The dispute process takes 6 months to a year, and in the meantime, you're out the money. And in the event of disagreement, you're screwed by default.
Wow. I guess I don't appreciate my bank as much as I should. I had a bunch of fraudulent transactions on my debit card about a year ago that overdrew my account by hundreds of dollars. The money and the bounced check fees were all back in my account within a week of my reporting it. Of course if I had been making a payment to a credit card at the time I would have been screwed with late fees from the credit cards. I guess that is a disadvantage.
The only protection I have from fraud is legal, and to use a debit card is to give up that legal protection.
Citation needed. Every fraudulent transaction I've had on my debit card has been reversed without complaint. Sounds like you might want to switch banks. Now, maybe a pin transaction is different. I'll have to check on that. IIRC, my bank even protects me from fraudulent ATM withdrawals (gun-to-head ATM withdrawals, kidnappings, ATM cameras, over-the-shoulder-pin-surfing etc), but I could be wrong.
As someone who has worked at quite a few shit retail jobs over the years, let me add something else: Don't care whether you get fired or not. Check. Other than, say, paying considerably more than other retailers there really isn't much you can do about employee attitudes when said employee would actually be almost happy to get fired.
Well, if cash actually costs more than credit then you have the opposite situation and we should see a 2-3% discount for using credit cards. Haha. I guess debit cards are the biggest win then. No cc processing fee and all the convenience of a credit card except that you can't spend more than you actually have. I already primarily use my debit card. I typically only use credit cards when I want to actually borrow the money.
As far as them using this as an excuse to raise their prices for cc purchases you may be right about that and that would definitely suck, but they can only do that once. What may happen is that some vendors will tack on the extra processing fee and others won't resulting in effectively lower prices for cc purchases and more units sold at the merchants with the lower prices.
I don't and won't carry a debit card because the protections for consumers are nonexistant.
Can you be more specific? I've had fraudulent transactions reversed quite a few times over the years with my debit card. I've personally seen no difference in that regard between credit and debit cards. Like paypal, Amex is known for generally siding with the customer, but otherwise it probably depends a lot on the particular bank how easy it is to get a fraudulent charge reversed.
You can't have a 'right' that depends on other people to be your slaves. That would be like the 'right' to own a slave. I don't see how adding the extra 2-3% to the income taxes of poor people so that rich people can give themselves the illusion of no cc processing fees when they go on shopping sprees would be a good thing. I won't even argue that the government cc processing would be less efficient and more expensive. Let's assume it's a wash. That government employees are just as efficient as private ones. How would this help exactly? Or were you thinking that by getting the government to do it it would be free?
You do realize that online merchants are already free to raise their prices by 2-3%? They don't (yet) need permission from the government to do so. If they thought they could make an extra 2-3% profit merely by raising their prices they would already have done it.
This change shouldn't affect online prices at all. If one merchant uses this as an excuse to charge more other merchants will simply take their business. One change this might make with online merchants is a small discount for using a debit card. I'd happily pocket an extra 2% discount for using my debit card online in certain transactions.
The amount of cash kept on the premises is factored into the cost of insurance. The cost of transporting it to the bank also increases when there is more cash, as does the cost of storing it, and banks often charge transaction fees when dealing with large amounts of cash. These costs are all passed on to the customers, including the ones who pay with credit cards, but apparently it's fine for card-payers to subsidise cash-payers, but not the other way around.
If it costs the merchant the same to be paid in cash then there is nothing to talk about. The cash and credit prices would be the same anyway. So allowing the merchants to charge more for one payment time over another is nothing to worry about.
Everywhere I shop, one end or the other of every cash transaction uses exact change. Either the buyer gives exact change, or receives it in return.
The cashier is giving change all day long. It is very fast to pull the right coins out of the drawer. I've worked as a cashier. It doesn't take long to start pulling out change in under 2 seconds. A customer will typically take longer if they are going for exact change, but that sort of customer is rare.
This reminds me that in some cases paying a higher cc price can be worth it. The extra peace of mind of having the credit card company on your side in a dispute can be worth it for large transactions. Also the extra year or two in extended warranties that some cards offer might be worth an extra 1-3% for certain purchases known to be unreliable like hard drives.
I'm under 50 and have been a techie all my life. I don't find cash to be any slower than cc. In fact I find that cash is actually faster. How long does it take for you to pull a $20 out of your wallet? 1 or 2 seconds? And most cashiers give change all day long and get pretty fast in a short time. Usually no more than a few seconds for most cashiers to give change. With a cc it takes me several seconds just to sign and sometimes another 2-3 seconds for the transaction to be approved. In my experience the typical cc transaction is 1 or 2 seconds slower than the typical cash transaction, which at least seems nearly instantaneous.
I still don't see how offering a discount for cash or debit customers actually hurts you hardcore cc users. Cash/debit customers cost the merchant less. It's that simple. Their costs are up to 4% higher for cc customers. I don't see why cash customers should be forced to pay it just to give cc customers the illusion that using a cc is free when it isn't.
99% of the time cash is faster than cc. Most people don't use exact change. And armed robberies are not my problem. I'll let the insurance companies worry about it. I like the anonymity of cash.
Except it won't work out that way. You will still be paying the same price you've always paid (including the baked in fee) and the retailers that implement it will be getting an extra influx from the fees they charge to CC users.
Is there a difference? Prices fluctuate all the time. Either you charge a lower cash price or you don't. Since the merchants themselves have up to a 4% penalty for CC purchases it would seem reasonable to give up to a 4% discount for cash purchases.
If customers actually had to pay the 4% for using their card the cc companies might start having to compete with each other for processing fees. Cards with lower fees might start to be preferred by the customers themselves costing the greedier cc companies a lot of business. I'm not sure preventing retailers from passing on the charge is actually a good thing for consumers. If I can save money by not using a credit card I'd prefer to have that option. I don't see anything wrong with having different cash and credit prices.
That actually sounds kind of similar to the US system. The biggest difference is that both the guards and the prisoners are likely to be a lot more civilized in the U.K.
Talk is cheap. All I hear from NK is a lot of yapping. Yap, yap, yap. It's difficult to take them seriously when they never actually do anything. I don't think they have the balls to actually attack the US even with conventional weaponry let alone with nukes. If they want some credibility then maybe they should actually attack someone and accept the consequences.
Why start with a chicken instead of an Emu or Cassowary? Those large flightless birds already look a lot more like dinosaurs than a chicken. They even have 3 toes. With a longer tail and some teeth they would seem very dinosaur-like.
They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly.
I can't tell if you are serious or not. No one could be that naive. Their 'friend from foe' detector is simply that anyone without a badge is an enemy. And as far as 'psychological problems' most of the them are sociopaths: the worst kind of person to be walking around with a firearm. The kind of person who can kill innocent people and just walk away without feeling even a hint of remorse. You could put their firearms in better hands by simply closing your eyes and pointing randomly.
So if you use a fingerprint scanner then you just wear white cotton gloves everywhere like in Funny Games. The problem with fingerprint authentication is that there are no affordable and reliable scanners available yet.
That's facile, since you declare everyone who has tested them to be biased.
Maybe because they are biased. They haven't really been tested in a manner that would give the public any sort of confidence that they are safe. This is why you don't want to be specific about who exactly did this testing and what such testing actually entailed. The company themselves claims to have done some testing, but no sane person would believe their claims for pretty obvious reasons.
Now that Rapeyscan has been rejected by pretty much the whole world for safety and privacy reasons maybe they will actually do some real testing through an independent lab, but I doubt it. It would be too difficult to prove that ionizing radiation is actually safe. Safe enough for non-medical human exposure at least.
Slashdot Mirror
The dispute process takes 6 months to a year, and in the meantime, you're out the money. And in the event of disagreement, you're screwed by default.
Wow. I guess I don't appreciate my bank as much as I should. I had a bunch of fraudulent transactions on my debit card about a year ago that overdrew my account by hundreds of dollars. The money and the bounced check fees were all back in my account within a week of my reporting it. Of course if I had been making a payment to a credit card at the time I would have been screwed with late fees from the credit cards. I guess that is a disadvantage.
The only protection I have from fraud is legal, and to use a debit card is to give up that legal protection.
Citation needed. Every fraudulent transaction I've had on my debit card has been reversed without complaint. Sounds like you might want to switch banks. Now, maybe a pin transaction is different. I'll have to check on that. IIRC, my bank even protects me from fraudulent ATM withdrawals (gun-to-head ATM withdrawals, kidnappings, ATM cameras, over-the-shoulder-pin-surfing etc), but I could be wrong.
As someone who has worked at quite a few shit retail jobs over the years, let me add something else: Don't care whether you get fired or not. Check. Other than, say, paying considerably more than other retailers there really isn't much you can do about employee attitudes when said employee would actually be almost happy to get fired.
Well, if cash actually costs more than credit then you have the opposite situation and we should see a 2-3% discount for using credit cards. Haha. I guess debit cards are the biggest win then. No cc processing fee and all the convenience of a credit card except that you can't spend more than you actually have. I already primarily use my debit card. I typically only use credit cards when I want to actually borrow the money.
As far as them using this as an excuse to raise their prices for cc purchases you may be right about that and that would definitely suck, but they can only do that once. What may happen is that some vendors will tack on the extra processing fee and others won't resulting in effectively lower prices for cc purchases and more units sold at the merchants with the lower prices.
I don't and won't carry a debit card because the protections for consumers are nonexistant.
Can you be more specific? I've had fraudulent transactions reversed quite a few times over the years with my debit card. I've personally seen no difference in that regard between credit and debit cards. Like paypal, Amex is known for generally siding with the customer, but otherwise it probably depends a lot on the particular bank how easy it is to get a fraudulent charge reversed.
They'll still be tracked because their store card gives them a discount whether they pay by cash or not.
Only on some items and not all stores even have discount cards. When I don't have any items that are on sale I don't use the discount card.
You can't have a 'right' that depends on other people to be your slaves. That would be like the 'right' to own a slave. I don't see how adding the extra 2-3% to the income taxes of poor people so that rich people can give themselves the illusion of no cc processing fees when they go on shopping sprees would be a good thing. I won't even argue that the government cc processing would be less efficient and more expensive. Let's assume it's a wash. That government employees are just as efficient as private ones. How would this help exactly? Or were you thinking that by getting the government to do it it would be free?
You do realize that online merchants are already free to raise their prices by 2-3%? They don't (yet) need permission from the government to do so. If they thought they could make an extra 2-3% profit merely by raising their prices they would already have done it.
This change shouldn't affect online prices at all. If one merchant uses this as an excuse to charge more other merchants will simply take their business. One change this might make with online merchants is a small discount for using a debit card. I'd happily pocket an extra 2% discount for using my debit card online in certain transactions.
The amount of cash kept on the premises is factored into the cost of insurance. The cost of transporting it to the bank also increases when there is more cash, as does the cost of storing it, and banks often charge transaction fees when dealing with large amounts of cash. These costs are all passed on to the customers, including the ones who pay with credit cards, but apparently it's fine for card-payers to subsidise cash-payers, but not the other way around.
If it costs the merchant the same to be paid in cash then there is nothing to talk about. The cash and credit prices would be the same anyway. So allowing the merchants to charge more for one payment time over another is nothing to worry about.
Everywhere I shop, one end or the other of every cash transaction uses exact change. Either the buyer gives exact change, or receives it in return.
The cashier is giving change all day long. It is very fast to pull the right coins out of the drawer. I've worked as a cashier. It doesn't take long to start pulling out change in under 2 seconds. A customer will typically take longer if they are going for exact change, but that sort of customer is rare.
This reminds me that in some cases paying a higher cc price can be worth it. The extra peace of mind of having the credit card company on your side in a dispute can be worth it for large transactions. Also the extra year or two in extended warranties that some cards offer might be worth an extra 1-3% for certain purchases known to be unreliable like hard drives.
I'm under 50 and have been a techie all my life. I don't find cash to be any slower than cc. In fact I find that cash is actually faster. How long does it take for you to pull a $20 out of your wallet? 1 or 2 seconds? And most cashiers give change all day long and get pretty fast in a short time. Usually no more than a few seconds for most cashiers to give change. With a cc it takes me several seconds just to sign and sometimes another 2-3 seconds for the transaction to be approved. In my experience the typical cc transaction is 1 or 2 seconds slower than the typical cash transaction, which at least seems nearly instantaneous.
I still don't see how offering a discount for cash or debit customers actually hurts you hardcore cc users. Cash/debit customers cost the merchant less. It's that simple. Their costs are up to 4% higher for cc customers. I don't see why cash customers should be forced to pay it just to give cc customers the illusion that using a cc is free when it isn't.
99% of the time cash is faster than cc. Most people don't use exact change. And armed robberies are not my problem. I'll let the insurance companies worry about it. I like the anonymity of cash.
Except it won't work out that way. You will still be paying the same price you've always paid (including the baked in fee) and the retailers that implement it will be getting an extra influx from the fees they charge to CC users.
Is there a difference? Prices fluctuate all the time. Either you charge a lower cash price or you don't. Since the merchants themselves have up to a 4% penalty for CC purchases it would seem reasonable to give up to a 4% discount for cash purchases.
If customers actually had to pay the 4% for using their card the cc companies might start having to compete with each other for processing fees. Cards with lower fees might start to be preferred by the customers themselves costing the greedier cc companies a lot of business. I'm not sure preventing retailers from passing on the charge is actually a good thing for consumers. If I can save money by not using a credit card I'd prefer to have that option. I don't see anything wrong with having different cash and credit prices.
That actually sounds kind of similar to the US system. The biggest difference is that both the guards and the prisoners are likely to be a lot more civilized in the U.K.
Talk is cheap. All I hear from NK is a lot of yapping. Yap, yap, yap. It's difficult to take them seriously when they never actually do anything. I don't think they have the balls to actually attack the US even with conventional weaponry let alone with nukes. If they want some credibility then maybe they should actually attack someone and accept the consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Y7brwz6fA
Why start with a chicken instead of an Emu or Cassowary? Those large flightless birds already look a lot more like dinosaurs than a chicken. They even have 3 toes. With a longer tail and some teeth they would seem very dinosaur-like.
They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly.
I can't tell if you are serious or not. No one could be that naive. Their 'friend from foe' detector is simply that anyone without a badge is an enemy. And as far as 'psychological problems' most of the them are sociopaths: the worst kind of person to be walking around with a firearm. The kind of person who can kill innocent people and just walk away without feeling even a hint of remorse. You could put their firearms in better hands by simply closing your eyes and pointing randomly.
Just carry a small skunk in your luggage.You could even use a descented one and it would probably have the same deterrent effect.
Only plastic zippers? The duffel bags I typically travel with have oversized YKK metal zippers. The zippers pop quite easily with any kind of pen.
Based on the idea that everyone knows what a diaper bag looks like?
To destroy the Overlord. From the inside.
So if you use a fingerprint scanner then you just wear white cotton gloves everywhere like in Funny Games. The problem with fingerprint authentication is that there are no affordable and reliable scanners available yet.
That's facile, since you declare everyone who has tested them to be biased.
Maybe because they are biased. They haven't really been tested in a manner that would give the public any sort of confidence that they are safe. This is why you don't want to be specific about who exactly did this testing and what such testing actually entailed. The company themselves claims to have done some testing, but no sane person would believe their claims for pretty obvious reasons.
Now that Rapeyscan has been rejected by pretty much the whole world for safety and privacy reasons maybe they will actually do some real testing through an independent lab, but I doubt it. It would be too difficult to prove that ionizing radiation is actually safe. Safe enough for non-medical human exposure at least.