Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91705 > unrolled thread

Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-17 23:56 -0400
    Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-18 12:07 +0200
      Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-18 23:57 -0400
        Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-19 21:48 +0200
          Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 10:46 +0100
            Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-20 13:52 +0200
              Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-23 21:19 +0000
                Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 11:57 +0200
                  Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:07 +0000
                    Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 03:38 -0400
                      Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-26 13:57 +0000
                  Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 00:32 -0400
    Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-18 12:08 +0200
      Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-19 00:03 -0400
        Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-19 10:12 +0100
          [OT] Cheques (was: Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-19 23:37 +0100
            Re: [OT] Cheques c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-20 02:08 -0400
              Re: [OT] Cheques Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 08:59 +0100
                Re: [OT] Cheques c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-20 04:43 -0400
              Re: [OT] Cheques Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-20 19:00 +0100
          Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-19 23:07 -0400
            Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 10:50 +0100
              Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-20 17:18 +0000
                Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-21 13:06 +0100
                  Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Chris Abraham <chris@gerriscorp.com> - 2026-09-21 13:15 -0400
                  Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-21 19:00 +0000
                    Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-21 23:38 +0100
                      Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-22 01:59 +0000
                  Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-22 00:58 +0100
                    Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-22 02:10 +0000
                    Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-22 07:04 +0100
                      Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-22 07:23 +0000
                        Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:26 +0100
                        Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-09-22 10:42 +0100
                      Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:22 +0100
            Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-23 21:29 +0000
              Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-23 23:17 -0400
        Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-19 21:50 +0200
          Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-19 23:26 -0400
            Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-20 13:58 +0200
          Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 10:48 +0100
            Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-20 17:14 +0000
              Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-20 23:54 -0400
                Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-21 12:56 +0100
            Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-20 19:56 +0100
              Re: Note : Robo-Vacs now Legal WITNESSES The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-21 13:07 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#91807

On 9/19/26 05:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> On 9/18/26 06:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-18 05:56, c186282 wrote:
>>>>     Hell, STILL show up at my bank to do biz in
>>>>     person several times a year even when I don't
>>>>     really HAVE to ... WANT them to SEE me, know
>>>>     who I am. My "look" and manner is a bit
>>>>     distinctive, they won't forget.
>>> We can't do that anymore without an appointment.
>>
>>    Yer kidding ???!!!
>>
>>    Can't even deposit a check ... or maybe you
>>    are talking about a longer more-detailed
>>    discussion with a banker ?
> 
> I don’t know about Spain but in Portugal my partner was able to go to a
> branch and talk with someone, no appointment needed but a bit of a wait
> for someone to be available.
> 
> Here cheques are rather rare these days, electronic transfers are
> quicker and easier. Even when they they do turn up you can deposit them
> by scanning them with your phone.

   I still pref cheques/paper, esp for larger
   transactions. More secure AND you get a piece
   of stamped paper you can wave in their faces
   in case of problems. That CAN be important,
   ruins all bank BS they might want to throw
   at you. "All the right numbers, right out of
   your very machines. Make It Right !!!".

   "Or I'll take it straight to the lawyers, TV
   News and reg agencies" is the next sentence,
   if necessary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91833

On 20/09/2026 04:07, c186282 wrote:
> I still pref cheques/paper, esp for larger
>    transactions. More secure AND you get a piece
>    of stamped paper you can wave in their faces
>    in case of problems.

I prefer direct transfer esp for larger transactions More secure AND you 
get a piece
of stamped digital paper and a computer  audit trail you can wave in 
their faces in case of problems.

-- 
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, 
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91849

On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 10:50:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 20/09/2026 04:07, c186282 wrote:
>> I still pref cheques/paper, esp for larger
>>    transactions. More secure AND you get a piece of stamped paper you
>>    can wave in their faces in case of problems.
> 
> I prefer direct transfer esp for larger transactions More secure AND you
> get a piece of stamped digital paper and a computer  audit trail you can
> wave in their faces in case of problems.

The last paper check I got was the government covid bonus. I remember it 
since the lobby was closed due to the plague. I had walked to the bank and 
had to stand in the line for the drive in tellers pretending to be a car.

