Subj : nuts was: logs and To : Nancy Backus From : Barry Martin Date : Thu Dec 05 2019 08:02:00 Hi Nancy! NB>>> Hmmmm... Deposits done by persons on days the bank isn't open do tend NB>>> to be posted as of the next business day, so maybe that does apply to NB>>> regular businesses... What I was familiar with was Social Security and NB>>> welfare direct deposits... both governmental agencies, so maybe there NB>>> is either an arrangement to post early, or a policy to send early... BM>> Possibly a difference in state laws. NB>> I'd still think that maybe it's a difference between government NB>> agencies and private companies.... Richard chose to have his pension NB>> check mailed to him, and he deposits it himself... as it is dated the NB>> 1st, he can't deposit it until then, or the next/first business day NB>> thereafter... Possibly companies can't change the date of the check NB>> for earlier so the direct deposit ends up the same way.... BM> Possibly. ...Just checked on-line -- early Sunday morning, December BM> 1st: my pension check is listed as 'pending', so there but the funds BM> are not available. NB> It can't be properly posted until someone is there working and NB> can do the paperwork or the equivalent... Similarly, a pending NB> debit to the account might show up as the available balance being NB> less than the stated balance.... Possibly. Not saying you're wrong about someone verifying, just seems a corporate deposit would be trusted more than a check presented at the counter from a private citizen. I deposited a private check yesterday and the receipt indicated I could withdraw that and what was previously in my account. BM> As for the dates on the check, another good BM> question but I'm expanding the question a bit. Pretty sure can't BM> deposit a check before the date written on it. ..."Banks are not BM> obligated to cash a check six months after the date written on it, but BM> many do." But seemingly contrary to that 'six month rule' banks may BM> cash a post-dated check (dated in the future). NB> Generally, they'd check and not cash if the date is wrong at NB> either end, but they explicitly won't take the blame if someone NB> doesn't check the date.... So writing a future date on a check to NB> avoid it being cashed before you have funds there might well NB> backfire, unless you get the person to agree to wait to present NB> it until that date.... Probably as close to right as we're going to get without 3,000 pages of rules and regulations and definitions. As far as the agreement, I have done that in my 'broke' days and it has been honoured. BM>> Thinking of how here in Iowa a BM>> car dealership cannot be open on Sunday. Illinois too, so hadn't paid BM>> that much attention. To the south Missouri, so even less incentive. BM>> If look to the north Wisconsin can't either. (In Iowa the _lot_ can be BM>> open to the public: people can and like to wander without salespeople BM>> present; the offices cannot be open/do business.) NB>> Interesting distinctions being drawn there... ;) Sounds like your NB>> state's Dutch Reformed heritage is still pretty firm... :) New York NB>> clearly has become much more secular... ;) BM> Every once in a while a minor news blurb appears where BM> local-to-me state thinks about changing the law to allow car BM> dealerships to open/do business on Sundays. So far always accompanied BM> by the dealers not wanting to be open as it allows potential customers BM> to wander and then come back during the week to buy that car that BM> caught their eye. "Didn't need a car but that sporty red one on BM> sale...." NB> The dealerships have found a useful aspect to what would NB> otherwise seem to be a restrictive law, I see... ;) Yes. NB>> Not sure where he got them from, but Richard has bought a hand-held NB>> code checker for each of our cars (my car is enough younger that it NB>> has a more sophisticated computer in it and needed a different code NB>> checker)... I don't know if that is the proper name for it, but when NB>> a Check Engine light comes on, he can plug in the machine and read NB>> what the code is... and then has the option to clear it or not.... BM> Ah! Another little bit of the puzzle! I sort of suspected there were BM> different models for a reason. I think both of our cars would be in BM> that "more sophisticated computer" level (2008 and 2006) and now is BM> someone else's problem (!). NB> My car is a 2005, so yes, yours would be using the same one that NB> mine does, being about the same age.... Will be interesting to see what's going on with the cars' computers. Mine yesterday was quiet about the Check Engine (meaning the light was off) but had a hard time finding the tires ==> low tire pressure indicator blinking, so that means is couldn't find at least one of the sensors. Then solid, meaning low pressure. I wasn't concerned about that because I had filled all four the day before. And as I wrote that "the spare!" popped in to my head. ...And remember the car lock issue a while back? That has just about resolved itself. Will take the car in eventually. BM> No, didn't get rid of the cars; about a week ago one of the kids asked BM> "so what do you want for Christmas?" My usual answer is "Oh I don't BM> know" -- which is truthful: I don't really need anything, and if I do BM> I need it NOW (like a computer part). "You know we could use car code BM> reader." "Jeff has one of those, I'll ask him." So might get one for BM> Christmas, might be a better one as a shared gift. And add to the BM> 'might be better' list as he has used a reader and so might know this BM> feature looks nice but is unnecessary and that feature is desireable. NB> Good timing for this discussion, then... ;) Yes. :) BM> As for the Check Engine lights, mine went off a trip or two after I BM> filled with a quarter-tank of gas (before the Gas Perks points BM> expired). I think the other car's is still on. NB> Ah... both cars are having issues that way....? The code reader NB> will indeed be a useful item, then.... :) Both Check Engines are off currently. For the time being. %) Will be interesting to see what the Code Reader says. No idea if it can step through - thinking of how one can look at computer system logs and see where a device took several tries to connect. BM>> I did get a phone call a year or two back where the ID did say "SPAM BM>> CALL"!! NB>> We got that one too... Finally... truth in advertising... NB>> And in the last couple of days, we've received a few calls from NB>> "Potential Spam"... different number each time, including the area NB>> code... No, I didn't answer them.... ;) BM> Couple of days ago we got two or three calls saying our Apple device BM> was infected or something like that. Same number. Then a call BM> (different number) our account would be charged $299 for some coverage BM> plan. All went to the answering machine, laughed at, then deleted. NB> They are getting bold, aren't they.... ours don't go to the NB> answering machine, as it is non-existent... but I'll listen NB> quietly, and then hang up... and then laugh.... We don't have any NB> Apple devices, or any accounts etc in the iCloud.... They are NB> definitely barking up the wrong tree here.... ;) We received two or three calls re: our Apple devices yesterday. Closest I have is those I buy at the grocery store. BM>>> The good news is it hasn't happened since (the staying off-line). As BM>>> for the spoofing of the numbers, looked up one local number which has BM>>> been calling regularly recently: on-line said it belonged to two BM>>> different people at two different addresses. (!) NB>>> Interesting... One would wonder if it's two different spammers or if NB>>> one is the legit owner of the number that is being hi-jacked by a NB>>> spammer... BM>> I'm thinking one might be the legit owner of the number and the other BM>> a spoofed, or perhaps both legit and got linked via Call Forwarding BM>> (the two people know each other). NB>> But why would they be calling you...? BM> To tell me my contract is about to expire and I need to use it to fix BM> my Apple devices??!! NB> Then neither call is legit, obviously.... ;) Probably not! BM> Personally I think part of the problem is in whatever system displays BM> the Caller ID. From some old readings know the data is on the line, BM> or at least known by the telephone companies before the phone rings. BM> Half-thinking the spammers send/insert their data after the real BM> information, so that's what we see. BM> ...Looked it up: semi-close. One site indicated the spammers can buy BM> what's like pre-paid calling cards and have them say whatever they BM> want (so the CID display), another site sort of indicated the fake BM> insert of the area code and exchange, the last four digits are real -- BM> makes it look like a local person calling ('neighbour call'). NB> Now that VoIP allows the spoofing of numbers, how the numbers NB> appear anywhere apparently has been compromised.... Probably yes. Or the spammers found a way to override the real CID: I'm thinking 'talk louder' to override the real data or resend the spam data just after the real data. Both of those options don't sound quite right as the real data is present though compromised on the receiving end. Not that much data, so probably sent relatively slowly (say 4800 baud), stick high speed tracking equipment on the line and quite sure could hear the real data. In the meantime.... ¯ ® ¯ Barry_Martin_3@ ® ¯ @Q.COM ® ¯ ® .... This message was written on 100% recycled spam. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47 þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1) .