backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by dark matter.. on Mar 14 at 9:13 AM


Australian $20 banknote

Hong Kong $10 banknote
Cheaper and more secure

 The Bank of Canada will begin introducing plastic banknotes using a polymer material by the end of next year. The Canadian federal government announced the plans during its annual budget speech, stating that it was “taking steps to modernize Canada’s currency and protect against counterfeiting”. 

Canadian money has been targeted by forgers in recent years, as the Canadian dollar has risen close to parity with the US dollar. Security measures that could be used include the additional of a clear window, holograms, iridescent ink, and metallic/reflective threads.

There are several additional benefits as well. The new bills are cheaper to produce and could last up to four times longer than traditional banknotes printed on cotton-fibers, making them friendlier to the environment. They are also cleaner, since there is less surface area for dirt, bacteria, and viruses to adhere to. Physical money is a common source of fecal contamination.

Tyvek-based plastic currency was first introduced in the 1980s, but Australia has since led the way with the development of polymer banknotes. The key ingredient is "biaxially oriented polypropylene", developed by Australian firm Securency.

The world's first polymer banknote was the commemorative $10 bill issued in January of 1988 to mark the Australian Bicentenary. Virtually all Australians were using plastic money by 1996. Numerous other countries have since adopted polymer-based banknotes as well, including Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, and Singapore.

Canada’s $1 and $2 coins known as "loonies" and "toonies" will also be undergoing a redesign. The Royal Canadian Mint plans to introduce a new composition that uses lower-cost  “patented multi-ply plated steel technology.”

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Friendlier to environment - how?
By XZerg on 3/8/2010 12:29:24 PM , Rating: 3
How quickly does this decompose or how is it better than cotton beside it lasts longer?




RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By Chernobyl68 on 3/8/2010 12:33:12 PM , Rating: 1
yeah...I was wondering how something made from plastic is more environmentally friendly than something grown in a field?


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By oab on 3/8/2010 12:55:06 PM , Rating: 5
Because of the diesel fuel to harvest cotton, the fertilizer needed to grow cotton, the treatment needed to turn the cotton into paper, inking the paper, etc.

None of those are necessarily very environmentally friendly, so my suspicion is that new plastic bills are not much (if any) worse for the environment than existing cotton bills.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By Souka on 3/8/2010 2:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
plus add in the suposed life of the plactic bill to be 4x better than their paper counterparts


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By safcman84 on 3/9/10, Rating: -1
By dark matter on 3/14/2010 9:13:01 AM , Rating: 1
Somehow I can't see plastic money ending up being fly tipped. But hey, let me know if you do see any as I will happily tidy it away for you.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By arazok on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By HotFoot on 3/8/2010 4:27:05 PM , Rating: 5
Your argument doesn't fit examples such as toxic dumping or treatment of exhaust. How exactly is it cheaper for auto manufacturers to include catalytic converters in our cars? Those are incredibly effective for pollution reduction, but certainly don't save the car makers any money.

The cost of not having a catalytic converter would be externalised onto the public at large, who would have to breathe a lot more VOCs and CO. Overall, the healthcare/lost productivity bill would be higher than not having the catalytic converters.

Externalities is something your argument does not take into account. Costs imposed on others don't show up on the bottom line unless someone turns around and makes those costs show up.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By arazok on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
By HotFoot on 3/8/2010 5:23:38 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, I'm not wading into the global warming thing here. And frankly, I'm not too worried about the environmental cost of printing/disposing currency because I'm sure it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. It's just the green bandwagon and the government trying to earn points.

But my original point still stands. A pure, unregulated market economy will not take into account all costs. We had to come together as a society and decide that catalytic converters would be for the greater good. In that case, I completely agree. I'm very concerned for air quality especially in large urban centres.

Now here we are a generation later, and it looks like society is trying to come together again to decide what's in the greater good's interest. This time around, they're talking about carbon this and carbon that. Problem with living in a society is sometimes you don't agree with the majority on the bandwagon.

At least the science behind catalytic converters was much easier to demonstrate one way or another.

I am strongly against certain regulations, but I'm not against all regulations. I come from a place where companies will vent sour gas (toxic) if they can get away with it, because that's cheaper than dealing with it properly.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By JediJeb on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 7:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
That's the standard reply I give to the little fallacy that "even if global warming is false, at least we're reducing pollution anyway".

Many acts we take increase CO2 by decreasing pollution, or vice versa. Using the false spectre of carbon emissions is in many cases, actually acting to increase pollution, rather than reduce it.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By FaaR on 3/9/2010 6:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Reducing pollution being a benefit even though global warming is bunk is not any kind of fallacy at all. Such nonsense!

Fossile fuels cause ENORMOUS pollution on a worldwide scale. Pretty much the entire industrialized region of southeast asia is one continuous stretch of smog. Heck, just look at any major european or american metropolitan areas.

If we could eliminate our dependence on fossile fuels we would gain enormously from that.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 8:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Pretty much the entire industrialized region of southeast asia is one continuous stretch of smog"

Thank you for proving my point. The above is true because most of the vehicles have little to no pollution control devices on them. Put US emission controls on those vehicles and the smog disappears....but engine efficiency drops 20%, so CO2 emissions rise.

Personally, I'd much have the clean air, despite the lower carbon footprint.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By oab on 3/10/2010 6:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... the smog does not go away with US style emission controls, if you want any proof of that just look at the skyline of LA or NY during a hot summers day.


By Shining Arcanine on 3/11/2010 5:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
It would be cheaper if the cars were designed better in the first place, perhaps by using efficient diesel engines.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By artemicion on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By porkpie on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By psychmike on 3/8/2010 9:54:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'm afraid that both the east and west coast fish stocks are badly depleted. Recent surveys of BC wild salmon show populations less than 10% compared with 20 years ago.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/medi...

Many fisheries are closed and it is projected to take decades for the stocks to recover. The invisible hand of economics does not solve many problems were depletion happens quickly and restoration takes years and affects ecosystems and not just specific species. If cost truly did perfectly limit consumption, we would still have healthy populations of buffalo and blue whales. The blue whale population is estimated to be less than 1% of what it was in historical times because of whaling. The reality is that resources are often used until they are gone or not healthy and then the next closest resource begins to be used.

One of the reasons that we're still pulling so many fish out of the water is because of aquaculture. Many of those fish are fed animal products and are invested with sea lice which contaminate the natural environment. Technology (in this case fish farming) can compensate for environmental degradation but usually only does so to the extent that it satisfies consumer demands.


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 10:30:41 PM , Rating: 1
"Many fisheries are closed and it is projected to take decades for the stocks to recover."

Yes, the same thing they said back in the early 1970s....the 'Club of Rome' even published a book claiming world fish production was about to collapse. We were all supposed to be dead of starvation by now.

And yet, every year, year after year, we keep pulling more fish out the sea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_catches_19...

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

"One of the reasons that we're still pulling so many fish out of the water is because of aquaculture"

You mean we're no longer treating the ocean with the same hunter-gatherer techology primitive humans used thousands of years ago? We're actually moving towards a more efficient, sustainable farming model?

Oh my god, the horror!

"Technology (in this case fish farming) can compensate for environmental degradation..."


Actually, the "environmental degradation" of fertilizer runoff is actually increasing fish stocks in many areas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7840034.stm


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By zodiacfml on 3/8/2010 9:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
That idea is also lingering in my mind for years that reduced costs is almost the same as using less resources but my idea is more on the individual and not the creation of material or product.

A persons impact on the environment, grossly simplifying and excluding the man made materials we dump everywhere, is proportional to the cost of his living or what he spends.

I appreciate comments.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 9:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
Cost of course isn't a perfect metric...but its much closer than the ones normally used by environmentalists.

But there's a bigger issue here. Man's "impact" on the environment is not always negative, regardless of what Greenpeace wants you to believe. In fact, its usually positive.

Control over nature is what brought us out of the caves and gave us our modern lifestyle. We forget that at our peril.


By zodiacfml on 3/8/2010 10:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
I could agree on that. Man's impact on earth as a whole is not much. The concern is how much resources at a reasonable cost is left to continue and improve our lifestyles.
I believe that we could start conserving by using less energy from natural resources such as coal and oil to produce electricity and motion (you know where I'm going).


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By Murloc on 3/8/2010 1:45:53 PM , Rating: 1
this shows some green stupidity.

It costs energy and it pollutes to make new bills. You have to create a lot of them since they get destroyed, e.g. by water.

If they are made of plasting you won't need to make so many of them, and this is friendlier for the environment.

You don't throw money around, it's not a plastic bag.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
By myhipsi on 3/9/2010 9:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
As a Canadian, I find that highly offensive. JK :P

Seriously though, this is purely an economic issue. It's cheaper and more efficient to use a plastic based currency. They advertise the "green" aspect of it to pander to the enviro-nuts out there, that's all.

I'm sure your comment was made tongue-in-cheek, but we didn't name our money "looney". The dollar coin has a loon on it's face, so it got nicknamed "looney". It's still just a dollar coin. Nobody actually refers to Canadian money as "loonies".


By ZachDontScare on 3/8/2010 3:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yeah...I was wondering how something made from plastic is more environmentally friendly than something grown in a field?


Wow.
Seriously dude, the volume of plastic used every year for bills probably wouldnt even amount to one tenth of a percent of whats used for water bottles every single day. Focus your greenism someplace constructive, at least.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By oab on 3/8/2010 12:49:21 PM , Rating: 5
1) It's plastic, it doesn't decompose (outside of 1000 years or so, but since it's plastic, you can just melt it down to make new banknotes, people don't throw banknotes out of car windows on the highway unlike they do plastic bags).

2) It's harder to counterfeit than cotton (therefore better), it lasts longer (make fewer bills = lower costs = better)


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. You don't tend to find thousands of pounds of $100 bills in landfills. The longer a note of currency lasts, the better it is for the environment.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By bhieb on 3/8/2010 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 3
Plus, if I'm not mistaken even destroyed notes by the Federal reserves are simply recycled back into pulp like many other papers.


By xsilver on 3/9/2010 9:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
I remember hearing that destroyed australian notes also get recycled - I remember hearing about some decorative mulch that you could buy made of shredded notes. or even make your own money tree.


By Belard on 3/8/2010 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 3
3) Unlike most other plastics, if someone sees plastic bank note on the ground... they will PICK it up.

How many people pick up a nickel or dime? Pennies even?


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By Smilin on 3/8/2010 1:29:56 PM , Rating: 5
LOL - you want your currency to decompose???

Don't worry...if you ever need to throw away your money and are worried how long it will stay in a landfill just let me know. I'll be happy to "recycle" it for you.


RE: Friendlier to environment - how?
By Kurz on 3/8/2010 5:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Your money constantly decomposes/loses value ;)


By omnicronx on 3/8/2010 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Plastic will degrade much slower than cotton. I.e you will go through multiple cotton bills in the time you will go through a plastic based one. I don't think the comment had to do with the environmental impact of a single cotton bill compared to a single plastic based bill.


By seraphim1982 on 3/8/2010 4:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
And why would we care... who throws away money? hahahaha


By borowki2 on 3/8/2010 7:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't you heard of climate change? It's the biggest crisis humanity has faced since the dawn of time. The solution? Plastic! Unlike paper, which degrades within weeks, thereby releasing polluting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, plastics last for decades. In fact, most scientists say they can last for centuries when properly deposited at carbon trapping stations commonly known as landfills! A plastic bag here and a mineral bottle there might not seem like much, but it all adds up. A typical American sequester well over 20 metric tons of carbon annually. That's enough carbon to offset a flight to Copenhagen--ROUNDTRIP! By switching their money from paper to plastic, the Canadians are showing once again how they're a leader in the race to be green. If you too want to save the planet, call your representative and demand that we too make the switch. And the next time when you're in Canada, throw some of your plastic money into a hole as a symbolic gesture. For the redemption of humanity.


By Justin Time on 3/9/2010 6:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
I live in Australia, and I can vouch for the toughness of the polymer notes - 4X the life of paper is a huge underestimate IMO. I've used a $5 note to seal a slashed tire on my bicycle, and then ridden daily on it for 6 months. Finally pulled it out and put it back in my wallet, no worse for wear.


By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
Governments/corporations only go "green" when it makes them money or gives them power. They don't really care about the environment.


By Chuckwallah on 3/11/2010 3:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
The mounties save gas and tires from not having to chase counterfeiters as much :)


By Hannibal256 on 3/11/2010 8:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
Cotton degrades quickly being that it's organic right? Plastic is a manufactured material...


Counterfeiting... still a problem
By nafhan on 3/8/2010 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
The new plastic bills won't be counterfeited, but counterfeiting will be a problem until they say the paper currency is no longer legal tender, which is likely years away.




RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's just the point. The government needs to plan for what printing technology will be like 10+ years from now, because it'll take that long to phase out paper dollars.


RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By eldardude on 3/8/2010 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
You know... I'm not sure. A couple of years ago in Israel, they switched the 20 NIS paper bill to a plastic polymer. After less than a year, the old paper bills vanished completely.


RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By HotFoot on 3/8/2010 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think the circulation life of the common denominations is usually something like 2 years. Larger bills like $50s and $100s last longer.

Canada just went through changing most bills to newer harder-to-counterfeit formats in the last decade and a bit, so I'm sure they have a good idea how long it's going to take to effectively phase out the paper money.


By xsilver on 3/9/2010 9:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
circulation life meaning that the note wears out - but you could cycle the notes much faster than that by just having the notes changed over every time they reach a bank vault by the reserve bank.
You could change it all over in 1 year easy.


RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By kb9fcc on 3/8/2010 2:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canadian money has been targeted by forgers in recent years, as the Canadian dollar has risen close to parity with the US dollar.

<humor>

Well, I can think of a solution to this problem that's far less complicated than creating new currency, pulling old currency, etc. Just tank the value of the Canadian dollar vs. the USD and, viola, problem solved! At an exchange of 65 cents on the USD or so, no counterfeiter will touch the Canadian bills, and we all can return to wallpapering our bathrooms with the pretty colorful stuff.

</humor>


RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By HotFoot on 3/8/2010 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 3
I know you're joking, but...

Considering the rising Canadian dollar has shown me zero price reductions in consumer goods, as far as I'm concerned our dollar might as well go back where it was a few years ago. At least at 65 cents it made our exports look good - and we export a lot more than we import.

I'd be more against that idea if our high dollar meant my paycheque was actually worth more, but that doesn't seem to be panning out in real life.

So, you got my vote!


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 7:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
"...and we export a lot more than we import."

As of a few months ago at least, Canada was still running a trade deficit..meaning you were importing more than you export:

http://www2.canada.com/scripts/story.html?id=22187...


RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 8:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Err, you mean besides being the US's largest supplier of oil and natural gas?


RE: Counterfeiting... still a problem
By Gholam on 3/9/2010 5:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Israel, our 20 shekel bills have completely transitioned to polymer, can't find paper ones anymore. 50, 100, and 200 shekel bills are still paper, but I suppose they'll transition to polymer soon enough, as the 20 shekel bills are quite successful.


By xsilver on 3/9/2010 9:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
hoard those paper bills now! our old paper Australian notes are now highly collectible.


Sorry
By Danger D on 3/8/2010 12:25:41 PM , Rating: 4
"Physical money is a common source of fecal contamination."

Richie Rich and I pledge to quit wiping our butts with 20s.




RE: Sorry
By Stacey Melissa on 3/8/2010 1:23:35 PM , Rating: 3
I'm guessing that rich people will still be snorting coke through rolled up bills. Though it is certainly an improvement that they will no longer be able to effectively wipe their butts with the bills afterward. As well, when they light their money on fire for fun, it will go up in toxic smoke.


RE: Sorry
By PrinceGaz on 3/9/2010 10:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
Eww. Does that mean that when you use a banknote to snort cocaine, that you could actually be inhaling something potentially harmful?


Irony
By arazok on 3/8/2010 12:10:06 PM , Rating: 5
This perfectly represents how our government manages it’s finances. All they need to do is stamp the visa logo on the bills, and manufacture them in China.




RE: Irony
By mattclary on 3/8/2010 1:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
6


The Big Q
By bobcpg on 3/8/2010 1:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
But the question is....

Can I still use it to buy Houses and Hotels to place on Boardwalk?




By Chris Peredun on 3/8/2010 2:50:18 PM , Rating: 4
http://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/timcard/

Change is still given in the form of paper "Roll Up The Rim" tabs though.

;)




Melting point?
By rcc on 3/8/2010 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
Just curious. Does anyone know the melting point, or effect of heat on the bills?

Fire safes are rated for the time they keep the interior below 350 degrees Farenheit as that is the flash point of paper. So I'm wondering what that will do to the bills.




fiends
By omnicronx on 3/8/2010 1:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
Uh Oh.. Canadian coke fiends everywhere are going to be in trouble soon!!!




good
By xdunpealx on 3/8/2010 4:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
I hope this puts the Amero farther away from ever developing.




A thought
By dnd728 on 3/8/2010 5:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
They should give the clear windows different shades like the different grades of maple syrup.
That'll make them special.




Do they fold?
By PrinceGaz on 3/9/2010 10:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
Simple question, do these plastic banknotes fold like normal ones? It will be rather inconvenient having to carry around quite inflexible bits of plastic rather than foldable notes which are bent when I close my wallet.




By Jellodyne on 3/9/2010 10:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
Last I heard it was just biaxially curious polypropylene.




Plastic or Plastic?
By Nutzo on 3/8/2010 6:12:30 PM , Rating: 1
So this will mean that I'm using plastic even if I'm paying cash?




LOL Fundies
By DominionSeraph on 3/8/2010 9:24:09 PM , Rating: 1
inb4 Armageddon/mark of the beast/666 from global-warming-denying religious nuts.




Why not do without cash?
By sapiens74 on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why not do without cash?
By Shining Arcanine on 3/8/2010 12:17:23 PM , Rating: 4
Why do we need COBOL programmers in the 21st century?


RE: Why not do without cash?
By bobcpg on 3/8/2010 3:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Because COBOL only programmers need jobs.


RE: Why not do without cash?
By barjebus on 3/8/2010 12:34:55 PM , Rating: 3
I think your post is somewhat ridiculous but I agree with the premise. North America has been slow balls when it comes to convenient portable pay systems like the Japanese have. Waving my cell phone near a scanner and entering in a password? Yes please.

I understand the security risks inherent in such a system but the magnetic stripe system wasn't any better, and moving towards a chipped system has a number of glaring flaws as well. If I'm going to have my bank information stolen, I'd prefer I at least get some convenience out of the deal ;)


RE: Why not do without cash?
By gcouriel on 3/8/2010 12:36:07 PM , Rating: 3
because a large percentage of the population in the United States still deals in cash (yeah, they don't have bank accounts, checks, credit cards, etc.), and US Currency is held in large quantities outside the US (think China).

just because you think cash is outdated doesn't mean it is.

BTW, as a small business owner, i LOVE cash - no CC processing fees, and no chances of it bouncing at the bank. oh, and i report everything my business takes in, so don't think i'm skirting Uncle Sam's tax man!


RE: Why not do without cash?
By jonup on 3/8/2010 12:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
The USD held by China is e-currency.


RE: Why not do without cash?
By kattanna on 3/8/2010 12:50:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why do we need cash in the age of e-commerce?


WOW, your dealer takes CC's ?


RE: Why not do without cash?
By Manch on 3/8/2010 1:10:47 PM , Rating: 5
How else will I pay my illegal workers?!

I suppose I could use gift cards.......


RE: Why not do without cash?
By Smilin on 3/8/2010 2:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
To buy dope.


RE: Why not do without cash?
By Ammohunt on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why not do without cash?
By WoWCow on 3/8/2010 3:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do we need cash in the age of e-commerce?


Cause pimping ain't the same without the Benjamins.


RE: Why not do without cash?
By peldor on 3/8/2010 3:57:02 PM , Rating: 1
I really thought that's what this article was going to be about: a bold plan to move to cashless.

It's fairly simple to do so on a personal level (other than vending machines, I hardly ever actually have to use cash), but the challenges as a nation are a lot greater.

I do sympathize with the small business owners getting raked on the CC charges. That doesn't mean cash is better, it just means we need a system with much lower transaction costs for them.


RE: Why not do without cash?
By myhipsi on 3/9/2010 9:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
Do you realise how big the black market is? 10% of the American economy would be lost without cash. An estimated $321 billion in illegal drugs are sold worldwide every year. A lot of powerfull people depend on cash. No one talks about it, but that's why you won't see a cashless society anytime soon.

I, for one, think cash is king. It's anonymous, it's free to transact, and it's secure (in the sense that you physically have it on your person). Sure, CCs and debit cards are convienient, especially for online transactions, etc., but we still need cash.


RE: Why not do without cash?
By rippleyaliens on 3/8/2010 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 1
DUH... Strippers FTW, nuff said..


RE: Why not do without cash?
By JediJeb on 3/8/2010 6:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Might be more fun to swipe a card for those too ;)


RE: Why not do without cash?
By chagrinnin on 3/8/2010 11:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Brody: "We're gonna need a bigger card."


RE: Why not do without cash?
By blueeyesm on 3/9/2010 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, no! My ATM card! My secret PIN number -- 1077. I've got nothing left. Except...


RE: Why not do without cash?
By Hannibal256 on 3/11/2010 8:39:24 PM , Rating: 1
Some people prefer to keep their transactions private.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki