You do realise replacing the signature strip is trivial? When I used to work in a bank branch, we always had to run a thumb nail over the strip to check if it had been replaced/covered with a new one. Some fradusters also just wrote over the top of fading or small signatures with something big and brash to hide what was there. Signature ID sucks, basically.

Fingerprint readers also look for a pulse. Chopping off a finger won't work.

http://www.cixonline.com/

And why does he have such a silly name? Oh yes, FUCK BETA.

I'm guessing the person who designed it has never used it.

Exactly. It reminds me of another once very successful system that was owned by people that used it every day. Then it was bought by some others as an investment opportunity and everything they did annoyed, nay enraged the userbase. For years the users screamed 'You don't get it!' and the owners said 'We do! You'll love it!'. Well, it was sucky, and the users didn't love it. And they all left by and large. Given that they were so tight knit that they used to arrange BBQs around the country, attend each others weddings, chip in cash when someone needed help etc, it was a very, very loyal userbase but the total failure of the suits to 'get it' meant it became a shadow of it's former glory. It's still there but it's changed hands many times and is now basically tumbleweed on the internet.

until we're confident that the new site is ready

For very small values of ready, no doubt.

but anyway the Crosswire/Xiphos projects are standing by for your bible needs

I bet they're not given I mostly burn them to keep the house warm.

Fuck off. Also, I've added you to the list of companies whose products I'll never buy again.

and autism from vaccines

You do realise that was completely debunked years ago?

Antioxidents are an interesting idea. A whole industry has built up around their healthy properties. However, it transpired that the only evidence of their efficacy was adding various compounds to cells in a petri dish. There was no evidence any of this actually worked when swallowed and ingested. Some further research was done recently and could find no evidence that taking these products actually had any affect at all on reducing your chances of getting cancer. For citation purposes, check http://www.dcscience.net/?p=90 and Ben Goldacre's work.

OS9, not OS/2, surely? (And note, Mac heads, this is the original OS9 from 79/80, not Apple OS9 from much later)

The C64 was $595 when launched. The 1541 was $300. No idea on monitor. By the time you bought it the Jack Tramiel price war was in full swing.

Yes and no. As a product, it sold way, way more than they expected. It was a sort of pet internal project no-one really thought would fly. However, when it did...

Later on, when it came to the PS2 range, I remember going to an IBM presentation. They were trying to get the same software running on everything from the PS2 PCs to mainframe with unified architecture for programming, GUI etc. Trouble was, the actual machines were too far removed from what was by then a booming and standardised architecture so outside of corporates who bought into the dream, not many people went for it and it died out.

I know it wasn't a seller but that's a bit harsh.

Which is why I said 'interesting', from a legal standpoint, not profitable.

To a lawyer, interesting and profitable are the same thing.