In retrospect what a weird bunch of crap was accepted to 'flatten the 
curve' and damage the economy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91892

On 20/09/2026 18:18, rbowman wrote:
> In retrospect what a weird bunch of crap was accepted to 'flatten the
> curve' and damage the economy.

I think it probably did 'flatten the curve' significantly, at least till 
the first vaccines arrived.

Your life in very low population density Montana does not equate to e.g. 
central London where people were dropping like flies.

Or China, where the real mortality rates have never been revealed.

The UKs final excess deaths over average were high - higher than 
predicted - but were spread out enough that hospital beds were available 
- just.

Perhaps we should have just let people die. Might have made economic 
sense, but it would have been political suicide

-- 
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a 
kind word alone.

Al Capone

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91907

On Mon, 21 Sep 2026, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Perhaps we should have just let people die. Might have made economic sense, 
> but it would have been political suicide
It was a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation in the States.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91910

On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:06:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Your life in very low population density Montana does not equate to e.g.
> central London where people were dropping like flies.

Not quite like the British 'scientist' and fear monger Ferguson predicted. 
His past predictions show he couldn't build a Lego model, let alone a 
medical one. 

Montana had covid deaths, mostly the usual suspects, people with one foot 
in the grave. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91924

On 21/09/2026 20:00, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:06:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> Your life in very low population density Montana does not equate to e.g.
>> central London where people were dropping like flies.
> 
> Not quite like the British 'scientist' and fear monger Ferguson predicted.
> His past predictions show he couldn't build a Lego model, let alone a
> medical one.
> 
Actually the total death toll was a lot worse, but spread out over 
several months

> Montana had covid deaths, mostly the usual suspects, people with one foot
> in the grave.

As far as I know I never caught it. I live in glorious isolation. But 
then I had *all* the vaxes.


-- 
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is 
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91930

On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 23:38:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Actually the total death toll was a lot worse, but spread out over
> several months

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/
2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf?ref=theferret.scot

"In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 
510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the 
potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on 
mortality. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

You would think that 5 years alter 'how many covid deaths were there in 
the UK' would be a simple answer. No so.

That site claims 232,112 for the UK and 1,219,487 for the US. I hear the 
answer now. "but without vaccines, lock downs, social distancing, masks, 
etc it would have been much worse."

Of course, like several of the US politicians, rules were meant for thee, 
not Neil Ferguson.

> As far as I know I never caught it. I live in glorious isolation. But
> then I had *all* the vaxes.

As far as I know I never had it. I had none of the vaccines and that 
includes the yearly flu vaccines. I noticed the supermarket is pushing the 
latest, greatest covid shot. I believe you get a $20 coupon if you roll up 
your sleeve. Someone is making money someplace. After breaking a hip I was 
tested in the ER. When I was later transferred to a rehab facility I was 
again tested and quarantined for a brief period. Negative both times.

My ex also is a vaccine skeptic with cause. As a public librarian she had 
to get the swine flu vaccine in 1976. The relatively mild case of 
Guillain–Barré syndrome didn't kill her. 

She did have covid and survived that despite being sort of a walking 
medical miracle. How she got it is a puzzle. She seldom leaves her 
apartment and wears multiple masks for an expedition to the garbage chute. 
She does have PCAs but during the NYC lockdown they were being tested 
almost daily. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91928

On 2026-09-21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 20/09/2026 18:18, rbowman wrote:
>> In retrospect what a weird bunch of crap was accepted to 'flatten the
>> curve' and damage the economy.
>
> I think it probably did 'flatten the curve' significantly, at least
> till the first vaccines arrived.
>
> Your life in very low population density Montana does not equate to
> e.g. central London where people were dropping like flies.
>
> Or China, where the real mortality rates have never been revealed.
>
> The UKs final excess deaths over average were high - higher than
> predicted - but were spread out enough that hospital beds were
> available - just.
>
> Perhaps we should have just let people die. Might have made economic
> sense, but it would have been political suicide

That doesn't make economic sense at all. Unless for people with
extremist and radical views on what counts as "economy". The health of
those in a society and their ability to participate in the economy is a
key part of the economy.

What makes economic sense is to make sure everybody stays healthy, and
providing incentives to avoid people from appearing at a workplace or on
a commute while infected.

It did flatten curves a lot, only foiled by people who thought they knew
better and made sure it *just* softened the bow instead of actually
having a chance at stopping the virus.

People who say it didn't flatten probably aren't aware of how contagious
SARS-CoV-2 is, especially together with its ability to spread before
symptom onset, or also with no symptoms at all ever (was it one in five
cases that is asymptomatic?).

They might also not be aware of research on long-term consequences of
SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their severity, meaning even if it only
softened the curve a bit, that could already be a significant net
positive for the economy.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91931

On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:58:06 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> People who say it didn't flatten probably aren't aware of how contagious
> SARS-CoV-2 is, especially together with its ability to spread before
> symptom onset, or also with no symptoms at all ever (was it one in five
> cases that is asymptomatic?).

I believe it was much greater than that since most asymptomatic people 
aren't going to be tested. 

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020/04/23/nearly-80-of-inmates-have-
covid-19-at-two-ohio-prisons/

"At Marion Correctional Institution, 2,011 inmates of about 2,500 at the 
facility have tested positive for COVID-19, two of whom have died, as of 
Wednesday. At least 157 workers have been infected, one of whom has died."

"At Pickaway Correctional Institution, 1,555 inmates of roughly 2,000 
inside are infected. Ten inmates have died from COVID-19, as of Tuesday. 
At least 73 employees are infected as well."


Both Marion and Pickaway were crowded well beyond their designed capacity. 
Marion had a substantial number of elderly convicts and Pickaway is 
essentially a nursing home with bars. 

Trying to determine the final total of deaths is difficult but as far as I 
can tell it was under 50. The response of most of the 2011 positive cases 
was "You shittin' me, man?'

Of course the liberals jumped on it. All those prisons will be death 
camps! We have to free all the not-so-violent offenders!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91941

On 22/09/2026 00:58, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-09-21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> On 20/09/2026 18:18, rbowman wrote:
>>> In retrospect what a weird bunch of crap was accepted to 'flatten the
>>> curve' and damage the economy.
>>
>> I think it probably did 'flatten the curve' significantly, at least
>> till the first vaccines arrived.
>>
>> Your life in very low population density Montana does not equate to
>> e.g. central London where people were dropping like flies.
>>
>> Or China, where the real mortality rates have never been revealed.
>>
>> The UKs final excess deaths over average were high - higher than
>> predicted - but were spread out enough that hospital beds were
>> available - just.
>>
>> Perhaps we should have just let people die. Might have made economic
>> sense, but it would have been political suicide
> 
> That doesn't make economic sense at all. Unless for people with
> extremist and radical views on what counts as "economy". The health of
> those in a society and their ability to participate in the economy is a
> key part of the economy.
> 
Old people in care homes are a drain.

> What makes economic sense is to make sure everybody stays healthy, and
> providing incentives to avoid people from appearing at a workplace or on
> a commute while infected.
> 
For the younger ones, yes.
Hence vaccines

> It did flatten curves a lot, only foiled by people who thought they knew
> better and made sure it *just* softened the bow instead of actually
> having a chance at stopping the virus.
> 
> People who say it didn't flatten probably aren't aware of how contagious
> SARS-CoV-2 is, especially together with its ability to spread before
> symptom onset, or also with no symptoms at all ever (was it one in five
> cases that is asymptomatic?).
> 
People who say it didn't flatten don't actually know what it did, or was 
projected to do.
In fact they don't know much at all, but a la Dunning Kruger, they are 
sure good at shouting that they do.

> They might also not be aware of research on long-term consequences of
> SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their severity, meaning even if it only
> softened the curve a bit, that could already be a significant net
> positive for the economy.
> 
Lot of people lost their smell and taste completely.

It was NOT a nice thing to catch.

No one know how many Chinese died. Or if they do, they ain't telling. 
Some people think upwards of 300 million.

Other nations with less good health systems say very few people died of 
Covid. They just buried them undiagnosed.

