Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 Mar 2007 17:43 In article <3j7mu2d76vc5eq16p9umeq49cp8kse4msj(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:08:40 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > > > I always > >get confused when reading either's cache docs. > > > > Not surprising since you don't even know where the drive controller > for an IDE drive is located, and you are so retarded that you think it > is merely a cache. > What a snip-forging clueless dolt, Dimbulb. -- Keith
From: krw on 4 Mar 2007 17:45 In article <i38mu2t8oe1kr97c2ro6o23119r38cncsa(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:19:51 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken > Smith) Gave us: > > >Some fraction of the controller has been on the disk drive for a long > >time. As we went ST506->EDI->fast ATA->SATA, more and more of the > >workings moved into the drive. > > > The KiethTard seems to think the opposite, but I agree with you. > As we moved to DMA-4 -> ATA->2 ATA-345 -> SATA more and more moved back to the chipset, dumbass Dimbulb. -- Keith
From: Martin Brown on 5 Mar 2007 03:57 On Mar 3, 12:35 pm, jmfbah...(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <MPG.20520a9f9e61c03b98a...(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >In article <es92g1$8ss_...(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbah...(a)aol.com says... > >> In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a...(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f...(a)4ax.com>, > >> >MassivePr...(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > > >> >> >In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn...(a)4ax.com>, > >> >> >MassivePr...(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > >> >> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbah...(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >> >> >> >The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped > >> >> >> >traveling. WOW! The US finally abandons stone age banking technology. > >> >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. > > Whatpreventsmultiplescans? Don't US cheques have a serial number so that the thing will only be processed once by your bank no matter how many times it gets scanned? UK banks haven't returned cheques to their customers for decades. It is pointless wasteful paper shuffling. Only if you challenge a cheque transaction as invalid does anything need to move. UK banks permit cheques to be written on almost any legal object provided that all the information required for processing the transaction is included - the record I believe is currently held by a farmer who wrote one on a live cow. Postage for returning these more esoteric objects used as cheques would be very expensive. Obviously you lose the cheque book serial number lock in when using an unconventional medium for your cheque. Protesters tend to take advantage of this feature when writing cheques for court fines. eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3159242.stm Most non-cash transactions in the UK these days use cryptographically signed bank card technology promoted as "chip & PIN". Same technology also used on credit cards here. A signature is no longer good enough. It isn't quite as powerful as the longer established Belgian system which also allows Proton E-cash for small transactions where the bank card also holds pure currency in a cryptographically secure form. "Protons" can be used exactly like cash for small purchases like a loaf of bread - no change needed. Regards, Martin Brown
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 05:46 On 5 Mar 2007 00:57:59 -0800, "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> Gave us: >Don't US cheques have a serial number so that the thing will only be >processed once by your bank no matter how many times it gets scanned? Yes, and the dopes in the thread that think it can happen are idiots.
From: Phil Carmody on 5 Mar 2007 05:51
krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > In article <6aeku2ppeeouq9caalhd6g4e4hqft1hvkr(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 19:23:33 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > > > > >Sorry, but that's the drive's call. SMART tells you it _was_ time to > > >buy a new drive. You don't have access to the information, for a > > >number of reasons. A bit-by-bit copy won't see this information > > >either. > > > > One does NOT need SMART turned on in order to get bad sectors mapped > > out on a drive. > > Clueless, MassivelyWrong. Actually he's right. One of the metrics typically followed by SMART is that of the number of remapped sectors, but you neither need sector remapping in order to have SMART, nor need SMART to have sector remapping. Whatever made you think the two must go hand in hand? I'd be willing to bet a week's wages that you can't find proof of the mandatory nature of having sector remapping in the SMART standard, for example. Just because his delivery may be overly abrupt doesn't mean he's wrong. One can be polite and wrong, and one can also be offensive and right. Fuckwit. HAND, 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./. |