The USCG have now moved on from copyright abuse to attempting to squash people's legitimate 1st amendment free speech rights,
and their 5th amendment due process rights.
The USCG's lawyers need to get disbarred for this.
If he wants a canvas framework, it sounds like he is looking for the SDL library or other multimedia game engine library, so he can build his custom GUI system.
It is not my responsibility to ensure the bank does the job I am paying them for.
Sure... if you pay for a service, you have a right to have the service performed as agreed; how much are you paying them to do the job, exactly, and do you have paperwork from the bank signed by an employee that the bank will do X on Y date?
If sometimes your box of cereal turns out to be totally empty do you just shake your head sadly and say "well I should have checked at the supermarket"?
No. However, if I was required to buy cereal brand X by a certain date, and for some reason there are no boxes of cereal at my store on that date, the store is not responsible for my failure.
They are only responsible for their failure.
If I make a haircut appointment, and my barber is out sick on that date, my barber does not owe me compensation for the job opportunity I lost because my hair did not look good at the interview. The most I am owed is the haircut I paid for.
If you pay a mechanic to fix your car and he doesn't bother do you write off your loss while mentally chastising yourself for not training as a mechanic yourself so that you could verify what he'd done?
No, but if my mechanic tells me in the morning it should be fixed by the end of the day, and later in the day tells me it is going to take an extra day, does not mean my mechanic has to reimburse me for the superbowl tickets I bought, because unavailability of my car will make me unable to travel to the game.
If my mechanic estimates my repair cost at $1000 and a few days later, the total cost turns out to be $1100, because an extra part turns out to have been bad, my mechanic does not owe me $100.
Good luck getting payment to every one of your creditors in cash, or gold bars, or whatever the fuck it is you use to avoid banks and their various electronic failures.
There are these things called checks that banks are required to pay, within a defined time frame, when presented to them. Your bank cannot refuse to pay your check within the settlement period, as long as the check is genuine, and your account has the funds, unless you issued a stop payment before funds settled.
The special status of checks means the creditor is required to credit your debt account immediately when the check was received, even though payment has not cleared, and funds might settle 3 days later.
If your bank fails to pay a legal check, they are not responsible for your late fees, you still have to pay those.
But your bank owes you compensation for failing to pay your check; in other words you owe late fees to your creditor which you are responsible for and your bank separately will owe you compensation for failing to perform as required by banking laws.
This contrasts against electronic payments, where your account is not credited until payment is actually received. The paying bank does not tell your creditor that their customer has scheduled a payment to them tomorrow.
Your bank has generally covered their ass with respect to delays, by indicating an allowed number of days for delays.
Your expectations for it to be fast do not represent a guarantee on the part of your bill payment bank.
The person you owes money to receives nothing until a transfer order is actually created in the inter-bank electronic transfer systems.
If the paying bank's bill payment service fails to create a transfer order with your creditor, then your creditor not only does not know about the payment request, the creditor is also not required to credit or waive late fees, until you pay those fees to your creditor.
Even if your bank does decide to reimburse you for reasonable late fees incurred, that will take them some time, and, there will still be a time you have to pay the creditor before the reimbursement is made to you, and your failure to pay additional late fees and interest incurred if you refuse, will be your responsibility.
BUT: you're being pedantic and acting righteously... Ok, so you pay your bills in advance and accidents such as this wouldn't affect you?
I'm not claiming I always succeed in paying things early; however, if I wait to the last minute to log into my bank's website, tell them to make a payment at the last minute, and there is a minor delay, it's my fault the payment is late.
It's my bank's fault that there was a delay, but it's my fault the payment was late because of a small delay I should have anticipated.
Actually it is, because in Australian banking systems transactions are expected to be instantaneous
expected does not mean guaranteed.
The correct analagous situation is if I mail a cheque in a "guaranteed next day delivery" envelope, and it doesn't arrive the next day. In that situation the postal service is absolutely at fault, and I would expect them to pay any fees or charges that may have accrued due to their screwup.
"Guaranteed" next day delivery does not mean you will be reimbursed the late fees if the postal service fails. Generally it means they will reimburse you exactly the cost of postage you spent to mail the letter.
