[continued from previous message]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bizarre-twitter-bug-leads-to-lockouts-of-accounts-mentioning-memphis/

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 2021 19:37:49 -0500
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Computers get Sundays off? (Shapir, RISKS-32.54)

The process could take up to 5 business days -- not including weekends, of >course.

Yup. The logistics of getting all of those checks back to the issuing bank
was quite complex. One time in the 1970s I was on the last bus of the night from Boston going up to visit a friend in New Hampshire. It was a long trip because the bus stopped at every little bank branch along the way where the driver dropped a bag of canceled checks into the night deposit box. If a
check was bad, it then had to take the reverse route back to the depositor's bank.

Nowadays, you can deposit checks directly from your phone, anywhere, any >time. It takes only a few seconds -- and then you still have to wait for
up to 5 business days, until the check is "cleared".

Right, because the process of paying the check is still an electronic
version of the paper one. It only takes a few seconds to send an image of
the check to your bank, but finding out whether there is money to pay the
check can take anywhere from zero if the check is on the same bank, to a
couple of days if it's on a little bank on the other side of the country
that only does one batch transaction with the clearinghouse a day, one day
to receive your check, the next day to send back the bounce, and probably
not until the day after that until your bank reverses it in your
account. Banks usually give you access to funds before that if your account
has been open for a while and you don't have a history of depositing bad checks, but the bank is still taking some risk that the money will turn out
to be there.

As I said in a previous message, they're fixing this via the Fed's FedNow
and private TCH which will do realtime payments and clearing, but it'll be a lot of work to get all those little banks the bus used to visit processing payments online in real time.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:48:31 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_K=c3=b6nig?= <tk@tkoenig.net>
Subject: Re: Farms are going to need different kinds of robots
(Stein, RISKS-32.54)

Risk: 'Precision farming' practices reduce ecosystem genetic diversity, promote pesticide resistance

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

The point of precision farming is to use pesticides, fertilizers etc., only locally, when and where needed, instead of indiscriminately applying them to the whole field.

If successful, this will decrease pesticide resistance, thereby leading to *less* pesticide resistance than conventional methods.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:26:53 +0100
From: Erling Kristiansen <erling.kristiansen@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: Voting Machine Hashcode Testing: Unsurprisingly insecure, and
surprisingly, insecure (RISKS-32.53)

Those optical scanners are pretty accurate when they haven't been hacked
-- even the ES&S DS200 -- and it's impractical to count all the ballots without them.

That's a matter of opinion.

The Dutch government abandoned any kind of voting machines several elections ago. Paper ballots are marked by pencil and votes are counted by hand. This works well and does not lead to excessive delays in publishing the result.

The ballot for the on-going election for Parliament is huge: 37 parties with
a total of 1579 candidates.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 19:53:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Brader <msb@Vex.Net>
Subject: Re: Confusing computer-interface complexity causes train crash
(RISKS-32.53)

I wrote:

| The train's previous code of 5D29 had expired when it got to Leeds,
| and the driver should have changed it to 1D29 to go into the depot,

Should be the other way around, 1D29 is a main-line code.

[Fixed in the RISKS archives. PGN]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:17:59 -0700
From: Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Too much choice is hurting America (Stein on NYTimes item)

It's taken me a few days to settle on a truly appropriate response to Paul Krugman's Jeremiad on "Too Much Choice", but I think I've arrived at an appropriate solution: Since Krugman is uncomfortable with so much choice, here's a few suggestions about how he can reduce his anxiety:

1. Eat only one thing, just like dogs and cats do--same kibble every day.

2. Stay at home all day, every day, because there's way too many places to
see and visit. (Oops, that's our Covid world, but for Paul, we'll just
make it permanent.)

3. Wear the same clothing, every day. (Oops, still Covid!)

4. Read only one book; the same book, day after day. (Oops, that's the realm
of the religious right.)

5. Reduce the number of channels on TV to three. (Heck, it worked for Paul
when Paul was growing up.)

6. Only use his landline phone; there are way too many apps available on
smartphones. (Perhaps the reason people spend so much time looking at
their smartphones is trying out all of those apps?)

7. Only talk to people who already agree with you; there are way too many
ideas in this world already. (Paul has this one nailed!!)

8. Only listen to one piece of music, over and over again. Solieri (in
Amadeus) was right: there's "too many notes".

9. Burn your Krugman/Wells "Economics" textbooks; "Samuelson" was already a
perfectly good Econ101 textbook.

10. I challenge Krugman to restrict himself to the 2000-word vocabulary of
Basic English for his remaining NYTimes columns; those 50 cent words he
uses are only "dog whistles" to the elites, anyway.

Eisenhower may have said it best: "If you want total security, go to
prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only
thing lacking is freedom [i.e., lack of choice]."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:01:56 +0800
From: Richard Stein <rmstein@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: Boeing 777 PW4000 engine problems (RISKS-32.54)

Prof. Ladkin -- Thank you for an exquisitely sagacious rebuttal to my equivalence of jet propulsion maintenance practice to that of auto service repair outcomes.

