Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 25 Feb 2007 15:18 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence >of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments >are without substance. Never heard of a printer, eh? You are more retarded than the BAHTard is.
From: Eeyore on 25 Feb 2007 17:42 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Ken Smith wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>>> Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against > >>>> your account without any physical permission written by you? > >>> You mean a debit ? > >>> > >>> I could hardly live without it. > >> Even if you did try, at the bank the check causes an electronic transfer > >> of money. These days, the checks don't travel. It has been a long time > >> since physical money went from bank to bank in reaction to a check. > > > > Back in 1971 when I opened my first bank account, they still posted you the paid > > cheques. That soon disappeared. > > > > Electronic debits are invaluable. I just signed up to a telecoms provider whose > > call charges are insanely cheap. They won't accept cheques and stuff. It all has > > to be done electronically. > > > > http://www.call1899.co.uk/index2.php# > > > > I'm still having some trouble believing this. Landline calls inside the UK are 4 > > pence regardless of duration ! Calling the USA / Canada / France / Germany / > > Singapore even ! costs 1p per minute plus 4p connection charge. > > > I use Skype for all international and local calling these days. > 1.2p anywhere. > It's esp valuable for business calling those 800 numbers in the US - > they're free. I've given it a whirl but the voice quality is seriously inferior to standard telephony. Graham
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 25 Feb 2007 19:04 Eeyore wrote: > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >>> Ken Smith wrote: >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against >>>>>> your account without any physical permission written by you? >>>>> You mean a debit ? >>>>> >>>>> I could hardly live without it. >>>> Even if you did try, at the bank the check causes an electronic transfer >>>> of money. These days, the checks don't travel. It has been a long time >>>> since physical money went from bank to bank in reaction to a check. >>> Back in 1971 when I opened my first bank account, they still posted you the paid >>> cheques. That soon disappeared. >>> >>> Electronic debits are invaluable. I just signed up to a telecoms provider whose >>> call charges are insanely cheap. They won't accept cheques and stuff. It all has >>> to be done electronically. >>> >>> http://www.call1899.co.uk/index2.php# >>> >>> I'm still having some trouble believing this. Landline calls inside the UK are 4 >>> pence regardless of duration ! Calling the USA / Canada / France / Germany / >>> Singapore even ! costs 1p per minute plus 4p connection charge. >> >> I use Skype for all international and local calling these days. >> 1.2p anywhere. >> It's esp valuable for business calling those 800 numbers in the US - >> they're free. > > I've given it a whirl but the voice quality is seriously inferior to standard > telephony. I have found it greatly superior. I wonder why we have a different experience? We both have the same ISP and you have a better connection speed (I get 4Mb connection with a real 3Mb) -- Dirk http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4 http://www.resonancefm.com
From: Ken Smith on 25 Feb 2007 21:43 In article <aee0c$45e1db91$cdd08469$12026(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ers29b$8qk_003(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <erpmth$c02$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >> [.....] >> >>>>It isn't a corral. A corral implies a loss of freedom. I can still write >>>>a check or see a teller if I want. >>> >>>For now. >> >> >> ... and thus it will remain. >> >> >>>>I can pay a bill while I'm at work of >>>>on vacation. I have lost nothing. >>> >>>You have lost the physical paper trail. Doesn't it bother you >>>that electronic checks can be applied against your account without >>>any physical permission written by you? >> >> >> The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one. >> When it gets to the bank, they do all the work electronically. As a >> result, whether I do on line banking or not, the actual work is done >> electronically. If the security in the bank and broken, not using on line >> banking will not protect me. > >If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence >of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments >are without substance. I don't have real paper any more. Most people don't. The statement arrives with a picture of the check not the real one. Since the picture is produced electronically, it is no better than the electronic record that made it. If someone fakes up a check from me, it would be quite hard for me to prove it isn't real. The only hope would be that they wouldn't think to change the check number on it so that the bank would have two with the same number. Even if I can prove the issue, it will take time for me to do so. There is always some risk in any system that allows paper or electronics to cause money to move. It gets doubly troubling when you consider the credit cards etc we all carry. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 25 Feb 2007 22:02
In article <127d4$45e1dadc$cdd08469$12026(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> Do you mean the hardware or the logical content. In either case you are >> wrong about how things are done on most Linux boxes today. The Reiser >> file system is what is used for the logical contents. The hardware is >> typically SATA. >> >> The partitioning is still as it was in DOS days partly because the Linux >> folks want to be able to work with DOS/Windows drives. > >Looks like Dennis Ritchie doesn't remember. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inode > >ReiserFS isn't universal among Unix/Linux systems. It isn't universal but that is the current trend. People are moving away from things like EXT2. [....] >The FS may be at its end. > >See also http://www.ontrack.com/special/200501-LinuxReiserFS.aspx I doubt it is at its end. I would not, on the other hand, be surprised to see it replaced with a better one. The science is still evolving. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |