Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 27 Feb 2007 08:04 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? Trust me on this, Carmody isn't any more important than a Jeff Relf or a George Hammond.
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 08:07 In article <t7a8u2hsnhdpkn2rqahsc4otl2967e2ctn(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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. Be careful. You seem to be about to lose some vital bodily fluids. > So who's lunch? Haven't you ever studied the backs of your cancelled checks? There are all kinds of data inadvertently put there. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 08:09 In article <1becf$45e42c65$4fe76ee$1080(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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? > >Trust me on this, Carmody isn't any more important than >a Jeff Relf or a George Hammond. I'm just trying to figure out how people like him can bear the boredom. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 27 Feb 2007 09:49 In article <87abz0f0bf.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> 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. > >I see BAH doesn't even know 19th century tech either. This >subthread really is quite sad. I wonder if there's any field >she /can/ make a correct statement in. A broken clock is right twice a day so I expect she must from time to time. >Why anyone is using such pointless backward technology I >don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s, >(more securely even then than how the US or UK does it >presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even >seen a chequebook. There are still some problems that physical checks can solve. There are quite a few places in the US that the internet doesn't go to. Needing to get a new tire put on my car in one such place, I was happy they would take a check. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 27 Feb 2007 10:00
In article <es14vi$8qk_001(a)s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eruu77$vf3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>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. > >There are banking services that will accept the scanned image of >a personal check for deposits. This is likely a very different matter than the money leaving the account it was in. When I put money in my bank accound at the "electronic teller", I punch in the amount in the checks. The bank shows my balance increased by the amount I entered. They actually give two numbers. The first is the new balance the second is how much is "available". When I first started with the bank the available amount would only increase the next day after they've looked at the contents. These days the numbers are the same. >>> 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. > >Wait a while, then. All of my monthly bills now say this. I will take some sort of action if they start any nonsense like that with me. [....] >>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. > >Not only have the tools changed, but the speed of the transactions >are now in picoseconds and the number of transactions made has >increased enormously/minute. Those are issues of quantity not quality. > In addition, no human is in the middle >of the process so there is nobody to notice if something goes wrong >and push the stop button. That person in the middle was more likely to make an error than prevent one, >a lot of this identify theft in the news is possible because >no human needs to OK transactions. Banking is no longer local >and most of it now is impersonal. The identity theft crime has been going on from before when there were computers. The problem is that people allow important information about themselves to be stolen from obvious places. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |