Use " PrePaid Credit Card " to register with FAA
12-22-2015, 06:06 PM
#26
My Feedback: (81)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Walden,
NY
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an FYI... I know the five bucks ain't a big complaint.. But remember .. The govt.. Like all other business's use 3rd parties to handle this process. Even if secured it is estimated probably million or so to pay this party to run, keep up and secure registrations, payments etc. guess who's paying for that?? Duh!! Welcome taxpayers.. Lol.. There's always a catch... Lol..
12-22-2015, 06:32 PM
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
12-23-2015, 06:36 AM
#30
My Feedback: (125)
Try as you might, you are on the grid one way or another. 10 minute search of your name would bring up info, and for another $10.00 a report could be produced, $20.00 for an even better more in depth one. Who cares, if you're going to get hacked your going to get hacked, and the last party I'm woried about having my info is the govt. To each their own, I get it. Anyway, Visa and Mastercard, even Amex offers the cards. They will cost face value, plus anywhere from 5 to 10 bucks to activate, they can also lose value in some states if not used. Oh, and even if using cash, no doubt you are on camera buying it, then on camera getting into your car and pulling away from the store/gas station you bought it at. Nice red truck by the way, cute vanity plate!
https://www.cardbenefits.citi.com/pr...t-numbers.aspx
FWIW, stop thinking of your credit card numbers as "yours", they are as fluid and flexible as the wind. I generally request new cards every six months or so and whatever info of mine that's out there becomes useless.
12-23-2015, 11:33 AM
#33
How about we agree to it's top heavy, overstaffed. under productive and don't give a damn about the people they are supposed to serve and growing larger by the day ? Does it bother you one bit that the government is the fastest growing in history? Got news for you the ones "complain about govt programs and handouts but are the very same people that are johhny on the spots for said handouts." They are not the ones complaining we who are paying the bills are the ones complaining.
I have to ask are you government employee?
Mike
I have to ask are you government employee?
Mike
I would leave generalizations for the racists. In general, when you generalize you do not come across like a smart person, period. Like it or not.
If someone wants to hack you, they will.
People afraid of giving government information seem to forget that they (governmint) gave you your SS number. They know who you are, and where. And they (governmint) gets hacked too (teams of hard working S.O.Bs work 24/7 precisely doing that. And we know who, or at least where they are)
I have a clearance from the DoD and from the Executive Office of the President. I have worked for different administrations since the 1990's. You renew your clearances periodically. Well, a couple of months ago I got a letter indicating that there was a possibility that my information (the one passed on during the clearance process) could have been hacked. Two weeks ago, we got the same letter for my wife. While she does not have any clearance, her info and other people's info go on the paperwork that might have been hacked.
MD's offices get hacked, dentist offices, stores, companies, etc. Your data is not 100% safe anywhere. The best advise: get used to it, as it will not get better anytime soon. The worst right now are gas stations. If you look, when you get gas, the dispenser has a front panel locked with a key. Apparently delinquents can get a hold of those keys, open the panel, and install a device that sends them your card info when you pay. All done in 10 seconds or less. This is also getting worst fast. Of course that the solution is as easy as an alarm, but they take time... Meanwhile... well, you know.
Gerry
12-23-2015, 11:52 AM
#35
I always repeat "Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open".
Gerry
12-23-2015, 01:42 PM
#38
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 12-23-2015 at 01:44 PM.
12-23-2015, 02:21 PM
#39
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Again, it's not just you...didn't we cover this already once today? The point remains, and logic holds true as noted above...generalizing, distilling complex issues down to a quick catchy soundbite, and of course stereotying are all poor ways to engage in a discussion. For example, another fellow today talked about how horrible and overreaching the govt is, especially with all those annoying agencies with letters in their name. He listed a bunch of course, somehow forgetting ones like the CDC, FDA, and NTSB. But ya, ALL of them are horrible.
Or like if you don't want to fire the EC of the AMA, and don't want to disband the whole operation, and have them just provide insurance since they really do nothing else, you must work for them right? Or now, if someone doesn't want to rant and rail about the FAA, and might just might see a reason why they are involved, we are now in favor of big Govt..because what again, money? Because people working for the feds get big crazy paychecks? Here I was thinking it was all the folks working at the EC at the AMA. The best generalization though came from someone here who didn't like his positions not being agreed with. Labeled those who disagreed with him as "lawn ornaments" I believe. Then again, this is the same guy who wished the AMA could go back to the days of bribing govt employees. (allegedly), because that somehow was proof they cared about us?
You continue to look for motive in a discussion, and now try to make it personal with who works for who etc, rather than looking at the content of the discussion and responding to that. I know you'll argue that, but it's exactly what you did. I could care less who works where or if they even work. So that may color their outlook on something...so what, isn't it the outlook that's being discussed?
The point remains, and logic holds true as noted above...generalizing, distilling complex issues down to a quick catchy soundbite, and of course stereotying are all poor ways to engage in a discussion. For example, another fellow today talked about how horrible and overreaching the govt is, especially with all those annoying agencies with letters in their name. He listed a bunch of course, somehow forgetting ones like the CDC, FDA, and NTSB. But ya, ALL of them are horrible. Or like if you don't want to fire the EC of the AMA, and don't want to disband the whole operation, and have them just provide insurance since they really do nothing else, you must work for them right? Or now, if someone doesn't want to rant and rail about the FAA, and might just might see a reason why they are involved, we are now in favor of big Govt..because what again, money? Because people working for the feds get big crazy paychecks? Here I was thinking it was all the folks working at the EC at the AMA. The best generalization though came from someone here who didn't like his positions not being agreed with. Labeled those who disagreed with him as "lawn ornaments" I believe. Then again, this is the same guy who wished the AMA could go back to the days of bribing govt employees. (allegedly), because that somehow was proof they cared about us?
