Jihad needs scientists

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:30:34 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

Phil Carmody wrote:

"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:

Phil Carmody wrote:


kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:


ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

snip blather


i.e. you didn't understand.


So his point wasn't worth getting.

Every time you touch a file it is written to.


a) We weren't talking when you touch a file, assuming you know
what 'touch' is, which isn't likely given your general ignorance.
b) You're wrong, for one of the reasons explained clearly in the
'blather' that you didn't understand.


Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error.


See 'b' above.

Your blustering arrogance has no foundation. Too bad, you
do the verbiage so well.

Face it. You are wrong, dumbass.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 11:36:49 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

You are in error. Last access is an important datum.

You are in error. Updating "last access" data in a file's header is
NOT a dangerous or volatile access of the file, and does NOT pose any
danger to it.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 11:40:49 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

This is the bug in the process, IMO. The process depends on the human,
who is scanning the physical paper, to destroy it.

You're a fucking retard.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 11:43:43 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Lots of pecker tracks in those two lines. You're going to need
to eat more protein.

You're a fucking retard. That senility has you acting like an
adolescent twit again.

So does mine but they are pressuring people to accept pictures
instead.

Idiot. My statements include picture of checks. IF I want the
check, however, it IS available.

The checks I send to my mother no longer come back
because her bank only does this stuff electronically now.
One presumes that her bank destorys the paper but I'm no longer
going to bet my checking account contents on that assumption.

You're an idiot. Of all the places fraud takes root, the least
likely is at the place where such scans occur.

Your senility has you in a sad, recursive loop. You don't use real
computers, you don't get on the web because you are afraid of virii,
you don't bank because you are afraid a bank employee is gonna screw
you.

The fact is all you likely need is a good lay (or two), but I can't
imagine someone not getting nauseous at the thought of the act, or
subsequently at the sight of you.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:12:19 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

makes check fraud kinda obvious
And the bank offers fraud protection for misuse of the card so I'm
covered that way

Which you have to pay for.

You're full of shit... again... as usual.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.

Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something!

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:33:54 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we
were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always
done.

No, it is not.

Bullshit. It used to be a flag the user could turn off. Now ALL
files get a checksum verification at ALL times. With large files the
data is kept sequentially, as in a "running checksum" figure is kept
as the file write occurs, and the final value has to match the
checksum for the file.

This is even how file download managers work to allow resuming of a
transfer to be properly addenumed <sp> to the file. That way I can
download entire DVD images of Knoppix at 2 MB pre second. Stop, go
get lunch, come back and turn my computer back on and resume the file
WRITE where it left off! HAHAHAHAhahaha. 4.6GB reception success!

Verifying requires a second "save" to occur.

Wrong. You are living in the dark ages. After a block of data is
written, it gets read, and the checksum for that block is kept, and
the next block gets written, then read, then the checksum gets
updated. The checksum is stored in RAM, and at the end of the file
write, the checksum must match the checksum provided in the file
header. No dual save is required. You are decades behind the rest of
the world.

Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified
in one night.

Nowadays, a power supply for a government computer has a single rail
that is meant fore critical saves... "core dumps" to take place at the
moment power is taken from the system. This "core dump" takes place
within a 150ms window!

Nowadays you have disks that have capacities
in the giga-thingies.

Yes, and there was a time that a power outage during a write cycle
not only meant that that particular file was hosed, but the retracting
head arm could "spray" write energy all over your platter as it pulls
back out screwing the whole drive up. This is no longer a problem.

So many things you have claimed as problematic are not such any
more.

That is your main problem.

 

[Tony Lance]

Big Bertha Thing Extract
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/readme.html
6K Web Page
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews including sci.astro.amateur

Extract from Readme file to explain the Outlandish Particle Periodic Table.

From Pastures Software Package Documentation.
(Particle Structure Results Program in Fortran 77.)
Sub-atomic Mesons, Baryons and Leptons Classification System.
(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997
Distribute complete and free of charge to comply.


Big Bertha Thing Deaf

One day God woke up, deaf-as-a-post. He could not hear anyone
speaking. Nothing, dinada, zilch, not even one line e-mail.
Fortunately it only lasted 6 days and He managed to keep himself busy.

A PPT takes 6 hours people time, 18 hours computer time. It just
seems longer.

Tony Lance
judemarie@bigberthathing.co.uk


From: Tony Lance <judemarie@bigberthathing.co.uk>
Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Big Bertha Thing warlord
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:13:15 +0000


Sunday, November 16, 1997 04:39:18 PM
Message
From: Mansour Abou Jaoudy
Subject: Re: Fwd: Big Bertha Thing 5
To: Tony Lance
Hiya Tony

There are some questions about what do you mean by the postings of "big bertha thing"
thread.
people are confused (me too). it will be nice if you could explain,
before they put you in fire ;-))

take care
Mansour

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 13:22:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

The case that I brought up was database; with databases, the data
is always a moving target that can never be snap-shot with accuracy.

You're an idiot. That would only be true for a LIVE database. If
you are doing file maintenance, the database would be a static file,
and that server would be offline.

ANY file can be snapshot accurately. A database table that is
fragmented over a volume gets written in backup as a single block of
data, and nothing is lost. Some lost space is gained in fact.
Database engines allow table optimization which essentially defrags a
single file.

 

[MassiveProng]

On 02 Mar 2007 15:32:24 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> Gave us:

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Each time you copy, the file has been in a writable mode.

Explain the above in the context or WORM media.

This will be funny...

Phil

Also, any optical media, even the re-writable versions are written
the same way WORM was. multi-session capable writers write a single
huge mastered datagram for each session. Still a single string of
pits.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:13:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Modern disks don't show their "bad spots" to the system. They're
replaced from a cache of hidden sectors as they fail. This doesn't
mean it isn't possible to lose data when one fails though.

Exactly. And it is done ON the hard drive electronics 100%

independent of the OS or machine the drive is powered by.

We called it "maps out bad sectors". They get "mapped out" of the
available areas on a drive, and your "cached" area gets a piece
"mapped in". The drive "map" tells the drive hardware where all the
available write areas on the drive are located.

This is aside from the fact that drive platters these days rarely
develop "blemishes" . They are easily an order of magnitude better
than the magnetic media platters of the past.

With perpendicular write modes coming online, we are going to see
even more data integrity leaps. Soon, once a file is written, there
would be no way to lose it unintentionally.

They'll have raid like arrays right on the drive.

It would be interesting to hear what she would say about RAID arrays
She has already been proven to be out of her depth in the modern
computing realm..

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:17:14 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

With Check21 the original CHECK NO LONGER EXISTS, you MORON!

And I told you, dipshit. MY Bank KEEPS and retains the checks, and
I was NEVER talking about "check 21", even if your retarded ass was.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:19:45 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <es92g1$8ss_002@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a031@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f4cm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn3dv@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
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.


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.

If that were true, then one could still write a check on a napkin.

Can't do it. Not because it would not be a legal document, it
would, but because banks will not accept them, and their policy is all
that matters or you can take you banking elsewhere.

So a check is more than a mere "carrier for those".

A spent check is worthless mainly due to all the endorsement stamps
found on it. There is no way a bank would resubmit an already
remitted check.

You guys are both wrong.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.


Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something!

Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet
skills.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You really need to get back on your meds, Dimbulb.

Fuck you, Lithium head.

You're going to
have a stroke.

You first, bonehead. Did you posting that retarded crap strain your
two neurons?

You said you will get canceled checks returned to you, which is *not*
true.

Yes, I get back the checks I write to my landlord. If I request
them, I'll get the actual checks back.

Any that aren't routed through entirely local bank branches
(and many of these) will *not* be returned to you because the
physical check is destroyed in the electronic routing process.

Landlord makes deposit. Check goes to my bank, I get check back.

Pretty simple shit.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Put down the booze, and learn to read again.

No booze in months, Dimbulb.

Hahahaha... I find it funny that it WAS indeed on your list!

You and Rich are the NG drunks.

Wrong again, dipshit. I do not drink at all.

When I drink a beer or a glass of wine with my evening dinner, it is
for beverage and health purposes, not to get drunk, like you and
apparently the RichTard does.

Never was a boozer, you loser. SO you are yet again WRONG.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You certainly implied it was the general case that you get canceled
checks, Dimbulb.

I do get canceled checks. One every month in each statement.

That is plural, dumbass.

 

[krw]

In article <6kpgu2ttpqrpknj3ociqikch36l2jt4s4v@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:17:14 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


With Check21 the original CHECK NO LONGER EXISTS, you MORON!


And I told you, dipshit. MY Bank KEEPS and retains the checks,

No, your bank doesn't, Dimbulb! They retain an electronic image of
the check *ONLY*. They'll never SEE most physical checks cleared by
a foreign bank (where "foreign" == "not us").

and I was NEVER talking about "check 21", even if your retarded ass was.

Check21 is here whether you know anything about it or not, Dimmie.

--
Keith

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Put down the booze, and learn to read again.

No booze in months, Dimbulb.


Hahahaha... I find it funny that it WAS indeed on your list!


You and Rich are the NG drunks.


Wrong again, dipshit. I do not drink at all.

When I drink a beer or a glass of wine with my evening dinner, it is
for beverage and health purposes, not to get drunk, like you and
apparently the RichTard does.

Never was a boozer, you loser. SO you are yet again WRONG.

So you think naturally intoxicated is good.

 

[krw]

In article <nmpgu2ppnfmejgeanl8f7ce19sfrr4joan@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:19:45 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <es92g1$8ss_002@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a031@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f4cm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn3dv@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
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.


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.


If that were true, then one could still write a check on a napkin.

You can. You don't even need the paper. Just do an EFTS with the
account info. No one will stop you. You might have some 'splainin
to do later, though Dimmie.

Can't do it. Not because it would not be a legal document, it
would, but because banks will not accept them, and their policy is all
that matters or you can take you banking elsewhere.

That's the whole point, dimmie! It doesn't *have* to be a legal
document. That's the whole pint, dimmie!

So a check is more than a mere "carrier for those".

Nope. Wrong again, oh massively dim one!

A spent check is worthless mainly due to all the endorsement stamps
found on it. There is no way a bank would resubmit an already
remitted check.

The bank will double pay a check turned into an EFTS or cleared via
Check21. Duplicate checks will likely get cleared too. They're not
read by humans and there is no such thing as security. The US
banking system is built on trust.

You guys are both wrong.

As usual, the Dimbulb is clueless.

--
Keith