Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:42 In article <erukjm$8qk_005(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ersgq6$ui3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [.....] >>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. An electronic image of the check goes to the bank of the payee and then to the payer's. This just stops the paper from going to the payee's bank. The electronic image at your end is all that really matters it is a legally valid copy and good enough to evidence. >> 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. I read that fine print. There are no such words on the ones I checked. BTW: there is an additional fact about the checks that adds security that I will not mension here for obvious reasons. The check scanners are intended to take checks that you took from your check book and wrote onto. They would catch a laser printer output. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 10:52 In article <eruj75$8qk_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ershih$ui3$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>It only restores things to as they were. It doesn't fix any buggy code in >>the process. This is as much as you can ask of a restore. Repair >>software is another issue. > >In this case, I'm not talking about software bugs. I'm talking >about hardware bugs that caused the problem. Every OS has its >own approach to cover the hardware that is bad. If you do a >physical bit-to-bit copy for the backup, you also copy the bad spots. Yes and that lets you recover, as the term still means, the the contents of the disk at the time the image was made. The ability to repair damage is not the same question as recovery. >> >>What the heck do you mean by that? Obviously software can tell you if a >>file exists or not. All it needs is a list of all the files that do >>exist. > >It cannot tell you that something is missing if it's not there. >It takes a human to decide that. That is incorrect. Take this example of a list of five things: **** begin list of five items **** A bunny A cat A dog **** end list of five items **** Can software look at that and tell if there are items missing? This is a simple case of redundant information allowing the detection of an error. It is the sort of thing that is in the first steps of repairing. >>>>This is not a problem in practice if the copy is smart about dates. >>> >>>AFAIK, only our system had enough dates stored in each file's >>>RIB (retrieval information block) that could do this. >> >>On a Linux machine, there is enough information to do it. > >No, it's missing some...two, I think. The third isn't necessary. What is missing? [....] >>Yes it does cover transaction based data. Take the example of banking >>information. The account balances as of, lets say, midnight are stored. >>From that point forwards, you have the transaction records. The >>transaction records for a given account contains not just the movement of >>the money but other information such as the new total. In this case one >>needs only look back in time for each account to the last time there was a >>break in the transactions. In a real time system, when you are doing >>rapid transactions, the totals are always out of date. The first >>transaction after a break, has a correct total. > >It means that such a system has to have some way to "replay" the >transactions (all of them in sequential order) from the point of >the snapshot. This is also a form of a backup that needs to be >kept in at least three geographical, (and networked, I think) at >once. No, you didn't read the above carefully enough. You can work backwards through the data and still get the right answer. You may not have to process back to the snapshot. The information needs to be stored in multiple locations but these days that only takes a little money to do. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 25 Feb 2007 20:51 In sci.physics, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:54:49 -0800 <7rm3u212e95ov60a4p0ifautat4cacdu9l(a)4ax.com>: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:15 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> Gave us: > >> >>Tape-based storage is still used, though nowadays the >>"tapes" are a far different structure than the old 1/2" >>reels commonly portrayed in old movies, or even the 1/4" >>cartridge units some may be familiar with. Today's units >>are weird-looking and designed to be used with automated >>storage systems ("jukeboxes"). > > > DAT, dude. Get a clue. It might be a variant of DAT, but the tapes are larger than DAT (and have far more capacity). -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net "Woman? What woman?" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: krw on 26 Feb 2007 11:39 In article <eruumf$vf3$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > 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. > I hear them being disparaged like WallyWorld. Why? -- Keith
From: MassiveProng on 26 Feb 2007 19:30
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:00:45 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > Software >increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities. > Bwuahahahahah! How profound! The last time you were synergistic was the last time you lit one of your farts. |