However as a long term watcher of the political elite, I have never seen 
them that rattled.

It was real, allright...

-- 
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your 
oppressors."
      - George Orwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91948

On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 07:04:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Other nations with less good health systems say very few people died of
> Covid. They just buried them undiagnosed.

In the US there were almost no flu deaths unlike most years. Everything 
was marked up as covid, including death with covid but not from covid. 
Pile u your motorcycle while testing positive for covid and it was a covid 
death. It paid better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91952

On 2026-09-22, rbowman wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 07:04:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Other nations with less good health systems say very few people died of
>> Covid. They just buried them undiagnosed.
>
> In the US there were almost no flu deaths unlike most years.

There was at least one flu wave that didn't happen because of
masking. It's entirely possible that the precautions in place did lead
to that decrease in flu deaths.

> Everything was marked up as covid, including death with covid but not
> from covid.  Pile u your motorcycle while testing positive for covid
> and it was a covid death. It paid better.

That seems to be an extreme case that at first sight would be unlikely,
but it totally depends on who did the accounting and how, I'm not going
to contest that such stuff can happen.

Now when there's a death where the person had another illness or
limitation that aggravated the effects of COVID-19, or if somebody was
in a car crash and then died in a situation where they'd normally be
expected to have much higher chances of survival in hospital care, and
they are infected with SARS-CoV-2... those are indeed deaths
attributable to this virus.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91953

On 9/22/26 08:23, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 07:04:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> Other nations with less good health systems say very few people died of
>> Covid. They just buried them undiagnosed.
> 
> In the US there were almost no flu deaths unlike most years. Everything
> was marked up as covid, including death with covid but not from covid.
> Pile u your motorcycle while testing positive for covid and it was a covid
> death. It paid better.

Yeahbut, there really were very few flu deaths. The isolation and 
distancing measures used to reduce the Covid reproduction rate,  wiped 
out flu transmission in the community. Flu was less transmissible than 
Covid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91951

On 2026-09-22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/09/2026 00:58, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2026-09-21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/09/2026 18:18, rbowman wrote:
>>>> In retrospect what a weird bunch of crap was accepted to 'flatten the
>>>> curve' and damage the economy.
>>>
>>> I think it probably did 'flatten the curve' significantly, at least
>>> till the first vaccines arrived.
>>>
>>> Your life in very low population density Montana does not equate to
>>> e.g. central London where people were dropping like flies.
>>>
>>> Or China, where the real mortality rates have never been revealed.
>>>
>>> The UKs final excess deaths over average were high - higher than
>>> predicted - but were spread out enough that hospital beds were
>>> available - just.

Oh, right, this was also one of the goals of "flattening the
curve". There'd still be plenty of cases, but not with exponential
growth that drained hospital care capacity. (And also ECMO capacity.)

>>>
>>> Perhaps we should have just let people die. Might have made economic
>>> sense, but it would have been political suicide
>>
>> That doesn't make economic sense at all. Unless for people with
>> extremist and radical views on what counts as "economy". The health of
>> those in a society and their ability to participate in the economy is a
>> key part of the economy.
>>
> Old people in care homes are a drain.

I'm not so sure about that, the care homes themselves are providing jobs
to staff, and these people have, at least if the state was functioning
as some are designed today, contributed to social security and health
services, paying for their care too. (Even though many end up having to
pay on their own too.)

>> What makes economic sense is to make sure everybody stays healthy, and
>> providing incentives to avoid people from appearing at a workplace or on
>> a commute while infected.
>>
> For the younger ones, yes.
> Hence vaccines

A case can be made that's everyone, not just younger ones. Anyone
getting sicker will mean increased costs for health services (at least
in developed countries, where the bill isn't entirely or in big part
paid by the patient), and possibly also less availability of close ones
to work.

[...]

