| Author |
Message |
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:DX0of.3897$nA2.1661@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: | Sander Vesik wrote:
In comp.arch Stephen Fuld <s.fuld@pleaseremove.att.net> wrote:
"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
A former co-worker of mine wears a bunch of IT hats for the Royal
Bank of Canada. RBC is Canada's largest bank and apparently their US
operations put them up there with some of the larger American banks
also.
They have mainframes running mostly Unix, and their apps are decidely
*not* legacy apps.
What non-Linux Unix varient runs on Z series, or have we subtlely
switched the topic here? If it is not Z series, or one of the other
"traditional" mainframe systems from the "BUNCH", what architecture s
it? I have heard a lot of systems called "mainframes", where that
terminology is at best, "in dispute".
Yep, but what a large portion of banks do run these days are those
"mainframes" of disputed terminology.
The banking industry has simply changed too much for them to continue
using legacy apps - they have little software that is more than five
years old.
On what systems are they running check processing? I am not aware of
anyone besides IBM and Unisys who make MICR readers, etc.
Is check processing really a significat part of banking any more?
I would guess that check processing is one of the driving factors in
funding for OCR research. Really bad innput, highly important to get
right, large volume. One more place big business is screwing the
customer, now that banks don't have to return your check but can
provide some transaction record instead, you have no piece of paper to
bring to court if that becomes necessary.
Without a way to prove what was on the check you have more problems and
the banks have less cost.
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
|
The IBM MidAmerica Employee Federal Credit Union, now the Think Federal
Credit Union, hasn't returned checks for the last 30 years. They use the
checks with the built in carbon which, together with the account
statement make pretty good proof. And as a last resort you can get hard
copy of the stored image for a nominal fee.
Only had to go to the hardcopy once.
del cecchi |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ken Hagan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
George Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: |
Too young and inexperienced to have been screwed by a bank yet... or a
fraudulent or mistaken billing?:-)
|
I guess so, but on the record of the past 20 years it will probably only
happen to me once or twice in my lifetime anyway. That puts it *way*
down my list of things to worry about.
| Quote: | Are you also going to tell us you've
never had any "trouble" with computer communications?;-)
|
Are you going to tell me that you've never had trouble with
hand-writing, or folks losing pieces of paper? The important
question is whether the system as a whole (and that includes
the handling of disputes as well as any technological measures)
copes with such problems.
| Quote: | I understand that chip & PIN is still fairly new, it's still not clear that
it offers sufficient protections to all parties -- the debate is ongoing
AIUI and appears that the consumer gets the short straw so far.
|
Certainly the system (in the UK at least) was set up to transfer all
the burden of proof onto the consumer. The banks' key argument is that
there is no way a crook could know your PIN number unless you've been
negligent. However, the requirement to type that number into a keypad
in public (often with CCTV cameras pointing at you) is widely considered
to undermine that argument. (And then there's skimming.) As far as I
know, this hasn't been tested in the UK courts yet.
Of course, if a bank treats *one* customer unfairly, the bank probably
holds all the cards. If it treats *all* customers unfairly, it probably
goes out of business. The overall security of chip-n-pin strikes me
as clearly in the second category.
| Quote: | Sounds to me like you're a strong candidate for a RFID implant... something
else I'll pass on.:-)
|
Cancel that smiley.
Here in the UK, we are currently being asked to pay for a hugely
expensive ID card system that the government now concedes won't
actually work, but that's OK because they aren't paying and goverment
agencies won't be liable for the security of the system.
Had my bank been behind the proposal, it would at least be someone
else's money (well, shareholders, so that's probably my pension fund)
and I'd be able to due for any damage caused by their incompetence.
See http://www.boycottbenetton.com/ for a real-world example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Casper H.S. Dik
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> writes:
| Quote: | I never needed to mail a check my whole life (except once to the US :-).
You cut your own grass, repair your own furnace, don't need a
babysitter, and never have a kid shovel your walk... or you are really
trusting and pay cash for all of these services. Because in the US
people want to get paid for small services, and electronic transfer is
either inconvenient or just not accepted.
|
Everything is using either ATM cards/cash (shops) or electronic
funds transfers. There's also a form of "authorization to directly
debit" which allows you to get funds directly.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:17 pm Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
Ken Hagan wrote:
| Quote: | George Macdonald wrote:
Too young and inexperienced to have been screwed by a bank yet... or a
fraudulent or mistaken billing?:-)
I guess so, but on the record of the past 20 years it will probably only
happen to me once or twice in my lifetime anyway. That puts it *way*
down my list of things to worry about.
Are you also going to tell us you've
never had any "trouble" with computer communications?;-)
Are you going to tell me that you've never had trouble with
hand-writing, or folks losing pieces of paper? The important
question is whether the system as a whole (and that includes
the handling of disputes as well as any technological measures)
copes with such problems.
I understand that chip & PIN is still fairly new, it's still not clear
that
it offers sufficient protections to all parties -- the debate is ongoing
AIUI and appears that the consumer gets the short straw so far.
Certainly the system (in the UK at least) was set up to transfer all
the burden of proof onto the consumer. The banks' key argument is that
there is no way a crook could know your PIN number unless you've been
negligent. However, the requirement to type that number into a keypad
in public (often with CCTV cameras pointing at you) is widely considered
to undermine that argument. (And then there's skimming.) As far as I
know, this hasn't been tested in the UK courts yet.
Of course, if a bank treats *one* customer unfairly, the bank probably
holds all the cards. If it treats *all* customers unfairly, it probably
goes out of business. The overall security of chip-n-pin strikes me
as clearly in the second category.
Sounds to me like you're a strong candidate for a RFID implant...
something
else I'll pass on.:-)
Cancel that smiley.
Here in the UK, we are currently being asked to pay for a hugely
expensive ID card system that the government now concedes won't
actually work, but that's OK because they aren't paying and goverment
agencies won't be liable for the security of the system.
Had my bank been behind the proposal, it would at least be someone
else's money (well, shareholders, so that's probably my pension fund)
and I'd be able to due for any damage caused by their incompetence.
See http://www.boycottbenetton.com/ for a real-world example.
|
And about the wonders of those debit cards....
DECEMBER 14, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - A victim of the recent Sam's Club
security breach suggests that fraudsters may have stolen credit card
information by using illegal "card-skimming" devices attached to the
pumps at the company's gas stations. The fraudulent activity may also
have been going on for a longer period than that suggested by the
wholesale giant, and it may affect thousands of people (see "Update:
Security breach at Sam's Club exposes credit card data").
Sam's Club, a division of Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. ,
said in a brief Dec. 2 statement that it was investigating a security
breach that had exposed the credit card data of an unspecified number of
customers who bought fuel at its gas stations between Sept. 21 and Oct.
2. The company said it was alerted to the problem by credit card issuers
whose customers were complaining of fraudulent charges on their statements.
Apart from saying that "electronic systems and databases used inside its
stores" were not involved, Sam's Club officials have refused to disclose
what happened. They have not returned repeated telephone calls for comment.
The breach prompted the Alabama Credit Union (ACU) to block and reissue
debit cards to about 500 of its customers after it learned of the
problem last week. The ACU was alerted to the breach by Credit Union
National Association Inc. , according to Kayce Bell, chief operating
officer at the Tuscaloosa, Ala.-based credit union.
more at link
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,107067,00.html?source=NLT_AM&nid=107067
Looks like thousands and thousands of folks. And their pins too. I
hope that the contract with the issuer was nice and solid.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:56:33 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
| Quote: | George Macdonald wrote:
I'm sure it's also a relief to to be able to bypass those sleazy
money-changers at frontiers & airports.:-)... at least in the Euro-zone.
Those people are emm, irritating - came across it at Gatwick last year
where they would not do an exchange of US$ traveller cheques into Euros
directly and wanted their double take.... bastards.
I'm not sure what's available to us now in the U.S. in the way of
international transfers from our on-line banking; I know that in the past,
when requesting a transfer to a specific account in a foreign country, they
overtly misrouted to the point of abuse.
You can buy International Money Orders, at banks (and I think the post
office).
|
I *am* familiar with the experience of internationsl transfer of moderately
large sums of of money.... you?
--
Rgds, George Macdonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:00:56 +0100, Jan Vorbrüggen
<jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> wrote:
| Quote: | Paper trail. Knowing how easy it is to fake images and electronic
records people still want *paper*. And if I ever had to go to court I
would definitely expect my paper to be believed over their screendump.
