Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:19 In article <eruiqh$8ss_004(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ogp3u2t5etlcgrhm0rcup6065455p0s1gr(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Sun, 25 Feb 07 12:27:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>>No. It is memory whose addressing is larger than available physical >>>memory. >> >> >> It means that code segments that would be in MEMORY has to be >>offloaded onto slower, more permanent (intended for) storage mediums >>to be recalled later. The system takes a speed hit with VM, but is >>permitted to do tasks that would otherwise not be doable. > >Virtual memory inplementations meant that you can run a program >that has a memory reference whose address is larger than physical >memory. No, that is mere address translation. The amount of memory must appear greater than the physical memory before there is anything "virtual" about it. >> >> All you have proven is that you know how to use a search engine. > >You still do not know to whom you are talking, do you? > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:26 In article <eruk81$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped >traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the >piece of paper you sent to him; No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he can't cash it again. > in addition, the bills >you pay now have fine print that says writing check to them >gives them permission to access your account. This is not true of any of the bills I checked the back of. > There used >to be a procedural fire wall between the payee and your account; >it was the check clearing centers. These centers are what the Federal >Reserve Board is trying to remove from the process. The Fed is attempting to make the process all electronic. I trust humans about as little as I trust computers so I don't see much of a change in security in this. Back when everything was on paper, someone could empty your account with a fraud. All that has happened is that the tools have changed a bit. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:28 In article <erukqp$8qk_007(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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. Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a microscope. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:33 In article <erul1i$8qk_008(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <erthgg$413$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>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. I suspect that you have massively overrated the risks from what your bank wants to do and under estimated the risks from the current situation. I would simply change banks if I was unhappy about the bank I am using. There is a local bank or two around here. >>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. Actually there are major weaknesses in the credit card system. Those processes and protections are not secure. > 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. They can use a credit card. If they have the card with the same bank as they have an account, they can pay the bill by talking to a teller if they want. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:34
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <erul1i$8qk_008(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> So far, I haven't been >> able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will >> be able to use. > >How about PayPal, or the equivalent? No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a million years. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |