Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It seems trendy for people to bash movie effects as if it makes
> them look clever for spotting the effects - even if it's logically impossible
> for a scene to be done any other way.

  It's amusing when people claim to see CGI artifacts in a scene which has
no CGI effects at all... Like that scene in the second LotR movie where
the Black Gates open and close: Some people claim that the gate edges go
inside each other, revealing it to be CGI. Yet the gates were miniatures
and filmed for real.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's surprising how many people think making computer models is somehow 
> "easier" than making real ones...

  It makes some things easier. For example, don't like the texturing?
A couple of mouse clicks and you can try a different texture. Some part
too large or too small in relation to the other parts? Again, a couple
of mouse clicks, and it's fixed. And so on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2009 10:27 AM, Warp wrote:

>> Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?
>
>    You mean pixar generates the voice acting by computer too?
>

Yep, The voice acting is completely synthetic. You didn't know this? All 
they have to do is assign some famous names, feed the computer the 
script, and it churns out voice acting... ;)
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Yep, The voice acting is completely synthetic. You didn't know this? All 
> they have to do is assign some famous names, feed the computer the 
> script, and it churns out voice acting... ;)

Heh, if they ever want Steven Hawkings for some reason, this would 
actually be more or less the truth... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
> stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the cheque 
> to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...

You must really live in the back country out there. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

I *do* think it's cool how advanced the motion capture is getting. They now 
have a system where the daub UV paint on your face with a sponge, leaving 
you all speckled. Then they film you, with white lights and UV lights 
alternating in a flicker, and a camera synched to each set of lights. Then 
the animators can look at your face in time with your voice and all, and the 
computers can analyze every movement down to pursed lips and blinking eyelids.

It's like right out of Diamond Age.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 10:27, Warp wrote:
>    Art can be admired in more than one way. Often it's not only the end result
> that matters, but also the *performance* and the skills shown in the work can
> be a target of admiration as well.

	My question was:

"If they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from real stunts, why 
should I value real stunts more?"

	To which you responded:

"Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
making the film."

	Yes, some people may admire it, and I have no problem with it, but no 
one explained to me why *I* should admire it.
	
	It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music that they should 
admire classical music. At the end, what you're talking about is art, 
and it's merely a matter of taste.

>    For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
> which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
> music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
> music.

	But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all 
good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into 
how the music is made.

	When I was a kid, my father would really try to get me to watch circus 
performances (simple stuff like juggling, etc). It was all quite boring 
for me. He'd essentially try to say I should enjoy it because of the 
amount of effort and training the performers have to go through.

	I *know* they have to put a lot of effort to master those performances. 
That doesn't change the fact that they're boring. Just because I can 
appreciate the amount of work that went into it doesn't imply that I'll 
become interested in it. In fact, I suspect that most of the times, you 
first get interested in the "output", and only then will interest in the 
methods follow.

>    Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
> skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
> well.

	Sure. If you admire that stuff.

>    Likewise for movies: I don't only admire the end result, but also how it
> has been created.

	That's fine. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't. Just don't expect 
others to for the same reasons.

>>          If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made
>> mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying
>> a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand
>> built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it
>> was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.
>
>    Because art and entertainment is not about what is most comfortable and
> practical. It's a completely different category, not comparable.

	Not at all. Building stuff by hand is an art, and I sure know people 
who _would_ care. I'm just not into it, and neither are you.

	Also, perhaps you'll disagree with me, the shift to CGI really is just 
switching from one form of impressive skill to another. There's a 
Hugo/Nebula novella winner that goes into precisely this theme (except 
it was about live plays rather than movies). (*SPOILERS FOLLOW*) The 
protagonist was an actor in the old style, but during his career 
everything shifted to machine-oriented plays. He became obsolete (as did 
all live actors), and he spent the rest of his days being loyal to the 
"true" art of plays (which virtually no one was interested in) - whereas 
most of his fellow actors found some creative roles in the new system. 
Only at the end did he realize that it was really just the natural 
evolution and was better for the whole art form in the end.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 10:29, Warp wrote:
>> There's a reason why most things in the world are done that way now, because
>> it's more efficient.
>
>    Art shouldn't be about efficiency. Thus I stand by my opinion.

	And artists will continue to make art. But I thought we were talking 
about movies... ;-)

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
>>> special effects, too. :-)
>> Back in 1988, when making Die Hard, John McTiernan actually blew out the
>> windows on the first three floors of the Fox tower (despite having
>> signed a release saying the building itself wouldn't be harmed :) ).
> 
> I thought that was a composited effect? I heard that the building's owners were
> aghast at that scene, until it was explained to them that actually the building
> wasn't touched.
> 
> That's what Die Hard's trivia on imdb claims anyway. Might not be true. It
> certainly seems a cheaper way of doing it though!

Well, we went on one of those bus tours of the city, and that's the 
story I heard... of course, the tour guide could have been embellishing, 
could have heard it wrong, or any number of possible explanations :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?

Businesses.  We've got customers that regularly (ie multiple times a 
week) deposit several hundred checks at once.

Of course, the same scanner that we use behind teller row is available 
to our merchant customers to use at their stores.  Want to write a check 
at a grocery store?  When the clerk scans the check, they're actually 
clearing the d*** thing right then and there.

It's saving us a ton of work, because we don't have to process as many 
large deposits.  It also saves our merchant customers a ton of work, 
because they don't have to put together a bank deposit & make the trip 
to drop off the checks.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
>> stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the 
>> cheque to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...
> 
> You must really live in the back country out there. :-)

This is Europe, man - while you Americans were sleeping, we have 
invented plenty of other, much more convenient ways to handle money 
transfer :-)

It must have been decades since I've last seen - let alone used - a cheque.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> 
> It must have been decades since I've last seen - let alone used - a cheque.

I've actually once seen one.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

scott schrieb:

> Sure, but would you pay extra for a film where the stunts had actually 
> been performed rather than just CG (if there was little or no difference 
> to the outcome)?  I don't think many people would.  Which is why it 
> isn't done.

Heh. I'd actually pay extra for genuine CG - just to enjoy being amazed 
about what can be done!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Yes, some people may admire it, and I have no problem with it, but no 
> one explained to me why *I* should admire it.

