It's been said before, but if you look at Exchange and Outlook as just being an email server and client, you're missing the point. Of course, most people who run Exchange and Outlook never use the other stuff, but that's not the fault of the programs.
If all you need are an email server and client, then that's sort of the point.
And if all you need are an email server and a client, then you're better off getting tools that do one job and do it well.
Luckily I haven't been exposed to Bloats apart from horror stories.
Be careful what you ask for - if the source code to all Microsoft products were suddenly opened tomorrow, I'd have to think that Linux might suddenly lose some support.
And I for one would be cheering. So F&*(ing what if Linux loses some support, it's not like Linux is the be-all and end-all of operating systems. If the source code for Windows was opened tomorrow, Linux could use some of the good bits of Windows, and more to the point, anyone with enough programming knowledge could start adding the good bits of Linux to Windows.
I'm all for a blend of the good bits of Linux and windows. I'm a Sysadmin/Coder, and happy to hack on things, but when I build a box that has to reliably deal with things like bad power conditions, indifferent hardware, etc - I don't like Windows for various reasons, but I also don't like Linux, because there's too much complexity and _required_ system administration to keep it working. Building the Linux 'appliance' is tricky because it's not designed to be 'set and forget'.
Did I have a point? Oh yes - bring on the open Windows source code - and pity the poor suckers who have to try and grok that many million lines of code to start fixing things..
I'm curious. As someone who's been programming against the win32 API for a long time now, what precisely in your opinion is not properly documented by any of the SDK's?
My experience (and I haven't done that much Win32 programming - mainly OLE in Excel from Activestate Perl's Win32::OLE to automate report creation) is that every single function/method is documented in excruciatingly patronising detail (the Save method saves to a file) - has a list of 10 or so different flags that you can give it (specified by nothing but a name and or an obvious description, but not a list of the all the possible options)...
... then the fucking example they give says Object.Save("example.xls")
Very useful Microsoft - the documentation is simplistic and patronising, and the example is simplistic, obvious, and not at all comprohensive.
So yes, I have a problem with Microsoft's documentation. There's a lot of it, and it's frequently at the monkey level. Low learning curve, low max-out point. Not targetted, and definitely not comprohensive.
( on the other hand a lot of open source projects don't have even that - but at least you don't tend to spend as many hours wading throug patronising crap - you spend the hours wading through google hits to people asking the same question on mailing lists... if you're lucky you even find people answering those questions on mailing lists! )
You act like none of us have ever done this before. Of course, it was just single-duplex 10 mbps, and the building was mostly open to the public.
You will surely accept that there is quite a physical risk to the person involved though, regardless of public-or-otherwise status of the building. Sure it can be done, but it isn't in quite the same ballpark as the wireless example.
It's also very _very_ difficult for a competent security designer to deal with the issues over 802.11 (someone can still get at your low-level packets, issue DOS attacks, forge DNS query/reponse packets, etc - even if you are creating secured tunnels for actual data).
A secure perimiter and physically secured hardware is possible with cable (without really fancy high-tech equipment to pick up the RF radiation from all that Cat5 anyway) - it's not really possible with radio.
Blah, who am I trying to convince anyway. I'm just happy I don't have radio within my 'secure'[tm] perimiter.
802.11 is about as secure as your wired LAN or any other unencrypted traffic flying out of your computer. Security is an end-to-end argument and it does not behoove the protocol to make any security guarantees (neither ethernet nor 802.11 do this).
Sorry, but that is a crock of total bullshit. I agree with your second sentence (end-to-end, certainly), but what sort of a comparison is wired LAN to 802.11.
The office I work in currently has a slightly less secured LAN than it used to, because we're running 32 sets of CAT5 between level 2 and level 5 of a building we don't own. Anyone who can access them, and work single _one_ of them is actually carrying network traffic (as opposed to phone or just sitting black) could probably stick a 100Mb switch in between and I wouldn't notice (it would have to talk 100 Full Duplex or I would notice the lights).
To do this, they would need to gain access to the building (either during business hours, with a stolen swipe card (or a legit one if the work in the building)) - then access the roofs of either level 2 or 5, or maybe the comms riser - without being asked any questions, or by evading questions.
Once they had access, they would have to either install a scanning device there, and come back every so often to collect data, create a link out (possibly using 802.11 even) - or sneakiest of all, send packets back out through our network and hope I didn't notice the traffic (quite possible really, I don't monitor everything the workstations send that closely, and spoofing a hardware address on packets would probably work quite nicely. Win98 won't be logging unexpected reply packets, and if they spoof something from upstairs, the switch downstairs will send the replies up that wire).
Oh, or they could crack a box I already have and install a scanner on that. Would involve doing the crack of course.
.... what was my point - oh yeah, with 802.11, they sit in a car in the 6 story car park about 30 metres straight out the window and listen to every packet - no chance of getting caught (well, shit all chance anyway), no complex equipment required (say $1000 for a second hand laptop and $500 for the card - the car costs more than that too I guess, if you want to count that.. or their clothes for that matter).
Electronic attacks against a LAN are a lot more complex and expensive, so please stop spreading such FUD. 802.11 breaks the physical barriers in a way that any but the most stupidly laid LANS (wires on the outside of the building anyone) don't.
As long as the buyer doesn't expect to own the code, there's really no difference from their point of view. They have to trust the contractor, or else make the terms of his contract such that he cannot supply copies of this program to their direct competitors. IANAL, but I don't believe terms like that would preclude licensing the program under the GPL.
No, but the first person the contractor did supply the program to could immediately turn around and give/sell it to the competitors. You can't pass additional strings along.
I have a crazy idea. Since Samba is probably used by many Microsoft-oriented shops too, why can't the Samba Team embrace and extend the CIFS protocol? This would be a two pronged attack. One of the prongs would be the Samba Team which will extend the CIFS protocol and publish it under the GPL. The other prong will be a group that will write win32 applications that will take advantage of the Samba extensions to the CIFS and distribute the app for free. Since the OSS community numbers in the thousands at least, this would be very straightforward to accomplish.
This would work so long as there was a compelling advantage (i.e. - lots faster file transfers). There's no point adding extensions just for the hell of it - they have to do something that users want done. Personally I'd like to see SSL support built into SMB, and adding that to the Samba implementation with a seamless Win32 client would be enough for me to switch all the Windows boxen I use to the Samba implementation.
How is Nintendo losing money from people pirating a game the NO LONGER SELL????
Well, like - duh. It's because those sad pathetic losers would be playing games regardless, and if they can get the old games, that means that for the hours that they're playing the old game, they're not playing that game from Nintendo THAT THEY WOULD BE PLAYING IF THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE!!!!.
As you can no doubt see, that's theft of game-player time from Nintendo - the same way that listening to non-RIAA artists is stealing valuable music listening time from the RIAA, and should be made illegal.
No one at work is going to be setting up elaborate forwarding systems for man-in-the-middle attacks.
You run into the script-kiddie fallacy here. Nobody is going to go to all the effort to find out what services I'm running on my machine, then look up all the possible exploits on the internet and patiently try each one. Of course not, they're going to download a script kiddie tool that scans entire netblocks and systematically tries all known exploits.
Similarly, companies are going to install 'snoop plugin for NT-firewall/proxy', and automatically snoop. I doubt they wrote the firewall modules they're currently using to snoop IM's, and installing a 'SSL proxy' doesn't take any more effort, just one unscrupulous software developer to produce and sell the plugin.
Of course nobody will bother unless there's enough people using the protocol you're using to sell that plugin - so find an unknown protocol and you'll be (relatively) safe.
And it is perfectly lawful for a layperson to represent himself in defense of a lawsuit or criminal charges, or file a lawsuit on his own behalf against some other party.
A person who represents themselves in a court of law has a fool for a client - or so I have heard somewhere. Similarly a doctor who treats themselves or their immediate family - you need detatchment to dispassionately view the facts and work out the best way to handle the case.
This means that there are certain rights which are never to be infringed upon by governments, and that all people have these rights merely by drawing breath.
Do you know how many repressed tech support memories just jumped back to life in my frontal lobe? I know who they will target first too...the weak. You know the ones. They focus on the main screen too much and when an error occurs, they click on every god damned button to make the error go away so that they can get back to the main screen! Do you know how much shit I have to deal with because of that fucking ape (and his cronies too)?!?!
Hey - it keeps tech-support people in a job while they bum through Uni, and gives us a fresh crop of appropriately bitter sysadmins afterwards. I wouldn't complain too loudly!
While he doesn't mention Debian at all, it's clear that the article is strong on packaging. I actually prefer Debian's approach, having a list of sources from which you obtain software, and providing search tools for that list.
The other important thing is that programs often don't work very nicely with each other, or need certain versions to work. This is where having a central system for controlling dependencies is rather important. I don't actually think Debian goes far enough at the moment (not really handling Recommends with apt), but it's getting there.
The other important part of packaging is handling upgrades automatically. Packages have security problems, they have new features added. If you have to work out (a couple of months later) which --gnu-long-opts-enable --with-features --without-bugs you had to put on the./configure command line to get a build that did what you wanted, you're likely to put off upgrading.
Or, if you really want to highlight it, just hover over it.
I have real problems with this, because I frequently accidently knock my mouse (or something else does). That's why I've turned off Sun-style 'hilight follows the pointer' behaviour. I used to like it, but I found too often that my typing would redirect to the wrong window.
This is particularly bad when working as root on multiple machines at once. Sysadmin setups should be as error-safe as is possible and still usable.
Pity that their first reply was to sue, before even considering the case. It's a pity that ORBZ let itself be SLAPPed out of existance first.
Unfortunately, there really isn't any way to stop this sort of behaviour apart from instuting very harsh penalties for threatening to sue and not following through with the threat or reaching an adequate mediated position with all affected parties.
A$#*holes I say - even if they have recanted now, it's too late to fix the damage. For example the mail-filters plugin for Squirrelmail has had orbz removed - even if it comes back up, people running that code won't be using it.
Perhaps a search on "scientology" should return a message like: Due to threatened lawsuits via the DMCA and to deal with all parties in an even-handed manner Google has removed all searches with the keyword "scientology".
You are kidding right?
Suppose that Microsoft didn't want anyone to be able to search anything related to Linux - they could threaten to sue under the DMCA, and woohoo - no more Linux links.
* A has deposited $5 in a tangible form (i.e. cash) * B has taken out a loan for $50.
Note that this $50 may NOT be taken out as cash, because the bank doesn't have that cash. If B tries to withdraw $50 cash, then the bank must obtain that full $50 from elsewhere. This only works if the bank has a float of cash sufficient to allow them to give B that $50 and still have 10% of their total exposure as tangible assets. This means they'll have to be slightly above 10% to allow for withdrawls.
Now, presuming that B has transferred the $50 within the same bank - to C. That means that the bank isn't receiving any more tangible assets.
On the other hand, if C was to insert another $50 in tangible assets, then the bank would be able to loan an additional $500 - raising their total exposure to $550, for which they have $55 tangible backing.
----
I think the problem you've having visualising this may be that we're making up very unrealistic examples. This doesn't work unless these little transactions are backed by a large pool of money, hence allowing that $50 to be withdrawn from this bank without breaking the 10% barrier. The smaller the bank, the larger the percentage of their exposure they need to keep in tangible assets.
Yes - this does mean that if everyone tried to withdraw their money at once from all the banks in the world, that money wouldn't exist and the system would fail. The statisical probability of this is considered low enought that governments are willing to back these banks against the posibility. Because they are backed by the governments, people trust the banks.
It does make sense, really. Do what the flock does and you'll be safe.
Because they don't have the capacity to loan $550, they only have the capacity to loan $50, because that's all they have on hand in tangible assets. The $5 that A loaned the bank is a tangible asset, stored as gold or a federally backed piece of paper ("legal tender"). The $50 that C deposits in the bank is a number in the system, but it isn't a tangible asset.
The bank must have 10% of their total exposure on hand in tangible assets. Futher, the bank's exposure is already the $50 it has loaned to B, so C's deposit of $50 does not mean that the bank may make any new loans until it either collects from B or has futher tangible assets deposited.
Slashdot Mirror
All it took on my Gentoo boxes was a simple:
emerge -u openssh
Whereas on my Debian boxes at work it was a simple:
% apt-get update
% apt-get upgrade
and I didn't have to wait while it re-built.
It's been said before, but if you look at Exchange and Outlook as just being an email server and client, you're missing the point. Of course, most people who run Exchange and Outlook never use the other stuff, but that's not the fault of the programs.
If all you need are an email server and client, then that's sort of the point.
And if all you need are an email server and a client, then you're better off getting tools that do one job and do it well.
Luckily I haven't been exposed to Bloats apart from horror stories.
Be careful what you ask for - if the source code to all Microsoft products were suddenly opened tomorrow, I'd have to think that Linux might suddenly lose some support.