You continue to look for motive in a discussion, and now try to make it personal with who works for who etc, rather than looking at the content of the discussion and responding to that. I know you'll argue that, but it's exactly what you did. I could care less who works where or if they even work. So that may color their outlook on something...so what, isn't it the outlook that's being discussed?
12-23-2015, 06:45 PM
#40
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, it's not just you...didn't we cover this already once today? The point remains, and logic holds true as noted above...generalizing, distilling complex issues down to a quick catchy soundbite, and of course stereotying are all poor ways to engage in a discussion. For example, another fellow today talked about how horrible and overreaching the govt is, especially with all those annoying agencies with letters in their name. He listed a bunch of course, somehow forgetting ones like the CDC, FDA, and NTSB. But ya, ALL of them are horrible.
Or like if you don't want to fire the EC of the AMA, and don't want to disband the whole operation, and have them just provide insurance since they really do nothing else, you must work for them right? Or now, if someone doesn't want to rant and rail about the FAA, and might just might see a reason why they are involved, we are now in favor of big Govt..because what again, money? Because people working for the feds get big crazy paychecks? Here I was thinking it was all the folks working at the EC at the AMA. The best generalization though came from someone here who didn't like his positions not being agreed with. Labeled those who disagreed with him as "lawn ornaments" I believe. Then again, this is the same guy who wished the AMA could go back to the days of bribing govt employees. (allegedly), because that somehow was proof they cared about us?
You continue to look for motive in a discussion, and now try to make it personal with who works for who etc, rather than looking at the content of the discussion and responding to that. I know you'll argue that, but it's exactly what you did. I could care less who works where or if they even work. So that may color their outlook on something...so what, isn't it the outlook that's being discussed?
The point remains, and logic holds true as noted above...generalizing, distilling complex issues down to a quick catchy soundbite, and of course stereotying are all poor ways to engage in a discussion. For example, another fellow today talked about how horrible and overreaching the govt is, especially with all those annoying agencies with letters in their name. He listed a bunch of course, somehow forgetting ones like the CDC, FDA, and NTSB. But ya, ALL of them are horrible. Or like if you don't want to fire the EC of the AMA, and don't want to disband the whole operation, and have them just provide insurance since they really do nothing else, you must work for them right? Or now, if someone doesn't want to rant and rail about the FAA, and might just might see a reason why they are involved, we are now in favor of big Govt..because what again, money? Because people working for the feds get big crazy paychecks? Here I was thinking it was all the folks working at the EC at the AMA. The best generalization though came from someone here who didn't like his positions not being agreed with. Labeled those who disagreed with him as "lawn ornaments" I believe. Then again, this is the same guy who wished the AMA could go back to the days of bribing govt employees. (allegedly), because that somehow was proof they cared about us?
You continue to look for motive in a discussion, and now try to make it personal with who works for who etc, rather than looking at the content of the discussion and responding to that. I know you'll argue that, but it's exactly what you did. I could care less who works where or if they even work. So that may color their outlook on something...so what, isn't it the outlook that's being discussed?
Mike
12-23-2015, 07:14 PM
#42
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-23-2015, 07:35 PM
#44
12-23-2015, 07:37 PM
#45
How about we agree to it's top heavy, overstaffed. under productive and don't give a damn about the people they are supposed to serve and growing larger by the day ? Does it bother you one bit that the government is the fastest growing in history? Got news for you the ones "complain about govt programs and handouts but are the very same people that are johhny on the spots for said handouts." They are not the ones complaining we who are paying the bills are the ones complaining.
I have to ask are you government employee?
Mike
I have to ask are you government employee?
Mike
12-23-2015, 07:45 PM
#46
My Feedback: (2)
I have been hacked. It was on a purchase from an online store. The credit card processing company that the store used was hacked, not the store's fault. I realized an incorrect charge when I say the CC bill. I called the CC company. They promptly refunded the charge, cancelled my CC and issued a new one. No big deal really. That was one purchase out of probably thousands of onlline purchases that my wife and I have made.
Last edited by JPMacG; 12-23-2015 at 07:48 PM.
12-24-2015, 04:29 AM
#47
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the great fortune of dealing with the IRS a few years back on a 401 rolled into a IRA which met every one of the IRS requirements.It took 8 months to clear up. Even though every one of the 8 mail responses to their "bill" included the bank paperwork on the IRA. Every letter I received said the same thing I need to prove where the money was. It was the most frustrating 8 months of my life. I hope no one ever has to deal with them.
Drafted back in the early 70's did my tour than out.
Mike
Drafted back in the early 70's did my tour than out.
Mike
12-24-2015, 04:34 AM
#48
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
12-24-2015, 05:21 AM
#50
I have been hacked. It was on a purchase from an online store. The credit card processing company that the store used was hacked, not the store's fault. I realized an incorrect charge when I say the CC bill. I called the CC company. They promptly refunded the charge, cancelled my CC and issued a new one. No big deal really. That was one purchase out of probably thousands of onlline purchases that my wife and I have made.