We have lots of special effects in the media, people don't believe
electronics as much as they once did.
Oh nonsense. Nobody's going to perform the sort of forensics required to
proove that a check hasn't been doctored with. That's FBI stuff that runs
into the thousands of dollars just to obtain the evidence, not to speak
of the ensuing costs of pursiung a claim in court.
|
Utter rubbish - neither side wants to spend the $$ but if worst comes to
the worst, a doctored/authentic cheque is light stuff. Color lasers?...
every single one has its serial # on every doc produced.
| Quote: | When the paper is scanned, all you need to do is to digitally sign the
image - voila, at a later time you can easily proove, or disproove, that
the image has not been modified in the meantime and that it actually has
been made by the organization and machine that claims to have made it.
In its way that is more secure than anything the physical world has to
offer.
|
Yeah and electonic filing/archiving was supposed to replace paper years
ago... and the paper companies were going to go out of business... and we
wouldn't have to cut all those poor trees down... ad nausem. Fact is with
the advent and proloferation of the handy-dandy laser printer, people are
producing more bumph than ever.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:50:55 +0000, Ken Hagan <K.Hagan@thermoteknix.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | George Macdonald wrote:
Too young and inexperienced to have been screwed by a bank yet... or a
fraudulent or mistaken billing?:-)
I guess so, but on the record of the past 20 years it will probably only
happen to me once or twice in my lifetime anyway. That puts it *way*
down my list of things to worry about.
|
It's err, quite worrying when it happens - "the system doesn't allow it".
| Quote: | Are you also going to tell us you've
never had any "trouble" with computer communications?;-)
Are you going to tell me that you've never had trouble with
hand-writing, or folks losing pieces of paper? The important
question is whether the system as a whole (and that includes
the handling of disputes as well as any technological measures)
copes with such problems.
|
Loss of the "paper" places responsibility.... usually.:-)... but no I don't
recall having any trouble.
| Quote: | I understand that chip & PIN is still fairly new, it's still not clear that
it offers sufficient protections to all parties -- the debate is ongoing
AIUI and appears that the consumer gets the short straw so far.
Certainly the system (in the UK at least) was set up to transfer all
the burden of proof onto the consumer. The banks' key argument is that
there is no way a crook could know your PIN number unless you've been
negligent. However, the requirement to type that number into a keypad
in public (often with CCTV cameras pointing at you) is widely considered
to undermine that argument. (And then there's skimming.) As far as I
know, this hasn't been tested in the UK courts yet.
Of course, if a bank treats *one* customer unfairly, the bank probably
holds all the cards. If it treats *all* customers unfairly, it probably
goes out of business. The overall security of chip-n-pin strikes me
as clearly in the second category.
|
And if all banks treat all customers.... Oh and if by some freak, some
honest Joe-Banker comes along, he'll get an offer he can't refuse.:-( We
see that a lot in the U.S.: just when you think you have a decent banking
arrangement, they get "merged" with the one you dumped a few years before.
| Quote: | Sounds to me like you're a strong candidate for a RFID implant... something
else I'll pass on.:-)
Cancel that smiley.
Here in the UK, we are currently being asked to pay for a hugely
expensive ID card system that the government now concedes won't
actually work, but that's OK because they aren't paying and goverment
agencies won't be liable for the security of the system.
|
I heard about that: what the Nazis failed to do... crypto-fascism has
imposed... along with all the other busybody laws. I guess this means that
when you get nabbed for "slow-walking" in the fast lane of a pavement
(sidewalk to us), the fine will be automagically debited from your bank
account through your RFID.
| Quote: | Had my bank been behind the proposal, it would at least be someone
else's money (well, shareholders, so that's probably my pension fund)
and I'd be able to due for any damage caused by their incompetence.
See http://www.boycottbenetton.com/ for a real-world example.
|
You'll be able to add Wal-Mart (ASDA for you ?) likewise - in the U.S. they
have recently issued an edict to all their suppliers.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
| Quote: | On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:56:33 GMT, Bill Davidsen
davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:
I'm sure it's also a relief to to be able to bypass those sleazy
money-changers at frontiers & airports.:-)... at least in the Euro-zone.
