Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 28 Feb 2007 21:49 On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:45:03 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >MassiveProng wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Feb 07 12:06:49 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >>>In article <87ejobds6m.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>>No, this is sci.physics, where on principle I use no killfile. >>>>(You're in my killfile in every other group on usenet; >>> >>>Strange. I don't post to every other group on usenet. >>><snip> >>> >> >> >> In this thread alone, you post into at least two others. > >Each of which is beyond Phil's comprehension, and yours. You're an idiot.
From: Ken Smith on 28 Feb 2007 22:36 In article <MPG.204fac907e7a3a3298a018(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <es0ci6$joa$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... [... paypal ....] >> There are lots of uninformed reasons and one big real one. They gain the >> power to lock up your money in case of a dispute. It isn't some third >> party that holds the cash until the matter is settled. > >Dispute? Barb's parents are going to dispute money she's sending? >If you're worried about someone locking up an account, simply use >an account only for such transactions. For situations like child to parent transfers Paypal isn't needed. Fro the situtations Paypal is supposed to be for, I wouldn't use it. > >-- > Keith -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 28 Feb 2007 22:40 In article <8ab6a$45e5c387$4fe73b0$13095(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <es3v6k$8qk_001(a)s823.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>There exists a Murphy's Law corrollary that guarantees each time >>>a file is opened an error will be introduced. > >> This is simply bogus BS. > >Any time you open a file in a writable mode an error may >be introduced. The "in a writable mode" makes this a very different statement. >Now consider your linux system. Every time access any file, >changes are written. Believe it or not, an error may be >introduced. Knowing Murphy as intimately as I do, some >significant number will end up introducing an error. When >it is, in my case, the error will be important. That is a case where the file has been modified not merely opened for reading. >"Reliable" systems are defined by a threshold in the number >of errors/some_number of operations. But you knew that, no? Yes, I knew that but it appears that BAH doesn't understand about the difference between making a back up, doing a restore and repairing damage. >BAH's career included a requirement that she be paranoid >about all things that can go wrong. There's no sense arguing >these issues because in the different worlds you live in >each of you is right. Her's must be some other planet. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: nonsense on 28 Feb 2007 22:57 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <8ab6a$45e5c387$4fe73b0$13095(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >>>In article <es3v6k$8qk_001(a)s823.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>There exists a Murphy's Law corrollary that guarantees each time >>>>a file is opened an error will be introduced. >>>This is simply bogus BS. >>Any time you open a file in a writable mode an error may >>be introduced. > The "in a writable mode" makes this a very different statement. >>Now consider your linux system. Every time access any file, >>changes are written. Believe it or not, an error may be >>introduced. Knowing Murphy as intimately as I do, some >>significant number will end up introducing an error. When >>it is, in my case, the error will be important. > That is a case where the file has been modified not merely opened for > reading. ls -lu >>"Reliable" systems are defined by a threshold in the number >>of errors/some_number of operations. But you knew that, no? > Yes, I knew that but it appears that BAH doesn't understand about the > difference between making a back up, doing a restore and repairing damage. >>BAH's career included a requirement that she be paranoid >>about all things that can go wrong. There's no sense arguing >>these issues because in the different worlds you live in >>each of you is right. > Her's must be some other planet. Your definition of planet and mine differ.
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Mar 2007 07:15
In article <MPG.204fae3c3b2b61c298a019(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <es160h$8qk_005(a)s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com 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? >> >> Doesn't that involve online-edness? > >Likely. I don't know if there is a way around this. The more I investigate, the more I'm finding that there is no way. Depending on power and networks being up just to eat is not my idea of self-sufficiency. > >> I smell a bad odour w.r.t. >> PayPal because it's name is being used as spam for gathering >> financial data. > >I've never seen any evidence of either, other than the billions >phishing attempts. ...just don't bite the bait! Right. But if you're doing this paypal stuff for your financial business, how in the hell are you going to distinguish between fishing and acutal business? This is an area that nobody seems to be addressing...at least I can't smell a whiff of it looking at it from the outside. > >> I haven't studied PayPal yet. My mother is >> quickly coming to the conclusion that checks are not a Good Thing. >> They do everything checks, including buy groceries. I don't >> like her carrying cash because of the gangs that have been >> imported from Viet Nam and Mexico. > >Credit cards are likely the most secure, personally. She has never had a credit card. > >> My next experiment is to investigate debit cards that you buy >> outright and have no information embeded that can tie the >> transaction back to a personal bank account. > >Watch out for the scam where the numbers are copied off the rack >where they're displayed. I first have to find the rack. This would have been a job for super-JMF to go hunting for me :-). I'm beginning to think that my approach is going to be the best way. Dump some cash into the coffers of the biller twice a year. That's what I'm doing at the moment and it seems to work for everything but credit cards. Congress passed some law that edicts any 6-month positive balance has to be sent back to the credit card user. Oh, and my water bill. Their software can't handle funcking negative amounts; it drops the negative sign. I will have to commit a miracle to convince my mother to pay ahead, though. /BAH |