On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> it seems an obvious
>> consequence that if the police try to frame you, it is provably
>> impossible to do anything about it.
> 
> O J Simpson.  One counter-example disproves "provably impossible".

I don't think that's a definitive counter-example; I think it's a good 
example that you get the verdict you can afford.

But I don't dispute your point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>>> it seems an obvious
>>> consequence that if the police try to frame you, it is provably
>>> impossible to do anything about it.
>> O J Simpson.  One counter-example disproves "provably impossible".
> 
> I don't think that's a definitive counter-example; I think it's a good 
> example that you get the verdict you can afford.

Well, yes. Hell, I mean, the guy was *guilty* and he got off because people 
thought the cops *might* have been framing him.

It costs a lot more to get off when you're guilty than when you're innocent.

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

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4acc4a83$1@news.povray.org...
> I assume they just did a google image search for "office" and took the 
> first one with a chair in view.

Actually Jaime's POV-Ray image is the *** first *** image returned by GIS 
for "office", which is impressive.

See also:
http://www.tarbija24.ee/121106/esileht/olulised_teemad/tarbija24/tervis/227835.php 
(note the caption)
http://www.gardianul.ro/2006/11/16/economie-c1/cele_mai_tari_firme_romanesti_valoreaza_75_miliarde_de_euro-s86940.html
http://www.pronis.com/solutions.asp
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123
http://www.indiamart.com/essarr/aboutus.html

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123

Wow. If he didn't get paid for *that* one, there's some definite bucks he 
could pick up. :-)  A book publisher should definitely know better.

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.

> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
> being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."

  As if eyewitness testimony would be more reliable than photographic one...

> >   What's the value of photography if you can get *whatever you want* with
> > just a couple of mouse clicks?

> It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the 
> special effects, too. :-)

  What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
it as a CGI effect.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

More:

http://tineye.com/search/cb78477880f746dfeff92fec8c62ffd5149506b2



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:18:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>>> it seems an obvious
>>>> consequence that if the police try to frame you, it is provably
>>>> impossible to do anything about it.
>>> O J Simpson.  One counter-example disproves "provably impossible".
>> 
>> I don't think that's a definitive counter-example; I think it's a good
>> example that you get the verdict you can afford.
> 
> Well, yes. Hell, I mean, the guy was *guilty* and he got off because
> people thought the cops *might* have been framing him.

Exactly my point.

> It costs a lot more to get off when you're guilty than when you're
> innocent.

True, and Simpson did have the best lawyers he could afford, and at the 
time, he was able to afford quite a lot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Which, fortunately, isn't that complicated.
> 
> You call yourself stupid, and you think proving that digital signatures 
> work isn't that complicated?

I didn't say *proving it works* is easy. I said explaining *what it 
does* is easy.

> O J Simpson.  One counter-example disproves "provably impossible".
> 
> And no, the police (in the US at least) don't control all the evidence 
> or what shows up in the courtroom. If the cop says (real example) that 
> you attacked him in the elevator, and the video tape from the elevator 
> camera shows the cop punching you first, chances are you'll get off.

If one cop says you hit him, and everybody else follows the evidence, 
you should be OK. If the entire judicial system actively tries to frame 
you, there is no hope. The police can edit the video tape, alter the 
medical reports, hire witnesses... you can't beat that.

Still, as I understand it, in the American justice system, whoever has 
the biggest wallet wins, regardless of minor details like "evidence"...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:12:21 +0200, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:48:14 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 
>>> Michael Zier wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like you, and coolness is overrated.
>>> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's name 
>>> properly. ;-)
>> 
>> Oh! no he is not. :P
>Ach, he was Scottish after all ;)

No, you're thinking about Jock Bach :)

Going from Andrew's reply he's talking about his surname. We kelts can pronounce
"ch" without it sounding like "ck", bach :-) (Welsh for "little" similar to
"pet" in English) 

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:12:52 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Heh. You should have seen it. "Bach? Bach? Who is Bach? Oh, you mean 
>BAAHHHHCHPT!" *wipe*

LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:50:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:12:21 +0200, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide>
> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:48:14 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Michael Zier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like you, and coolness is overrated.
>>>> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's
>>>> name properly. ;-)
>>> 
>>> Oh! no he is not. :P
>>Ach, he was Scottish after all ;)
> 
> No, you're thinking about Jock Bach :)

Now you're reminding me of a Peter Schickele joke.  He went to meet 
Robert Bach (this is part of one of his recordings), and upon meeting 
Robert, he handed him a small pebble.

