellular automaton) to generate pseudorandom numbers. The behavior of the system can be determined by knowing the seed state and the algorithm used. These methods are often quicker than getting "true" randomness from the environment.

If it always return 'All numbers are different' it will be predictable, if we return the numbers from 1 to 5, and already have 3,4, 2 so we can return only 1 and 5 and in result it's not random in any way. So we can't use stastics theory for it.

Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed by any of several tests.
In probability theory and statistics, the discrete uniform distribution is a probability distribution whereby a finite number of equally spaced values are equally likely to be observed; every one of n values has equal probability 1/n.

So we can have the same number twice, but it has low probability >0%.

 

[raevsky]

Randomness intrinsically generated by the system. This is also called pseudorandomness and is the kind used in pseudo-random number generators. There are many algorithms (based on arithmetics or cellular automaton) to generate pseudorandom numbers. The behavior of the system can be determined by knowing the seed state and the algorithm used. These methods are often quicker than getting "true" randomness from the environment.

Yes, that is what is randomness in DOS definition, because this is what the software random number generators generate.

If it always return 'All numbers are different' it will be predictable, if we return the numbers from 1 to 5, and already have 3,4, 2 so we can return only 1 and 5 and in result it's not random in any way. So we can't use stastics theory for it.

That is not correct. We could have 3,4,2 again. The generator returns a long fraction, like 0.4678936282 or 0.437924134, and both come up to the same number when converted to the set of numbers from 1 to 5. The numbers the generator generates are also coming in a loop, but the loop is sevela billion numbers long. So, if we select 100,000 ot of 20 billion numbers, we could calculate any type of statistics we need on them

Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed by any of several tests.
In probability theory and statistics, the discrete uniform distribution is a probability distribution whereby a finite number of equally spaced values are equally likely to be observed; every one of n values has equal probability 1/n.

So we can have the same number twice, but it has low probability >0%.

You cannot have the same original number twice, but it would be converted to the same number from 1 to 5 or from 1 to 10. So, the original numbers are coming in a loop and start repeting right after the first repetition, but after converting to numbers on some scale, tike from 1 to 100,000 they do not repeat.

Randomness is often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties, such as a lack of bias or correlation.

There is no correlation between 'won' and why people have chose the date. So statistically it's strong random.

You could calculate correlation only between defined properties. You do not know why they chose what they chose, so what you are saying is not possible.

 

[raevsky]

22 CFR 42.33

Limitation on number of petitions per year. No more than one petition may be submitted by or on behalf of, any alien for consideration during any single fiscal year.

So every record is a live human and it's not a just number.

A record corresponds to a human, but the process clearly defines selection of entries, not humans.

Upon completion of the numbering of all petitions, all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose

For us it's a black box with input and output, the input is filled application and output we won or not. As it was random in original so without any changes it will be random too. We don't have a source code of green card lottery program

It is a black box for you, but not for them. They know what is inside. It is not random, because statistical tests were not satisfied. Also, it is not random because the random generator was not attached at all. This is well documented. You argument does not work. What you are saying any black box gives random results. No, only the one that satisfies statistical tests. It does not matter at all whether it is a black box or not.

 

[Znayko]

I see that you are not competent and I doubt that you are a programmer and generally have some degree of either. You just pleased to argue, without any results, the dispute itself, in my opinion is not normal in all day sitting here, why? Sorry, but I must stop this because it doesn't make a sense anymore. You will argue any point what is came from DoS even if it's absolutely absurd.

The reason why I try to talk to you is donation because you try to broke the hope of people who won and no one donate money to Kurzban. And it's look strange what in USA now is night, where are you living? Or you don't sleep never?

 

[raevsky]

I see that you are not competent and I doubt that you are a programmer and generally have some degree of either.

I have basically 2 degrees. BS/MS and PhD. Also, I have been a computer programmer for 27 years. Including work for an online casino (that includes random number generation). Of course, you have competency to judge whether I am competent or not. That fact that you do not know that all computers have timer (that every computer science student knows) shows your level of education in this area.

You just pleased to argue, without any results, the dispute itself, in my opinion is not normal in all day sitting here, why?

Just because what you are saying looks absurd. That is not all the time BTW.

Sorry, but I must stop this because it doesn't make a sense anymore. You will argue any point what is came from DoS even if it's absolutely absurd.

Why do you think so?

The reason why I try to talk to you is donation because you try to broke the hope of people who won and no one donate money to Kurzban. And it's look strange what in USA now is night, where are you living?

Well, it is 7:24am and I am already at work. My previous post was done at about 5:30am when I was waiting for my train.

Or you don't sleep never?

What do you think?