And as others have pointed out to you, your responsibility is fulfilled the instant you schedule the payment through your bank.
No. All you have done is scheduled with your bank a payment to be made to the other bank that your credit card account is with.
If the payment never gets made, for example, because you don't have enough money in your account, your bank sucks, and decides to just steal your money without paying the creditor, or your bank goes under and never pays, then you still owe the money to your creditor.
Payment remains your responsibility until payment is made.
Now, depending on your agreement with the bank you had deposited money with, they may have an obligation to pay the other bank, or (depending on your agreement with them), they might at their discretion cancel the transfer.
However, both obligations exist until they are satisfied
If your bank you have the money deposited with fails to pay, your obligation to the other bank doesn't cease to exist.
If it takes them longer to perform the transfer order than they were supposed to, then your other bank can still create a bill for late fees and send it to you.
Your bank that you use for bill payment services might or might not have an obligation to pay late fees or reimburse you.
It depends on the user agreement for the automated bill payment service; you are probably in pretty bad shape if they only delayed by one day, their lawyers most likely anticipated delays like that for "bill payment services".
I could afford to support my dependants. I couldn't support my dependants and build up enough of a buffer to allow for glitches from the bank and so on.
A buffer will build up, as long as expenses are properly kept less than cash earned.
If a buffer is not able to be built up over time to handle financial emergencies like pay delay, then you can't really afford the dependants, either, because there is not enough cash to pay for emergencies or unexpected large single-event costs related to the dependants.
In my case, they managed to BACK OUT some inter-account transfers I made on Wednesday, which screwed up some things (after rent payments and other things).
Reversing or rejecting valid transactions is of course a more serious failure, that the bank should provide ample compensation for.
Although, I think with clear errors like that example (which are much more severe than a 2 day delay in sending a scheduled payment) it might be time to switch banks.
Why would the customers deserve the late fees and not the bank
Because the bank the obligations are to are different banks.
People had bill payments setup on institution X's bill payment system to pay institution Y who the money was owed to.
Institution Y has a right to charge the late fees and no obligation to give customers a break based instution X's flawwed system.
This is no different than if you mail a check 2 days before it's due and the postal service takes an extra day to get the item, so it arrives after the due date.
The amount will be credited the day it is received, and a late fee will be due.
The postal service owes you nothing, even though they "screwed up".
The fact of the matter... you have an obligation to ensure you meet your obligations, including deadlines, while anticipating common obstacles, such as reasonable delays in postal service, and other services you utilize to send payments.
My obligation is met the instant I schedule a transfer or payment with the bank's online system
Well, legally that is not what has happened.
You scheduled a payment to be made, and until the payment is actually made, as scheduled, the obligation is not yet met.
You have merely taken an action that can be expected to meet the obligation; if that action fails, it's still your responsibility.
and it doesn't because the bank screwed up, that's not my problem, it's the bank's problem, as are any additional fees, charges, penalties, or whatever "I" might happen to be charged as a result of their screwup.
That depends on what you mean by "screwed up".
If you 'scheduled a withdrawl' with the bank you owe the money to, and they failed to initiate the withdrawl as requested, then yes, they should waive late charges.
On the other hand, if you scheduled a "bill payment" on date X from a different bank that you do not owe the money to, and they initiated payment in their system, but it took them a day or two days to transfer funds, and the extra day delay caused you to incur a late fee, then No, the bank is not responsible, delays of that nature are to be expected, you are responsible, not either bank.
Some of us have dependants and we can't change our budget.
That might be true, but that would be your problem, not your bank's.
Obviously you cannot spend money you do not have.
Either your budget will have to give, or you will have to find someone else to take on your dependants, who can afford them.
I disagree entirely. In todays age of electronic payments and daily interest, it's important to pay things ON TIME. Paying early for most people means losing interest elsewhere.
Of course you can do so, but it is not advisable, and you bear the risk if you choose to wait to the due date, you are the one taking on the risk, and you get to pay late fees if your bet was wrong about how long the payment would take. That's why I say "deserve the outcome". Because it would be the risk that you took on, it makes sense your bank should not pay for unreasonable risk you created for yourself.