  Because appreciation of people's skills can give you a fuller entertainment
experience. If you deliberately dismiss skill as an unimportant side feature,
you are depriving yourself of a source of marvel and enjoyment.

  You may be completely ok with that, but you should understand why some
other people appreciate a show of skill and effort.

>         It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music that they should 
> admire classical music.

  No, it's not. It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music if
he has seen the actual performance of the musicians, in other words, how
they actually *make* the music. Some people appreciate it if making the
music requires extraordinary skills.

> At the end, what you're talking about is art, 
> and it's merely a matter of taste.

  It's about enjoying art at its fullest.

> >    For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
> > which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
> > music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
> > music.

>         But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all 
> good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into 
> how the music is made.

  Who was talking about an unenjoyable piece of music?

> >    Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
> > skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
> > well.

>         Sure. If you admire that stuff.

  I think you are depriving yourself of a source of enjoyment by deliberately
finding the skills required to create the art "boring" and "uninteresting".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/10/09 04:57, Warp wrote:
>    Because appreciation of people's skills can give you a fuller entertainment
> experience. If you deliberately dismiss skill as an unimportant side feature,
> you are depriving yourself of a source of marvel and enjoyment.

	I don't accept that knowing the details of how something is made will 
make you necessarily be interested in it.

	As both of us have said, it's an art. And with that comes taste. Some 
(most?) people aren't going to be interested even if they know, and as 
with all art, that's absolutely fine.

>> At the end, what you're talking about is art,
>> and it's merely a matter of taste.
>
>    It's about enjoying art at its fullest.

	Which most people aren't that interested in doing - even for art forms 
they enjoy - and while I have no problems if you or others do want to 
take it to the next level, I see no problem with most people not bothering.

	There are 24 hours in the day. Appreciating one art to its fullest 
means less time to appreciate other art forms.

>>          But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all
>> good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into
>> how the music is made.
>
>    Who was talking about an unenjoyable piece of music?

	The analogy I made some messages ago was a comparison of a movie 
without CGI and a movie with CGI that resulted in a _better_ experience.

	I guess over here the more analogous situation would be the music you 
discussed vs much better music that isn't hard to produce.

>>          Sure. If you admire that stuff.
>
>    I think you are depriving yourself of a source of enjoyment by deliberately
> finding the skills required to create the art "boring" and "uninteresting".

	Sure. We all do it. I know people out there who literally memorize 
books. That takes skill. If you don't look into that stuff and admire 
it, you're depriving yourself of a source of enjoyment. Then there's 
knitting. Have you considered that? And of course, there's all kinds of 
traditional music in all parts of the world. Do you plan to know how 
each of those instruments work?

	I could go on and on about various forms of art that you're likely 
depriving yourself of. But somehow I suspect you don't actually mind 
that you're doing it.

-- 
What do fish say when they hit a concrete wall? Dam!

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> This is Europe, man - while you Americans were sleeping, we have 
> invented plenty of other, much more convenient ways to handle money 
> transfer :-)

We did too. I just like checks for some things.

> It must have been decades since I've last seen - let alone used - a cheque.

How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through the 
mail, then?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:

> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through the 
> mail, then?

Why should they want to do that in the first place?

In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for decades 
to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to transfer money 
from your account to John's.

I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to 
someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a 
cheque via mail (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might 
claim to never have received it; how, by the way, do you protect against 
such problems in the US?). Not so here in Germany; even between 
different banks, money transfer is everyday routine.

The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a 
contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from 
your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). While at 
first this would appear to be an invitation to fraud, in practice it 
isn't: You have 6 weeks time to have such a money transfer retroactively 
canceled (even if it was legit), in which case the other party will in 
turn have to pay a considerable fee to your bank. If the money transfer 
was legit, they would then resort to other means from getting the money 
from you (including the extra fee you forced them pay); obviously, 
usually only larger companies accept payment via this method due to the 
risk involved on their side, but aside from that it is quite popular for 
recurring money transfers, such as insurance premiums, phone bills and 
the like, especially if the sum to pay is not known in advance.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/10/09 16:35, clipka wrote:
>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through
>> the mail, then?
>
> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>
> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for decades
> to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to transfer money
> from your account to John's.

	Over here they charge a not insignificant fee for that.

> I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to
> someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a
> cheque via mail (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might
> claim to never have received it; how, by the way, do you protect against
> such problems in the US?). Not so here in Germany; even between
> different banks, money transfer is everyday routine.

	If the receiver never got a personal check, and it literally was lost 
(as opposed to stolen), then it's no problem as the money is still in 
your account.

	If someone stole it and cashed it, you can make a claim and they'll dig 
up the check and see the signature of the guy who cashed it.

	With money orders, you get a number and you can essentially cancel the 
money order with that number.

> The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a
> contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from
> your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). While at

	Some banks allow that here as well. More or less like you making a 
regular donation to some charity, etc.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
> 
>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>> the mail, then?
> 
> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
> 
> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for decades
 
> to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to transfer money 
> from your account to John's.

OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? Seem
s 
inconvenient.

We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
office and give them cash money, and they give you something that works 
essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank account can sti
ll 
pay people who are remote.

> I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to 
> someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a 
> cheque via mail 

Nah. We have all the same pay online stuff you do in Europe. Indeed, for 

businesses (rather than individuals) at least, you don't even need the ba
nk 
account information. You can just put down the business name and mailing 

address, and the bank treats the transfer as if you had written a check.

There's also ACH - Automated Clearing House - which is how things like 
payroll gets electronically deposited to the employee's bank account.

> (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might 
> claim to never have received it; 

If it isn't countersigned on the back, it's not supposed to be cashable. 
If 
you address it to "John Smith" on the front, only John Smith can deposit 
it, 
in theory.

If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know of 
course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a picture o
f 
their signature on the back of the check.

> Not so here in Germany; even between 
> different banks, money transfer is everyday routine.

It is here too. Not between individuals, perhaps, but online bill pay isn
't 
hard.

> The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a 
> contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from 
> your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). 

We have that too. Lots of people pay recurring bills like mortgage, elect
ric 
and water bills, etc that way. I don't think many people do that between 

individuals. I.e., you normally wouldn't do that with someone who wasn't 
a 
large company with recurring bills coming to you.

