Dave Howe wrote:
Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
I'd thought it was so Microsoft could offer an emulation-based migration
path to all the apps that would be broken by Longhorn. MS has since
backed off on the new filesystem proposal that would have been the
biggest source of breakage (if rumors of a
Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
I'd thought it was so Microsoft could offer an emulation-based migration
path to all the apps that would be broken by Longhorn. MS has since
backed off on the new filesystem proposal that would have been the
biggest source of breakage (if rumors of a single-rooted, more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what I love about the Internet -- ask a question
and get silence but make a false claim and you get all the
advice you can possibly eat.
Yup. give wrong advice, and you look like a fool. correct someone
else's wrong advice, and you make them look foolish (unless
Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
I was thinking more of the rumor that Longhorn's filesystem would
start at '/', removing the 'X:' and the concept of separate drives
(like unix has done for decades :) ). When I first saw this
discussed, the consensus was that it would break any application that
expected
--- begin forwarded text
To: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies,
real money)
From: Somebody at a Central Securities Depository :-)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:31:10 +0100
i buy the argument that transaction instantaneity
At 5:27 PM -0400 10/19/04, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
David
Somebody named David, apparently...
;-)
Shoot me now,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
... however
--
On 12 Oct 2004 at 10:52, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the closer we
get to transaction instantaneity, the less counterparty
identity matters at all. That is, the fastest transaction we
can think of is a cryptographically secure glop of bits that
is
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:27:20 -0700, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two problems:
Kinda...
1. Instantaneous and complete transfer is irrevocable, thus
attractive to ten million phishing spammers, virus witers etc.
Instantaneous and complete transfer of cash to a mugger, burglar,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 9:49 AM -0400 10/12/04, John Kelsey wrote:
Hmmm. I guess I don't see why this story supports that argument all
that well.
More like the straw that broke the camel's back, admittedly.
A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the closer we
identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real
money)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:14:08 -0400
Okay. So I'm coming to the conclusion that book-entry settlement, with its
absolute requirement for both identity and float between transactions, is
becoming more and more *un*-safe to use as internet
Okay. So I'm coming to the conclusion that book-entry settlement, with its
absolute requirement for both identity and float between transactions, is
becoming more and more *un*-safe to use as internet ubiquity increases.
Anyone want to pick up the other side of this and tell me why not?
No
11 matches
Mail list logo