Electronic payments are expected to be fast, and they usually are, but for most products, there is generally limited/no SLA.
Your efforts to pay electronically can fail for reasons as simple as "Your internet connection went down" on that day, or "Your bank's website went down during your break, you couldn't get to the web page", or something went wrong with your username and password/login access, when you went to login at 11:50pm to pay tomorrow's bill.
Or you got hit by a bus and couldn't get home in time after your hospital visit to pay the bill.
Trying to wait until precisely the due date for preserving interest is Pennywise pound foolish, particularly when the best rate for an interest bearing liquid account is about 1%.
The amounts involved have to be more than approximately $20,000, before even $0.10 of interest is at stake.
You can lose more money long run, if for no other reason than due to your own mistake, or misunderstanding of your bank's rules; human error is likely to be costly for you, when you leave zero margin for error.
Automatic payment systems always or almost always come with a disclaimer that payment cannot be guaranteed. Funds may be on hold unexpectedly, items can take longer to clear or for credit to be posted.
Electronic auto payment systems don't relieve debtors of their responsibility to make payment, or excuse lateness, if the payment fails to go through in time, and the bank whose system fails is not responsible for covering the late fee, so this is the particular risk involved in taking this stance and waiting until T+0 to pay.
It is still advisable to pay early.
You may lose a day or two's interest; however, by not paying on time you are taking a bigger risk.
Your payment might not go through.
It may be declined; if it is declined, it could be either your error, your bank's, the receiving bank's, a system problem, or a delay in delivery of the electronic payment.
In most of these circumstances you will be responsible for the late fee, unless you convince your creditor to waive it.
For most payments the dollar amount of 'daily interest' is microscopic, and the '1 day late fee' is massive.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to risk paying a $30 late fee, to try to get $0.005 extra daily interest over 3 days.
So what you are saying is, at any given point everyone must have enough to cover all their next months bills?
That is reasonable; you need to have enough money to cover your bills. It is excessively risky to dispose of so much money you don't have a reserve to meet your obligations.
It is most advisable to have enough money in the bank to survive for several months, even if you stop getting paid at all (even if that reserve amount accounts for you having to cancel some services/spending such as Entertainment for the reserve to be sufficient).
A technical error with your bank is only one of many things that could delay you getting that payment, or delay that payment getting to your creditor.
Your employer could delay or withold your pay temporarily for technical problems or other reasons.
Something might happen to you during the month, illness, etc.
The pay may not materialize.
If you can't even make a 1 month reserve in checking, time to change your budget.
"National Australia Bank payments to customers were again delayed today after a computer glitch yesterday morning due to a corrupted file in its mainframe computer. Upset consumers are now demanding compensation for any fees for late mortgage and credit card payments,
If you have a payment due on X date, you wait until day X - 1, and something goes wrong and delays you by one day, this is your fault, not your bank's fault.
Matters would be different if there was a problem at day X - 7 that lasted for 7 days,
or X - 14 that lasted for 14 days.
It is not reasonable to expect there will never be any problems with electronic payment systems.
1 to 2 days is reasonable to sort this out, you are taking an unreasonable risk if you don't attempt to complete payment to a bill at least 3 days before the due date.
In other words, these consumers should get stuck with these late fees, and learn about a valuable lesson in
taking reasonable steps to ensure their obligations are met, even if something goes not quite as expected with the payment.
Clearly that's not how the TSA works or we wouldn't be doing any of what they make us do.
The TSA officials only apply this logic when you suggest they stop doing something they are already doing, or when you suggest doing something else in place of and stop performing an existing type of 'security' check.
They don't apply this degree of scrutiny to ideas and plans from their own officials, heavily influenced by lobbyists who have money to make by selling scanners.
In other words, the burden to be proven for adding additional security restrictions/check methods proposed inside the TSA is obtaining the money, not their effectiveness.
