Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like now we need forensics primers from this ditz.In article <eruub1$vf3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erukqp$8qk_007@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
Never heard of a printer, eh?
The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing
has removed information. All pixelation removes information.
Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a
microscope.
Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you.
There is more information to gather than simply the signature.
Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating
when s/he endorsed the check.
You say that like the shit you spew into the group out of your anusIn article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]
I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.
I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.
Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?
/BAH
Trust me on this, Carmody isn't any more important thanIn article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]
I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.
I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.
Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?
Be careful. You seem to be about to lose some vital bodily fluids.On Tue, 27 Feb 07 11:46:54 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
In article <eruub1$vf3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erukqp$8qk_007@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
Never heard of a printer, eh?
The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing
has removed information. All pixelation removes information.
Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a
microscope.
Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you.
There is more information to gather than simply the signature.
Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating
when s/he endorsed the check.
Like now we need forensics primers from this ditz.
The device passed through a lot of hands, dipshit.
Haven't you ever studied the backs of your cancelled checks?So who's lunch?
I'm just trying to figure out how people like him can bearjmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]
I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.
I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.
Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?
Trust me on this, Carmody isn't any more important than
a Jeff Relf or a George Hammond.
A broken clock is right twice a day so I expect she must from time tokensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <eruk81$8qk_003@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;
No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking
them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he
can't cash it again.
I see BAH doesn't even know 19th century tech either. This
subthread really is quite sad. I wonder if there's any field
she /can/ make a correct statement in.
There are still some problems that physical checks can solve. There areWhy anyone is using such pointless backward technology I
don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s,
(more securely even then than how the US or UK does it
presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even
seen a chequebook.
This is likely a very different matter than the money leaving the accountIn article <eruu77$vf3$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eruk81$8qk_003@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;
No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking
them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he
can't cash it again.
There are banking services that will accept the scanned image of
a personal check for deposits.
I will take some sort of action if they start any nonsense like that within addition, the bills
you pay now have fine print that says writing check to them
gives them permission to access your account.
This is not true of any of the bills I checked the back of.
Wait a while, then. All of my monthly bills now say this.
Those are issues of quantity not quality.The Fed is attempting to make the process all electronic. I trust humans
about as little as I trust computers so I don't see much of a change in
security in this. Back when everything was on paper, someone could empty
your account with a fraud. All that has happened is that the tools have
changed a bit.
Not only have the tools changed, but the speed of the transactions
are now in picoseconds and the number of transactions made has
increased enormously/minute.
That person in the middle was more likely to make an error than preventIn addition, no human is in the middle
of the process so there is nobody to notice if something goes wrong
and push the stop button.
The identity theft crime has been going on from before when there werea lot of this identify theft in the news is possible because
no human needs to OK transactions. Banking is no longer local
and most of it now is impersonal.
So! A fake check can be passed even if the person has put mustard on it.In article <eruub1$vf3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erukqp$8qk_007@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
Never heard of a printer, eh?
The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing
has removed information. All pixelation removes information.
Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a
microscope.
Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you.
There is more information to gather than simply the signature.
Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating
when s/he endorsed the check.
/BAH
Well then move. You've said enough bad about this back water you live inIn article <eruukr$vf3$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erthgg$413$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[...]
Even if I can prove the issue, it will take time for me to do so. There
is always some risk in any system that allows paper or electronics to
cause money to move.
Exactly. There are even more troublesome areas that I've identified.
Thus, I'm trying to train my bankers what they need to have in place
before I succumb to their insistence that I do my banking online.
I suspect that you have massively overrated the risks from what your bank
wants to do and under estimated the risks from the current situation. I
would simply change banks if I was unhappy about the bank I am using.
There is a local bank or two around here.
There is only one local bank left in my area; there are none left in
my mother's area.
You don't have to have it connected. You just walk into the bank and payAt the moment, I'm trying to develop methods
of paying for things without using checks. So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.
They can use a credit card. If they have the card with the same bank as
they have an account, they can pay the bill by talking to a teller if they
want.
My folks have a healthy allergy against credit. I do not like
having a credit card connected with the account that contains
all the cash I own. That's not a solution (because of the credit
card fraud).
The credit / debit card is likely the best. My mother has been using oneI'm trying to develop a safe way for them to function. With
the removal of using checks, there is none that is as
convenient as checking so far.
Ever since the copy machine has been invented, the use of paper documentsIn article <eruv57$vf3$8@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erukjm$8qk_005@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <ersgq6$ui3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one.
When it gets to the bank,
My point is that the check NEVER gets back to the bank. This
is a new procedure. The goal is to eliminate handling the
paper checks.
An electronic image of the check goes to the bank of the payee and then to
the payer's. This just stops the paper from going to the payee's bank.
The electronic image at your end is all that really matters it is a
legally valid copy and good enough to evidence.
Now think about the physical piece of paper which includes all
necessary information to electronically access your account.
The payees all claim that they destroy the piece of paper. I
don't trust that process. Instead of one piece of hardcopy
representing a transaction, there are now oodles of electronic
copies floating around the networking system. This has all ingredients
for a mess.
This can be the rumor mill running away. Use a blue pen to sign.BTW: there is an additional fact about the checks that adds security that
I will not mension here for obvious reasons. The check scanners are
intended to take checks that you took from your check book and wrote onto.
They would catch a laser printer output.
And my mother just bought an ink pen that is supposed to prevent
lifting their signatures. I don't understand this one but her
area's latest alert is to use a special pen to sign checks.
You don't seem to me making clear points on the subject.In article <eruvnn$vf3$9@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eruj75$8qk_001@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <ershih$ui3$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
That is incorrect. Take this example of a list of five things:
**** begin list of five items ****
A bunny
A cat
A dog
**** end list of five items ****
Can software look at that and tell if there are items missing? This is a
simple case of redundant information allowing the detection of an error.
It is the sort of thing that is in the first steps of repairing.
I know what I'm talking about.
Does "sources" in this case mean source code? Assuming yes, thisIn the case of sources, if your
procedures don't make you use them once in a while, they can
disappear and be gone for years before anybody discovers that they're
missing.
The issue is to make sure the files never disappear or get damaged. ThisWithout a backup safe policy that covers at least a decade,
you have to have some other way to make sure files don't disappear
with your notice.
Linux stores creation and modification dates. That is enough.What is missing?
The access date-time, last-written date-time, and last-read date-time
should be three separate date-time fields. There is a fourth
that is moderately useful, but I can't recall what that one is.
It does take a lot of time. The "care" is having well written software.Yes it does cover transaction based data. Take the example of banking
information. The account balances as of, lets say, midnight are stored.
From that point forwards, you have the transaction records. The
transaction records for a given account contains not just the movement of
the money but other information such as the new total. In this case one
needs only look back in time for each account to the last time there was a
break in the transactions. In a real time system, when you are doing
rapid transactions, the totals are always out of date. The first
transaction after a break, has a correct total.
It means that such a system has to have some way to "replay" the
transactions (all of them in sequential order) from the point of
the snapshot. This is also a form of a backup that needs to be
kept in at least three geographical, (and networked, I think) at
once.
No, you didn't read the above carefully enough. You can work backwards
through the data and still get the right answer.
That takes a lot of time and care. Some transaction processing
doesn't have the luxury of time.
You can transcribe the data every so often. Since the media has gottenYou may not have to
process back to the snapshot. The information needs to be stored in
multiple locations but these days that only takes a little money to do.
Another problem that needs to be solved is off-site storage that
doesn't degrade and still be able to read after a decade of
hard/software evolution. I don't think anybody has produced
a method yet. There is one going on but the only way to verify
that it works is to wait a decade ;-).
If anyone ranks among that crew, it is you, dipshit.jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]
I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.
I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.
Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?
Trust me on this, Carmody isn't any more important than
a Jeff Relf or a George Hammond.
Said the kook that has weekly jack-off sessions with that very crowd.
You're an idiot, and you could only be funny in a YouToob mortuaryIn article <t7a8u2hsnhdpkn2rqahsc4otl2967e2ctn@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 07 11:46:54 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
In article <eruub1$vf3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erukqp$8qk_007@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
Never heard of a printer, eh?
The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing
has removed information. All pixelation removes information.
Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a
microscope.
Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you.
There is more information to gather than simply the signature.
Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating
when s/he endorsed the check.
Like now we need forensics primers from this ditz.
The device passed through a lot of hands, dipshit.
Be careful. You seem to be about to lose some vital bodily fluids.
I have EXAMINED the backs of checks, both canceled and not. I haveSo who's lunch?
Haven't you ever studied the backs of your cancelled checks?
You really need to learn when to use a term.There are all kinds of data inadvertently put there.
There are still some problems that physical checks can solve. There are
quite a few places in the US that the internet doesn't go to. Needing to
get a new tire put on my car in one such place, I was happy they would
take a check.
No, this is sci.physics, where on principle I use no killfile.In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]
I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.
I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.
Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:04:38 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]
I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.
However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.
I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.
Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?
Trust me on this, Carmody isn't any more important than
a Jeff Relf or a George Hammond.
Said the kook that has weekly jack-off sessions with that very crowd.
If anyone ranks among that crew, it is you, dipshit.
Yes, really. I mentioned the word 'cheque' back in 1993, andPhil Carmody wrote:
Why anyone is using such pointless backward technology I
don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s,
(more securely even then than how the US or UK does it
presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even
seen a chequebook.
Really ?
I recently(ish) opened a new account here in the UK and automatically got
traditional cheque and paying in books.
It's like that well known stage show - you've just got to
admire all that shit, blood, vomit, sucking and fucking.
The BAHristocrats.
The state I live is proud of the fact they consider themselvesIn article <es16f7$8qk_001@s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <eruukr$vf3$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erthgg$413$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[...]
Even if I can prove the issue, it will take time for me to do so. There
is always some risk in any system that allows paper or electronics to
cause money to move.
Exactly. There are even more troublesome areas that I've identified.
Thus, I'm trying to train my bankers what they need to have in place
before I succumb to their insistence that I do my banking online.
I suspect that you have massively overrated the risks from what your bank
wants to do and under estimated the risks from the current situation. I
would simply change banks if I was unhappy about the bank I am using.
There is a local bank or two around here.
There is only one local bank left in my area; there are none left in
my mother's area.
Well then move. You've said enough bad about this back water you live in
to convince me you need to move.
It doesn't work that way. Which piece of paper do you fill outAt the moment, I'm trying to develop methods
of paying for things without using checks. So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.
They can use a credit card. If they have the card with the same bank as
they have an account, they can pay the bill by talking to a teller if they
want.
My folks have a healthy allergy against credit. I do not like
having a credit card connected with the account that contains
all the cash I own. That's not a solution (because of the credit
card fraud).
You don't have to have it connected. You just walk into the bank and pay
it by talking to the teller.
The banks that we use don't allow small amounts of money in accounts.I'm trying to develop a safe way for them to function. With
the removal of using checks, there is none that is as
convenient as checking so far.
The credit / debit card is likely the best. My mother has been using one
for years. She keeps a small amount of money in its account. If
something major comes up, she can use the credit.