Quote Originally Posted by ThomasJohnsen View Post
What you are doing is the equivalent of what I mentioned in my previous post (ie. using random(0, high_oreder_byte -1) as new highorderbyte). And while I agree with your statement in principle, I found that the statistical data I got, wasn't uniformly distributed among all values within the range. But maybe I was too quick to discard the method - I will have a little look at your version of it in a little while, try some loops over it, and see if you can convince me

#EDIT: Wrote an initial edit here, that I deleted due to it being false! After more testing, I have found out why I discarded the method in the first place. Using a random between 0 and the high-order-byte is NOT the same as the bitmask used by BB (and after seeing my data I banged my head into the wall for even thinking it). BB has it completely right, and I was completely wrong!
I tried BB's method with min = 1, max = 7 and it showed great distribution over 100,000 tries. I have already up voted her, and wish I could again.