The burden of proof they demand in policy discussion initiated from outside the TSA about removing security measures from the status quo is proving the alternative measures can perfectly detect everything status quo is claimed to detect.
e.g. 100% perfection is demanded from any proposal by outsiders/the public for any changes.
Internally, TSA seem to do whatever they want and have no problem implementing new measures with limited effectiveness.
IOW, they seem to apply a double standard depending on whether the security practice was suggested by people inside their organization VS people truly qualified to speak intelligently about security matters and what the public would suggest.
The Israeli method relies on very talented people taking a very close look at the brains of the passengers. It's pyschologically intrusive, as opposed to see-how-fat-you-are intrusive. Regardless, I don't think the TSA could hire enough people with those skills to handle the much larger (than Israel) air traffic that wanders through the US.
How about a free market solution? Make travellers pay for 'profiling service' from a government certified profiler / pre-screener, who will interview them for 1 to 2 hour or so, perform a full psychological evaluation, collect biometric and identification data, be paid for the service, and issue them a "Profiled traveller ID card" similar to a passport.
Who will receive cash bonuses from the government based on their accuracy rate.
Profiling service not provided as part of the screening process, the prospective traveller has to contract with a third party before their trip, and pay for the service. Airlines will be required to see proof of this, before they are allowed to issue tickets to the traveller.
Require travellers to get pre-screened within 30 days of their trip, which creates the database entry for them.
Then the less-trained TSA person just does a 3 minute follow-up interview after looking up their entry in the database,
and storing the answers to questions about their specific trip.
The rest of the profiling work had to be done in advance, and the computer will make the decision what (if any) additional scrutiny is needed, based on the final screening session
Alternatively, the traveller can pay the TSA to perform a full body-cavity strip search in private, and skip the profiling step.
Eliminates full body scanners, lets the passengers be profiled at a comfortable time, and reduces taxpayer costs with respect to the scanning
Strict adherence to the guidelines doesn't matter to either of us and doesn't affect anyone else.
The Goal of slow start is to achieve minimal loss and fairness with all flows.
Fairness does effect other people. Not using slow start is much more aggressive and can stop on other people's data flows, particularly when a shared WAN is involved, even flows that might be much more important than your casual Google search.
But this may be a bigger concern for large ISPs that oversubscribe by having hundreds of thousands of customers, and only enough bandwidth to deliver the promised data rate for a few thousand.
Y'know, I realize you're trying to be facetious, but by definition, 50% of the population has an IQ under 100.
Because IQ score was originally based on a relative measure, used to compare the intelligence of people statistically against average intelligence of the population.
If the intelligence of the public as a whole went down, and the country became an Idiocracy, your IQ could go up without you getting smarter, if the IQ test taker score sampling and percentiles are recomputed, because of the lower average intelligence of the public.
So there could be a false perception that older people are smarter, if their intelligence just stayed the same, but massive numbers of idiots were born
Any higher level alert will be avoided as it could cause a panic and play into the terrorists' hands.
Any lower level alert will never be used because by design the war on terror is a perpetual war.
And ending the crisis would constitute the government surrendering power back to the people, which they don't want to do.
One neighbor of mine watched a coyote carry off her miniature dog, and when coyotes start being sighted, the Missing Cat posters start appearing.
Considering the menace cats pose to wildlife as recreational hunters, the number of bird species endangered due to people wanting to have these pets, the high number of abandoned pets on the streets, the number of species endangered, due to owners letting their domestic cats run rampant while sheltering them, this seems most appropriate.
Keep your cat under control and indoors where it is supposed to be. Don't let your cat roam outside unattended and make a menace of itself to wildlife, and it won't get eaten.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Buy Mr. Syfert's $20 packet, just to support him.
The USCG have now moved on from copyright abuse to attempting to squash people's legitimate 1st amendment free speech rights, and their 5th amendment due process rights.
The USCG's lawyers need to get disbarred for this.
If he wants a canvas framework, it sounds like he is looking for the SDL library or other multimedia game engine library, so he can build his custom GUI system.
It is not my responsibility to ensure the bank does the job I am paying them for.
Sure... if you pay for a service, you have a right to have the service performed as agreed; how much are you paying them to do the job, exactly, and do you have paperwork from the bank signed by an employee that the bank will do X on Y date?
If sometimes your box of cereal turns out to be totally empty do you just shake your head sadly and say "well I should have checked at the supermarket"?
No. However, if I was required to buy cereal brand X by a certain date, and for some reason there are no boxes of cereal at my store on that date, the store is not responsible for my failure. They are only responsible for their failure.
If I make a haircut appointment, and my barber is out sick on that date, my barber does not owe me compensation for the job opportunity I lost because my hair did not look good at the interview. The most I am owed is the haircut I paid for.
If you pay a mechanic to fix your car and he doesn't bother do you write off your loss while mentally chastising yourself for not training as a mechanic yourself so that you could verify what he'd done?
No, but if my mechanic tells me in the morning it should be fixed by the end of the day, and later in the day tells me it is going to take an extra day, does not mean my mechanic has to reimburse me for the superbowl tickets I bought, because unavailability of my car will make me unable to travel to the game.
If my mechanic estimates my repair cost at $1000 and a few days later, the total cost turns out to be $1100, because an extra part turns out to have been bad, my mechanic does not owe me $100.
Good luck getting payment to every one of your creditors in cash, or gold bars, or whatever the fuck it is you use to avoid banks and their various electronic failures.
There are these things called checks that banks are required to pay, within a defined time frame, when presented to them. Your bank cannot refuse to pay your check within the settlement period, as long as the check is genuine, and your account has the funds, unless you issued a stop payment before funds settled.
The special status of checks means the creditor is required to credit your debt account immediately when the check was received, even though payment has not cleared, and funds might settle 3 days later.
If your bank fails to pay a legal check, they are not responsible for your late fees, you still have to pay those. But your bank owes you compensation for failing to pay your check; in other words you owe late fees to your creditor which you are responsible for and your bank separately will owe you compensation for failing to perform as required by banking laws.
This contrasts against electronic payments, where your account is not credited until payment is actually received. The paying bank does not tell your creditor that their customer has scheduled a payment to them tomorrow.
Your bank has generally covered their ass with respect to delays, by indicating an allowed number of days for delays. Your expectations for it to be fast do not represent a guarantee on the part of your bill payment bank.
The person you owes money to receives nothing until a transfer order is actually created in the inter-bank electronic transfer systems.
If the paying bank's bill payment service fails to create a transfer order with your creditor, then your creditor not only does not know about the payment request, the creditor is also not required to credit or waive late fees, until you pay those fees to your creditor.
Even if your bank does decide to reimburse you for reasonable late fees incurred, that will take them some time, and, there will still be a time you have to pay the creditor before the reimbursement is made to you, and your failure to pay additional late fees and interest incurred if you refuse, will be your responsibility.
BUT: you're being pedantic and acting righteously... Ok, so you pay your bills in advance and accidents such as this wouldn't affect you?
I'm not claiming I always succeed in paying things early; however, if I wait to the last minute to log into my bank's website, tell them to make a payment at the last minute, and there is a minor delay, it's my fault the payment is late.
It's my bank's fault that there was a delay, but it's my fault the payment was late because of a small delay I should have anticipated.
Actually it is, because in Australian banking systems transactions are expected to be instantaneous
expected does not mean guaranteed.
The correct analagous situation is if I mail a cheque in a "guaranteed next day delivery" envelope, and it doesn't arrive the next day. In that situation the postal service is absolutely at fault, and I would expect them to pay any fees or charges that may have accrued due to their screwup.
"Guaranteed" next day delivery does not mean you will be reimbursed the late fees if the postal service fails. Generally it means they will reimburse you exactly the cost of postage you spent to mail the letter.
And as others have pointed out to you, your responsibility is fulfilled the instant you schedule the payment through your bank.
No. All you have done is scheduled with your bank a payment to be made to the other bank that your credit card account is with.
If the payment never gets made, for example, because you don't have enough money in your account, your bank sucks, and decides to just steal your money without paying the creditor, or your bank goes under and never pays, then you still owe the money to your creditor.
