Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 1 Mar 2007 10:51 In article <es6jgg$8qk_001(a)s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >>No, I am right. See how when I do understand what you mean I discover >>that it is fact wrong. > >I am talking about actual times when this happened. In one case, >the sources were gone for five years before a certain corporation >discovered the problem. It was one of the most important programs >of that company's business. There have been other instances >where sources disappeared that I know about. These were the >ones that became elevated to firefight. A firefight is when >the customer has such a severe problem that bit gods have >to drop everything they're doing and work on the customer >problem. This is almost certainly the result of a bad procedure followed by the humans and not something a computer did unless there was a serious bug in the code. When humans muck things up, the situation can be nonrecoverable. There are procedures in most companies that try to prevent humans from making trouble but like software, there are sometimes bugs in them. BTW: Calling the source an asset of the company, makes quite a difference. [....] >>No this is simply wrong. Mere compilation only proves that something that >>didn't generate error messages is there. You need to then compare the >>results with what you got last time from the compile. Even this is not >>100%. You have to make sure there weren't any object files on there. > >We were talking about missing files. I'm talking about the case when >files go missing and are never missed. If you have the object file and not the source, the "make" process will still make a result. We weren't just talking about files being gone. We were talking also about damaged files and all the other reasons backups are made. > If your app runs for years >without any problems, and suddenly the OS world changes out from >underneath it, you might have to change the code. We are currently porting some stuff for exactly this reason. Yes, we had the sources on the backups and also on the "source". Now that Vista is becoming standard, we are going to stop chasing the Windows changes and port over to Linux for our internal stuff. > That is when >you get the source, diddle them, rebuild the app, and type RUN >to the EXE. It is highly likely that, if you haven't had to build >that app over the last five years, you'll not have the sources. >And the backup scheme doesn't save all backups over the last five >years. Mine does. Like I said before, I have source that started out on 8 inch floppies. Last year I did a major copy to new media on a bunch of it. [....] >>For important software, the code is often treated as an important drawing >>or religious text is. If well designed systems are in place, the >>documents will be maintained. > >I'm not talking about documents. Those can be "saved" longterm >in hard copy. I'm talking about source code. If you don't pay >a babysitter, the files will disappear and nobody will miss them. Some of the source still exists on printouts. There is a babysitter. The babysitter gets questioned from time to time too. [....] >>>The only way to do this is to make the usage of them a part of >>>daily computing life. >> >>No, you can do it once a year once the software has stopped changing. > >I don't know how to point out how you are wrong in this case. I'm >not talking about source that have been under active development. >I'm talking about sources whose functionality has not been broken for >a long time. You are trying to say that I am wrong but unable to explain because you know that I am in fact right. The copies get made even of things that haven't changed. It isn't all that much extra storage to have the exact same files from every year since 1980. Since the media gets denser with time, it doesn't pile up all that much. >>You are wrong again. > >I am thinking long-term scenarios. You are not. Yes, I am. You just haven't picked up on the truth in what I am telling you. You have somehow gotten a wrong idea in your head and it is stuck there. > And that's why >you keep thinking I'm wrong. Yours is correct for very short >term bit storage; it is not for long term bit storages of the >same set of bits. Do you call 198X long ago? I have source code from then. It hasn't changed. Do you call 1996 long ago? I have source code from then too. I now have Quite a few copies of the exact same thing on each. [....] >If you keep no record in the file that people have been accessing >it every day, then the system can reach a conclusion that the file >is no longer used and can be expunged. No, if you have no record of access, a properly designed system will assume that the file is needed every day and make sure it is always there. Having information about read accesses can cause you to do the wrong thing. >>>And what if the breaking was done by something that is on those tapes? >>>Whenever you restore the tapes, the system proceed to break again. >> >>You are constantly confusing restoring with repairing. > >No, I am not. > >> They are two very >>different things. As long as you keep confusing the two you will not be >>able to see your errors on this subject. > >I can't conjure a different of explaining the problem so that you >can understand what I'm talking about. You have explained it quite well. You are merely wrong that is all. [....] >>Yes, you can. You need to read up about redundant information. > >In order to verify that a file hasn't changed over the long term, >you have to have something that is five years old for comparison. No, not really. Read up on redundant information. You can have a new copy of said redundant information and still know that the file is different than it was 5 years ago. [...] >>You can only lower the odds of having it be wrong. One chance in one >>googleplex is low enough odds to be considered safe. > >Your odds are off. Never underestimate Murphy's Law. A mild over estimate to make a point. > >>>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. > >Nope. It is similar to the situation where a spelling correction >to a post contains a spelling error. I don't why this seems to >happen; it's on my list of life's mysteries to solve. It is still bogus. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Phil Carmody on 1 Mar 2007 11:09 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >ls -lu > > I assume you had a point. I think his point is that access time is part of the metadata that accompanies the file. Technically true in UFS-based fs's, but whether it's valuable and actually useful data is another matter. Consider that an archiving tool either changes the last access time, or doesn't. And that if it does, then it either stores the new access time, or it doesn't. So we have 3 cases: - If it doesn't change the last-accessed time, then the "last- accessed time" is in fact a falsity; - If it changes the last-accessed time and stores the new access, then the restored file will not be what it was a backup of; - If it changes the last-accessed time but doesn't store the new time, then the file in the backup is not identical to the filesystem that it is a backup of. All three of these are unsatisfactory. Therefore I contend that this field is indeed not a useful field when it comes to considering the behaviour of backups. So his point wasn't worth getting. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: krw on 1 Mar 2007 11:27 In article <es6g5o$8qk_001(a)s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > 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. Simple: If email is from PayPal it's a phishing attempt Email from eBay has your username embedded in it (a simple mail filter puts those phishing attempts where they belong). > >> 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. It's time to get her one. Just make sure it's paid on time. > >> 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 :-). They have (or had at Christmas) them in the grocery stores here. You might also try your bank for Cisa/MC logoed ones. > 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. Really? I've had a positive balance on my corporate Amex for years. Can't figure how to get rid of it. > Oh, and my water bill. Their software > can't handle funcking negative amounts; it drops the negative sign. I can believe it. They likely think $0.00 is a positive balance due too (queue story about the check written for $0.00 to pay the $0.00 balance due, threatened with collections). > I will have to commit a miracle to convince my mother to pay > ahead, though. I think a payment from an account set up specifically for the purpose would be good enough. -- Keith
From: John Barrett on 1 Mar 2007 12:15 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.2050c846d665a64098a02e(a)news.individual.net... > In article <es6g5o$8qk_001(a)s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> 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. > > Simple: If email is from PayPal it's a phishing attempt Email from > eBay has your username embedded in it (a simple mail filter puts > those phishing attempts where they belong). > >> >> 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. > > It's time to get her one. Just make sure it's paid on time. > >> >> 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 :-). > > They have (or had at Christmas) them in the grocery stores here. > You might also try your bank for Cisa/MC logoed ones. > >> 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. > > Really? I've had a positive balance on my corporate Amex for > years. Can't figure how to get rid of it. > >> Oh, and my water bill. Their software >> can't handle funcking negative amounts; it drops the negative sign. > > > I can believe it. They likely think $0.00 is a positive balance > due too (queue story about the check written for $0.00 to pay the > $0.00 balance due, threatened with collections). > >> I will have to commit a miracle to convince my mother to pay >> ahead, though. > > I think a payment from an account set up specifically for the > purpose would be good enough. > > -- > Keith Most banks offer visa debit cards tied directly to the account, most utilities will auctomatically debit a bank account via EFT/ACH, or will link to the bank debit card, banks offer free automatic bill pay so you can set up recurring fixed payments (I use that for my rent and student loan), and with direct deposit, I know the cash will be in the account to cover the bills without my having to worry about it I havent written a check in 10 years or more... I dont order checks when I open a new account ... I do it all electronic, and I have a paper trail every time I use my card because I keep reciepts (you can still keep a check register if you like -- probably a good idea actually -- since the card is electroncally no different than a check -- there must be cash in the account !!) Someone tries to forge a check on my account -- I can show clearly that I have every check in my possesion that the bank ever issued to me, and that I have never ordered checks for the account... makes check fraud kinda obvious :) And the bank offers fraud protection for misuse of the card so I'm covered that way Your bank representative should be happy to help you set all this up without you having to have a computer at home or an internet account -- there have been a couple of times I've been in a crunch and used the computers at a bank branch to get online and make a change or a funds transfer -- no sweat at all -- I bank with washington mutual -- you go into a branch and its not at all like the usual bank -- just a bunch of computers and a couple of ATM-like cash dispensing machines -- you talk to the agent -- they key the data and had you a reciept with a code -- you go to the machine, key the code and get cash :) its all electronic at some point no matter what you do -- might as well go electronic all the way.
From: krw on 1 Mar 2007 12:34
In article <PSDFh.4217$854.1426(a)trnddc04>, ke5crp1(a)verizon.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.2050c846d665a64098a02e(a)news.individual.net... <snip> > > I think a payment from an account set up specifically for the > > purpose would be good enough. > > > > -- > > Keith > > Most banks offer visa debit cards tied directly to the account, most > utilities will auctomatically debit a bank account via EFT/ACH, or will link > to the bank debit card, banks offer free automatic bill pay so you can set > up recurring fixed payments (I use that for my rent and student loan), and > with direct deposit, I know the cash will be in the account to cover the > bills without my having to worry about it Sure, but debit cards aren't very secure. Sure, you have the same "rights" with a Visa branded debit card as a credit card, but the difference is that the money in play during a contested charge is yours, not theirs. The responsibility is also not statutory. This was the reason I suggested a separate account for this sort of thing (transfer only the money immediately needed). > I havent written a check in 10 years or more... I dont order checks when I > open a new account ... I do it all electronic, and I have a paper trail > every time I use my card because I keep reciepts (you can still keep a check > register if you like -- probably a good idea actually -- since the card is > electroncally no different than a check -- there must be cash in the account > !!) Why not use a credit card? They're more secure and you can get money-back deals. We still use quite a few checks (I write them to get cash and use that) and a Debit card heavily so I don't follow my own paranoia. ;-) BAH is more paranoid than I though. > > Someone tries to forge a check on my account -- I can show clearly that I > have every check in my possesion that the bank ever issued to me, and that I > have never ordered checks for the account... makes check fraud kinda obvious > :) And the bank offers fraud protection for misuse of the card so I'm > covered that way The point is that they don't need a paper check, only the bank routing and account numbers (or debit card number). > Your bank representative should be happy to help you set all this up without > you having to have a computer at home or an internet account -- there have > been a couple of times I've been in a crunch and used the computers at a > bank branch to get online and make a change or a funds transfer -- no sweat > at all -- I bank with washington mutual -- you go into a branch and its not > at all like the usual bank -- just a bunch of computers and a couple of > ATM-like cash dispensing machines -- you talk to the agent -- they key the > data and had you a reciept with a code -- you go to the machine, key the > code and get cash :) Well, my "bank" is 200 miles form here, so it's kinda hard dropping in on them. ;-) > its all electronic at some point no matter what you do -- might as well go > electronic all the way. If available. -- Keith |