And I for one would be cheering. So F&*(ing what if Linux loses some support, it's not like Linux is the be-all and end-all of operating systems. If the source code for Windows was opened tomorrow, Linux could use some of the good bits of Windows, and more to the point, anyone with enough programming knowledge could start adding the good bits of Linux to Windows.
I'm all for a blend of the good bits of Linux and windows. I'm a Sysadmin/Coder, and happy to hack on things, but when I build a box that has to reliably deal with things like bad power conditions, indifferent hardware, etc - I don't like Windows for various reasons, but I also don't like Linux, because there's too much complexity and _required_ system administration to keep it working. Building the Linux 'appliance' is tricky because it's not designed to be 'set and forget'.
Did I have a point? Oh yes - bring on the open Windows source code - and pity the poor suckers who have to try and grok that many million lines of code to start fixing things..
I'm curious. As someone who's been programming against the win32 API for a long time now, what precisely in your opinion is not properly documented by any of the SDK's?
My experience (and I haven't done that much Win32 programming - mainly OLE in Excel from Activestate Perl's Win32::OLE to automate report creation) is that every single function/method is documented in excruciatingly patronising detail (the Save method saves to a file) - has a list of 10 or so different flags that you can give it (specified by nothing but a name and or an obvious description, but not a list of the all the possible options)...
... then the fucking example they give says Object.Save("example.xls")
Very useful Microsoft - the documentation is simplistic and patronising, and the example is simplistic, obvious, and not at all comprohensive.
So yes, I have a problem with Microsoft's documentation. There's a lot of it, and it's frequently at the monkey level. Low learning curve, low max-out point. Not targetted, and definitely not comprohensive.
( on the other hand a lot of open source projects don't have even that - but at least you don't tend to spend as many hours wading throug patronising crap - you spend the hours wading through google hits to people asking the same question on mailing lists... if you're lucky you even find people answering those questions on mailing lists! )
You act like none of us have ever done this before. Of course, it was just single-duplex 10 mbps, and the building was mostly open to the public.
You will surely accept that there is quite a physical risk to the person involved though, regardless of public-or-otherwise status of the building. Sure it can be done, but it isn't in quite the same ballpark as the wireless example.
It's also very _very_ difficult for a competent security designer to deal with the issues over 802.11 (someone can still get at your low-level packets, issue DOS attacks, forge DNS query/reponse packets, etc - even if you are creating secured tunnels for actual data).
A secure perimiter and physically secured hardware is possible with cable (without really fancy high-tech equipment to pick up the RF radiation from all that Cat5 anyway) - it's not really possible with radio.
Blah, who am I trying to convince anyway. I'm just happy I don't have radio within my 'secure'[tm] perimiter.
802.11 is about as secure as your wired LAN or any other unencrypted traffic flying out of your computer. Security is an end-to-end argument and it does not behoove the protocol to make any security guarantees (neither ethernet nor 802.11 do this).
Sorry, but that is a crock of total bullshit. I agree with your second sentence (end-to-end, certainly), but what sort of a comparison is wired LAN to 802.11.
The office I work in currently has a slightly less secured LAN than it used to, because we're running 32 sets of CAT5 between level 2 and level 5 of a building we don't own. Anyone who can access them, and work single _one_ of them is actually carrying network traffic (as opposed to phone or just sitting black) could probably stick a 100Mb switch in between and I wouldn't notice (it would have to talk 100 Full Duplex or I would notice the lights).
To do this, they would need to gain access to the building (either during business hours, with a stolen swipe card (or a legit one if the work in the building)) - then access the roofs of either level 2 or 5, or maybe the comms riser - without being asked any questions, or by evading questions.
Once they had access, they would have to either install a scanning device there, and come back every so often to collect data, create a link out (possibly using 802.11 even) - or sneakiest of all, send packets back out through our network and hope I didn't notice the traffic (quite possible really, I don't monitor everything the workstations send that closely, and spoofing a hardware address on packets would probably work quite nicely. Win98 won't be logging unexpected reply packets, and if they spoof something from upstairs, the switch downstairs will send the replies up that wire).
Oh, or they could crack a box I already have and install a scanner on that. Would involve doing the crack of course.
.... what was my point - oh yeah, with 802.11, they sit in a car in the 6 story car park about 30 metres straight out the window and listen to every packet - no chance of getting caught (well, shit all chance anyway), no complex equipment required (say $1000 for a second hand laptop and $500 for the card - the car costs more than that too I guess, if you want to count that.. or their clothes for that matter).