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92047

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 9/19/26 05:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>> On 9/18/26 06:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-18 05:56, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>     Hell, STILL show up at my bank to do biz in    person several 
>>>>>  times a year even when I don't    really HAVE to ...  WANT them 
>>>>>  to SEE me, know    who I am.  My "look" and manner is a bit    
>>>>>  distinctive, they won't forget.
>>>> We can't do that anymore without an appointment.
>>>
>>>    Yer kidding ???!!!
>>>
>>>    Can't even deposit a check ...  or maybe you are talking about a 
>>>    longer more-detailed discussion with a banker ?
>> 
>> I don’t know about Spain but in Portugal my partner was able to go 
>> to a branch and talk with someone, no appointment needed but a bit 
>> of a wait for someone to be available.
>> 
>> Here cheques are rather rare these days, electronic transfers are 
>> quicker and easier.  Even when they they do turn up you can deposit 
>> them by scanning them with your phone.
> 
>   I still pref cheques/paper, esp for larger transactions.  More 
>   secure

Hardly...  The unspoken dirty little secret is that all those "magic 
numbers" printed along the bottom of that paper check are all that is 
needed to make a withdrawl from your checking account.  The routing 
number, and the full account number, are printed there for anyone to 
copy.  And checks are "pull" style transactions.  The person "cashing" 
the check pulls money out of your account.

So hardly "more secure".

>   AND you get a piece of stamped paper you can wave in their faces in 
>   case of problems.

Not in the US since 2001 and the "Check21" law enactment.  You now get 
a scanned image of the check (if you are lucky and it gets processed as 
a check deposit) and if not you simply get a line item on your bank 
statement saying "withdrawl" and sometimes naming the instution doing 
the pull.

Granted, Check21 did explicitly make that "scanned image" carry the 
same legal weight as having the canceled check, but it forgot about the 
"convert to electronic debit" workaround where no scanned image returns 
at all and you get nothing more than a "withdrawl" transaction in your 
statement at the end of the month.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92053

On 9/23/26 17:29, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 9/19/26 05:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>> On 9/18/26 06:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-09-18 05:56, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>      Hell, STILL show up at my bank to do biz in    person several
>>>>>>   times a year even when I don't    really HAVE to ...  WANT them
>>>>>>   to SEE me, know    who I am.  My "look" and manner is a bit
>>>>>>   distinctive, they won't forget.
>>>>> We can't do that anymore without an appointment.
>>>>
>>>>     Yer kidding ???!!!
>>>>
>>>>     Can't even deposit a check ...  or maybe you are talking about a
>>>>     longer more-detailed discussion with a banker ?
>>>
>>> I don’t know about Spain but in Portugal my partner was able to go
>>> to a branch and talk with someone, no appointment needed but a bit
>>> of a wait for someone to be available.
>>>
>>> Here cheques are rather rare these days, electronic transfers are
>>> quicker and easier.  Even when they they do turn up you can deposit
>>> them by scanning them with your phone.
>>
>>    I still pref cheques/paper, esp for larger transactions.  More
>>    secure
> 
> Hardly...  The unspoken dirty little secret is that all those "magic
> numbers" printed along the bottom of that paper check are all that is
> needed to make a withdrawl from your checking account.  The routing
> number, and the full account number, are printed there for anyone to
> copy.  And checks are "pull" style transactions.  The person "cashing"
> the check pulls money out of your account.
> 
> So hardly "more secure".
> 
>>    AND you get a piece of stamped paper you can wave in their faces in
>>    case of problems.
> 
> Not in the US since 2001 and the "Check21" law enactment.  You now get
> a scanned image of the check (if you are lucky and it gets processed as
> a check deposit) and if not you simply get a line item on your bank
> statement saying "withdrawl" and sometimes naming the instution doing
> the pull.
> 
> Granted, Check21 did explicitly make that "scanned image" carry the
> same legal weight as having the canceled check, but it forgot about the
> "convert to electronic debit" workaround where no scanned image returns
> at all and you get nothing more than a "withdrawl" transaction in your
> statement at the end of the month.

   Checks/cheques are PHYSICAL instruments though.
   Some human has to HANDLE them - and can thus be
   tracked down in case of evil.

   No, not perfect - nothing is - but for some
   purposes still "safer".

   ALL-electronic ... open to the entire cyberverse
   easily.

   Still gonna say, the days of e-commerce/operation/etc
   are just OVER. With AI help it's now actually impossible
   to positively ID a particular human online. Even
   biometrics can be faked.

   Back to the Sears Catalog ... mail in yer orders
   along with a money-order.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91793

On 2026-09-19 06:03, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/18/26 06:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-18 05:56, c186282 wrote:
>>>    Hell, STILL show up at my bank to do biz in
>>>    person several times a year even when I don't
>>>    really HAVE to ... WANT them to SEE me, know
>>>    who I am. My "look" and manner is a bit
>>>    distinctive, they won't forget.
>>
>> We can't do that anymore without an appointment.
> 
>    Yer kidding ???!!!
> 
>    Can't even deposit a check ... or maybe you
>    are talking about a longer more-detailed
>    discussion with a banker ?

Anything.

Some branches accept people without appointments, but anyone with one 
gets precedence, so you may have to wait long.

>    My banks DO like 'appointments', but sometimes
>    ask the teller and they can get you right in.
>    Had to do that twice over the past month at
>    two different banks. Pick a "boring", mid-week,
>    mid-afternoon, time to come in.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91809

On 9/19/26 15:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-19 06:03, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/18/26 06:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-18 05:56, c186282 wrote:
>>>>    Hell, STILL show up at my bank to do biz in
>>>>    person several times a year even when I don't
>>>>    really HAVE to ... WANT them to SEE me, know
>>>>    who I am. My "look" and manner is a bit
>>>>    distinctive, they won't forget.
>>>
>>> We can't do that anymore without an appointment.
>>
>>    Yer kidding ???!!!
>>
>>    Can't even deposit a check ... or maybe you
>>    are talking about a longer more-detailed
>>    discussion with a banker ?
> 
> Anything.
> 
> Some branches accept people without appointments, but anyone with one 
> gets precedence, so you may have to wait long.

   Wow !!!

   Time for the Press, Pols and LAWYERS.

   In-person banking, esp with paper instruments
   involved, is more secure than e-banking on
   several levels.

   Oh ... seems SOME bank could profit considerably
   by emphasizing the 'friendly in-person banking
   experience'. In USA, Chase-Manhattan has a huge
   ad campaign built around that.

>>    My banks DO like 'appointments', but sometimes
>>    ask the teller and they can get you right in.
>>    Had to do that twice over the past month at
>>    two different banks. Pick a "boring", mid-week,
>>    mid-afternoon, time to come in.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91839

On 2026-09-20 05:26, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/19/26 15:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-19 06:03, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 9/18/26 06:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-18 05:56, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>    Hell, STILL show up at my bank to do biz in
>>>>>    person several times a year even when I don't
>>>>>    really HAVE to ... WANT them to SEE me, know
>>>>>    who I am. My "look" and manner is a bit
>>>>>    distinctive, they won't forget.
>>>>
>>>> We can't do that anymore without an appointment.
>>>
>>>    Yer kidding ???!!!
>>>
>>>    Can't even deposit a check ... or maybe you
>>>    are talking about a longer more-detailed
>>>    discussion with a banker ?
>>
>> Anything.
>>
>> Some branches accept people without appointments, but anyone with one 
>> gets precedence, so you may have to wait long.
> 
>    Wow !!!
> 
>    Time for the Press, Pols and LAWYERS.

It is been in the press. I think there were demonstrations. Limited use.

> 
>    In-person banking, esp with paper instruments
>    involved, is more secure than e-banking on
>    several levels.
> 
>    Oh ... seems SOME bank could profit considerably
>    by emphasizing the 'friendly in-person banking
>    experience'. In USA, Chase-Manhattan has a huge
>    ad campaign built around that.

There is a small bank that says in their propaganda they do this. I 
don't know if it works for them, they are small, thus few offices.

> 
>>>    My banks DO like 'appointments', but sometimes
>>>    ask the teller and they can get you right in.
>>>    Had to do that twice over the past month at
>>>    two different banks. Pick a "boring", mid-week,
>>>    mid-afternoon, time to come in.
> 
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web