I acknowledge aviation history establishing air travel as the safest means
of conveyance yet invented. This achievement credits the significant engineering, qualification, and rigorous maintenance practices applied per regulations to ensure reliable transportation.

These spectacular engine failure incidents temporarily weaken public
trust. Identifying a root cause, and establishing a maintenance inspection interval that diminishes "blade throwing" incident recurrence will be
essential to reestablish P&W brand reputation. Trust erosion negatively
impacts both the P&W brand and the air transport industry.

When public trust is weakened by repeat product failures, despite best industrial practices and regulations designed to suppress such incidents, it arouses suspicions about practice reliability and the wisdom behind
enforcement regulations.

The airworthiness directives (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/15/2019-02453/airworthiness-directives-pratt-and-whitney-division-pw-turbofan-engines,
and https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/Emergency%20AD%20Document%20AD-2021-00188-E.pdf)
recommend a review of and revision to jet engine inspection frequency for
metal fatigue using thermal acoustic imaging (TAI).

~128 engine pairs (256 engines) must be inspected @ $2K/engine per "Boeing
777 grounding explained visually: Pratt and Whitney engine failure involved
in two incidents on same day" retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/travel/news/2021/02/22/boeing-777-grounding-engine-failure-pratt-and-whitney-united-flight-328-who-makes-the-engines/4541359001/.
When a jet's not flying, it doesn't generate revenue.

Whether there is a design, qualification, or maintenance issue is immaterial
to the flying public. They should not need a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
or metal fatigue expertise to determine whether or not it is "safe to fly"
by personally reviewing TAI scans and maintenance records.

What is necessary, in my opinion, is for aviation propulsion suppliers to
offer greater disclosure about the qualification and maintenance processes
that facilitate airworthiness certification.

Perhaps the pilots, and fleet maintenance/safety personnel, might want to
know the "chicken gun" qualification (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun), and volcanic dust/particulate material exposure results for each engine strapped into their aircraft?
Should they be required to review and approve engine maintenance results as part of pre-flight checklist?

These tests are likely destructive, and certainly injurious, to the engine's compressors and ignition/thrust structures. Running them per engine
maintenance cycle seems unwise.

How the P&W compressor inspection maintenance interval was established initially is not a matter for me to explore. It is probably fixed based on certain qualification measurements and other factors. There may be a "safety factor" multiplier eyeballed into the maintenance cycle frequency based on history or "best industry practice."

I would be curious to know if commercial jet engine airworthiness
qualification has been delegated under the FAA's self-certification program,
or if the government retains exclusive authority.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:30:31 -0500
From: "Craig S. Cottingham" <craig@cottingham.net>
Subject: Re: T-Mobile to Step Up Ad Targeting of Cellphone Customers
(Goldberg, RISKS-32.54)

How thoughtful, allowing opting out. I wonder how many clicks are required.

Seven, after logging in:

1. My account
2. Profile
3. Privacy and Notifications
4. Advertising & Analytics
5. (Choose the desired subscriber line)
6. Turn "Use my data for analytics and reporting" off
7. Turn "Use my data to make ads more relevant to me" off

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2020 11:11:11 -0800
From: RISKS-request@csl.sri.com
Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)

The ACM RISKS Forum is a MODERATED digest. Its Usenet manifestation is
comp.risks, the feed for which is donated by panix.com as of June 2011.

SUBSCRIPTIONS: The mailman Web interface can be used directly to

subscribe and unsubscribe:
http://mls.csl.sri.com/mailman/listinfo/risks

SUBMISSIONS: to risks@CSL.sri.com with meaningful SUBJECT: line that

includes the string `notsp'. Otherwise your message may not be read.
*** This attention-string has never changed, but might if spammers use it.

SPAM challenge-responses will not be honored. Instead, use an alternative

address from which you never send mail where the address becomes public!

The complete INFO file (submissions, default disclaimers, archive sites,

copyright policy, etc.) is online.
<http://www.CSL.sri.com/risksinfo.html>
*** Contributors are assumed to have read the full info file for guidelines!

OFFICIAL ARCHIVES: http://www.risks.org takes you to Lindsay Marshall's

searchable html archive at newcastle:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/VL.IS --> VoLume, ISsue.
Also, ftp://ftp.sri.com/risks for the current volume/previous directories
or ftp://ftp.sri.com/VL/risks-VL.IS for previous VoLume
If none of those work for you, the most recent issue is always at
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/risko/risks.txt, and index at /risks-32.00
ALTERNATIVE ARCHIVES: http://seclists.org/risks/ (only since mid-2001)
*** NOTE: If a cited URL fails, we do not try to update them. Try
browsing on the keywords in the subject line or cited article leads.
Apologies for what Office365 and SafeLinks may have done to URLs.

Special Offer to Join ACM for readers of the ACM RISKS Forum:

<http://www.acm.org/joinacm1>

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 32.55
************************

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)