On Saturday 27 November 2004 12:19, Roland Perry wrote: > Those bits of card don't claim to expire, even if the Doctor and PCT > have changed because you've moved. I'd just give you an old one! Perfectly adequate. Indeed, you can just _show_ it. -- -- Dr Adrian Midgley GP Exeter www.defoam.net Open Source is a necessary but not of itself sufficient condition.
On Thursday 03 January 1980 12:05, Peter Tomlinson wrote: > PS Is www.defoam.net a place where we can find a cure for foaming at the > mouth because of frustration with bureaucrats? Not the sort of foam I'm against. But there is a note of why the domain name there... -- -- Dr Adrian Midgley GP Exeter www.defoam.net Open Source is a necessary but not of itself sufficient condition.
On Friday 26 November 2004 15:29, Ian G Batten wrote: > Hmm. The government appears quite keen for them to, so they can claim > unemployment is down whilst quietly presiding over a huge rise in > incapacity benefit. That was a previous government. The current one has different habits and in fact is keen for us to stop signing people off sick. It would also like firms to take them back before they are 100% perfectly recovered, IE have employees allowed or encouraged to behave like the self-employed. I don't think there is a problem covering up unemployment at present, the move is more to expose people who have comfortable jobs doing not much and could be put to work on something more useful and productive. In other news, several NHS bodies are being dissolved with a reduction in NHS administrator headcount... -- -- Dr Adrian Midgley GP Exeter www.defoam.net Open Source is a necessary but not of itself sufficient condition.
In article <200411291028.iATASllF005940@...>, Brian Beesley <BJ.Beesley@...> writes >> >The case in point is parcel delivery, not online purchase - why should >> >*I* or my friend Mr X have to provide a blunkettcard in order to obtain >> >a parcel sent to him, for which service I have already paid? >> >> No reason, if you want to take the risk that it's handed to the wrong >> person. > >Handing to the wrong person isn't the risk. The risk is not being able to >recover the money/goods/service you have lost as a consequence of the >incompetence of the delivery service. Or your incompetence in selecting a delivery service that has (a) no proper compensation and (b) no proper system for checking who it's being delivered to [I don't think the Post Office pretends it does, for example, so that's your fault for using them anyway]. -- -- Roland Perry
In article <14236.193.130.19.189.1101733513.squirrel@...>, Peter Mitchell <andromeda@...> writes >>> >Lets face facts here - if the banks were really that bothered about >>> CC and debit card fraud, they would be taking measures to combat it >>> >>> C&P and the Check digits on the signature strip are illusions, then? >> >> Unfortunately C&P is no illusion. As predicted, the terminals are crap - >> such shields as are supplied are useless, everyone seems to have their >> own pattern so you can't tell if a terminal is genuine, every terminal >> I've seen so far has been covered by a CCTV. > >The worst I've seen so far are in Halfords, they are completely unshielded >in any way. Asda are nearly as bad, and they don't like you insisting on a >signature either. So, we are all agreedThe banks *are* taking measures to combat fraud, but several people think that the measures should be better. Recent APACS advice on use of the terminals (which would get over several of the objections, including the strain gauges) is to pick them up if on a curly cord, and to use your body to shield the view from others nearby. -- -- Roland Perry
In article <HCEGKCLCHALDGMOIAHFDOEJMEDAA.oml@...>, Owen Lewis <oml@...> writes >> It seems very bad luck to have had the cheque go astray in the first >> place, never mind for it to have gone astray into the hands of someone >> who then decided he would arrange for the fraud. > >It probably did not go astray but was stolen. You appreciate the difference. The newspaper report hints that it was stolen in the post. But it must have been by someone with access to the complex laundering mechanism described. >> How likely is that? > >We have mail genuinely go astray through mis-delivery her on about a weekly >basis. Despite several complaints to the PO accuracy of delivery does not >improve. Fortunately, the lessees of the various offices in this building >are honest and usually trouble to correct mis-delivery between themselves. >God know what happens to mail delivered to a vacant office suite. We lose >about one incoming cheque a year. When I was in business the number of cheques from creditors reported by them as lost in the post was enormous! Oddly, the replacement would always arrive, after a suitably long delay "just to make sure the first one didn't turn up". > - That sending money other than by recorded delivery mail entails risk.(Continue reading)