You see, it apparently was always a goal of his to give Bert Bach a Rock.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Oct 2009 16:15:53 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:


>Now you're reminding me of a Peter Schickele joke.  He went to meet 
>Robert Bach (this is part of one of his recordings), and upon meeting 
>Robert, he handed him a small pebble.
>
>You see, it apparently was always a goal of his to give Bert Bach a Rock.
>

<groan>
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:20:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7 Oct 2009 16:15:53 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Now you're reminding me of a Peter Schickele joke.  He went to meet
>>Robert Bach (this is part of one of his recordings), and upon meeting
>>Robert, he handed him a small pebble.
>>
>>You see, it apparently was always a goal of his to give Bert Bach a
>>Rock.
>>
>>
> <groan>

That was my reaction as well. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.
> 
>> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
>> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
>> being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."
> 
>   As if eyewitness testimony would be more reliable than photographic one...

It's how our legal system works. The testimony isn't taken to be reliable. 
It's up to the jury to judge whether it's reliable. It's not uncommon for 
some medical problem to result in both sides bringing up doctors, one to say 
it was a terrible lack of care and attention, the other saying it was an 
inevitable result of the illness.  The jury figures out which doctor they 
believe more.

Note that in the case with the photo, it's not that eyewitness testimony is 
more reliable than the photo, but eyewitness testimony that the photo shows 
what was actually there.

Kind of like getting the guy who measured the amount of alcohol in your 
blood to show up and say "yes, I did that, the results match the person, 
etc" instead of just a piece of paper that says "this is how much alcohol 
was in his blood" that you can't question to find out if it's accurate.

>   What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
> even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
> it as a CGI effect.

That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 03:09, scott wrote:
> Hi-end digital cameras have security features to prove the image has not
> been tampered with since the camera wrote the file. I have no idea how
> it works but it would seem something like this might propagate down to
> cheaper cameras if there is a demand for proving the image is original.

	I'd like details. In court, though, I assume they use prints. Now 
unless those high end digital cameras actually print the images live in 
the courtroom...

-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 10:27, Invisible wrote:
> Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to
> actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)

	Been there. Done that. Learned not to trust banks.

	


-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 12:02, Warp wrote:
>> It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
>> special effects, too. :-)
>
>    What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
> even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
> it as a CGI effect.

	At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from 
real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?

-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/07/09 10:27, Invisible wrote:
>> Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to
>> actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)
> 
>     Been there. Done that. Learned not to trust banks.

What, giving someone a check intentionally not signed, or cashing a check 
that wasn't signed?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 18:34, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 10/07/09 10:27, Invisible wrote:
>>> Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to
>>> actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)
>>
>> Been there. Done that. Learned not to trust banks.
>
> What, giving someone a check intentionally not signed, or cashing a
> check that wasn't signed?

	Well: Half way. Giving checks signed in the wrong place. Always got cashed.

-- 
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any 
difference. - Steven Wright

Post a reply to this message

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 :) ).

These days, they would blow the whole d*** building with CGI.

It's just not the same :(

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Heh. Well in that case, I guess all we need to do is get everybody in 
> this newsgroup to tell me how awsome I am, constantly, and maybe in a 
> few weeks' time I'll wake up honestly believing that I'm actually a 
> worth-while human being...

We've tried that.  You almost always respond with, "No, I'm not" :(

Try telling yourSELF that you're awesome every day for two weeks.  Maybe 
you'll listen to yourself more than you do to us.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to 
> actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)

The vast majority of all checks get cleared automatically, with no human 
intervention.  The software will read the routing and account 
information, the amount, and look to see if something is on the 
signature line which could conceivably be a signature.

As long as the check was wrinkled, it could have seen enough smudges to 
assume that there was a signature there.

In cases like that, the person would have to file a dispute with the 
bank, stating that they didn't write the check.  Since they *did* write 
the check, they wouldn't get their money back.

If, on the other hand, the check were fraudulent, then the bank would 
credit back the account holder, and deal with recovering the funds 
themselves.  And believe me, banks are *very* good at recovering money 
owed to them.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Well, that's another matter entirely, yes. I think you have to take 
>> police evidence as valid, because if the police themselves are trying 
>> to frame somebody, there's not a lot you can do in a courtroom...
> 
> O J Simpson.

Wouldn't Rodney King be a better example?  I don't recall there being 
much evidence that the police tried to frame O J.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123
> 
> Wow. If he didn't get paid for *that* one, there's some definite bucks 
> he could pick up. :-)  A book publisher should definitely know better.

Ouch. That's just nasty...

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Heh. I heard some guy got given a cheque and the customer forgot to 
>> actually sign it. The bank handed over the money anyway. (WTF?)
> 
> The vast majority of all checks get cleared automatically, with no human 
> intervention.  The software will read the routing and account 
> information, the amount, and look to see if something is on the 
> signature line which could conceivably be a signature.

Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
cheques per week is much different.

> If, on the other hand, the check were fraudulent, then the bank would 
> credit back the account holder, and deal with recovering the funds 
> themselves.  And believe me, banks are *very* good at recovering money 
> owed to them.

Haha. Yeah, banks know how to extract funds. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4accc7d7$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0741445123
>
> Wow. If he didn't get paid for *that* one, there's some definite bucks he 
> could pick up. :-)  A book publisher should definitely know better.

The publisher is a print-on-demand company, aka a vanity press (at least 
they seem to be relatively upfront about this). Authors pay 500$ to get 
published, do the editing and the design work themselves and sign a 
disclaimer saying that they're the sole owner of the copyright (a CYA for 
the publisher I suppose). Even if the author asked Jaime for permission, I 
doubt that there's any money to be made here.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:

> If one cop says you hit him, and everybody else follows the evidence, 
> you should be OK. If the entire judicial system actively tries to frame 
> you, there is no hope. The police can edit the video tape, alter the 
> medical reports, hire witnesses... you can't beat that.

What you describe would actually be the /executive/ trying to frame you.

And no, I don't think they have a /too/ easy time to fool the judicial 
branch of power.

Of course, if those two would team up against you, you'd be in /really/ 
deep trouble (which is why the two are separated in most democratic 
states in the first place... and the legislative power is in yet other 
hands, for that matter).

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> Michael Zier wrote:
> 
>> I like you, and coolness is overrated.
> 
> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's name 
> properly. ;-)

"Michael Zier" - that sounds German, so it's not a big surprise he can :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. And you're the first person I've met who can pronounce Bach's 
>> name properly. ;-)
> 
> "Michael Zier" - that sounds German, so it's not a big surprise he can :-)

Indeed. It wasn't until recently that I realised that Bach was a crazy 
German guy.

Well, I mean... I figured out he was crazy when I was 12 or so. But it 
wasn't until this year I found out he was German. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.

  It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
just dismiss it as a computer model.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from 
> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?

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

  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Wouldn't Rodney King be a better example?  I don't recall there being 
> much evidence that the police tried to frame O J.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit!

Yes, the whole point was the cops used racist language, didn't properly 
label the evidence, etc etc.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from
>> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
>
>    Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> making the film.
	
	In the end, it's the output that matters. They're selling a product: 
Not the effort that goes into the product.

	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.

>    Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

	It doesn't sadden me at all. It'll only sadden me if the resulting 
movie is of poorer quality (to save expenses), or if there are 
techniques that can't be done on a computer and they're just not 
bothering to do them live.

	It's like people who are sad that film is on its way out and most 
photography (including professional) is digital. I can understand them 
_missing_ film, but it's not as if something good is being sacrificed 
for something inferior.

-- 
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
> cheques per week is much different.

Maybe it's different on that side of the pond, but these days even if 
you hand a teller a check it gets scanned right then & there, and 
transmitted electronically within minutes (not immediately, of course; 
they're sent in batches to reduce overhead).

Mostly it's the smaller banks & credit unions that process checks by 
hand, and even then it's usually the ones that have fewer than 10 branches.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.
>
>   It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
> rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
> appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
> just dismiss it as a computer model.

And, conversely, the other effect - the people who dismiss even high-quality CGI
without an iota of understanding how much effort, research and talent goes into
it. Most people even seem to dismiss movie sequences as 'just cgi' even when
there isn't any. 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.

Grinds my gears

Post a reply to this message

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!

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
>> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
>> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
>> cheques per week is much different.
> 
> Maybe it's different on that side of the pond, but these days even if 
> you hand a teller a check it gets scanned right then & there, and 
> transmitted electronically within minutes (not immediately, of course; 
> they're sent in batches to reduce overhead).

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...

Post a reply to this message

>   It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
> rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
> appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
> just dismiss it as a computer model.

It's surprising how many people think making computer models is somehow 
"easier" than making real ones...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?

Post a reply to this message

> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I don't 
> know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a cheque, 
> they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 cheques per week 
> is much different.

What's a cheque?

Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my life. 
Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't for any 
of my accounts.

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
>> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
>> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
>> cheques per week is much different.
> 
> What's a cheque?
> 
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my 
> life. Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't 
> for any of my accounts.

I used to get sent a new chequebook ever year. Until the bank figured 
out that I write, like, 6 cheques per year. :-P

The only real reason I write cheques is to transfer large sums of money 
to other people. If you buy something in a "shop", they'll take plastic. 
But if you want to give Adam £400 for letting you borrow his skiis, a 
cheque is the simplest way. (I can't withdraw that much money in cash 
from an ATM. Not in a single 24-hour period anyway...)

Post a reply to this message

>>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell 
>> from
>> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
>
>  Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> making the film.

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.

>  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

There's a reason why most things in the world are done that way now, because 
it's more efficient.

Post a reply to this message

> I used to get sent a new chequebook ever year. Until the bank figured out 
> that I write, like, 6 cheques per year. :-P

I still have the original book (I think I closed that account now anyway) 
with just 1 missing from the front.  I thought they only sent you a new one 
when you got near the end of the existing book?

> But if you want to give Adam £400 for letting you borrow his skiis, a

You transfer it online?  IME finding a web connection is a million times 
easier than getting to an open bank.

Post a reply to this message

> I thought they only sent 
> you a new one when you got near the end of the existing book?

That *would* be far more logical, yes... :-}

>> But if you want to give Adam £400 for letting you borrow his skiis, 
> 
> You transfer it online?  IME finding a web connection is a million times 
> easier than getting to an open bank.

1. You can actually do that now?

2. Would I have to have all of Adam's account details to do that? 
Writing a cheque is quite a lot simpler.

Post a reply to this message

>> You transfer it online?  IME finding a web connection is a million times 
>> easier than getting to an open bank.
>
> 1. You can actually do that now?

If you actually used online banking you would have seen the "Transfer Money" 
option, plus see the thread a few days ago here about security measures 
online for transferring money out of accounts "New bank trojan".

> 2. Would I have to have all of Adam's account details to do that?

Just his account number and sort code, that's usually written on his bank 
card so he can just text or email it to you if you don't want to risk errors 
by speaking numbers over the phone.  And unlike here in Germany, in the UK 
you can't get any money *out* of his account with just those numbers, so 
there is no risk with sharing such information.

> Writing a cheque is quite a lot simpler.

That's the simple part, then you need to get it to the correct person 
(either by post or in person), then they have to take it to an open bank. 
Compare with spending 2 minutes at your desk on FF or IE typing in a few 
numbers - I know which I prefer.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I don't
> > know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a cheque,
> > they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 cheques per week
> > is much different.
>
> What's a cheque?
>
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my life.
> Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't for any
> of my accounts.

90% of the cheques I write now are to pay for chinese food on delivery when I
don't have any cash ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> 90% of the cheques I write now are to pay for chinese food on delivery 
> when I
> don't have any cash ;-)

Yes that could be useful, here you just need to make sure you have the cash 
before you order!

Actually I bought a new bike a few weeks back and tried to pay for it with 
my bank card.  But the bank card did not work for that sum of money (even 
though I had 3-4x that amount in my account), so I had to pay half on my 
bank card and then promise to transfer them the rest later to their account. 
(Of course being a typical German shop they didn't take any credit cards 
either...)

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 10/08/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
> >>          At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from
> >> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
> >
> >    Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> > making the film.
>         
>         In the end, it's the output that matters. They're selling a product: 
> Not the effort that goes into the product.

  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.

  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.

  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.

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

>         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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> > front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

> Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?

  You mean pixar generates the voice acting by computer too?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell 
> >> from
> >> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
> >
> >  Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> > making the film.

> 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.

  It's not about paying extra, but about *more* people paying in the first
place (assuming more people appreciate the effort and skill put into the
movie).

> >  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> > front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

> 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message