Jihad needs scientists

In article <eruiqh$8ss_004@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <ogp3u2t5etlcgrhm0rcup6065455p0s1gr@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 07 12:27:46 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

No. It is memory whose addressing is larger than available physical
memory.


It means that code segments that would be in MEMORY has to be
offloaded onto slower, more permanent (intended for) storage mediums
to be recalled later. The system takes a speed hit with VM, but is
permitted to do tasks that would otherwise not be doable.

Virtual memory inplementations meant that you can run a program
that has a memory reference whose address is larger than physical
memory.
Click to expand...
No, that is mere address translation. The amount of memory must appear
greater than the physical memory before there is anything "virtual" about
it.

All you have proven is that you know how to use a search engine.

You still do not know to whom you are talking, do you?

/BAH
Click to expand...

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
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;
Click to expand...
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.

in addition, the bills
you pay now have fine print that says writing check to them
gives them permission to access your account.
Click to expand...
This is not true of any of the bills I checked the back of.

There used
to be a procedural fire wall between the payee and your account;
it was the check clearing centers. These centers are what the Federal
Reserve Board is trying to remove from the process.
Click to expand...
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.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
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.
Click to expand...
Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a
microscope.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.


It gets doubly troubling when you consider the credit cards etc we all
carry.

Credit cards already have processes in place and protections. Checking
does not, AFAICT.
Click to expand...
Actually there are major weaknesses in the credit card system. Those
processes and protections are not secure.

At 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.
Click to expand...
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.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?
Click to expand...
No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a
million years.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.


they do all the work electronically. As a
result, whether I do on line banking or not, the actual work is done
electronically. If the security in the bank and broken, not using on line
banking will not protect me.

The problem of security has now moved to anyone who receives a check
for payment. All these people have to do is scan the check on their
computer system and their bank will accept the scans as if the
checks were physically deposited. Again, read the fine print
on your bills.
Click to expand...
I read that fine print. There are no such words on the ones I checked.
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.


/BAH
Click to expand...

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In sci.physics, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
wrote
on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:54:49 -0800
<7rm3u212e95ov60a4p0ifautat4cacdu9l@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:08:15 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> Gave us:


Tape-based storage is still used, though nowadays the
"tapes" are a far different structure than the old 1/2"
reels commonly portrayed in old movies, or even the 1/4"
cartridge units some may be familiar with. Today's units
are weird-looking and designed to be used with automated
storage systems ("jukeboxes").


DAT, dude. Get a clue.
Click to expand...
It might be a variant of DAT, but the tapes are larger
than DAT (and have far more capacity).

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
"Woman? What woman?"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
In article <eruumf$vf3$7@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a
million years.

I hear them being disparaged like WallyWorld. Why?
Click to expand...

--
Keith
 
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:
[....]
It only restores things to as they were. It doesn't fix any buggy code in
the process. This is as much as you can ask of a restore. Repair
software is another issue.

In this case, I'm not talking about software bugs. I'm talking
about hardware bugs that caused the problem. Every OS has its
own approach to cover the hardware that is bad. If you do a
physical bit-to-bit copy for the backup, you also copy the bad spots.
Click to expand...
Yes and that lets you recover, as the term still means, the the contents
of the disk at the time the image was made. The ability to repair damage
is not the same question as recovery.


What the heck do you mean by that? Obviously software can tell you if a
file exists or not. All it needs is a list of all the files that do
exist.

It cannot tell you that something is missing if it's not there.
It takes a human to decide that.
Click to expand...
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.



This is not a problem in practice if the copy is smart about dates.

AFAIK, only our system had enough dates stored in each file's
RIB (retrieval information block) that could do this.

On a Linux machine, there is enough information to do it.

No, it's missing some...two, I think. The third isn't necessary.
Click to expand...
What is missing?

[....]
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.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't read the above carefully enough. You can work backwards
through the data and still get the right answer. You 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.





--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:00:45 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Software
increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities.

Bwuahahahahah! How profound!
Click to expand...

The last time you were synergistic was the last time you lit one of
your farts.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:10:08 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Swap out from where? If the CPU architecture has write-through
cache you don't have to move the contents of the page you need
to remove in order to fetch the page that Task A needs from
memory.
Click to expand...

You do if said memory is virtual.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling.
Click to expand...

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.

You are CLUELESS.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. Checks still move between banks, dipshit.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

These centers are what the Federal
Reserve Board is trying to remove from the process.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:46:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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.
Click to expand...
You are an idiot for even thinking it matters.

Reproducing the paper via printing
has removed information.
Click to expand...
No, printed online receipts are viable legal documents.

All pixelation removes information.
Click to expand...
That must be what happened to your brain. Too much LSD in the
sixties, eh?

You are more retarded than the BAHTard is.

You're starting to make those tracks again.

/BAH
Click to expand...
You have never stopped. Every step you take is into a pile of your
own bullshit. I am waiting for you to drown in it.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 13:08:20 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

And the source you found missing has been missing for a year.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot. No IP admin is keeping a year's worth of daily
backups, dipshit.

Found missing?

Bwuahahahahahahah!
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:34:39 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) Gave us:

In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a
million years.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with paypal, and there are no charges. They
keep me from having to blab my personal info all over hell's half
acre.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:39:46 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <eruumf$vf3$7@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a
million years.

I hear them being disparaged like WallyWorld. Why?
Click to expand...
Uninformed idiots likely.
 
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.

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./.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top