Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:50 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:42:26 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >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. You're an absolute retard. You should check into an alzheimer's care clinic.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:52 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:53:31 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >You are assuming that software is written to do these sanity checks. Checks have been processed by computers since the days they began using magnetic ink after the big swindle that guy did on the airline. Now he is the creator of most of the security "features" that printed checks have these days. That still doesn't change the fact that they are ALL processed by a computer.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:53 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:53:31 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >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. You're a total retard.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:58 On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:15:46 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >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. Bullshit. The MICROSOFT Flight Sim X CHECKSUMS the DVD during the install process. It reads the entire DVD, and there is no image to check it against bit-for-bit. It relies on a checksum figure, and it is deadly accurate, dipshit. CRC also provides data for repairing bad spots on optical media. Guess what method is used to "find" a bad spot, and guess what is used to verify the fix? Checksum is the gold standard, and full copy/original verification is done much less frequently, particularly on large files. Small file writes can be fully verified WHILE being written on a sector by sector basis BY THE OS., completely transparent to the user.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:02
On Mon, 05 Mar 07 13:50:34 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >I guess you don't know what a den mother does. That would explain >your 12-year-old mentality in these posts. >> More likely they called you that as the part of den mothering that relates to being a school marm prude. Hell, you aren't even smart enough to bear that moniker. |