Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 07:25 In article <o67mu29sv19p8014nuonk16opltldsdp17(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Mar 07 13:11:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <20dku29jsq6ahmd2ucqjrm0279atd4ll2r(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:22:49 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>There are plenty of data bases in today's online world that can never >>>>be taken off-line. >>> >>> >>>You're an idiot. >> >>You stopped thinking. Consider finance. Transportation, >>especially things like trains, planes, and some ships. >>Consider war objects. Consider NORAD. Consider power >>generating stations. Consider the networks and telecomm. >> > > ALL have servers which are taken offline ALL THE TIME. Yes, the hardware has to be kept independent of the data base. This problem has given lots of people job security for decades. > > You really don't know how it is done these days. You prove it with >your every post. It is too bad you don't know how to recognize and learn from people who have the knowledge you don't. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 07:39 In article <MPG.2054ad0bf134f2a98a054(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <esbq1q$8qk_008(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <MPG.20520a9f9e61c03b98a03c(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >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. >> > >> >> What prevents multiple scans? > >Oh, that's the real beauty of the system. NOTHING. It happens all >the time. Better have online banking so you can catch it before you >start bouncing checks. And that's why people precede the post office carrier around here and collect the checks that were written to pay bills. My past year's goal was to learn how to live without checking. It's not been pretty; it cannot be done by people have to work for a living. It also requires a local bank that's cooperative (no fees are charged to breathe in their building...yet). I've had to go back to old-fashioned accounting posting methods to keep track of cash flows. > >BTW, I had to agree to allow my employer to reach into my account to >pull money out before I could get direct deposit. What do you think Social Security depositing did? And I had no choice in the matter. > At least there is >some protection there, but this will become the general case. You have no protection from SS. The news coming out this week about our legislature's edict that "Thou shalt pay thousands each year for medical insurance" has me seriously thinking about moving. Price quoted is 57 year olds pay $400/month. That's $5K a year and still no access to medical services. If I were a business, I'd withdraw medical benefits and state insurance. Poof! All the mess erased in one swell foop. And the state still has not provided anybody a means to prove we have insurance. Deadline is July 1, 2007. If you haven't supplied proof, you pay a penalty on the 2007 income tax forms. Not only do they have everybody who works and/or lives here by the short and curlies, they've got everybody's paycheck on both ends. Watch closely what happens here. If it succeeds, where succeed means that no politicians are found hanging from trees, it'll go national with even more Nazi-like rules. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 07:42 In article <lm7mu25skv8pnpoi3pmfjcgird3dep2dce(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:44:51 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > >> >>BTW, I had to agree to allow my employer to reach into my account to >>pull money out before I could get direct deposit. At least there is >>some protection there, but this will become the general case. > > > Bullshit. The mechanism by which employers begin direct deposits >differs from employer to employer and from payroll agency to payroll >agency. > > You could be a bit more clueless, just not in this life. All a despositor has to do is negate the number and shwoosh! you have a negative balance and no money. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 07:53 In article <1173085079.133726.187830(a)j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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? You are assuming that software is written to do these sanity checks. And even if the software does detect a second illegal withdrawal, the first one went through. Now think about a crook who dips twice; the first will always be successful; all he has to do is increase the check number and run the code on Pentium. That goes fast enough. If the crook isn't greedy and just asks for a pittance and runs through a retailer's data base, he can make quite a bit for a few seconds of online time. >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. Now think about the code written by people who have the equivalent knowhow as some of the posters in their thread drift. > >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. FWIU, Europe has implemented a method of payments where you, the bill payer, pushes the money instead of the payee pulling the money out of your account. The US doesn't have a "push" method. > >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. The new wrinkle that just happened here is that writing a check now gives implicit agreement for the scanner of the check to electronically access the account. There is nothing in the terms written on my bills that states it is a singular permission. IOW, as I read it, the agreements can be interpreted to be giving the receiver of the check a blank debit card. I can't see where in the process the amount withdrawn is compared to the amount written on the piece of paper. That happens as much as two months later when the check writer gets his statement. From what I hear on the news, fewer and fewer people balance their bank statements. /BAH
From: nonsense on 5 Mar 2007 08:15
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <ro5mu25t5k632vamea8fgrhot2q21do65k(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >>On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:24:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >>>That is not a bit by bit compare. >> >> For the most part, yes it is as there cannot be one bit out of place >>and yield the same checksum, AND the exact bits that would have to be >>off in order to yield the same checksum put the likelihood at about 10 >>to the 17th power to one odds against. > > > Checksumming is useful. It is not a bit by bit compare. The only > way to guarantee that your save matches the disk copy is to go > back and read the file from the tape and compare the input > with the disk copy using the same criteria. This is a bit by > bit compare. There is a very small window of error possibility > between a > > MOVE A,TAPE WORD > MOVE B,DISK WORK > CAME A,B > JRST [REPORT ERROR] > JRST .-4 ; READ NEXT WORD PAIR. > > >> So, you were also unaware that checksums are the de facto standard >>in the industry? How telling. > > > Checksumming is not a bit by bit compare. This sentence does not > say that 'checksumming never happens and isn't useful'. > >> Entire CD and DVD and soon HD DVD images are verified in this >>manner. Has been done for decades without a miss. > > > Are you familiar with the term GIGO? > >> What happened to you? Why have you "missed" the rest of the world? > > > Checksumming, used in the way you describe, is a shortcut; a bit by > bit compare take twice as long. Bit by bit compare is the gold standard. |