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

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