Payment remains your responsibility until payment is made.
Now, depending on your agreement with the bank you had deposited money with, they may have an obligation to pay the other bank, or (depending on your agreement with them), they might at their discretion cancel the transfer. However, both obligations exist until they are satisfied
If your bank you have the money deposited with fails to pay, your obligation to the other bank doesn't cease to exist.
If it takes them longer to perform the transfer order than they were supposed to, then your other bank can still create a bill for late fees and send it to you.
Your bank that you use for bill payment services might or might not have an obligation to pay late fees or reimburse you. It depends on the user agreement for the automated bill payment service; you are probably in pretty bad shape if they only delayed by one day, their lawyers most likely anticipated delays like that for "bill payment services".
I could afford to support my dependants. I couldn't support my dependants and build up enough of a buffer to allow for glitches from the bank and so on.
A buffer will build up, as long as expenses are properly kept less than cash earned.
If a buffer is not able to be built up over time to handle financial emergencies like pay delay, then you can't really afford the dependants, either, because there is not enough cash to pay for emergencies or unexpected large single-event costs related to the dependants.
In my case, they managed to BACK OUT some inter-account transfers I made on Wednesday, which screwed up some things (after rent payments and other things).
Reversing or rejecting valid transactions is of course a more serious failure, that the bank should provide ample compensation for.
Although, I think with clear errors like that example (which are much more severe than a 2 day delay in sending a scheduled payment) it might be time to switch banks.
Why would the customers deserve the late fees and not the bank
Because the bank the obligations are to are different banks.
People had bill payments setup on institution X's bill payment system to pay institution Y who the money was owed to. Institution Y has a right to charge the late fees and no obligation to give customers a break based instution X's flawwed system.
This is no different than if you mail a check 2 days before it's due and the postal service takes an extra day to get the item, so it arrives after the due date.
The amount will be credited the day it is received, and a late fee will be due. The postal service owes you nothing, even though they "screwed up".
The fact of the matter... you have an obligation to ensure you meet your obligations, including deadlines, while anticipating common obstacles, such as reasonable delays in postal service, and other services you utilize to send payments.
My obligation is met the instant I schedule a transfer or payment with the bank's online system
Well, legally that is not what has happened. You scheduled a payment to be made, and until the payment is actually made, as scheduled, the obligation is not yet met. You have merely taken an action that can be expected to meet the obligation; if that action fails, it's still your responsibility.
and it doesn't because the bank screwed up, that's not my problem, it's the bank's problem, as are any additional fees, charges, penalties, or whatever "I" might happen to be charged as a result of their screwup.
That depends on what you mean by "screwed up". If you 'scheduled a withdrawl' with the bank you owe the money to, and they failed to initiate the withdrawl as requested, then yes, they should waive late charges.
On the other hand, if you scheduled a "bill payment" on date X from a different bank that you do not owe the money to, and they initiated payment in their system, but it took them a day or two days to transfer funds, and the extra day delay caused you to incur a late fee, then No, the bank is not responsible, delays of that nature are to be expected, you are responsible, not either bank.
Some of us have dependants and we can't change our budget.
That might be true, but that would be your problem, not your bank's.
Obviously you cannot spend money you do not have. Either your budget will have to give, or you will have to find someone else to take on your dependants, who can afford them.
The obligation was that the customer would make the payment by day X, not that he would attempt to make it on day X-7 to pad against uncertainty.
The point of having due dates in the future is to "pad against uncertainty"; otherwise, you would simply always issued invoices due tomorrow.
Instead, a reasonable amount of leeway is given by always issuing invoices due in 14 days or more.
When you receive a bill it is your responsibility to always make sure that it is successfully paid, before that 14 day grace period expires.
I disagree entirely. In todays age of electronic payments and daily interest, it's important to pay things ON TIME. Paying early for most people means losing interest elsewhere.
Of course you can do so, but it is not advisable, and you bear the risk if you choose to wait to the due date, you are the one taking on the risk, and you get to pay late fees if your bet was wrong about how long the payment would take. That's why I say "deserve the outcome". Because it would be the risk that you took on, it makes sense your bank should not pay for unreasonable risk you created for yourself.
Electronic payments are expected to be fast, and they usually are, but for most products, there is generally limited/no SLA. Your efforts to pay electronically can fail for reasons as simple as "Your internet connection went down" on that day, or "Your bank's website went down during your break, you couldn't get to the web page", or something went wrong with your username and password/login access, when you went to login at 11:50pm to pay tomorrow's bill.
Or you got hit by a bus and couldn't get home in time after your hospital visit to pay the bill.
Trying to wait until precisely the due date for preserving interest is Pennywise pound foolish, particularly when the best rate for an interest bearing liquid account is about 1%. The amounts involved have to be more than approximately $20,000, before even $0.10 of interest is at stake.
You can lose more money long run, if for no other reason than due to your own mistake, or misunderstanding of your bank's rules; human error is likely to be costly for you, when you leave zero margin for error.
Automatic payment systems always or almost always come with a disclaimer that payment cannot be guaranteed. Funds may be on hold unexpectedly, items can take longer to clear or for credit to be posted.
Electronic auto payment systems don't relieve debtors of their responsibility to make payment, or excuse lateness, if the payment fails to go through in time, and the bank whose system fails is not responsible for covering the late fee, so this is the particular risk involved in taking this stance and waiting until T+0 to pay.
It is still advisable to pay early. You may lose a day or two's interest; however, by not paying on time you are taking a bigger risk.
Your payment might not go through. It may be declined; if it is declined, it could be either your error, your bank's, the receiving bank's, a system problem, or a delay in delivery of the electronic payment.
In most of these circumstances you will be responsible for the late fee, unless you convince your creditor to waive it.
For most payments the dollar amount of 'daily interest' is microscopic, and the '1 day late fee' is massive. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to risk paying a $30 late fee, to try to get $0.005 extra daily interest over 3 days.
So what you are saying is, at any given point everyone must have enough to cover all their next months bills?
That is reasonable; you need to have enough money to cover your bills. It is excessively risky to dispose of so much money you don't have a reserve to meet your obligations. It is most advisable to have enough money in the bank to survive for several months, even if you stop getting paid at all (even if that reserve amount accounts for you having to cancel some services/spending such as Entertainment for the reserve to be sufficient).
A technical error with your bank is only one of many things that could delay you getting that payment, or delay that payment getting to your creditor.
Your employer could delay or withold your pay temporarily for technical problems or other reasons. Something might happen to you during the month, illness, etc.
The pay may not materialize.
If you can't even make a 1 month reserve in checking, time to change your budget.
"National Australia Bank payments to customers were again delayed today after a computer glitch yesterday morning due to a corrupted file in its mainframe computer. Upset consumers are now demanding compensation for any fees for late mortgage and credit card payments,
If you have a payment due on X date, you wait until day X - 1, and something goes wrong and delays you by one day, this is your fault, not your bank's fault.
Matters would be different if there was a problem at day X - 7 that lasted for 7 days, or X - 14 that lasted for 14 days.
It is not reasonable to expect there will never be any problems with electronic payment systems. 1 to 2 days is reasonable to sort this out, you are taking an unreasonable risk if you don't attempt to complete payment to a bill at least 3 days before the due date.
In other words, these consumers should get stuck with these late fees, and learn about a valuable lesson in taking reasonable steps to ensure their obligations are met, even if something goes not quite as expected with the payment.
Clearly that's not how the TSA works or we wouldn't be doing any of what they make us do.
The TSA officials only apply this logic when you suggest they stop doing something they are already doing, or when you suggest doing something else in place of and stop performing an existing type of 'security' check.
They don't apply this degree of scrutiny to ideas and plans from their own officials, heavily influenced by lobbyists who have money to make by selling scanners.
In other words, the burden to be proven for adding additional security restrictions/check methods proposed inside the TSA is obtaining the money, not their effectiveness.
The burden of proof they demand in policy discussion initiated from outside the TSA about removing security measures from the status quo is proving the alternative measures can perfectly detect everything status quo is claimed to detect.
e.g. 100% perfection is demanded from any proposal by outsiders/the public for any changes.
Internally, TSA seem to do whatever they want and have no problem implementing new measures with limited effectiveness.
IOW, they seem to apply a double standard depending on whether the security practice was suggested by people inside their organization VS people truly qualified to speak intelligently about security matters and what the public would suggest.
Instead of going through a scanner, walk through the metal detector and a fan blows over you and into a kennel of trained dogs.
Can trained dogs detect materials thermal vacuum sealed in thick plastic, so there is no residue to smell? I don't think so.
Some TSA person just has to come up with some theory of how it might one time not work, and they won't do it.
Much the way some TSA people have come up with some theory of how profiling might not work in some situation
The Israeli method relies on very talented people taking a very close look at the brains of the passengers. It's pyschologically intrusive, as opposed to see-how-fat-you-are intrusive. Regardless, I don't think the TSA could hire enough people with those skills to handle the much larger (than Israel) air traffic that wanders through the US.
How about a free market solution? Make travellers pay for 'profiling service' from a government certified profiler / pre-screener, who will interview them for 1 to 2 hour or so, perform a full psychological evaluation, collect biometric and identification data, be paid for the service, and issue them a "Profiled traveller ID card" similar to a passport.
Who will receive cash bonuses from the government based on their accuracy rate.
Profiling service not provided as part of the screening process, the prospective traveller has to contract with a third party before their trip, and pay for the service. Airlines will be required to see proof of this, before they are allowed to issue tickets to the traveller.
Require travellers to get pre-screened within 30 days of their trip, which creates the database entry for them.
Then the less-trained TSA person just does a 3 minute follow-up interview after looking up their entry in the database, and storing the answers to questions about their specific trip.
The rest of the profiling work had to be done in advance, and the computer will make the decision what (if any) additional scrutiny is needed, based on the final screening session
Alternatively, the traveller can pay the TSA to perform a full body-cavity strip search in private, and skip the profiling step.
Eliminates full body scanners, lets the passengers be profiled at a comfortable time, and reduces taxpayer costs with respect to the scanning
Strict adherence to the guidelines doesn't matter to either of us and doesn't affect anyone else.
The Goal of slow start is to achieve minimal loss and fairness with all flows.
Fairness does effect other people. Not using slow start is much more aggressive and can stop on other people's data flows, particularly when a shared WAN is involved, even flows that might be much more important than your casual Google search.
But this may be a bigger concern for large ISPs that oversubscribe by having hundreds of thousands of customers, and only enough bandwidth to deliver the promised data rate for a few thousand.
Y'know, I realize you're trying to be facetious, but by definition, 50% of the population has an IQ under 100.
Because IQ score was originally based on a relative measure, used to compare the intelligence of people statistically against average intelligence of the population.
If the intelligence of the public as a whole went down, and the country became an Idiocracy, your IQ could go up without you getting smarter, if the IQ test taker score sampling and percentiles are recomputed, because of the lower average intelligence of the public.
So there could be a false perception that older people are smarter, if their intelligence just stayed the same, but massive numbers of idiots were born
Any higher level alert will be avoided as it could cause a panic and play into the terrorists' hands.
Any lower level alert will never be used because by design the war on terror is a perpetual war . And ending the crisis would constitute the government surrendering power back to the people, which they don't want to do.
Except that cats also eat mice -- and won't carry off your toddler.
This is a risk, but there are also far greater risks to toddlers.
Anyone who leaves their toddler outdoors, unprotected, unattended, deserves to be carried off themselves.
One neighbor of mine watched a coyote carry off her miniature dog, and when coyotes start being sighted, the Missing Cat posters start appearing.
Considering the menace cats pose to wildlife as recreational hunters, the number of bird species endangered due to people wanting to have these pets, the high number of abandoned pets on the streets, the number of species endangered, due to owners letting their domestic cats run rampant while sheltering them, this seems most appropriate.
Keep your cat under control and indoors where it is supposed to be. Don't let your cat roam outside unattended and make a menace of itself to wildlife, and it won't get eaten. :)