You Know You're an Incurable Machead...
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Warren Oates on 7 Apr 2010 08:50 In article <QeWdnUJdt98Z7iHWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Perhaps not. Walk a mile in a man's shoes; he'll have no shoes, and you'll have a mile head start. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Warren Oates on 7 Apr 2010 08:53 In article <timstreater-34AEC4.12492907042010(a)news.individual.net>, Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > I think it means you can only pay it into a bank and it has to be made > out to you. I believe that otherwise, if A gives B a non-crossed cheque, > B can endorse it (by adding his signature) and give it to C, who can > then pay it into his bank acct. Obvious security hole. I've had it explained to me, but I've never quite seen the point, from an individual's point of view. If I pay it into my account, I can then withdraw the money. I guess it's like writing "for deposit only to ..." on the back, so it can't be endorsed over to a 3rd party. The cheques look pretty official though. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Phillip Jones on 7 Apr 2010 11:01 Tim Streater wrote: > In article<060420101641318852%star(a)sky.net>, Davoud<star(a)sky.net> > wrote: > >> I lived outside the U.S. for nearly 30 years and I also have no idea >> what a "crossed cheque" is -- in spite of having heard the term used >> countless times. > > I think it means you can only pay it into a bank and it has to be made > out to you. I believe that otherwise, if A gives B a non-crossed cheque, > B can endorse it (by adding his signature) and give it to C, who can > then pay it into his bank acct. Obvious security hole. > Your last Description of check made out by A to B then given to B and B signs and gives c is what is called in the US a "Third Party Check" it was quite common up until the 70's. Most banks won't accept them now and most businesses won't either. There I so much theft going on you can't trust 3rd party checks even if B & C were standing by each other at the bank. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com
From: Eric on 12 Apr 2010 05:33 In article <timstreater-173174.13012907042010(a)news.individual.net>, Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article <eric-0F01F8.21112807042010(a)news.iinet.net.au>, > Eric <eric(a)ericlindsay.com> wrote: > > > ... however cheques are now pretty much obsolete. > > Erm, no they're not. There's plenty of small organisations, charities > and so on that have no facilities for accepting anything other than cash > or cheque. Probably depends upon which country you are talking about. I know cheques seem common still in the USA, but I did not realise they had not mostly disappeared in the U.K. Since the USA still haven't converted to the metric system, I am not surprised they still use checks. Not to worry, new payment systems using smartphones will probably eliminate them eventually.
From: Matthew Lybanon on 16 Apr 2010 10:15
In article <g.kreme-F63B08.01263816042010(a)news.iad.newshosting.com>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote: > In article <C7E043ED.581DF%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > In article 050420101814202388%fake(a)notreal.net, Ed H. at fake(a)notreal.net > > wrote on 4/5/10 7:14 PM: > > > > > In article <michelle-951B7C.18250004042010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > >> In article <C7DEAFED.5807A%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > > >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > >>>> Yes, I LOVE the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the > > >>>> Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010. > > >>>> They are a great investment in America's future--its people. > > >>>> > > >>>> Davoud > > >>> > > >>> Amen! > > >> > > >> I think that it didn't go far enough; there's neither a single payer nor > > >> a > > >> public option, and we desperately need one of them, preferably single > > >> payer. > > > > > > That's where I come down on the issue. I just think it's the fairest > > > way to provide health care to everyone. How a country treats its people > > > speaks volumes about that country. Opponents lik19 them. But I do support > > > the passage of something as a start. > > > > > > It seems like the intelligent and reasonable thing to do in reforming > > > health care would be to consider how pretty much every other modern > > > democracy provides coverage to all their people for a hell of a lot > > > less money than we spend. > > > > I pay taxes for basic services -- police, fire, public transportation, and > > public health and related services. Healthcare is, by any reasonable > > definition, a pretty basic service. Except to the wingnuts (who all seem to > > live in the US). > > The most strident supporters of Medicare and Social Security are the > Repubes, who did everything in their power to oppose them. In Fact, > Ronnie Reagan made his name by opposing Medicare. > > They really should change the name of the party to the Hypocrites. If you look at the actual votes (you can find the information on the Social Security Administration's website), you may be surprised. Social Security was passed in 1935 with bipartisan support. The Republicans didn't vote for it as strongly as the Democrats, but there were Republican majorities in favor of it in both houses of Congress. Medicare (which was passed during the Johnson Administration, a long time before Reagan became President) was more mixed. Though Barry Goldwater made a special trip to D. C. during the 1964 Presidential campaign to vote against one version of the Medicare bill, when it was finally passed the Republicans were almost evenly split in their voting. In one house (I forget which) they gave it a slight majority. In the other house their vote went against the bill, but by a small margin. I think the present Republican opposition to everything the Democrats want to do is disgraceful. "NO!" is not a policy. But the historical record is what it is. |