"Jules" wrote in message
news
....

Combine a post office with a few local shops, and it's a good
reason for anyone (regardless of age) to get off their backside.

What makes you think we ARE on our backsides?

Of course, all of this is the situation *now* - give it 20 years and the
old-timers will have grown up in the computer age; they're unlikely to
remember that there ever *was* a different way of doing things.

You are obviously young.

I've been working with computers for twenty years. How long have you had?

Mary

On 2008-06-19 18:47:29 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485a0f9d@qaanaaq, at 08:49:49 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
I'm pretty sure it was a child, and that was the only way they could
easily transmit the funds. I expect "bank of dad" was getting fed up
with being an intermediary.

The name wasn't Bunter was it?

A good solution for this issue is a prepay card. To the seller it
works like a debit card.

Prepay cards have high commission rates, and also mean (in practice on
eBay) that you have to get a PayPal account. Lots of bother for a kid
who just wants to buy one or two things.

So shop in other places than Ebay.

People seem to think it's a be all and end all. It isn't.
It's an unregulated E Commerce organisation. That's all.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:03:34 on Thu, 19
Jun 2008, Theo Markettos remarked:
Bob Eager wrote:
That isn't the problem. One only has to *offer* PayPal; one can accept
other methods of payment. The problem is that eBay brainwash buyers into
thinking PayPal is safer, so most buyers will use it.

PayPal: payment received within minutes

Apparently not always the case. There are many reports of so-called
"instant transfers" being converted into something called an e-cheque,
which takes about 10 days to 'clear'.

That's NEVER been my experience. It's always been instant.

But there are exceptions in every field.

Cheque: 2 days for the post, plus up to 6 working days for it to clear
BACS transfer: 3 working days to clear

Never taken three days for that either. Almost instant - not quite as fast
as Paypal but not much slower.

Mary

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:34:47 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Jules" wrote in message
news ...

Combine a post office with a few local shops, and it's a good
reason for anyone (regardless of age) to get off their backside.

What makes you think we ARE on our backsides?

Of course, all of this is the situation *now* - give it 20 years and the
old-timers will have grown up in the computer age; they're unlikely to
remember that there ever *was* a different way of doing things.

You are obviously young.

I've been working with computers for twenty years. How long have you had?

Not far off you. Jules must have at least 15 years, since I taught him.
In my case it's a lot longer than that...39 years or so.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Owain" wrote in message
net...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Assuming people still use cheques...
I do, that is I receive them willingly :-)

Do you also take Luncheon Vouchers Mary? ;-)

Haven't been offered them. When asked if we take cheques we say that we take
anything: cash, cheques, wives, camels, promises - I'll add LVs to the list

JFG Cynthia Payne

--
geoff

In uk.d-i-y Mary Fisher wrote:

That's one area where there don't seem to be charges here in the US -
far as I'm aware, cheques (or checks and card payments can be any
amount 0.

Business account holders have to pay when they deposit a cheque or cheques
in their account, for each cheque.

Not if you shop around. I have an Abbey business account which is
free for up to quite a reasonable number of transactions per month and
even pays interest on the balance in the account.

--
Chris Green

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:26:30 +0100, Owain
wrote:

We could have given everyone in the country free broadband internet
years ago.

We?

--
Frank Erskine

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:53:15 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Owain" wrote in message
net...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Assuming people still use cheques...
I do, that is I receive them willingly :-)

Do you also take Luncheon Vouchers Mary? ;-)

Haven't been offered them. When asked if we take cheques we say that we take
anything: cash, cheques, wives, camels, promises - I'll add LVs to the list

JFG Cynthia Payne

But CP didn't actually take LVs in payment...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:34:47 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Jules" wrote in message
news ...

Combine a post office with a few local shops, and it's a good
reason for anyone (regardless of age) to get off their backside.

What makes you think we ARE on our backsides?

Of course, all of this is the situation *now* - give it 20 years and
the
old-timers will have grown up in the computer age; they're unlikely to
remember that there ever *was* a different way of doing things.

You are obviously young.

I've been working with computers for twenty years. How long have you
had?
Not far off you. Jules must have at least 15 years, since I taught him.
In my case it's a lot longer than that...39 years or so.

Pfff! Pull up a bag of dekatrons, old bean, and sit down... I have a few
tales to tell you.

(Hmmm... the page I was looking for seems to have died of old age. Google
has a cached version...

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:S...mpton+computer

or

http://tinyurl.com/5eoroe

Although the images seem to have vanished. sigh

Okay, let's upload http://www.thejohnsons.co.uk/WITCH-Computer.gif

--
-blj-

In message 485a3c5d@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-19 11:18:34 +0100, Richard Torrens said:

In article 48592359@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Cheques are a deprecated means of payment that should have been dropped
20 years ago. There's certainly no reason for cheques to be used at
all in the 21st century. Last year I wrote one cheque. This year
I am aiming not to write any. In general anybody expecting payment
by cheque does not get repeat business from me.
Cheques are still useful for mail payment.
Many people do not have computers and still rely on sending cheques
through the post.

That is the wrong solution.

The correct one would be to enable them to have computer access of some
kind.

I'll take your total confidence in the above to mean that you'll sit for
hours on end showing my mother how to use hers.

I've given up trying


--
geoff

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:10:24 UTC, "Brian L Johnson"
wrote:

Pfff! Pull up a bag of dekatrons, old bean, and sit down... I have a few
tales to tell you.

I think we've had this discussion before! Merely pointing out that Jules
had quite a lot of years of computing, and adding mine on as a
postscript...

And yes, I've played with dekatrons...I was in electronics long before
computing...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:10:24 UTC, "Brian L Johnson"
wrote:

Pfff! Pull up a bag of dekatrons, old bean, and sit down... I have a
few tales to tell you.

I think we've had this discussion before! Merely pointing out that Jules
had quite a lot of years of computing, and adding mine on as a
postscript...

And yes, I've played with dekatrons...I was in electronics long before
computing...

Electronics? Pfff! We used to rub mammoth skins back and forth across
our hair to generate static which we used to... etc etc.

(Alas, my Google-fu doesn't pull up much relevant on MAC -- the Mechanical
Analogue Computer -- which was my first computer )

--
-blj-

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:53:15 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Owain" wrote in message
net...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Assuming people still use cheques...
I do, that is I receive them willingly :-)

Do you also take Luncheon Vouchers Mary? ;-)

Haven't been offered them. When asked if we take cheques we say that we take
anything: cash, cheques, wives, camels, promises - I'll add LVs to the list

JFG Cynthia Payne

But CP didn't actually take LVs in payment...

Look - don't **** on a perfectly good urban myth

It was a question which obviously went way over her head


--
geoff

In message op.uc0k3mzh0v1caa@thedell, Brian L Johnson
writes
Although the images seem to have vanished. sigh

Okay, let's upload http://www.thejohnsons.co.uk/WITCH-Computer.gif

Time for a caption competition


--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
In message 485a3c5d@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-19 11:18:34 +0100, Richard Torrens
said:

In article 48592359@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Cheques are a deprecated means of payment that should have been dropped
20 years ago. There's certainly no reason for cheques to be used at
all in the 21st century. Last year I wrote one cheque. This year
I am aiming not to write any. In general anybody expecting payment
by cheque does not get repeat business from me.
Cheques are still useful for mail payment.
Many people do not have computers and still rely on sending cheques
through the post.

That is the wrong solution.

The correct one would be to enable them to have computer access of
some
kind.

I'll take your total confidence in the above to mean that you'll sit
for hours on end showing my mother how to use hers.

I've given up trying

Hmmm

Andy's gone uncharacteristically quiet for some reason ...

--
geoff

geoff wrote:

In message op.uc0k3mzh0v1caa@thedell, Brian L Johnson

Okay, let's upload http://www.thejohnsons.co.uk/WITCH-Computer.gif

Time for a caption competition

"Well I'm sorry, Dr Möbius, but it *does* say 'Start Here'."

