Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment You're just internalizing advertising (Score 3, Interesting) 98

It is a long-standing Texas marketing campaign. I've listened to them yammering on about everyone in California moving to Texas since the 90s, when I moved to California. I'm sure they were doing it before then.

So of course they shouted from the rooftops when Oracle moved to Texas, but became remarkably coy about Oracle then moving from Texas to Tennessee. The Space Nazi also quietly moved a ton of people out after moving them there from California.

If you're actually curious and wish to align your intuition with reality, look at real numbers. You'll find the "California drain" is real - more people have been moving from California to Texas than the reverse for a while now. But California has been growing at a rate as to make that not matter. As far as their bullshit about taxes, Texas is indeed less tax-heavy on rich people, but taxes poor and middle class people significantly higher, like all southern states. And you might like the idea of their "not zoning" zoning. Unless you buy in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, in which case I hope you can find flood insurance.

For my part, I'd encourage MAGAtypes to do their part to convince more California billionaires to move to Texas. We have too many, and they're almost all snotty, whiny, annoying little shits.

Comment Better quality, too (Score 4, Insightful) 50

Given how crappy a lot of "official' upsampling and other AI slop is and other batch-processing errors, aspect ratio changes ruining editing, and IP licensing making the music vanish, pirated media is frequently simply better quality.

But their big problem is reinventing all the cable shenanigans people hate without the natural monopoly to enforce it. When you run a wire to someone's house, there's lock-in. Streaming removes that "loyalty'. Now add in all the constant media swapping that means you can't count on things staying in the catalog, and there's no reason to want to use any of them, other than convenience.

And my storage server is a lot more convenient than any offer I've seen from the streamers.

Comment Re:Tech industry is right wing? (Score 2, Informative) 68

Tech leadership of large firms has been pretty quick to lick the orange anus.

Musk, Cook, Zuckerborg, Altman, Brin, Ellison, Catz, Brockman, Pichai, Nadella, and more that I'm forgetting all have Trump-ass on their breath.

There are a few who seem to prefer democracy, but if you can name a technology company leader of a non-trivial firm that publicly supports the goals of OWS types, please name them - I can't.

Comment Re:Can someone help explain "perfect" randomness? (Score 2) 140

I'm assuming that when they do one of those distribution plots of the output values (the ones that show clear patterns for pseudo random generators when run for long enough) they can prove that the distribution is totally uniform, and with time as a further axis, every attempt achieves that even distribution in a different sequence. That implies they can account for, or negate the impact of, every potential variable in the system.

Lava lamps (like Cloudflare actually use as part of their RNG, IIRC) might be just as good, but mathematically proving that could be a little more challenging, and there may be any number of corner case effects, such as the temperature on either side of the glass or minute variations in the heating coils, that cause an almost imperceptable bias towards the denser coloured fluid in the lamp being in certain parts of the lamp than others for short periods of time.

As to whether we need this, quite probably not. However, TFS does propose use as a kind of "master clock" to regulate other systems that would be less precise (or random, in this case) on their own. Whether that's more cost effective or practical than just combining multiple sources of randomness together to get a single output data stream I guess will be determined by any users that really, really, need a truly random data stream, and how the realities of a post-quantum world eventually play out. If you are in some kind of situation where an adversary can keep retrying at a suitable rate and only needs to predict/guess the next in sequence correctly once to "win", then perfect randomness over a sufficiently large search area is something you are going to be all over.

Comment Re:Taking action against phishing reports (Score 4, Informative) 17

See my post above for a bit more detail, but this looks like it could be an SPF include failure. They have included "_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com" in the SPF, which in turn includes "spf.protection.outlook.com". AFAIK, that's basically the Outlook.com webmail service, so quite possibly at least some, and possibly any, users of that service could impersonate "microsoftonline.com" and get an SPF pass.

If so then yeah, that's *totally* the kind of lack of attention to detail you tend to expect from Microsoft.

Comment Re:Spoofing from address? (Score 3, Informative) 17

It was (and still is), but this is the problem that SPF was designed to solve (as opposed to being the FUSSP some made it out to be). If you have a critical domain that you use for sensitive stuff, like "microsoftonline.com", or any bank's domain, etc, then you need to be very specific on your SPF record's contents and make sure it has an "-all" in there to force a reject for failures, rather than the looser "~all" or (heaven forbid) "+all" which is really only intended for testing. Spammers know this, and seldom waste their time trying to spoof domains that will cause a failure; every domain I have setup SPF with "-all" on has seen Joe-Job bounces drop to zero pretty much overnight. DKIM works slightly differently, but adds another layer to this. Microsoft for sure knows this too and does indeed do both, but that doesn't mean you can't slip up and leave a hole somewhere.

So, taking a quick look, as things stand, the SPF record for "microsoftonline.com" is:

"v=spf1 ip4:216.32.180.228 include:spfa.microsoftonline.com include:spf-exacttarget.microsoftonline.com include:spf-msods.microsoftonline.com include:spf-mfa.microsoftonline.com include:_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com -all"

They've got the "-all" in there, which is good, but also a whole bunch of "include" directives, including one that refers to ExactTarget a third party MSP, but the one that appears like it could possibly be the problem is the last one. That contains a further include, and in there is "spf.protection.outlook.com". All the includes do have "-all" but, AFAIK, that domain covers the outbound mail gateways for a least some parts of the Outlook.com webmail service, so if the spammers have been able to a suitable account using a server within one of the many IP ranges listed in that include that doesn't properly restrict the domains able to send their mail, then they are good to go.

Comment Re:Oh crap (Score 1) 62

Also, weren't you one of the geniuses here on /. telling us that Trump would keep us out of wars? How is that one going?

Oh, but these are *preventative* wars. He gets a peace prize for every country he invades!

Venezuela was using fentanyl as a WMD. Iran was about to nuke us. Cuba might attack us with drones if someone provides them. Greenland might start a snowball fight, and make us look bad if we lose.

Presumably we've got all our best people on this, since they're obviously not on the UFO videos.

Slashdot Top Deals

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?

Working...