It would probably depend on whether or not the software was specifically configured for U.S.A.
Plus, depending on the skill and competency of possible foreign agents with our method of numerical representation, the software used could have intermediate "glitches."
Where have I heard that word before?
If the software developers were even slightly competent, they wouldn't be sending the data as ASCII, it would be in binary format making the decimal vs comma usage irrelevant.
I'm saying once the data is decrypted on the server and "processed", that's where the "magic" steal could have happened!
Then encrypted again and sent to another server, etc.
Interesting idea. You'd get a runtime error on numbers greater than 999,999. E.g. 123.456.789.
It would probably depend on whether or not the software was specifically configured for U.S.A.
Plus, depending on the skill and competency of possible foreign agents with our method of numerical representation, the software used could have intermediate "glitches."
Where have I heard that word before?
If the software developers were even slightly competent, they wouldn't be sending the data as ASCII, it would be in binary format making the decimal vs comma usage irrelevant.
I'm saying once the data is decrypted on the server and "processed", that's where the "magic" steal could have happened! Then encrypted again and sent to another server, etc.
Whât ïs thìś ãšśkēê ???
American Standard Code for Information Interchange.