User Controls
Tax Season is Best Season
-
2019-02-19 at 8:04 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 8:08 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 8:11 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 8:18 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 8:25 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 9:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Look closely at the 1s, the 3 and the 4, too.
I totally get why you thought of it as a bar code. I even had to google image search some cheques to confirm what I said before I said it. Because it looks VERY barcode-ish.
And, in a sense, it IS a barcode. It's just more of a combination of symbols and numbers, printed in magnetic ink, that act as kind of a bar code.
Heck, I'm still not even fully convinced it's not a bar code.
But my point was just that the numbers just correspond to stable values (institution number, branch number, and account number).
I can't remember for sure what the symbols represent... They might be symbolic representations of those numbers.
It was like 15 years ago that I was doing all this. I'm pretty sure the software I used to print the cheques created the symbols for me (once I put in those three numbers).
Printing your own cheques, believe it or not, is actually totally legal and legitimate. That is, if you're using legitimate banking info. I bought the cheque paper at like... Staples or Office Depot or something like that. And I think maybe even the software too (if it wasn't pirated - can't remember for sure though). -
2019-02-19 at 9:07 PM UTCAlso, why the fuck is there a government cheque issued for one cent?
I just noticed that now. -
2019-02-19 at 9:10 PM UTCActually, that line of numbers does not contain the institution number, the branch number and the account number. For proof, just look at two different checks and the numbers are completely different. The Canadian government only uses one bank to issue checks on, so if that number really did contain that information, they would all be the same, or similar. They're not. That's because it's actually a scan-able barcode of sorts. And that scan is linked to the government's central database in realtime. They can tell immediately if it's a bogus check.
-
2019-02-19 at 9:12 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 9:17 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 9:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Actually, that line of numbers does not contain the institution number, the branch number and the account number. For proof, just look at two different checks and the numbers are completely different. The Canadian government only uses one bank to issue checks on, so if that number really did contain that information, they would all be the same, or similar. They're not. That's because it's actually a scan-able barcode of sorts. And that scan is linked to the government's central database in realtime. They can tell immediately if it's a bogus check.
Okay, government cheques MIGHT follow a slightly different pattern. I mean, "The Government" doesn't just have a regular old checking account in "their name" that they write cheques from.
But those numbers are essentially a representation of the the account that holds the funds.
I'm almost certain (again, been a while since I was super into all this) that the only place that is unique from one cheque to the next (assuming same bank account of origin) is the textually typed/handwritten part that dictates the quantity for which the cheque is being administered. -
2019-02-19 at 9:23 PM UTCGovernment checks are much like loaded single-use credit cards. You can steal a handful of loadable cards, sure, but those cards have to be scanned and activated in the system before they're worth more than the plastic they're printed on.
-
2019-02-19 at 9:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Government checks are much like loaded single-use credit cards. You can steal a handful of loadable cards, sure, but those cards have to be scanned and activated in the system before they're worth more than the plastic they're printed on.
Well, in my case, what I was doing was just cashing them at cheque-cashing places, not banks.
Which is why I went into the whole thing about what the numbers represent, and how the scan/verification step works.
At places like that, they DO scan your cheque through a magnetic ink reading machine. It's what transmits the data to their computers, and, will immediately tell them if it's just a bunch of gibberish at the bottom, and, especially, if it's not printed with magnetic ink.
The whole process of validating the cheque is a lot more complex than a simple "SCAN CODE ==> YES FUNDS / NO FUNDS" kind of scenario.
I mean, there's a reason that banks always say that cheques (and bill payments, etc) take something like 5-7 business days to process.
As much as it might feel like it at times, they aren't saying that just to be dicks. -
2019-02-19 at 9:39 PM UTCFor sure they use security inks and fibers on the checks, and they do scan for that, but that number is also scannable and linked into the database. They know about every single bogus check, even if you use the same paper and the same inks.
-
2019-02-19 at 9:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL For sure they use security inks and fibers on the checks, and they do scan for that, but that number is also scannable and linked into the database. They know about every single bogus check, even if you use the same paper and the same inks.
Yeah definitely.
I even worked at a cheque cashing place after all of this, and there I learned even more.
They update their security procedures to keep up with all the latest scams. -
2019-02-19 at 10:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Ghost Fuck that loser he rapes women and hates people that smoke weed
"Davidson went on to tell the audience that C.K. once tried to get him fired from his “Saturday Night Live” gig for smoking marijuana. C.K. hosted an episode in April 2017 and, according to Davidson, “told all the producers in front of me that all this kid does is smoke weed and he’s gonna smoke his career away.” Davidson added that C.K. also went to “SNL” creator and executive producer Lorne Michaels to complain about how he “smokes so much weed that it makes people uncomfortable.”
Not really. Sounds more like CK said that this kid is pissing his talent (and therfore his career) away by inhaling fumes and exhaling his future.
Nowhere in those quotes did he say "they should fire this guy". If Davidson percieved it that way, then perhaps he agrees wih ck.
