From: jmfbahciv on
In article <eruumf$vf3$7(a)blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
>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.

It's a contract?!! I won't look into that one.

/BAH
From: jmfbahciv on
In article <eruukr$vf3$6(a)blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
>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.

There is only one local bank left in my area; there are none left in
my mother's area.


>>>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.

Of course. But there has been decades to adjust to all the glaring
problems. This change w.r.t. checking has just started to happen
(within the last year or two).

>
>> 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.

My folks have a healthy allergy against credit. I do not like
having a credit card connected with the account that contains
all the cash I own. That's not a solution (because of the credit
card fraud).

I'm trying to develop a safe way for them to function. With
the removal of using checks, there is none that is as
convenient as checking so far.

/BAH
From: jmfbahciv on
In article <eruvnn$vf3$9(a)blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
>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.

I know what I'm talking about. In the case of sources, if your
procedures don't make you use them once in a while, they can
disappear and be gone for years before anybody discovers that they're
missing. Without a backup safe policy that covers at least a decade,
you have to have some other way to make sure files don't disappear
with your notice.


>>>>>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?

The access date-time, last-written date-time, and last-read date-time
should be three separate date-time fields. There is a fourth
that is moderately useful, but I can't recall what that one is.
>
>[....]
>>>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.

That takes a lot of time and care. Some transaction processing
doesn't have the luxury of time.

> 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.

Another problem that needs to be solved is off-site storage that
doesn't degrade and still be able to read after a decade of
hard/software evolution. I don't think anybody has produced
a method yet. There is one going on but the only way to verify
that it works is to wait a decade ;-).


This kind of testing could really use a time machine.

/BAH

From: jmfbahciv on
In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes:
>[SNIP]
>
>I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
>in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
>associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
>
>However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
>every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
>to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.

I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.

Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?

/BAH
From: MassiveProng on
On Tue, 27 Feb 07 11:46:54 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us:

>In article <eruub1$vf3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>,
> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
>>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.
>
>Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you.
>There is more information to gather than simply the signature.
>Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating
>when s/he endorsed the check.
>

Like now we need forensics primers from this ditz.

The device passed through a lot of hands, dipshit.

So who's lunch?