Electronic attacks against a LAN are a lot more complex and expensive, so please stop spreading such FUD. 802.11 breaks the physical barriers in a way that any but the most stupidly laid LANS (wires on the outside of the building anyone) don't.
Personally, I think it's like giving cocaine to kids -- the first hit's free, but the next ones will cost you.
From the Netizen quotes file (mainly because it's from me):
"At least if you're pushing crack or speed you know you're pushing something that works"
-- Bron, about pushing Windows 2000 on schoolkids
As long as the buyer doesn't expect to own the code, there's really no difference from their point of view. They have to trust the contractor, or else make the terms of his contract such that he cannot supply copies of this program to their direct competitors. IANAL, but I don't believe terms like that would preclude licensing the program under the GPL.
No, but the first person the contractor did supply the program to could immediately turn around and give/sell it to the competitors. You can't pass additional strings along.
You might the Unix utilities "style" and "diction."
You might the Unix utilities yourself, Yoda.
Strong in this one the force is.
I have a crazy idea. Since Samba is probably used by many Microsoft-oriented shops too, why can't the Samba Team embrace and extend the CIFS protocol? This would be a two pronged attack. One of the prongs would be the Samba Team which will extend the CIFS protocol and publish it under the GPL. The other prong will be a group that will write win32 applications that will take advantage of the Samba extensions to the CIFS and distribute the app for free. Since the OSS community numbers in the thousands at least, this would be very straightforward to accomplish.
This would work so long as there was a compelling advantage (i.e. - lots faster file transfers). There's no point adding extensions just for the hell of it - they have to do something that users want done. Personally I'd like to see SSL support built into SMB, and adding that to the Samba implementation with a seamless Win32 client would be enough for me to switch all the Windows boxen I use to the Samba implementation.
Nah - fingers make crap dildos, not big enough. They'd want to cut off the whole arm.
How is Nintendo losing money from people pirating a game the NO LONGER SELL????
Well, like - duh. It's because those sad pathetic losers would be playing games regardless, and if they can get the old games, that means that for the hours that they're playing the old game, they're not playing that game from Nintendo THAT THEY WOULD BE PLAYING IF THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE!!!!.
As you can no doubt see, that's theft of game-player time from Nintendo - the same way that listening to non-RIAA artists is stealing valuable music listening time from the RIAA, and should be made illegal.
No one at work is going to be setting up elaborate forwarding systems for man-in-the-middle attacks.
You run into the script-kiddie fallacy here. Nobody is going to go to all the effort to find out what services I'm running on my machine, then look up all the possible exploits on the internet and patiently try each one. Of course not, they're going to download a script kiddie tool that scans entire netblocks and systematically tries all known exploits.
Similarly, companies are going to install 'snoop plugin for NT-firewall/proxy', and automatically snoop. I doubt they wrote the firewall modules they're currently using to snoop IM's, and installing a 'SSL proxy' doesn't take any more effort, just one unscrupulous software developer to produce and sell the plugin.
Of course nobody will bother unless there's enough people using the protocol you're using to sell that plugin - so find an unknown protocol and you'll be (relatively) safe.
Melbourne, Australia - and you can email it to
brong@h-r-s.com
And it is perfectly lawful for a layperson to represent himself in defense of a lawsuit or criminal charges, or file a lawsuit on his own behalf against some other party.
A person who represents themselves in a court of law has a fool for a client - or so I have heard somewhere. Similarly a doctor who treats themselves or their immediate family - you need detatchment to dispassionately view the facts and work out the best way to handle the case.
IANAL (thankfully)
This means that there are certain rights which are never to be infringed upon by governments, and that all people have these rights merely by drawing breath.
Ahh - this we can deal with.
Do you know how many repressed tech support memories just jumped back to life in my frontal lobe? I know who they will target first too...the weak. You know the ones. They focus on the main screen too much and when an error occurs, they click on every god damned button to make the error go away so that they can get back to the main screen! Do you know how much shit I have to deal with because of that fucking ape (and his cronies too)?!?!
Hey - it keeps tech-support people in a job while they bum through Uni, and gives us a fresh crop of appropriately bitter sysadmins afterwards. I wouldn't complain too loudly!
While he doesn't mention Debian at all, it's clear that the article is strong on packaging. I actually prefer Debian's approach, having a list of sources from which you obtain software, and providing search tools for that list.