We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for th
e 
used bike he sold you or something. :-)

Indeed, most times, if there's a larger company, if you send them the che
ck, 
the first thing they do is turn it into an electronic authorization for 
payment, meaning they don't have to handle the paper. I.e., they scan the
 
numbers off the check electronically and submit the payment request to yo
ur 
bank, with whom they took the effort to set up a contract allowing them t
o 
do that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Darren New schrieb:
>>
>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>> the mail, then?
>>
>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>
>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>> transfer money from your account to John's.
> 
> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
> Seems inconvenient.
No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. Earlier by writing 
a check that you send to the *bank*. And you did not even pay a stamp to 
do that, at least in the netherlands.

> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that works 
> essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank account can 
> still pay people who are remote.

People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

>> I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to 
>> someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a 
>> cheque via mail 
> 
> Nah. We have all the same pay online stuff you do in Europe. Indeed, for 
> businesses (rather than individuals) at least, you don't even need the 
> bank account information. You can just put down the business name and 
> mailing address, and the bank treats the transfer as if you had written 
> a check.
> 
> There's also ACH - Automated Clearing House - which is how things like 
> payroll gets electronically deposited to the employee's bank account.

I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long as 
I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. it 
has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you were 
employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.

>> (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might claim to never 
>> have received it; 
> 
> If it isn't countersigned on the back, it's not supposed to be cashable. 
> If you address it to "John Smith" on the front, only John Smith can 
> deposit it, in theory.

Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I have 
never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.

> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know of 
> course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a picture 
> of their signature on the back of the check.

As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.

>> Not so here in Germany; even between different banks, money transfer 
>> is everyday routine.
> 
> It is here too. Not between individuals, perhaps, but online bill pay 
> isn't hard.
> 
>> The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a 
>> contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from 
>> your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). 
> 
> We have that too. Lots of people pay recurring bills like mortgage, 
> electric and water bills, etc that way. I don't think many people do 
> that between individuals. I.e., you normally wouldn't do that with 
> someone who wasn't a large company with recurring bills coming to you.

I think this German thing is for a single time. Possibly something close 
to a credit card payment. For recurring payments we use something like 
that too. Even for the ones that may change every time.

> We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for 
> the used bike he sold you or something. :-)

If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. If it is a shop I'd pay 
electronically in the shop. Until a few years ago we had special cheques
that were guaranteed by our bank for €200 or so. These are probably the 
closest to your kind of cheques, except for the guarantee. If you had to 
pay more, you used more cheques. You only had a finite amount of these 
at any time, typically, 10-30 depending on your salary. The big 
advantage is that we almost never had problems with bouncing cheques. I 
think they technically still exist, but I have not seen one being used 
for 5 years or more.

> Indeed, most times, if there's a larger company, if you send them the 
> check, the first thing they do is turn it into an electronic 
> authorization for payment, meaning they don't have to handle the paper. 
> I.e., they scan the numbers off the check electronically and submit the 
> payment request to your bank, with whom they took the effort to set up a 
> contract allowing them to do that.

Again, we don't send cheques to persons or companies. They might send me 
a cheque with all details filled in. Then I only have to sign it and 
send it to my bank.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/11/09 15:42, andrel wrote:
>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post
>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that
>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank
>> account can still pay people who are remote.
>
> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

	Now _that's_ a fairly parochial statement!

> I think this German thing is for a single time. Possibly something close
> to a credit card payment. For recurring payments we use something like
> that too. Even for the ones that may change every time.

	Although probably more than half of my friends do automatic bill 
payment, I don't. I always assume it'll be a hassle if they screw up and 
take more money than they should have (I once got a phone bill exceeding 
$600 - their error).

>> We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for
>> the used bike he sold you or something. :-)
>
> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. If it is a shop I'd pay

	Lots of people here don't carry cash, and mostly use cards. That 
doesn't work well in paying a guy you just met at a garage sale.

> electronically in the shop. Until a few years ago we had special cheques

	Some shops here don't take cards, or have minimum required amounts. 
Lots of people pay most of their stuff by cards, but many prefer paying 
stuff in cash. I go back and forth. I know I'm unlikely to shop at a 
store physically if they _don't_ take cash.

	Also, in many of the apartment buildings I've lived in, they take only 
checks or money orders. No credit cards, no bank cards, and certainly no 
cash.


-- 
The worst thing about censorship is .

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Darren New schrieb:
>>>
>>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>>> the mail, then?
>>>
>>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>>
>>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>>> transfer money from your account to John's.
>>
>> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
>> Seems inconvenient.
> No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. 

And how do people who don't have computers (see above) handle that?

> Earlier by writing a check that you send to the *bank*. 

That's different.

>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that 
>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank 
>> account can still pay people who are remote.
> 
> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

No, but we're next door to one. (No, not really, but apparently banks are 
not trustworthy institutions to people from some central/south american 
countries.)

We also have immigrants, tourists, and so on.

> I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long as 
> I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. it 
> has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you were 
> employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.

Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this country. 
:-)  People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they want.

> Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I have 
> never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.

I see. SO you can still send written instructions, but you send them to the 
bank, and if the person doesn't have a bank account, you're pretty much SOL.

>> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know 
>> of course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a 
>> picture of their signature on the back of the check.
> 
> As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.

That works.

> I think this German thing is for a single time.

You can do it a single time here too. It's generally just not worth setting 
up the payment instructions if you can just mail them a check.

> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 

With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, you 
still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.

> These are probably the closest to your kind of cheques, except for the guarantee. 

Our checks come with guarantees in the sense that it's illegal to write a 
check when you don't have the money to cover it.

Otherwise, we have what are called "traveler's checks", which are like 
these, except they're designed so that if they get stolen they can't be used 
and can be refunded by the issuing bank.  You just buy them for cash, sign 
one side, and then you sign the other side when you turn it over to the 
merchant.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 4:03, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/11/09 15:42, andrel wrote:
>>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post
>>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that
>>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank
>>> account can still pay people who are remote.
>>
>> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?
> 
>     Now _that's_ a fairly parochial statement!

Thanks, I aim to please. ;)

> 
>> I think this German thing is for a single time. Possibly something close
>> to a credit card payment. For recurring payments we use something like
>> that too. Even for the ones that may change every time.
> 
>     Although probably more than half of my friends do automatic bill 
> payment, I don't. I always assume it'll be a hassle if they screw up and 
> take more money than they should have (I once got a phone bill exceeding 
> $600 - their error).
> 
>>> We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for
>>> the used bike he sold you or something. :-)
>>
>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. If it is a shop I'd pay
> 
>     Lots of people here don't carry cash, and mostly use cards. That 
> doesn't work well in paying a guy you just met at a garage sale.
> 
>> electronically in the shop. Until a few years ago we had special cheques
> 
>     Some shops here don't take cards, or have minimum required amounts. 
> Lots of people pay most of their stuff by cards, but many prefer paying 
> stuff in cash. I go back and forth. I know I'm unlikely to shop at a 
> store physically if they _don't_ take cash.

I only pay small amounts, typically < $10 in cash. All other things in 
stores are paid electronically in the shop. It is transferred from my 
account to the shop owner at that point in time and the shop owner 
immediately gets conformation that the transaction succeeded. What could 
be more convenient?

>     Also, in many of the apartment buildings I've lived in, they take 
> only checks or money orders. No credit cards, no bank cards, and 
> certainly no cash.

Rent (and mortgages and electricity and...) are, I guess, nearly all set 
up as automatic periodical payments here. A factor might be that it is 
almost impossible to disappear here, so there is no point in not paying. 
   If you can't pay you are removed from the house. That does not happen 
often because the system here will in most cases allow you to rent some 
place. If you don't earn enough the state will pay part of your rent 
(that's not how it work of course, but close enough).

Anyway, this all shows that you live in a financially totally different 
country.  But I knew that already.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 18:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
>>> clipka wrote:
>>>> Darren New schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>>>> the mail, then?
>>>>
>>>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>>>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>>>> transfer money from your account to John's.
>>>
>>> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
>>> Seems inconvenient.
>> No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. 
> 
> And how do people who don't have computers (see above) handle that?

Actually, I don't know. I think I don;t know anybody who doesn't, so I 
can not even ask.

>> Earlier by writing a check that you send to the *bank*. 
> 
> That's different.
> 
>>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) 
>>> post office and give them cash money, and they give you something 
>>> that works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank 
>>> account can still pay people who are remote.
>>
>> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?
> 
> No, but we're next door to one. (No, not really, but apparently banks 
> are not trustworthy institutions to people from some central/south 
> american countries.)
> 
> We also have immigrants, tourists, and so on.

I have been a tourist some times and it is rather a surprise the first 
time that simple things don't seem to work. Long time ago (before ATM) I 
was with my then girlfriend in the states. She did not earn enough to 
have her own credit card (yes, the cards work differently here too). I 
was at a conference. So, she had money in her account but I was hard to 
get to that. She had also that bewildering experience of going into a 
bank with some Dutch money and find out that this bank could not change 
that into dollars.

>> I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long 
>> as I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. 
>> it has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you 
>> were employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.
> 
> Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this 
> country. :-)  People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they want.

Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?

>> Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I 
>> have never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.
> 
> I see. SO you can still send written instructions, but you send them to 
> the bank, and if the person doesn't have a bank account, you're pretty 
> much SOL.

Not familiar with SOL, but I can guess. Well, yes, but as everybody has 
a bank account, that problem seldom occurs.

>>> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know 
>>> of course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a 
>>> picture of their signature on the back of the check.
>>
>> As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.
> 
> That works.
> 
>> I think this German thing is for a single time.
> 
> You can do it a single time here too. It's generally just not worth 
> setting up the payment instructions if you can just mail them a check.

Sure, makes sense within your system.

>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 
> 
> With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, 
> you still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.

The log of your bank account is proof here.

>> These are probably the closest to your kind of cheques, except for the 
>> guarantee. 
> 
> Our checks come with guarantees in the sense that it's illegal to write 
> a check when you don't have the money to cover it.
> 
> Otherwise, we have what are called "traveler's checks", which are like 
> these, except they're designed so that if they get stolen they can't be 
> used and can be refunded by the issuing bank.  You just buy them for 
> cash, sign one side, and then you sign the other side when you turn it 
> over to the merchant.

Ours will pay the shop owner the amount that is on the cheque no matter 
if you have it in your account or not. What happens if you spend more 
than you have is between you and the bank. The shop owner does not need 
to care about that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> A factor might be that it is 
> almost impossible to disappear here, so there is no point in not paying. 

I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.

>   If you can't pay you are removed from the house. 

Same here.

> Anyway, this all shows that you live in a financially totally different 
> country.  But I knew that already.

Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> She did not earn enough to 
> have her own credit card (yes, the cards work differently here too).

We have that, or at least certainly had that a couple decades ago. I don't 
know after the latest financial "melt-down" here.

> She had also that bewildering experience of going into a 
> bank with some Dutch money and find out that this bank could not change 
> that into dollars.

Well, we're not Europe. :-) Foreign countries aren't nearly as close to the 
USA as they are close together in Europe.

> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?

Sure. We don't trust our government.

> Not familiar with SOL, but I can guess. Well, yes, but as everybody has 
> a bank account, that problem seldom occurs.

Well, you mean, except perhaps the tourists, or children, or whatever.

>>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 
>>
>> With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, 
>> you still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.
> 
> The log of your bank account is proof here.

Generally it doesn't come to that unless you actually get to court. Most 
people are happy to try to figure out what happened. If I mail you a check 
and you don't cash it, I say "Gee, must have gotten lost in the mail" and I 
mail another. Rarely happens, tho.

> Ours will pay the shop owner the amount that is on the cheque no matter 
> if you have it in your account or not. What happens if you spend more 
> than you have is between you and the bank. The shop owner does not need 
> to care about that.

That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as customer-focused.

To get that level of assurance here, you can take credit/debit cards or 
cash, or bank checks or money orders. Just not personal checks.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>> there is no point in not paying. 
> 
> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.

is it?

>>   If you can't pay you are removed from the house. 
> 
> Same here.
> 
>> Anyway, this all shows that you live in a financially totally 
>> different country.  But I knew that already.
> 
> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
> 
and credit cards and some other things as well.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 21:53, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> She had also that bewildering experience of going into a bank with 
>> some Dutch money and find out that this bank could not change that 
>> into dollars.
> 
> Well, we're not Europe. :-) Foreign countries aren't nearly as close to 
> the USA as they are close together in Europe.

That is what we found out. You can imagine it comes as a shock if you 
are not prepared for it. BTW the USA is closer to a foreign country 
than, say, Malta or Iceland.

>> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?
> 
> Sure. We don't trust our government.

I know, weird concept if you ask me. ;)

>> Not familiar with SOL, but I can guess. Well, yes, but as everybody 
>> has a bank account, that problem seldom occurs.
> 
> Well, you mean, except perhaps the tourists, or children, or whatever.

Being a tourist is a problem, but that is why that is fun in the first 
place. Children do have bank accounts. Not sure about the whatevers, you 
mean dogs, cats, cars, masonry...? They don't.

>>>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 
>>>
>>> With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, 
>>> you still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.
>>
>> The log of your bank account is proof here.
> 
> Generally it doesn't come to that unless you actually get to court. Most 
> people are happy to try to figure out what happened. If I mail you a 
> check and you don't cash it, I say "Gee, must have gotten lost in the 
> mail" and I mail another. Rarely happens, tho.

Really weird system, but if you are happy with it, it is OK with me ;)

>> Ours will pay the shop owner the amount that is on the cheque no 
>> matter if you have it in your account or not. What happens if you 
>> spend more than you have is between you and the bank. The shop owner 
>> does not need to care about that.
> 
> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as customer-focused.

And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...

> To get that level of assurance here, you can take credit/debit cards or 
> cash, or bank checks or money orders. Just not personal checks.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>>> there is no point in not paying. 
>>
>> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.
> 
> is it?

Yes. If you can't even buy a tank full of gas without being tracked by your 
bank, chances are you're not going to do a good job of disappearing. You 
yourself said you don't know many people who get paid in cash, right?

>> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
>>
> and credit cards and some other things as well.

What's different about the credit cards?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> That is what we found out. 

We *do* have banks that *do* all those money changes. It's just not every 
bank carrying around wads of foreign currency that nobody is likely to ask 
for soon. Of course pretty much anywhere can give you canadian money or 
mexican money.

>> Sure. We don't trust our government.
> I know, weird concept if you ask me. ;)

Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)

Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.

> Children do have bank accounts. 

Huh, OK.

>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as customer-focused.
> 
> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...

I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  It's more mistrust from people who have 
been robbed by their banks. Maybe the USA will get there pretty soon, but 
it's mostly "hispanic" ethnicities that I have heard distrust banks. (That 
being folks from central america who speak spanish as their main language.)

You can imagine that if you grew up in a country where feudalism was 
rampant, you too might not trust the local government to hold onto your 
money for you.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 22:10, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>>>> there is no point in not paying. 
>>>
>>> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.
>>
>> is it?
> 
> Yes. If you can't even buy a tank full of gas without being tracked by 
> your bank, chances are you're not going to do a good job of 
> disappearing. You yourself said you don't know many people who get paid 
> in cash, right?

right, possibly none.

We also have a rather well functioning person administration in the city 
counsel (or whatever you call that). You can not move into a house 
without notifying the city and telling where you came from (Yes in many 
cases you need a permit to live in a particular city. I can not just go 
into a house in a city that I don't work in or have some other 
connection with, but don't ask me details). I think you also need to 
tell the city you leave where you are going to, if you don't you still 
have to pay city taxes. Sounds like big brother but works well. (Too 
well if you are a jewish citizen in the German occupied Netherlands in 
1940-1945)

>>> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
>>>
>> and credit cards and some other things as well.
> 
> What's different about the credit cards?

Not entirely sure because I don't know the US system that well.

Needing a certain income to get one and sometimes not being allowed to 
go below zero on the account that is coupled to it might be one 
difference. Perhaps even the fact that it is coupled to a specific bank 
account and issued by that bank. We have a maximum amount we can charge 
the card for per month, irrespective of the balance on your account 
(though the amount is a function of income, I think roughly one month of 
salary on that account in most cases). Variation do exist.
I have been in trouble once in NZ when I nearly could not pay the rent 
of the apartment we rented for a couple of weeks when I was working 
there. The amount exceeded what I was allowed to draw on that card for 
that month. I had more than enough on my account but could not reach it. 
(for some reasons it worked when I split the amount in small steps 
trying to figure out where the limit was exactly). I should have 
informed my bank that I needed a temporary increase in my limit. I did 
not think about that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Sounds like big brother but works well. (Too 
> well if you are a jewish citizen in the German occupied Netherlands in 
> 1940-1945)

Yeah. Works great, until it doesn't. :-) We still have enough problems here 
(discrimination problems, illegal immigrant problems, etc) that we still 
have it clear in national memory why you can't really trust the government 
to stick up for you or obey its own laws.  Also perhaps because we have a 
whole crapload of different jurisdictions, legally speaking.

We don't really have to tell anyone where we're going. If the landlord 
doesn't ask, nobody cares.

In China not too many decades ago, you had to get permission from your boss 
to change jobs, houses, or get married, so I think there's a full scale out 
there.

> Needing a certain income to get one 

That's up to the bank that's lending you the money. It's a *credit* card, 
after all. You don't need anything to get a debit card.

> and sometimes not being allowed to 
> go below zero on the account that is coupled to it might be one 
> difference. 

Credit cards aren't coupled to accounts with money in them. Those are debit 
cards here.  (I.e., you have a credit card account, but it's a credit 
account, so there's no money in the account.)

> Perhaps even the fact that it is coupled to a specific bank 
> account and issued by that bank. 

We have that here, yes. Some specific bank has to loan you the money.

> We have a maximum amount we can charge 
> the card for per month, irrespective of the balance on your account 

Well, these are all rules determined by the bank giving you the card. 
There's a maximum amount of money they'll loan you before they start 
declining the card, but there's no way they can just (for example) take 
money out of your bank account if you don't pay them back. They'd actually 
have to get the government to take your money and pay them.

> I had more than enough on my account but could not reach it. 

Yes, it sounds more like you're describing a debit card or an ATM card here. 
(What Visa likes to call a "check card" here, because it's effectively like 
writing a check.)

