Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 2 Mar 2007 12:50 On 02 Mar 2007 15:32:24 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> Each time you copy, the file has been in a writable mode. > >Explain the above in the context or WORM media. > >This will be funny... > >Phil Also, any optical media, even the re-writable versions are written the same way WORM was. multi-session capable writers write a single huge mastered datagram for each session. Still a single string of pits.
From: MassiveProng on 2 Mar 2007 13:00 On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:13:24 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > >Modern disks don't show their "bad spots" to the system. They're >replaced from a cache of hidden sectors as they fail. This doesn't >mean it isn't possible to lose data when one fails though. > Exactly. And it is done ON the hard drive electronics 100% independent of the OS or machine the drive is powered by. We called it "maps out bad sectors". They get "mapped out" of the available areas on a drive, and your "cached" area gets a piece "mapped in". The drive "map" tells the drive hardware where all the available write areas on the drive are located. This is aside from the fact that drive platters these days rarely develop "blemishes" . They are easily an order of magnitude better than the magnetic media platters of the past. With perpendicular write modes coming online, we are going to see even more data integrity leaps. Soon, once a file is written, there would be no way to lose it unintentionally. They'll have raid like arrays right on the drive. It would be interesting to hear what she would say about RAID arrays She has already been proven to be out of her depth in the modern computing realm..
From: MassiveProng on 2 Mar 2007 13:06 On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:19:45 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >In article <es92g1$8ss_002(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a031(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f4cm(a)4ax.com>, >> >MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn3dv(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... >> >> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped >> >> >> >traveling. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bullshit. My landlord gets a check, and his bank submits it to my >> >> >> bank who has it ON FILE RIGHT NOW, I get an image of the check in my >> >> >> mailed monthly statement, and can look up a full size image of all my >> >> >> checks online. >> >> > >> >> >Dumber-than-a-dim-bulb, you're wrong. >> >> >> >> No. You are. I can even request the return of the check. >> > >> >Not if it's been cleared via "check 21". The check paper check is >> >turned into bits and the hard copy destroyed. >> >> This is the bug in the process, IMO. The process depends on the human, >> who is scanning the physical paper, to destroy it. > >It doesn't matter if the physical check is destroyed or not. The >routing and account numbers are all that matters. The paper check is >only a carrier for those. If that were true, then one could still write a check on a napkin. Can't do it. Not because it would not be a legal document, it would, but because banks will not accept them, and their policy is all that matters or you can take you banking elsewhere. So a check is more than a mere "carrier for those". A spent check is worthless mainly due to all the endorsement stamps found on it. There is no way a bank would resubmit an already remitted check. You guys are both wrong.
From: nonsense on 2 Mar 2007 13:08 MassiveProng wrote: > On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet? >>> >>>This is what happens when you free the serfs. >> >>Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best >>use of those other fluids. > > > Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site > or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try > to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something! Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet skills.
From: MassiveProng on 2 Mar 2007 13:12
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >> Put down the booze, and learn to read again. > >No booze in months, Dimbulb. Hahahaha... I find it funny that it WAS indeed on your list! > You and Rich are the NG drunks. Wrong again, dipshit. I do not drink at all. When I drink a beer or a glass of wine with my evening dinner, it is for beverage and health purposes, not to get drunk, like you and apparently the RichTard does. Never was a boozer, you loser. SO you are yet again WRONG. |