Maybe a new rule for all new Brian Cox DVDs should be that they should always include footage of John Prescott dancing to "Things Can Only Get Better".
I do use checks, but only when making payments to student societies, and receiving christmas presents from relatives. I am indeed always constantly surprised that a bit of paper with no authentication still lives in the modern banking system. But then it seems like the rest of the system isn't particularly any more consistent either.
I'd be fairly happy to see cheques go -- provided we made sure the alternatives worked first. That just seems common sense, but apparently not in politics[1].
[1] I have the same feeling about other things. Like, encouraging communities to support each other is a good thing, but throwing people out on the street to starve and hoping someone will take charity on them isn't exactly "encouraging" community...
We need a system that is easier to use even than the current internet banking.
To send someone money electronically I need their account number and sort code - an 8 digit & 6 digit number. It is very easy to make a mistake when typing those sorts of numbers - a mistake you can't easily make when writing a cheque.
Thankfully there are check digits, so most mistakes should be caught.
But yes - Paypal is good for sending money, but sadly isn't run by the banks themselves. I do wish they'd sort out a "transfer by email" system themselves.
Thankfully there are check digits, so most mistakes should be caught.
Really? I've heard many tales of payments gone astray with mistranscriptions. Apparently if the unintended recipient, and/or their bank, isn't very helpful, it can be very, very hard to resolve.
Until I read your comment, I was pretty sure that account numbers and sort codes don't have check digits, and that the lack (and consequent problems for users) were part of the rationale for developing IBANs, which do have check digits. But IBANs are not (yet) widely used for customer electronic transactions within the UK, SFAIK.
To send someone money electronically, I need their email address and MY account information. I sign into my account *first* so it's not possible for me to screw that up, I put in their email address and a message, and I set up an authentication question and an answer.
They receive an email.
The email contains a link, and the link takes them to the Interac site for this transfer. If they use any of the major banks, they answer the question, sign in to their bank, and boom, they have the money deposited. If they don't use a major bank, they get a code that they give to their bank and the bank handles it as an Interac transaction, and this sometimes takes a day or two.
It is possible to do something similar using Paypal, but that means a) both parties having a Paypal account and b)......well using Paypal, complete with their hefty fees.
There *are* fees associated with email money transfer - $1.00 for the sender, unless they have a bank plan that includes free email money transfers (most have at least one a month) and sometimes $1.00 for the receiver for "using Interac with another bank" if the source account and the destination aren't at the same bank - again, asssuming your plan doesn't handle that.
But it's EXTREMELY convenient, and if you get money transfers with your plan and the recipient uses the same bank, that's no charge at all, and at no time do you need to know anything except the email address of the recipient, and at no time do *they* need to know anything except the answer to the question you asked.
Here in the UK transfers are free, but you need the other person's bank account/sort code to put the money into. Which works, but I do always feel nervous that I've transposed a number or something similar.
If the banks had moved to a system more like yours people would probably be very happy.
Here in the UK we are in the unusual position of receiving free personal banking. It's a historical thing, and the banks do keep on muttering about bringing in fees, but essentially all bank accounts and the corresponding cheques, electronic transfers etc. are completely free.
There are fees if you go overdrawn or something, but no fees for everyday banking.
It really depends on the bank and the account, in Canada. Most of them have a nominal fee that is then waived if the amount in the account stays reasonably high, and then charge you per-use for things that the plan doesn't cover. It's like a cellphone contract - texts are pay-per-use unless you have a texting plan, calls are X per minute or Y minutes free per month, data is $stupid per KB but you get a certain amount free per month, etc.
It also needs to work without the phone network. As I discovered in a field in Sufolk... (I found my cheque book hiding in the bottom of my bag though).
I may not write many cheques these days (I used to write them to my flatmates a lot for bills), but I certainly like receiving cheques (!). I flatly refuse to send cash via post, considering the number of times it's gone missing in the past, and I'd hate to see the cheque to disappear as an alternative.
Whereas, conversely, I'm annoyed by receiving cheques because I have to personally take them in to my bank, whereas any other form of money transfer (cash or electronic-bank-wurgling) I can either spend directly or only have to go as far as the nearest random cash machine.
(Rumour has it that there is one UK bank which permits you to deposit cheques by posting them to it, but I have not as yet gone to the effort of finding which one it is and opening an account there...)
That'll be Smile, the Co-Op Bank's online-only bank. They've got very few branches (you can use co-op bank but they're few and far between) so cheque deposit can either be done by post or at the Post Office.
Have had a current account with them for about 5 years and love 'em.
Cater Allen do that - at least for business accounts, dunnoabout personla, but they seem to run the same system. They are part of Santander these days, so maybe they do too?
Well, since school is (in my cynincal opinion) for training up the next generation of minions ready for the offices of the minion-herders then why not keep them in all day every day without big holidays - that's what work is like - it'd be better training for their future.
I bet Johann Hari was really celebrating the News of the World / Daily Mirror story. "Hah! They'll forget about my dodgy interviews now, because it's nothing compared to hacking into a murder victim's voicemail."
Unlucky...
Although I have seen it pointed out that if the vast majority of non-name journalists did what he did, they'd be sacked*, not given a short suspension.
I've been terribly disappointed by the whole Johann Hari thing. When I first encountered him he seemed like a breath of fresh air, but then I started encountering critiques of his facts, and more and more things seemed dodgy, or underresearched. And then when it came to this I just threw my hands in the air entirely.
Because, yes, passing off things as being part of an interview when they weren't is just plain wrong.
I seem to be way less bothered by what he did (morally at least, if not ethically) than most, but I never thought his particularly brand of journalism really fitted with the Independent anyway. He always struck me as more of a Guardian man.
Moderate defence of Hari. I completely agree that sloppy research is bad and he should do better. Some of his writing is knee-jerk socialism and not thought through. But as an Independent reader I like to get Guardian-style opinions. And I really don't get the fuss about the interviews - nobody's suggesting he's lying or misleading the public about what these people said - just when and where they said it. He's a journalist, not an academic - I think it's acceptable.
I'm not sure whether he was deliberately misleading, or just assuming people wouldn't mind or care. I don't think he should have done it, but I have seen claims that seem too extreme to me. For instance, a year or two ago there was a big fuss about "misleading" BBC television interviews, and one of the offences was that when they showed the interviewer nodding in agreement, they were actually filmed nodding after the interview was over! I mean, they nodding at the time as well, but that was a different nod.
They only did it because these were shoestring interviews with only one camera available. Presumably if the BBC hadn't been doing that, then the same people would have told them off for wasting money on two cameras.
well I've signed up to a couple of holidays/workshops this year who have asked for payment by cheque.
I expect that both outfits would be able to take bank transfers (though perhaps their administrators find it easier if the cheques are in the mail) but as I'm travelling and didn't bring my card reader with me I can't make bank transfers (silly me).
I should have said "a" rather than "the". But anyway, it's for paying bills for my korfball club. Not sure what we'd have done over the last four years otherwise!
I've been in my flat just over a year [noticed this yesterday when looking at my lease - had planned to have an anniversary party] and still can't get broadband. I use a tethered iPhone. As such, streaming and downloading anything is impossible.
I routinely buy or borrow DVDs. Just yesterday I got 24 series 5 from Edinburgh library. HUZZAH FOR THE LIBRARY!!! I never, ever, unless it is absolutely unavoidable, watch anything directly from the DVD. I stopped doing so roughy three years ago when I discovered DVD ripping software for my iMac. I do not own a TV and will likely never do so again. That's not because I dislike DVD as a technology but because of the sheer quantity of obtrusive bullshit Media giants insist on shoving in front of the feature I've just paid to watch. If the only way to avoid sitting through two minutes of legal warnings for a product I fucking own is to illegally rip it, I will do so.
I do not care that the legal warnings take less time to wade through than the ripping process.
but oh, the irony: I first looked into DVD ripping technology because A: the warnings made me aware it could be done B: some DVDs I had bought at full price from HMV came with PC-playback disabling measures, meaning I had to rip them to enable playback.
way to stab your customers in the face, guys. Well done. Your policies forced me to commit crimes.
I now rip DVDs out of sheer habit. I don't sell them on, rarely lend them. Because I will watch media on my own terms, not theirs. The freedom to do so is absolutely priceless.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'd be fairly happy to see cheques go -- provided we made sure the alternatives worked first. That just seems common sense, but apparently not in politics[1].
[1] I have the same feeling about other things. Like, encouraging communities to support each other is a good thing, but throwing people out on the street to starve and hoping someone will take charity on them isn't exactly "encouraging" community...
no subject
And if you're doing that then pieces of paper are your best bet.
I suspect that cheques will die out soon enough, of their own accord.
no subject
To send someone money electronically I need their account number and sort code - an 8 digit & 6 digit number. It is very easy to make a mistake when typing those sorts of numbers - a mistake you can't easily make when writing a cheque.
no subject
But yes - Paypal is good for sending money, but sadly isn't run by the banks themselves. I do wish they'd sort out a "transfer by email" system themselves.
no subject
Really? I've heard many tales of payments gone astray with mistranscriptions. Apparently if the unintended recipient, and/or their bank, isn't very helpful, it can be very, very hard to resolve.
Until I read your comment, I was pretty sure that account numbers and sort codes don't have check digits, and that the lack (and consequent problems for users) were part of the rationale for developing IBANs, which do have check digits. But IBANs are not (yet) widely used for customer electronic transactions within the UK, SFAIK.
no subject
This one validated my account, but not one that was a single digit different:
http://www.postcodeanywhere.co.uk/demos/bankvalidator.aspx
no subject
To send someone money electronically, I need their email address and MY account information. I sign into my account *first* so it's not possible for me to screw that up, I put in their email address and a message, and I set up an authentication question and an answer.
They receive an email.
The email contains a link, and the link takes them to the Interac site for this transfer. If they use any of the major banks, they answer the question, sign in to their bank, and boom, they have the money deposited. If they don't use a major bank, they get a code that they give to their bank and the bank handles it as an Interac transaction, and this sometimes takes a day or two.
But: Super-simple, super-easy.
no subject
It is possible to do something similar using Paypal, but that means a) both parties having a Paypal account and b)......well using Paypal, complete with their hefty fees.
no subject
But it's EXTREMELY convenient, and if you get money transfers with your plan and the recipient uses the same bank, that's no charge at all, and at no time do you need to know anything except the email address of the recipient, and at no time do *they* need to know anything except the answer to the question you asked.
no subject
If the banks had moved to a system more like yours people would probably be very happy.
no subject
There are fees if you go overdrawn or something, but no fees for everyday banking.
no subject
no subject
Half the time I sign in I get a banner recommending I move to an Ultimate Personal Reward account.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Rumour has it that there is one UK bank which permits you to deposit cheques by posting them to it, but I have not as yet gone to the effort of finding which one it is and opening an account there...)
no subject
no subject
Have had a current account with them for about 5 years and love 'em.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Unlucky...
Although I have seen it pointed out that if the vast majority of non-name journalists did what he did, they'd be sacked*, not given a short suspension.
* And rightly so in my opinion.
no subject
Because, yes, passing off things as being part of an interview when they weren't is just plain wrong.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sorry, it's just something I find unacceptable in general.
no subject
They only did it because these were shoestring interviews with only one camera available. Presumably if the BBC hadn't been doing that, then the same people would have told them off for wasting money on two cameras.
no subject
Which he's done, so I'm fairly happy.
no subject
I still use the cheque book relatively often, it has its place!
no subject
no subject
I expect that both outfits would be able to take bank transfers (though perhaps their administrators find it easier if the cheques are in the mail) but as I'm travelling and didn't bring my card reader with me I can't make bank transfers (silly me).
no subject
no subject
This was great, because it meant that I had cash if I really needed it, rather than waiting days for them to get it to me.
Nowadays, they could transfer it to me within 2 hours using Faster Payments.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've been in my flat just over a year [noticed this yesterday when looking at my lease - had planned to have an anniversary party] and still can't get broadband. I use a tethered iPhone.
As such, streaming and downloading anything is impossible.
I routinely buy or borrow DVDs. Just yesterday I got 24 series 5 from Edinburgh library. HUZZAH FOR THE LIBRARY!!!
I never, ever, unless it is absolutely unavoidable, watch anything directly from the DVD. I stopped doing so roughy three years ago when I discovered DVD ripping software for my iMac. I do not own a TV and will likely never do so again.
That's not because I dislike DVD as a technology but because of the sheer quantity of obtrusive bullshit Media giants insist on shoving in front of the feature I've just paid to watch. If the only way to avoid sitting through two minutes of legal warnings for a product I fucking own is to illegally rip it, I will do so.
I do not care that the legal warnings take less time to wade through than the ripping process.
but oh, the irony:
I first looked into DVD ripping technology because
A: the warnings made me aware it could be done
B: some DVDs I had bought at full price from HMV came with PC-playback disabling measures, meaning I had to rip them to enable playback.
way to stab your customers in the face, guys. Well done. Your policies forced me to commit crimes.
I now rip DVDs out of sheer habit. I don't sell them on, rarely lend them. Because I will watch media on my own terms, not theirs. The freedom to do so is absolutely priceless.