Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 2 Mar 2007 13:13 On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >You certainly implied it was the general case that you get canceled >checks, Dimbulb. I do get canceled checks. One every month in each statement. That is plural, dumbass.
From: nonsense on 2 Mar 2007 13:23 MassiveProng wrote: > 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. So you think naturally intoxicated is good.
From: krw on 2 Mar 2007 13:26 In article <nmpgu2ppnfmejgeanl8f7ce19sfrr4joan(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > 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. You can. You don't even need the paper. Just do an EFTS with the account info. No one will stop you. You might have some 'splainin to do later, though Dimmie. > 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. That's the whole point, dimmie! It doesn't *have* to be a legal document. That's the whole pint, dimmie! > So a check is more than a mere "carrier for those". Nope. Wrong again, oh massively dim one! > 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. The bank will double pay a check turned into an EFTS or cleared via Check21. Duplicate checks will likely get cleared too. They're not read by humans and there is no such thing as security. The US banking system is built on trust. > You guys are both wrong. As usual, the Dimbulb is clueless. -- Keith
From: Phil Carmody on 2 Mar 2007 16:39 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <es928h$8ss_001(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >In article <es829g$2hl$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > [...] > >>No, this is all silly. The backup I have been refering to is not cover in > >>the cases in your list. What I suggested was a complete image of the > >>drive. > > > >That has the problem of also preserving the bad spots of the disk. > >I'm assuming that you do want an image of the disk and not drive. > > Preseving the bad spots is a feature not a problem. It is a record of > exactly how things were warts and all that you want to keep. > > >>This would store the times as they were at the time archive was > >>made and not change anything about any of them > >> > >>The only times that matter for backup are the time of creation and the > >>last modification. It doesn't matter when the last access happened. > > > >You are in error. Last access is an important datum. > > Please explain exactly how you thing the last access is important. What > do you do with this information? In this context, the only use of that > information will be a mistake. The only other time I can can see it being important is if you're usig some kind of HFS, in which case the concepts of backing up the filesystem kind of become an irrelevance. 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: MassiveProng on 2 Mar 2007 17:25
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:26:33 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > You might have some 'splainin >to do later, though Dimmie. No, retard boy. Hand written checks are no longer accepted at your bank and haven't been for decades. Hand filled out and endorsed bank printed checks are the only written bearer instruments you have to work with, so you are wrong again. Your EFTS session is bullshit too, as such a case would need NO printed or handwritten article. |