> 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

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