Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:42 In article <ersgq6$ui3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (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, My point is that the check NEVER gets back to the bank. This is a new procedure. The goal is to eliminate handling the paper checks. > 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. The problem of security has now moved to anyone who receives a check for payment. All these people have to do is scan the check on their computer system and their bank will accept the scans as if the checks were physically deposited. Again, read the fine print on your bills. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:44 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. In addition, you have the information on both sides of that piece of paper. The endorsement side of the check is more important than the other human readable side if you're trying to detect if dodginess exists. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:46 In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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? The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing has removed information. All pixelation removes information. > > You are more retarded than the BAHTard is. You're starting to make those tracks again. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:49 In article <erthgg$413$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. Exactly. There are even more troublesome areas that I've identified. Thus, I'm trying to train my bankers what they need to have in place before I succumb to their insistence that I do my banking online. > >It gets doubly troubling when you consider the credit cards etc we all >carry. Credit cards already have processes in place and protections. Checking does not, AFAICT. At the moment, I'm trying to develop methods of paying for things without using checks. So far, I haven't been able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will be able to use. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 08:03
In article <ersiq6$ui3$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ers3rf$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <erpov3$c02$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[.....] >>>You are assuming that I don't know about things I don't care about this is >>>a serious error on your part. I know that there are many people out there >>>who have not yet seen the light and still run Windows. I know that these >>>people are doomed to lose valuable data at some time in the future. I >>>know that fixing this will require some software that gets around things >>>Windows does. I don't run Windows. I run Linux. As a result, I want to >>>back up my data on a Linux box. I also want to protect my self from the >>>bad effects of Windows losing data on someone else's machine. This is why >>>I raise the issue. >> >>And you keep assuming, erroneously, that this type of usage is the >>majority of computing in the world. It is not. > >Yes, it is. Look at how many homes have PCs in them today. This is the >big market for computers today. It massively out weights the business >usage. Now go read an annual report from Intel. PCs are not their highest income producer. Controllers are. > > >> I am trying to >>talk about the day when everybody has to have a computer to do any >>financial transactions. > >You are changing the subject to the future. It is the very near future. > In fact your transactions do >require a computer. It is the one at the bank and not yours however. You are missing the latest improvement. It is no longer the banks' computers but the payees' computers. > > >>>Either, you just lack imagination about what an evil person can do or you >>>over estimate the problem caused by something like a lightning strike. An >>>evil person can destroy any copy on any machine he has the ability to >>>write to. This means that he can delete all the data on the remote >>>machines too. This is why you need a write only memory in the system. >> >>This subject is too complex to discuss without some basic computing >>knowledge. You don't seem to have that specialized knowledge. I've >>spent man-years on these kinds of problems. > >You are attempting to get out of discussing an issue because you know that >you have already made enough errors in the area to discredit everything >you say. You claim a lot of knowledge. Your knowledge is from a very >narrow base. You also claim to have spent "man years" this doesn't mean >you got it right or even that you know anything. It just means you spent >a lot of time. The stuff we shipped to customers that have been used for decades must have something right about it or it wouldn't have been installed. > > >[....] >>>>YOu seem to be talking about a bit-to-bit copy. That will also >>>>copy errors which don't exist on the output device. >>> >>>I am talking of a complete and total and correct image of the drive. >> >>I know you are. A complete and total and correct image of the >>drive will also include its bad spots. It is possible (and >>likely) that the reason you are rebuilding your system is becaues >>a bad spot happened on a crucial point of the file system. The >>you are describing will simply restore the problem that wiped >>out your disk. > >It does the restore. The repair is another issue. Putting the system >back as it was in the first step. This stategy does not deal with the problem if the problem has been saved on that tape. > > >>> It >>>is a bit by bit copy. Usually it is stored onto a larger drive without >>>compression. If something goes bad, you can "loop back and mount" the >>>image. This gives you a read only exact copy of the file system as it >>>was. You then can simply fix the damaged file system. >> >>Now go back to my reply ^up there^. You have a flaw in your >>backup strategy. > >No, I don't. You have confused doing a repair with doing a restore. The >restore method I suggested is correct. If you now want to discuss the new >topic of repair, then we can begin that topic. In most cases that I have observed, the repair and restore were connected. > > >>>>>No great amount of care is needed. I've done that sort of restore a few >>>>>times with no great trouble. Since files are stored with the modification >>>>>date, a copy command that checks dates does the hard part. >>>> >>>>You are very inexperience w.r.t. this computing task. >>> >>>You seem to be claiming knowledge you don't have. >> >>I am not claiming; it is a fact that I have the knowledge..and >>extensive work experience. > >You have also made claims about hardware issues, that are easy to prove to >be false. You only prove them false in your fantasies, not in real life. > >[....] >>>It in fact can be easier. I knew someone who wrote a lot of the software >>>used by banks and insurance companies. They stored the data transaction >>>by transaction, daily and incrementals, monthly near full backups and >>>yearly total backups. The system for recovery was very well tested and >>>automated. After every software change, they had to requalify the code. >>>This meant restoring an old back up and making a new one and restoring >>>that. I assume that software like that is still the common practice. >> >>It's even more complicated. I yak daily with a guy who does this work. > > >I doubt that it has become seriously more complex. The issues all existed >at that time. The amount of data is all that has increased not the >complexity of the question. It is severely more complex. Just the requirements to do the arithmetic could fill volumes. > >[....] >>>It doesn't matter if you bank on line or in person. If you bank's >>>computers fail, you can't do a transaction. If they lose all their >>>computer data, you will have a devil of a time getting at your money. >>>This is why I always try to keep more than one bank, a couple of credit >>>cards and some cash. I know that there is some risk that a bank may have >>>a windows machine connected to the important information. >> >>Your backup strategy for this type of computing is mulitple copies. > >Yes, muliple copies of the data in one form or another is what you need. >The information must be stored more than once if you expect to be able to >put back the data that has been lost. There is no way around this. Error >correcting codes are just ways of storing the information more than once >so even the storage systems and modern RAM chips do this. This strategy cannot work in global finance. A good example of an early attempt to solve these kinds of problems is something called SABRE(sp?) which was an airline scheduling program that ran on IBM machines. > > >>Most people don't have enough money to maintain multiple accounts. > >Most people can do it. You don't need to put a lot of money into a bank >to have an account there. You have to put a lot money in each account if you don't want to hand over your paltry amounts to the bank in fees. People like my parents simply do not have the luxury of lots of cash on the asset list. > With most banks, just having had an account for >a while will get you some form of loan on just your say so. Overdraft >protection is the common loan situation. > > >>Most people don't check their single account activity; having >>many accounts will not solve this problem but mutiply instances >>of it. > >It protects against the mere failure of the bank's computer. This can >strand you. This is not a solution for people who do not have enough money to spread around. > >> To use your stategy, you have to keep up with your backup >>maintenance for many accounts rather than one. Every bank's timing >>is different. This is not a solution. > >It solves the problem of failure. Evil activity is solved by checking the >balances etc. There are two problems that must be covered. You ignore >one and don't assume I've already thought of how to solve the other. There are lots of problems and you aren't even aware of most of them. /BAH |