A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
getting a loan for a house.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 22:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That is what we found out. 
> 
> We *do* have banks that *do* all those money changes. It's just not 
> every bank carrying around wads of foreign currency that nobody is 
> likely to ask for soon. Of course pretty much anywhere can give you 
> canadian money or mexican money.

Sure, but for us the whole concept of a bank was handling money 
including changing into a different currency.

>>> Sure. We don't trust our government.
>> I know, weird concept if you ask me. ;)
> 
> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)

yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
can not be trusted.

> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.

No, *your* government, not mine.

>> Children do have bank accounts. 
> 
> Huh, OK.

Needing a countersign from one of the parents until they are 16 or so of 
course.

>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>> customer-focused.
>>
>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
> 
> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  

I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

> It's more mistrust from people who 
> have been robbed by their banks. Maybe the USA will get there pretty 
> soon, but it's mostly "hispanic" ethnicities that I have heard distrust 
> banks. (That being folks from central america who speak spanish as their 
> main language.)
> 
> You can imagine that if you grew up in a country where feudalism was 
> rampant, you too might not trust the local government to hold onto your 
> money for you.

Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
meaning to you)

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 23:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

> Yes, it sounds more like you're describing a debit card or an ATM card 
> here. (What Visa likes to call a "check card" here, because it's 
> effectively like writing a check.)

Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and mine 
is a mastercard issued by my bank.

> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
> getting a loan for a house.

For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be a 
relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
> 
> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
> can not be trusted.

What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* government.

>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
> 
> No, *your* government, not mine.

That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you to 
trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is for 
*me* to trust *my* government to that extent.

> Needing a countersign from one of the parents until they are 16 or so of 
> course.

Oh, alright. :-)

>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>> customer-focused.
>>>
>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>
>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
> 
> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
> meaning to you)

I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense to 
enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. I don't even particularly distrust 
"the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats decision powers over 
individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to some bureaucrat to take 
action to let you do something reasonable, then it's not uncommonly going to 
lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, informing the old tax authority that 
you're not paying taxes there and informing the new tax authority you are 
isn't what I'd call petty actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff 
like getting *permission* to move in the first place.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and mine 
> is a mastercard issued by my bank.

It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing network, 
but which the bank treats as withdraws.

>> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
>> getting a loan for a house.
> 
> For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be a 
> relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.

Could be.  It's certainly possible to use it responsibly.  I'd have to look 
at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've also 
heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or so were 
caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, but I have nothing 
better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like that, I'd 
want to go to the sources.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 0:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
>>
>> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
>> can not be trusted.
> 
> What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* 
> government.

I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of 
course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into 
it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is 
wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

>>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
>>
>> No, *your* government, not mine.
> 
> That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you 
> to trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is 
> for *me* to trust *my* government to that extent.
> 

If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens 
first and themselves next. And campaign and vote for those that you 
trust. That is more important than if what they promise will cost you 
.05% less of your income.

>>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>>> customer-focused.
>>>>
>>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>>
>>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
>>
>> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.
> 
> I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
> competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are 
after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
getting into trouble without them doing something wrong. The reason 
being that if you let that pass it will often cost the community more 
than what it costs now. Examples are health care and homelessness.

>> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
>> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
>> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
>> meaning to you)
> 
> I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense 
> to enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. 

Did I say you were?

> I don't even particularly 
> distrust "the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats 
> decision powers over individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to 
> some bureaucrat to take action to let you do something reasonable, then 
> it's not uncommonly going to lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, 
> informing the old tax authority that you're not paying taxes there and 
> informing the new tax authority you are isn't what I'd call petty 
> actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff like getting 
> *permission* to move in the first place.)

In this crowded country there is logic to it. Take a large city like 
Amsterdam. People want to work there because that is where the jobs are. 
Now within an hour driving distance are a couple of smaller towns with 
more green, bigger houses for the same money, and better environment for 
the kids to grow up. So everybody wants to live in those smaller towns. 
Ok now from the perspective of the smaller town: people come live there 
but don't work, don't take part in the local society and don't use the 
local shops. So nearly no income from these people, but they still have 
to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them. 
Seen from this perspective anyone wanting to live in their town that is 
working in the big city costs the local community money. Besides they 
will make every town expand to the same density as the big city, 
effectively destroying the whole idea of a smaller town. So they pass a 
law that you have to have a strong relation with the town to live there. 
  Very democratic.

I don't like it that I can not live everywhere that I want, but I 
understand the logic and accept it. The concept is that it may harm me 
now, but will benefit society (and therefore me and my grandchildren) as 
a whole in the long run. A concept that seems to be alien to many Americans.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 0:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and 
>> mine is a mastercard issued by my bank.
> 
> It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing 
> network, but which the bank treats as withdraws.
The only differences are that the withdrawals can be settled later and 
not immediately as with our other cards, and that they are accepted abroad.

>>> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
>>> getting a loan for a house.
>>
>> For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be 
>> a relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.
> 
> Could be.  It's certainly possible to use it responsibly.  I'd have to 
> look at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've 
> also heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or 
> so were caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, 

me neither.

> but I have 
> nothing better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like 
> that, I'd want to go to the sources.)

seems fair to me.

So what is your government going to do about these medical bankruptcies? 
They do cost the society a lot of money. Both in unpaid bills and 
diminished health that may prevent them from working and paying tax later.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Children do have bank accounts.
> 
> Huh, OK.

I'm 18 and I don't have one. I only own cash.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de 
news:4ad3aa86@news.povray.org...
> It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing network, 
> but which the bank treats as withdraws.

If it's in the Netherlands like in France, people call them credit cards but 
the official term is indeed debit card, and that's what most people have 
here: true credit cards are almost unheard of. During the financial crisis, 
I kept reading about Americans juggling with credit cards and getting into 
debt, which was very confusing to me: with my "credit card" I just can't 
withdraw more money than I have in my account. It took a short trip to 
Wikipedia to understand what was going on, but it was funny to discover that 
this "little" difference leads to different lifestyles, money-wise.

G.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The only differences are that the withdrawals can be settled later and 
> not immediately as with our other cards, and that they are accepted abroad.

I'm not sure just what you mean by this, but there's a big difference 
legally speaking. One is a loan, the other is a convenient way of getting 
your own money out of your bank account. It's like saying "there's nothing 
different between an IOU and cash, except one settles faster." :-)

> So what is your government going to do about these medical bankruptcies? 
> They do cost the society a lot of money. Both in unpaid bills and 
> diminished health that may prevent them from working and paying tax later.

Well, that's one of the giant debates in progress here right now. 
Unfortunatly, the big corporations seem to have an undue amount of influence 
here, and they're getting even bolder than they used to be.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of 
> course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into 
> it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is 
> wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

Sure. That can be difficult, tho, especially when you consider you only vote 
for a small fraction of the people making the laws. Just saying "don't vote 
for them" doesn't really work when you're a minority.

Part of the problem is we have a greater diversity in this country than most 
places in Europe, too.

> If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens 
> first and themselves next. 

I don't think they will do that if we *do* trust em. :-)

> I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are 
> after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
> getting into trouble without them doing something wrong.

I trust the banks more because I can walk away from the abusive bank. If the 
government wants to do something bad to me, I can't just say "that's OK, 
I'll go to the branch down the street." :-)

Certainly there are good parts of the government and bad, and the government 
could do a lot more than it used to.  I think most of the bad crap really is 
just in the last couple decades.

> In this crowded country there is logic to it. 

It makes sense if you're more uniform in culture. It also makes sense if 
there are laws that say who is allowed to live there that were passed by the 
locals, and not just some official making the decision based on whether he 
had enough coffee that morning.

> So nearly no income from these people, but they still have 
> to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them. 

That's what property taxes are for. :-)

>  Very democratic.

If it's enforced fairly, I can understand that. If it's some local official 
saying "we don't like your kind around here", that's a different matter.

> A concept that seems to be alien to many Americans.

Sadly so.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 17:15, Darren New wrote:
> Could be. It's certainly possible to use it responsibly. I'd have to
> look at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've
> also heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or
> so were caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, but I have
> nothing better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like
> that, I'd want to go to the sources.)

	Essentially, it's a study stating that medical bills were a significant 
factor in bankruptcies - but not necessarily the main cause or the 
problem that led them to file.

	Like you getting sick, getting expensive treatment, paying for it (by 
money that you do have), and then 6 months later you lose your job and 
can't continue to pay other, unrelated debts (e.g. house). So you file 
for bankruptcy. The medical bills didn't cause the problem, but they 
were a factor. You may have filed for bankruptcy even if you hadn't 
gotten sick - if you didn't get a job quickly enough, etc.

	I can look up the details and provide links, if you want.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 14:07, andrel wrote:
>> Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this
>> country. :-) People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they
>> want.
>
> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?

	When the Bush administration was caught monitoring phone conversations 
en masse (and likely illegally), their defense was along the lines of 
"If you're not calling terrorists, why are you worried about it?"

	
	

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 17:39, andrel wrote:
>> What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-) I'm asking would *you* trust *our*
>> government.
>
> I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of
> course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into
> it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is
> wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

	OK - Shift the distrust to the people, then.<G>

	In the end, though, it's a question of rights. The government doesn't 
have the right (at least here), to know all the details of what type of 
stuff I'm buying.

	Now of course, that doesn't mean private stores are legally bound to 
accept cash to preserve those rights. They're private and are free to do 
what they want (in this regard). However, given the US governments' 
abuse of powers in relation to these types of things throughout the 20th 
century (and beyond), a lot of people have good reason not to trust the 
government. So most businesses accept cash.

	(And BTW, most small businesses here prefer cash - they get charged a 
fee every time a customer uses a card - so they make more money on cash 
transactions).

	Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain "good" 
people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The president 
can't just change everything if he wants to.

	I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have probably 
been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.

>> That's what I'm saying, yes. I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you
>> to trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it
>> is for *me* to trust *my* government to that extent.
>
> If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens
> first and themselves next. And campaign and vote for those that you
> trust. That is more important than if what they promise will cost you
> .05% less of your income.

	Voting for people you trust is usually how corrupt politicians get 
elected (as well as good politicians). Did you think they rigged the 
elections to get there?

	We're straying from the original topic, but as lots of people say, the 
key to a good democracy is an informed population. And most people here 
are really, really uninformed about most things. Chances are if they 
read the news moderately, they're even more uninformed.

	Don't know how this compares to other countries, though.

> I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are
> after money while the government is trying to prevent people from
> getting into trouble without them doing something wrong. The reason
> being that if you let that pass it will often cost the community more
> than what it costs now. Examples are health care and homelessness.

	In the US, there's a general belief that if a person wants to screw 
himself, the government should stay out of it. Of course, they may have 
stuff like suicide hotlines, etc.

	The US does have a lot of a certain kind of freedom. It sucks in many 
other ways, so they cling to that freedom even more when under 
criticism. Kind of like how C/C++ programmers will respond to most 
criticisms with "But in your language, how fast can you..."

	Of course, it's not that black and white in reality, but they try to 
stick to the principle that you shouldn't put too many barriers against 
shooting yourself in the foot if you're really bent on it.

	So you want a huge loan for your house that you can't reasonably pay 
off? The government won't stop you. You want to buy unhealthy food items 
that will kill you earlier? They won't stop you. They may set up an 
agency to inform the public what the government thinks is healthy or 
not, but they won't force any food manufacturer to change their 
ingredients (unless it's so bad that they ban the ingredient 
altogether). Recently I found out that the FDA cannot take punitive 
action against stores that continue to sell products that the FDA has a 
recall for (e.g. salmonella, etc).

	Of course, if the consequences are really bad (or affect others) (e.g. 
smoking, unbridled lending, etc) - they then consider changing the rules 
for the betterment of society.

	And since we don't have universal health care paid for by taxes, and 
perhaps many other tax supported benefits that you may have, the cost to 
the community is not big (financially).

	And to be honest, over here financial costs are the ones everyone cares 
about. That does suck, but it's a sad reality. All other kinds of 
"costs" go into two categories: 1. We'll figure out a solution to take 
care of those problems without impinging on people's rights. (usually 
wishful thinking) 2. No one forced the guy to do something stupid, and 
so it's his fault (perhaps a poor perspective on reality)

	Finally, you have to realize that the US population is much, much 
bigger than your country's. So there's a lot of inertia, and it has to 
get quite bad before things can change. Something small may cost your 
community pretty quickly and pretty noticeably. Over here it has to be 
that much bigger before people notice the problems.

> In this crowded country there is logic to it. Take a large city like
> Amsterdam. People want to work there because that is where the jobs are.
> Now within an hour driving distance are a couple of smaller towns with
> more green, bigger houses for the same money, and better environment for
> the kids to grow up. So everybody wants to live in those smaller towns.
> Ok now from the perspective of the smaller town: people come live there
> but don't work, don't take part in the local society and don't use the
> local shops. So nearly no income from these people, but they still have
> to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them.
> Seen from this perspective anyone wanting to live in their town that is
> working in the big city costs the local community money. Besides they
> will make every town expand to the same density as the big city,
> effectively destroying the whole idea of a smaller town. So they pass a
> law that you have to have a strong relation with the town to live there.
> Very democratic.

	Well, either way is democratic, if the people supported it. Not sure 
what your point is.

	My first thought is that they seem kind of spoiled to expect all the 
comforts in a town if they're not willing to pay for it. But perhaps I 
misunderstood the situation.

	Over here, though, the concept won't work. A law like that would be 
very unpopular. People like the freedom to live wherever they want. They 
value it more than a lot of what we consider "luxuries", but you may 
consider "necessities". It's as democratic as what you have, because 
that's how the people want it.

	Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be viewed 
as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, religion, etc). 
Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that already.

	And BTW, over here if you live in city A and work in city B, your city 
taxes go to A, and not B. So that may somewhat take care of the problem.

> I don't like it that I can not live everywhere that I want, but I
> understand the logic and accept it. The concept is that it may harm me
> now, but will benefit society (and therefore me and my grandchildren) as
> a whole in the long run. A concept that seems to be alien to many
> Americans.

	Well, yes and no. It depends on, more or less, your beliefs. Many 
Americans believe that the very freedom that you restricted in your 
country may actually result in a better society if you don't restrict 
it. And if problems like yours arose, they try to find solutions that 
don't restrict those freedoms.

	Ultimately, you feel differently because of what you're used to, and 
you suspect the opposite would really suck. And Americans feel their way 
for the same reasons - except on the opposite side.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 17:01, andrel wrote:
> Sure, but for us the whole concept of a bank was handling money
> including changing into a different currency.

	Yes, but you may have been the first person in a year or longer asking 
for that currency in that particular branch/bank. I'm guessing in your 
country the need to change currency per capita is much, much higher. 
Over here, we mostly only change currencies when traveling 
internationally. And few Americans do that with any frequency.

>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.
>
> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

	Well, it's not exactly binary. You can trust the government in some 
things, and not in others. And as Darren hinted at, there are good 
reasons to mistrust them in some things - they have a history of abusing 
their powers.

> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd
> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless
> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different
> meaning to you)

	Yes, but we're not that confident that we'll consistently get a "good" 
government. Over here, the corporate world has a big impact on 
government decisions. The one thing that does suck about society here is 
the focus on money.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 1:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

>> I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks 
>> are after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
>> getting into trouble without them doing something wrong.
> 
> I trust the banks more because I can walk away from the abusive bank. 

On banks (may respond to the other things later):

We had an interesting thing going on this week. We have a bank that 
deliberately sold product to people that they could not afford and in 
some cases did not even ask for. Thing on the edge of what is legal but 
definitely crossing the order of unethical. Many families got in trouble 
by that. In an undutch way many lawsuits followed but were getting nowhere.
Finally last week someone, who was trying to negotiate compensation for 
the victims in vain, basically asked for a bank run on tv. M€600 was 
withdrawn from the bank and yesterday they had to enter the first stage 
of bankruptcy and control was transferred to our national bank.

I am not sure if it helps their victims and some people find it rather 
irresponsible to deliberately collapse a bank. In any case there is a 
lesson to be learned here for arrogant and irresponsible bankers: 
customers can collapse your bank and you are going to be held responsible.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     I can look up the details and provide links, if you want.

Interesting. I'll take your word for it. No need. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Finally last week someone, who was trying to negotiate compensation for 
> the victims in vain, basically asked for a bank run on tv.

There ya go. Not only can you walk away, if you get enough people doing it, 
you can eliminate the entire problem bank. :-)

> I am not sure if it helps their victims and some people find it rather 
> irresponsible to deliberately collapse a bank. 

It's really not that unusual. Odd for a *bank*, given that banks print their 
own money, but lots of companies will go belly-up when their customers hear 
of nastiness perpetrated by the owners. Especially now in the days of internet.

> customers can collapse your bank and you are going to be held responsible.

Exactly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Now of course, that doesn't mean private stores are legally bound to 
> accept cash to preserve those rights.

In the USA, you're legally required to accept cash (as in, federal reserve 
notes) for debts. If I owe you the money, you have to take cash. But if I 
don't *already* owe you the money, you don't have to take cash.

E.g., if I walk into your restaurant, before I eat I don't owe you anything, 
so you're free to tell me that you don't take cash.

If I'm behind on my rent or owe you for my phone bill, you have to take 
cash. If you refuse my cash, then I no longer owe you that money.

>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
> president can't just change everything if he wants to.

Plus, the USA's legal system isn't like europe. We don't have a parliment 
where it makes sense to run a few people on one specific platform like the 
Pirate Party. You have to pick someone who has a whole mix of views (about 
which they are likely lying), and hope they agree with you more than they 
disagree, even if they get elected. That's why the hot issues like abortion 
are *such* hot issues. They're very polarizing if someone whips up a big 
crowd of people to have an opinion stronger on that than anything else.

>     Over here, though, the concept won't work. A law like that would be 
> very unpopular. 

And probably unconstitutional. The same laws that say "you're allowed to get 
together to complain to the government" have been applied to say "you're not 
allowed to refuse to rent one apartment to two unrelated families" (like, 
kids in college sharing a house).

>     And BTW, over here if you live in city A and work in city B, your 
> city taxes go to A, and not B. So that may somewhat take care of the 
> problem.

Heh.  Actually, it's more like if city A has a 10% tax and city B has a 7% 
tax, they tax you at 10%, give 7% to B and 3% to A.  In other words, *both* 
places tax you, but they're nice and let you write off your taxes from one 
place on the taxes from another place.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message