--
-blj-

On 2008-06-19 22:14:39 +0100, geoff said:

In message 485a3c5d@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-19 11:18:34 +0100, Richard Torrens said:

In article 48592359@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Cheques are a deprecated means of payment that should have been dropped
20 years ago. There's certainly no reason for cheques to be used at
all in the 21st century. Last year I wrote one cheque. This year
I am aiming not to write any. In general anybody expecting payment
by cheque does not get repeat business from me.
Cheques are still useful for mail payment.
Many people do not have computers and still rely on sending cheques
through the post.

That is the wrong solution.

The correct one would be to enable them to have computer access of some
kind.

I'll take your total confidence in the above to mean that you'll sit
for hours on end showing my mother how to use hers.

I've given up trying

Have you tried a Mac?

OS/X has about 4-5 icons in the dock after loading and most common
things can be done from these. It's very stable and simple to use if
you don't want sophistication. It doesn't break or deteriorate
like Windows either.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:31:58 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:53:15 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Owain" wrote in message
net...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Assuming people still use cheques...
I do, that is I receive them willingly :-)

Do you also take Luncheon Vouchers Mary? ;-)

Haven't been offered them. When asked if we take cheques we say that we take
anything: cash, cheques, wives, camels, promises - I'll add LVs to the list

JFG Cynthia Payne

But CP didn't actually take LVs in payment...

Look - don't **** on a perfectly good urban myth

LOL!

It was a question which obviously went way over her head

True....very true.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:36:52 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message op.uc0k3mzh0v1caa@thedell, Brian L Johnson
writes
Although the images seem to have vanished. sigh

Okay, let's upload http://www.thejohnsons.co.uk/WITCH-Computer.gif

Time for a caption competition

"It says it wants 2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps"



(cross-posting removed)


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ http://www.pherber.com/

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:45:26 +0100, "Brian L Johnson"
wrote:

geoff wrote:

In message op.uc0k3mzh0v1caa@thedell, Brian L Johnson

Okay, let's upload http://www.thejohnsons.co.uk/WITCH-Computer.gif

Time for a caption competition

"Well I'm sorry, Dr Möbius, but it *does* say 'Start Here'."


"Good Lord, you're right! It IS a thong."

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
Apparently not always the case. There are many reports of so-called
"instant transfers" being converted into something called an e-cheque,
which takes about 10 days to 'clear'.

That's NEVER been my experience. It's always been instant.

It's only been an e-cheque when the card on my account had expired without
me noticing. I always pay Paypal by credit card, though.

Incidentally, I'm always amused by Paypal when you go to pay by credit card.
There's a screen like:
"You really want to pay from your bank account, don't you, because:
* You're protected from fraud
* Send and receive payments from the same account - easier!
* Err, umm, can't think of any other reasons"

None of which are incentives for me at all, they're incentives for Paypal. A
rather bigger incentive is that I don't have to settle up the amount for at
least a month, and if it goes wrong I can have an argument with my card
company about liability. And I'd rather the money went to my bank/VISA not
Paypal.

BACS transfer: 3 working days to clear

Never taken three days for that either. Almost instant - not quite as fast
as Paypal but not much slower.

If it's to the same bank, or same group (eg between Halifax and Bank of
Scotland) then it's instant-ish, but between disparate banks BACS is three
working days. A few banks pay interest from day one of the process, but
it's no good in checking the transaction won't bounce.

Theo

Brian Morrison wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:59 pm, Brian Morrison wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
Even if they had refunded
money they would have done so via PayPal who would have deducted
"administration charges" from the refund.
There are no "admistration charges" on refunds within 28 (IIRC) days.
Except that to then transfer the money out of your Paypal account you
get docked an admin charge, so unless you want to pay for something else
immediately you will lose out.
If you transfer less than £50, but that's a general condition and has
nothing to do with refunds. It's also easy to work around.

It is? If you use eBay very little and don't sell much it's quite an
annoyance. How do you suggest working around that?

Not tried this, but can you not transfer an additional £50 in there from
your bank, and then transfer £50+Paypal balance back out to your bank.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Hall wrote:

Cheques are a deprecated means of payment that should have been dropped
20 years ago. There's certainly no reason for cheques to be used at all

Probably true...

in the 21st century. Last year I wrote one cheque. This year I am
aiming not to write any. In general anybody expecting payment by
cheque does not get repeat business from me.

Still they have the occasional use - quite handy for paying the milkman
I find....

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:06:43 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-06-19 14:56:56 +0100, Jules
said:
I know that when I'm old (assuming I get that far) the last thing I'm
going to want to be doing is trying to cope with some radical way of doing
things - particularly when the way I've done things in the past has always
served me so well.
Then you will age mentally very quickly indeed.

But be unlikely to care :-)

Seriously though, I'll always have plenty to keep my brain busy - but I'd
see a complete change in the way of doing things, with no evident benefit
to me, as an utter waste of time.

Knowing that I likely only had a few years left, and (assuming no computer
knowledge), why would I want to learn what computer to buy, how to use the
'net, how to use the OS, how to actually do financial things online - all
to do something that had always been quick and easy in the past? There are
much more rewarding things to be investing time, money and brainpower on.

Like how to carry on watching TV once they turn off the analogue
transmissions?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

geoff wrote:
In message op.uc0k3mzh0v1caa@thedell, Brian L Johnson
writes
Although the images seem to have vanished. sigh

Okay, let's upload http://www.thejohnsons.co.uk/WITCH-Computer.gif

Time for a caption competition

I told you not to stick twenty quid on that three legged donkey in the
3:30 at Sandown Park.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:39:19 +0000, Huge wrote:
It's very much 'small town' around here,

Where's "here"? I was looking in Thorndale, PA, and all the banks there were
useless. OTOH, the BoA in Exton, PA, even the clerk knew what an IBAN was.

Bemidji, MN. I think there's about 11,000 people in the town itself - so
bigger than a village, but not large (small enough that we usually bump
into someone we know when out and about). Population density for the
entire county is something like ten per square mile.

I wouldn't put our bank here* as any more useless than any other US
bank - but US banks don't exactly fill me with confidence (it was worse
that the missus used to be in the industry, so I got to hear about all
the screw-ups that went on behind the scenes - perhaps UK banks are no
better, though)

* not sure if it's representative of the US as a whole, but we came up
with over 20 banks in town the other day, which seems like rather a lot
for the population size!

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:34:47 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Jules" wrote in message
news
...

Combine a post office with a few local shops, and it's a good
reason for anyone (regardless of age) to get off their backside.

What makes you think we ARE on our backsides?

Most people don't type standing up? :P

Seriously though, Andy seemed to be implying that going to the post office
was a waste of time (when compared to doing "post officey things" online)
- I only see it that way if I'm going to the post office to do a single
chore. If I combine it with several jobs, and get to catch up with a few
people that I know in the process, then it's not a waste of time at all,
and much more rewarding than sitting in front of a screen to do things.

Of course, all of this is the situation *now* - give it 20 years and the
old-timers will have grown up in the computer age; they're unlikely to
remember that there ever *was* a different way of doing things.

You are obviously young.

I've been working with computers for twenty years. How long have you had?

About the same, I think - maybe a couple of years shy of that in a
commercial environment (but a few years more in a 'for fun' capacity). I
started out doing hardware repairs, then did software for a bit, then got
involved with what's now the National Museum of Computing a few years ago.
I suppose I've seen computing - old and new - from several different
angles; enough to know that it's not automatically the magic answer to
every (perceived or imagined) problem :-)

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:26:02 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Not far off you. Jules must have at least 15 years, since I taught him.

Indeed you did - I remember you did operating systems, and there was
at least one other, but I recall what now.

cheers

J.

On 2008-06-20 02:09:03 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Cheques are a deprecated means of payment that should have been dropped
20 years ago. There's certainly no reason for cheques to be used at all

Probably true...

in the 21st century. Last year I wrote one cheque. This year I am
aiming not to write any. In general anybody expecting payment by
cheque does not get repeat business from me.

Still they have the occasional use - quite handy for paying the milkman
I find....

I thought that they were normally paid in kind ;-)

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:21:36 UTC, Jules
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:26:02 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Not far off you. Jules must have at least 15 years, since I taught him.

Indeed you did - I remember you did operating systems, and there was
at least one other, but I recall what now.

Probably compiler writing...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2008-06-20 03:19:32 +0100, Jules
said:

Seriously though, Andy seemed to be implying that going to the post office
was a waste of time (when compared to doing "post officey things" online)
- I only see it that way if I'm going to the post office to do a single
chore.

There are only four things that I have done at the post office in the
last year:

- Send a package of information by Special Delivery to my accountant.
This happens every couple of months. Considering the time taken
waiting to be served, it would be cheaper to send it with a courier who
will collect.

- Renewed vehicle excise duty for the car. That took 45 minutes of
waiting in line while people who didn't have the right or complete set
of information argued with the counter staff or chatted about the
weather. Last time, it was renewed on line - a time saving of an hour
overall. I won't be using the Post Office for that again

- Collection of an imported parcel and payment of VAT. That involved
a wait in the rain of 30 mins and surly service. Royal Mail is still
out of touch with customer service. I now mandate that professional
private courier services are used and don't place business with anybody
using Royal Mail

- Return of goods purchased on line. I now favour suppliers who a
have a return arrangement where the goods are collected.



If I combine it with several jobs, and get to catch up with a few
people that I know in the process, then it's not a waste of time at all,
and much more rewarding than sitting in front of a screen to do things.


Post Offices suffer from the same disease as building society branches
- behaving and being seen as some kind of social service.
Attempting to make business transactions in these places is appallingly
slow because people don't come with the right information, waste time
nattering with counter staff and so on.

If post offices want to offer a social service and meeting place, then
fine, let them lay on coffee and biscuits at a table in the corner so
that people can discuss their operations and knitting patterns there
and not at the counter.

In an urban setting it is relatively unlikely that people going into a
post office will meet someone that they know unless it's at a
pre-arranged time. In a rural setting that's less true, but in either
case there are plenty of places to meet socially for a chat with
willing participants rather than getting in the way of people who
simply want to make what should be quick and efficient simple business
transactions.

Clearly the Post Office has lost all touch with reality since it
launched its "People's Post Office" marketing. What kind of sh*t is
that? It demonstrates that they have lost the plot completely.

On 2008-06-20 07:28:14 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:21:36 UTC, Jules
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:26:02 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Not far off you. Jules must have at least 15 years, since I taught him.

Indeed you did - I remember you did operating systems, and there was
at least one other, but I recall what now.

Probably compiler writing...

That's a long lost trade these days "-)

wrote in message
.. .
In uk.d-i-y Mary Fisher wrote:

That's one area where there don't seem to be charges here in the US -
far as I'm aware, cheques (or checks and card payments can be any
amount 0.

Business account holders have to pay when they deposit a cheque or
cheques
in their account, for each cheque.

Not if you shop around. I have an Abbey business account which is
free for up to quite a reasonable number of transactions per month and
even pays interest on the balance in the account.

The exception proves the rule :-)

Mary
wondering what 'reasonable' means

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:34:47 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Jules" wrote in message
news
...

Combine a post office with a few local shops, and it's a good
reason for anyone (regardless of age) to get off their backside.

What makes you think we ARE on our backsides?

Most people don't type standing up? :P

Seriously though, Andy seemed to be implying that going to the post office
was a waste of time (when compared to doing "post officey things" online)
- I only see it that way if I'm going to the post office to do a single
chore. If I combine it with several jobs, and get to catch up with a few
people that I know in the process, then it's not a waste of time at all,
and much more rewarding than sitting in front of a screen to do things.

I agree - or watching tv.

But I don't spend much time sitting at the desk, more at the table for
meals. I don't regard that as spending time on my backside although
literally it is.


Of course, all of this is the situation *now* - give it 20 years and the
old-timers will have grown up in the computer age; they're unlikely to
remember that there ever *was* a different way of doing things.

You are obviously young.

I've been working with computers for twenty years. How long have you had?

About the same, I think - maybe a couple of years shy of that in a
commercial environment (but a few years more in a 'for fun' capacity). I
started out doing hardware repairs, then did software for a bit, then got
involved with what's now the National Museum of Computing a few years ago.
I suppose I've seen computing - old and new - from several different
angles; enough to know that it's not automatically the magic answer to
every (perceived or imagined) problem :-)

Does anyone think that?


cheers

Jules

"Owain" wrote in message
et...
Frank Erskine wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
Being able to shop and do financial transactions on line is a huge
benefit to the elderly and disabled for example.
Not altogether true. It can be great therapy for elderly people (often
living alone), to get out and about, meet real people and get lots of
fresh air.

Which can be considerably facilitated if elderly people can look up local
events and bus timetables online to plan their outings.

And do their shopping online to give them time for outings as well.

I've 'eard that most people enjoy shopping. It IS an outing.

Bleurch.

Mary

"Theo Markettos" wrote in message
...


BACS transfer: 3 working days to clear

Never taken three days for that either. Almost instant - not quite as
fast
as Paypal but not much slower.

If it's to the same bank, or same group (eg between Halifax and Bank of
Scotland) then it's instant-ish, but between disparate banks BACS is three
working days. A few banks pay interest from day one of the process, but
it's no good in checking the transaction won't bounce.

Yesterday someone phoned to ask if it would be OK to pay by BACS (I know,
some people have odd ideas). Spouse said yes. I cam to the PC and it was
here within ten minutes.

I have no idea when interest begins to be paid but on the current account
it's so little that I immediately transferred it to my e-saver. Her bank
isn't even in the same group as mine.

Mary

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:09:54 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-19 16:23:00 +0100, Mark said:

Most people do choose to work. Free healthcare and education doesn't
seem to prevent it.

Except that they aren't free or anything close to it. The NHS was
only free at the point of delivery for a couple of years after its
birth.

Some people are lazy but I don't see why the
hardworking poor should suffer for it. No matter what incentives
there are there is not enough resources in the world for everyone to
get access to basic services if they have to pay for it.

Somebody has to pay for it......

The big argument is the libertarian - 'lets give people an incentive to
bake bigger cakes' and the socialist 'lets ensure that even though the
cake is weeny, everybody gets the same slice'

Human progress has always been achieved by a subset of the privileged
few, who had and unfair amount of time, money or education to utilize to
make it happen.

It doesn't necessarily make it a a "good thing" IMHO.

Diversity and inequality is in fact socially a Good Thing.

Only for the "haves".

Actually not. It results in generation of wealth in the broadest
sense and that is of benefit to everybody. Remove the incentive by
attempting to force equality or in other ways and the wealth creation
goes as well to the detriment of everybody.

I think we'll have to disagree here.


I definitely not in favour of governments microcontrolling society. I
don't this is necessary for everyone to have fair access to healthcare
and education.

The simple way to achieve that is to take the government out of the
delivery business and let it be responsible for funding or part funding
only.

This could work, but only if the proper safeguards were imposed IMHO.

By allowing localised feedback to stabilize subsystems, you get a faster
and more efficient society. That means using things like market forces
and customer choices, not government decree, to allow people on the
ground to dictate where their money gets spent, and which organizations
are good, and bad.

We need some checks. Look what our free market economy has given us:
hedge funds and the credit crunch. It's not perfect by any means.

It allows people to be smart and it allows them to be stupid. Some
may learn from the experience of having made stupid mistakes like
investing in Northern Rock. Unfortunately they won't have lost as much
money as would probably be needed such that they would learn a lesson.

Judging from history not enough people ever learn. We have had many
financial bubbles in the past and they just keep happening. And the
people who lost the money probably aren't the people who needed to
learn the lesson anyway.

Imagine being forced to take your car to a particular 'local' garage to
have it fixed, even when you knew they were a bunch of slapdash lazy and
incompetent sods. The socialist 'fix' would be to employ an army of
bureacrats to inspect the garage daily and declare it 'substandard' and
give it MORE money to fix it.

It doesn't *have* to be like this.

Where socialism is involved, it always does.

I am not debating in favour of socialism or any other idealogy. I do
believe that everyone should have access to good healthcare and
education no matter how rich or poor they are.

Thank heavens we cam just post here and say 'dont waste your money on
Bugger and Bodgit, there are better places to go'.

You can't do that with state schools and hospitals.

You get choice of which school to send your child to.

Not really. The choice is quite restricted for various reasons.
If I choose to send my child to a private school, I have to pay the
fees there out of taxed income and also pay for the state system even
though I don't use it. A system of choice would transfer the funding
that would have gone to the state school for my child's education to
the private school.

Anyone who sends their children to private school chooses to do so and
therefore should not be complaining about their tax going to pay for
state education IMHO. They could choose to save the money and send
their children to a state school if this is so important to them.

How this work? There would be less money available per school.

AFAIK you will
soon be able to choose which hospital to attend too.

That's not really true either. If I choose a private hospital, I
have to pay for that and the NHS and I also have to pay tax on the
insurance premiums.

Same as above. I don't believe that anyone should jump the queue to
be treated more quickly just because they are lucky enough to be rich.
The "queue" should be short enough for everyone.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:00:09 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-20 07:28:14 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:21:36 UTC, Jules
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:26:02 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Not far off you. Jules must have at least 15 years, since I taught him.

Indeed you did - I remember you did operating systems, and there was
at least one other, but I recall what now.

Probably compiler writing...

That's a long lost trade these days "-)

That's brings back memories. I wrote a compiler and a few
interpreters about 15 years ago.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:29:41 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:06:43 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-06-19 14:56:56 +0100, Jules
said:
I know that when I'm old (assuming I get that far) the last thing I'm
going to want to be doing is trying to cope with some radical way of doing
things - particularly when the way I've done things in the past has always
served me so well.
Then you will age mentally very quickly indeed.

But be unlikely to care :-)

Seriously though, I'll always have plenty to keep my brain busy - but I'd
see a complete change in the way of doing things, with no evident benefit
to me, as an utter waste of time.

Knowing that I likely only had a few years left, and (assuming no computer
knowledge), why would I want to learn what computer to buy, how to use the
'net, how to use the OS, how to actually do financial things online - all
to do something that had always been quick and easy in the past? There are
much more rewarding things to be investing time, money and brainpower on.

Like how to carry on watching TV once they turn off the analogue
transmissions?

At least they'll stop watching East Enders.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:22 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-19 22:14:39 +0100, geoff said:

In message 485a3c5d@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-19 11:18:34 +0100, Richard Torrens said:

In article 48592359@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Cheques are a deprecated means of payment that should have been dropped
20 years ago. There's certainly no reason for cheques to be used at
all in the 21st century. Last year I wrote one cheque. This year
I am aiming not to write any. In general anybody expecting payment
by cheque does not get repeat business from me.
Cheques are still useful for mail payment.
Many people do not have computers and still rely on sending cheques
through the post.

That is the wrong solution.

The correct one would be to enable them to have computer access of some
kind.

I'll take your total confidence in the above to mean that you'll sit
for hours on end showing my mother how to use hers.

I've given up trying

Have you tried a Mac?

OS/X has about 4-5 icons in the dock after loading and most common
things can be done from these. It's very stable and simple to use if
you don't want sophistication. It doesn't break or deteriorate
like Windows either.

But a lot of people are brainwashed into thinking that Windows is the
only OS. And IIRC some web sites still only work with IE6 -- but
that's improving.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org