In article <6.1.2.0.0.20041130134643.01a64938@...>, Richard Snow <C.R.Snow@...> writes >I am sorry, but I neither know, nor probably care, about the unique ID >of the creditor, and as a private individual, I certainly do not have >the facilities to put such a computer-readable string onto my personal >cheques. You could add the postcode, which could be checked manually against an ID card if (for example) this cheque was used to open a new account. -- -- Roland Perry
Adrian Midgley wrote: > On Thursday 03 January 1980 12:05, Peter Tomlinson wrote: > >> PS Is www.defoam.net a place where we can find a cure for foaming >> at the mouth because of frustration with bureaucrats? > > > Not the sort of foam I'm against. But there is a note of why the > domain name there... I note from the site Adrian's use of more text and much less graphics than on many sites, and his lucid explanation. Because we are much better at expressing specifics in text and certain necessary graphical methods (e.g. state diagrams), then I follow his reasoning for many technical topics and technical readers. But in working on the user interface of equipment and software over many years, I have come to appreciate that there is a continuum from those who can only handle words to those who can only handle graphics. Recently I edited a long technical report that was built from material produced by a number of European contributors. It covered topics in e-service scheme architectures, primarily for the use of secure tokens in ID and authentication areas. I found the material very difficult, with lots of diagrams but also difficult text. Later I spoke to an American lady who works as a technical editor at CEN in Brussels, and she commented that many Europeans 'write in pictures'. Peter(Continue reading)
In article <200411291000.iATA0GlF000439@...>, Brian Beesley <BJ.Beesley@...> writes >> To get back to the original point - I was refused the ability to do a >> transaction that would have worked at any point in the last 30 years up >> until last week. That was done by the bank making an unannounced and >> very subtle (but wide-ranging) change to the rules. The same could >> happen within an all encompassing ID scheme, leaving you high and dry >> where once you were happy. Just by someone flicking a switch and >> removing one of your "entitlements". > >Isn't there an ombudsman for the banking / financial services sector? Yes, but I'm pretty sure there'll turn out to be no breach of contract, just a huge embuggeration factor. When, in years to come, you find yourself turned away from whatever public service you thought you were entitled to, and had used on that basis for years, because your ID card says "non"; you'll also find that the entitlement had been withdrawn in some unpublicised official move you won't get anywhere complaining about. -- -- Roland Perry
--On 30 November 2004 15:49 +0000 Owen Lewis <oml@...> wrote: > On the other hand if your argument is simply that you wish to reserve to > yourself a right to misrepresent or to deny your true identity as you > alone shall decide.... Damn straight I do, if a rather less benign government rises to power in the UK and I'm a member of one of its chosen scapegoat groups or involved in protecting people who are. I'm not so naïve as to believe it could never happen here (and indeed, historically, it has, depending on your professed religion). > well I think you are seriously out of step with the times and with what > will come to pass here. It wouldn't be the first time. :-/ > Owen Best Regards, Alex. -- -- Alex Butcher: Security & Integrity, Personal Computer Systems Group Information Systems and Computing GPG Key ID: F9B27DC9 GPG Fingerprint: D62A DD83 A0B8 D174 49C4 2849 832D 6C72 F9B2 7DC9
RSS Feed97 | |
|---|---|
18 | |
22 | |
1 | |
3 | |
48 | |
12 | |
8 | |
46 | |
33 | |
138 | |
7 | |
1 | |
47 | |
153 | |
99 | |
83 | |
66 | |
18 | |
23 | |
57 | |
4 | |
7 | |
1 | |
100 | |
65 | |
28 | |
136 | |
39 | |
183 | |
84 | |
44 | |
217 | |
76 | |
65 | |
60 | |
40 | |
74 | |
83 | |
510 | |
250 | |
149 | |
29 | |
59 | |
153 | |
146 | |
167 | |
117 | |
200 | |
107 | |
111 | |
220 | |
717 | |
76 | |
154 | |
286 | |
112 | |
141 | |
172 | |
84 | |
771 | |
625 | |
392 | |
215 | |
69 | |
238 | |
25 | |
27 | |
54 | |
92 | |
20 | |
149 | |
76 | |
163 | |
130 | |
98 | |
57 | |
71 | |
107 | |
79 | |
57 | |
119 | |
181 | |
168 | |
16 | |
141 | |
304 | |
67 | |
59 | |
223 | |
103 | |
454 | |
57 | |
200 | |
225 | |
264 | |
220 | |
181 | |
128 | |
124 | |
290 | |
770 | |
1362 | |
922 | |
512 | |
566 | |
518 | |
770 | |
1277 | |
414 | |
285 | |
364 | |
299 | |
991 | |
760 | |
4 | |
1 | |
1 | |
3 |