./configure command line to get a build that did what you wanted, you're likely to put off upgrading.
/etc/apt/sources.lists
;)
;)
The other important thing is that programs often don't work very nicely with each other, or need certain versions to work. This is where having a central system for controlling dependencies is rather important. I don't actually think Debian goes far enough at the moment (not really handling Recommends with apt), but it's getting there.
The other important part of packaging is handling upgrades automatically. Packages have security problems, they have new features added. If you have to work out (a couple of months later) which --gnu-long-opts-enable --with-features --without-bugs you had to put on the
# echo "http://debian.brong.net/personal personal main" >>
# apt-get update
# apt-get install bron-config
Whee
(note - that URL doesn't exist yet, but it's my plan for the future).
(note:2 - no ssh private keys in that
I love how the web has made every Kook with a website an "Editor"
As opposed to the printing press?
(totally off topic - but all the web has done has made it even easier to be a kook)
Bron (Scientific Advisor: Slashdot.org, On The Web, In Crayon)
Or, if you really want to highlight it, just hover over it.
I have real problems with this, because I frequently accidently knock my mouse (or something else does). That's why I've turned off Sun-style 'hilight follows the pointer' behaviour. I used to like it, but I found too often that my typing would redirect to the wrong window.
This is particularly bad when working as root on multiple machines at once. Sysadmin setups should be as error-safe as is possible and still usable.
Pity that their first reply was to sue, before even considering the case. It's a pity that ORBZ let itself be SLAPPed out of existance first.
Unfortunately, there really isn't any way to stop this sort of behaviour apart from instuting very harsh penalties for threatening to sue and not following through with the threat or reaching an adequate mediated position with all affected parties.
A$#*holes I say - even if they have recanted now, it's too late to fix the damage. For example the mail-filters plugin for Squirrelmail has had orbz removed - even if it comes back up, people running that code won't be using it.
Perhaps a search on "scientology" should return a message like: Due to threatened lawsuits via the DMCA and to deal with all parties in an even-handed manner Google has removed all searches with the keyword "scientology".
You are kidding right?
Suppose that Microsoft didn't want anyone to be able to search anything related to Linux - they could threaten to sue under the DMCA, and woohoo - no more Linux links.
Clever, yes?
Let's just go back to the original situtation,
* A has deposited $5 in a tangible form (i.e. cash)
* B has taken out a loan for $50.
Note that this $50 may NOT be taken out as cash, because the bank doesn't have that cash. If B tries to withdraw $50 cash, then the bank must obtain that full $50 from elsewhere. This only works if the bank has a float of cash sufficient to allow them to give B that $50 and still have 10% of their total exposure as tangible assets. This means they'll have to be slightly above 10% to allow for withdrawls.
Now, presuming that B has transferred the $50 within the same bank - to C. That means that the bank isn't receiving any more tangible assets.
On the other hand, if C was to insert another $50 in tangible assets, then the bank would be able to loan an additional $500 - raising their total exposure to $550, for which they have $55 tangible backing.
----
I think the problem you've having visualising this may be that we're making up very unrealistic examples. This doesn't work unless these little transactions are backed by a large pool of money, hence allowing that $50 to be withdrawn from this bank without breaking the 10% barrier. The smaller the bank, the larger the percentage of their exposure they need to keep in tangible assets.
Yes - this does mean that if everyone tried to withdraw their money at once from all the banks in the world, that money wouldn't exist and the system would fail. The statisical probability of this is considered low enought that governments are willing to back these banks against the posibility. Because they are backed by the governments, people trust the banks.
It does make sense, really. Do what the flock does and you'll be safe.
Because they don't have the capacity to loan $550,
they only have the capacity to loan $50, because
that's all they have on hand in tangible assets. The $5 that A loaned the bank is a tangible asset, stored as gold or a federally backed piece of paper ("legal tender"). The $50 that C deposits in the bank is a number in the system, but it isn't a tangible asset.
The bank must have 10% of their total exposure on hand in tangible assets. Futher, the bank's exposure is already the $50 it has loaned to B, so C's deposit of $50 does not mean that the bank may make any new loans until it either collects from B or has futher tangible assets deposited.
Nice theory though.
you can grow your own food, build your own house if you have wood or stone on your property, etc
Well hello Mr property owning snob. What about all the poor disenfranchised people who don't have their own property. Pity about them really.
And I was enjoying your post up until this point, but that's very much an assumption - that doesn't apply to a lot of people...