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