Those people are emm, irritating - came across it at Gatwick last year
where they would not do an exchange of US$ traveller cheques into Euros
directly and wanted their double take.... bastards.
I'm not sure what's available to us now in the U.S. in the way of
international transfers from our on-line banking; I know that in the past,
when requesting a transfer to a specific account in a foreign country, they
overtly misrouted to the point of abuse.
You can buy International Money Orders, at banks (and I think the post
office).
I *am* familiar with the experience of internationsl transfer of moderately
large sums of of money.... you?
|
It's a pain to do to/from the US? And quite easy within Europe? (of course,
I'm not sure what moderately large means here...) This thread seems to
have had a large dose of "This is the way things are done in the US, so
it must be the right way".
--
David Gay
dgay@acm.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
Del Cecchi <cecchinospam@us.ibm.com> writes:
| Quote: | Looks like thousands and thousands of folks. And their pins too. I
hope that the contract with the issuer was nice and solid.
|
starting in the mid-90s, the financial standards x9a10 working group
was giving requirement for new protocol to preserve the integrity of
the financial infrastructure for all retail payments. this eventually
resulted in the x9.59 standard
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/index.html#x959
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subpubkey.html#x959
part of this was looking at threat models. earlier compromises had
been lost/stolen and/or copied magstripes. the cards are a form
of "something you have" authentication ... from the 3-factor
authentication model
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#3factor
the issue was that is as relatively easy to reproduce the information
from a card magstripe and/or use lost/stolen cards. the primary
countermeausre has been noticing fraudulent transactions ... and
turning off that specific card/magstripe at the backend financial
processor (from doing future fraudulent transactions).
pin-debit has been considered more secure because it represents
two-factor authentication ... a combination of "something you have"
and "something you know". a basic principle of two-factor
authentication is that the different factors are subject to different
threats and vulnerabilities. however, both the card magstripe
information and the pin are forms of static data ... and onced
harvested, are subject to fraudulent transactions. in a threat model,
static data infrastructures are sometimes characterized as being
subject to replay attacks (i.e attacker reproducing the static data).
in the time-frame of the early x9.59 work, compromised devices were
starting to appear that skimmed (harvested) static information at the
time of the transactions. this defeated basic principle of pin-debit
two factor authentication since the skimming represented a common
vulnerability to both the magstripe information as well as the pin
information.
so an early objective of x9.59 work was to replace static data
authentication with dynamic data authentication ... in part, as a
countermeasure to the emerging skimming/harvesting
threat/vulnerabilities from comprised devices.
part of this resulted in the x9.59 standard requiring that no part of
a previous transaction can be used by crooks for fraudulent
transactions. one common scenario has been crookks skimming an
authenticated transaction and then using the skimmed account number
information in a non-authenticated transactions. the x9.59 standard
requirement, in turn implies that account numbers used in x9.59
transactions can't be taken and used in any kind of non-x9.59
transactions.
when we were doing the work on ssl for the original payment gateway
and e-commerce
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn2
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn3
the objective was to use cryptography to hide the account number so
that it couldn't be skimmed and turned around and used in other
(frauduelnt) transactions.
the x9.59 standard eliminates the need to hide the account number
(using cryptography or any other means), since a crook can no longer
skim/harvest any information from an x9.59 transaction (in whole or
part) and turn around and use any of that information for a fraudulent
transaction.
the requirement given the x9a10 working group for the x9.59 standard
was to preserve the integrity of the financial infrastructure for all
retail payments. the resulting standard eliminated skimming/harvesting
(evesdropping on internet links, compromised atm or point-of-sale
devices, data breaches of transaction logs, etc ) as a fraud
threat/vulnerability. x9.59 didn't do anything about preventing
skimming and/or harvesting happening ... it just eliminated that
skimming/harvesting (of any information connected to x9.59
transactions) might result in a fraudulent transaction.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#29 AMD to leave x86 behind?
i can even bring this back a little bit to chips ... having
given a talk at intel developer's forum a couple years ago
on the subject.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn1
which is somewhat the result of a semi-facetious joke I was making
around the time we were starting the x9.59 work ... that I would take
a $500 milsped (chip) part, cost reduce it by two orders of magnitude
in order to make it more secure (eliminating unnecessary features not
only reduced the cost but also improved the integrity/security)
.... misc. stuff about aads chip strawman
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/index.html#aads
which was designed, in part, for be used for x9.59 transactions.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dean Kent
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
<dgay@barnowl.research.intel-research.net> wrote in message
news:79zmn2ozbt.fsf@barnowl.research.intel-research.net...
| Quote: |
It's a pain to do to/from the US? And quite easy within Europe? (of
course,
I'm not sure what moderately large means here...) This thread seems to
have had a large dose of "This is the way things are done in the US, so
it must be the right way".
|
You may find it is more a dose of "This is the way I do it" rather than the
US in general. I live in the US and use checks only on occasion, and only
because don't want to carry cash and it is easy to pay someone who knows me.
Those who don't want some verification, and still have to worry about bad
checks, etc. Considering that most people will pay for the check printing,
it may not be any cheaper than a transaction fee for ATM but may be more
convenient. I use my debit card almost everywhere, and so far have not had
any problems. I have had some problems with checks, however (had one bad
one passed in my business, which took a few months to fight and get the
funds back, and some other minor issues)
There appears to be a downside for each type of payment for either the
merchant, the bank, the card issuers or the consumer (fraud, no fees to
charge, etc.) so as with most things you will find that everyone has their
preference and considers it superior to what anyone else is doing
differently.
Regards,
Dean
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dean Kent
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:43a209b7$0$96015$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
I live in the US and use checks only on occasion, and only
| Quote: | because don't want to carry cash and it is easy to pay someone who knows
me.
Those who don't want some verification, and still have to worry about bad
checks, etc.
|
Boy, I munged the hell out of that sentence! It should have read:
I live in the US and use checks only on occasion, and only
because (I) don't want to carry cash and it is easy to pay someone who knows
me.
Those who don't (know me) want some verification, and (they) still have to
worry about bad
checks, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:43:46 +0000, Casper H. S. Dik wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> writes:
I never needed to mail a check my whole life (except once to the US :-).
You cut your own grass, repair your own furnace, don't need a
babysitter, and never have a kid shovel your walk... or you are really
trusting and pay cash for all of these services. Because in the US
people want to get paid for small services, and electronic transfer is
either inconvenient or just not accepted.
Everything is using either ATM cards/cash (shops) or electronic
funds transfers. There's also a form of "authorization to directly
debit" which allows you to get funds directly.
|
....and keep getting funds, over, and over, and over, and over... AOL is
famous for such things. I had an ISP (not AOL, BTW) keep dinging me for
a year after I dropped them. Sueing them wasn't worth the hassle, so they
got away with it. No thanks.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:55:02 -0800, dgay wrote:
| Quote: | This thread seems to have had a large dose of "This is the way things
are done in the US, so it must be the right way".
|
Nope, just the opposite. The Europeons were telling us that we're wrong
and they're right. "Right" is simply what works. Here that tends t'wards
the check side, but *might* change (no problem, I use debit cards a lot
too). As long as I can write checks (for cash, even) free and using a
debit card costs me money (credit cards even more), I'll continue to write
checks.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: AMD to leave x86 behind? |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:51:51 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
| Quote: | Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
I don't pay for checking, but would pay for most other sorts of
transactions. If I didn't often have to pay for ATM withdrawals
I'd use them more, perhaps. The system here is simply set up for
checks.
Certainly a good point. There was a bit of commotion in the banking
business here when a new bank was established without any office you
could actually visit, or tellers, or anything - it's all on the net.
I've happily used it for years now.
|
I haven't been in my "bank's" offices for at least ten years. Why would
I need to? I can do business over the phone. We have a local bank, only
because my wife's employer won't do EFTS payroll.
| Quote: | BTW, I'm fairly certain the deprecation of cheques, and introduction of
ATM/debit cards have *reduced* fraud a lot, but I couldn't find the
relevant statistics anywhere. Similarly, it wouldn't suprise me if the
deprectaion of cash (even the cafeteria lets me pay with my card, it's
only the coke vending machine left) to have that effect on crimes like
pickpocketing and robbery, but that would be harder to measure.
|
I'm not convinced by your feelings. In any case, I'd rather any robber
was happy with the ammount of money he got from me; at least enough for
tonight's fix of ripple or crack. I'd prefer to blow the slob into his
next life, but survival is the key.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in