Prey tell, if you use cash, what recourse do you have in the event of fraudulent transfers?
Does that also mean you refuse to use banks that provide cash ?
Yes, it is literally the case that you will be fully reimbursed (after a $50 maximum) in the event of cash fraud, and that is one of the things that makes banking in America so powerful and safe. See for example, consumerfinance.gov:
> Let’s say you lost your debit card or PIN or either was stolen. If you notify your bank or credit union within two business days of discovering the loss or theft of the card, the bank or credit union can’t hold you responsible for more than the amount of any unauthorized transactions or $50, whichever is less.
> If an unauthorized transaction appears on your statement, but you did not lose your card, security code, or PIN or had any of them stolen, you should still notify your bank or credit union right away. At the latest, you must notify your bank within 60 days after your bank or credit union sends your statement showing the unauthorized transaction. If you wait longer, you could have to pay the full amount of any transactions that occurred after the 60-day period and before you notify your bank. In order to hold you responsible for those transactions, your bank would have to show that if you notified them before the end of the 60-day period, the transactions would not have occurred.
Roughly speaking, you can only be held accountable for withdrawals, transactions, and transfers from your account that you actually authorized. Any other cash transaction is fraud, and will result in you getting your money back. This is why banks are careful not to allow transactions that they suspect to be fraudulent.
:) . it’s quite a jump you took from cash to debit card .
You give me $50 in cold card cash . I run away . And you are telling me your bank is on the hook for that $50?
> Hmm .. May be they could have bought sbc/att/Comcast/twc?
They bought Time-Warner in 2001 for $164 billion to create AOL Time-Warner. The expected synergies of the acquisition largely failed to materialize, the AOL name was dropped from the combined entity in 2003, and AOL was spun back out of Time-Warner in 2009.
Interestingly enough, 2009 also saw Time Warner spin off TWC as an independent entity as well. They technically only use the Time Warner name under license now.
Just like the Zero fees, this has zero thing to do with bitcoin.
Here I go, party and counter-party are in my table and I flip a bit and it ZERO fees! wohooo!
Same type of plane( yes different type of engines) , same type of issues while landing. I am not suggesting that sfo crash was due to engine failure. I am just suggesting that we all should wait for the investigation to conclude.
While we don't yet know the details, have enough information to say that 1) the approach was unstabilized, 2) the engines provided thrust when they initiated a go-around (too late), 3) no emergency was declared before the accident happened unlike the BA accident. The only thing in common with these two accidents is that they are the same model of airplane and that both landed short of the runway.
We don't know whether it was pilot error, but it looks very unlikely to be the same problem, especially since Boeing reviewed all 777 aircraft after that accident. A third option of course is that the root cause was not found in the earlier investigation and that there is a different problem affecting the type, but so far pilot error seems to be the most likely cause.
It's not the same problem, as the engines responsed to thrust. The pilots applied thrust 8 seconds before impact, and the engines revved up to about 50% in that time.
Highly knowledgeable people have commented on it and not said it was anything unusual, so, yes, I'd say it's reasonable. Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.
Who? You're some guy on the Internet. I should take it on faith that you can tell who is knowledgeable and who is a blowhard?
> have commented on it and not said it was anything unusual, so, yes, I'd say it's reasonable.
Again, instead of providing a fact I have to trust the judgment of a person I do not know.
> Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.
It should have been obvious from my question that I know that much about turbines. Do you have any information specific to 777 engines or something comparable?
>Experts commenting on their field of expertise don't count for anything, or what?
They might. It depends who they are. I don't always believe everything I see on television or the Internet. Sometimes I like to know their reasoning.
It's hardly "another datapoint" when it's armchair speculation by a tabloid journalist from an infamous scandal rag. Admittedly it's actually not that badly written, but for context his other article published that day features nightmarish visions of San Francisco under 25 feet of water...
The initial conclusions from the US National Transportation Safety Board is that the engines were functioning normally; i.e. a totally different issue while landing. I doubt a Seoul-San Francisco flight in mid-July was likely to have experienced the same unusually cold temperatures that resulted in the BA038 fuel droplets freezing (over Siberia in January) either
