All the new black plastic fibre optic 'lumps' that are attached
to BT poles have things written on them in what looks like a
gold felt tip pen. I guess it is a special UV resitant marker pen

Would this be ok for your friends need ?

Andrew

On 07/11/2023 16:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Why cannot it be the same as other colours. A friend of mine wants to mark
> some controls on home built gear which happens to have a black front panel.
> Snopake and the like come with a brush, and hence not very controllable.
> Brian
>

On 08/11/2023 12:45, Theo wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 11:28, GB wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.
>>>>
>>>> Have I been debanked?
>>>
>>> It could easily be a problem at your bank's end.
>>>
>> No. It says 'your card number does not match the selected card type'. It
>> never got as far as the bank *at all*.
>
> That's normally done on the first few digits of the card number, which specify
> the card network (Visa/Mastercard/etc) and bank. This logic is simple
> enough that 'card type' checking is often done in Javascript in the browser
> - Visa is '4', Mastercard is '51-55', etc:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_card_number
>
> Given they probably don't accept Humo or LankaPay, the logic for what they
> do accept is not complicated.
>
> If you failed that check, either it was entered wrong or do you have a new
> card that might have a new numbering scheme? (eg Mastercard added 2221 and
> 2720 in 2017).
>

Nope - card is yonks old and is a 4659 prefix
And they didn't accept when typed in over the phone *either*

> Theo

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 08/11/2023 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 12:45, Theo wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2023 11:28, GB wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have I been debanked?
>>>>
>>>> It could easily be a problem at your bank's end.
>>>>
>>> No. It says 'your card number does not match the selected card type'. It
>>> never got as far as the bank *at all*.
>>
>> That's normally done on the first few digits of the card number, which
>> specify
>> the card network (Visa/Mastercard/etc) and bank.  This logic is simple
>> enough that 'card type' checking is often done in Javascript in the
>> browser
>> - Visa is '4', Mastercard is '51-55', etc:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_card_number
>>
>> Given they probably don't accept Humo or LankaPay, the logic for what
>> they
>> do accept is not complicated.
>>
>> If you failed that check, either it was entered wrong or do you have a
>> new
>> card that might have a new numbering scheme?  (eg Mastercard added
>> 2221 and
>> 2720 in 2017).
>>
>
> Nope - card is yonks old and is a 4659 prefix
> And they didn't accept when typed in over the phone *either*

https://www.tipwho.com/article/4659-credit-card-type-list-of-card-bin-iin-numbers/

Don't you have another card you can use?

What does your bank say?

There are other ways:
https://www.postoffice.co.uk/identity/vehicle-tax

In message <uig1i3$1k09d$1@dont-email.me>, Andrew
<Andrew97d@btinternet.com> writes
>On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.
>> Have I been debanked?
>>
>
>a->u
Ha! I have a different problem with Barclays. My card expired and they
duly sent me a replacement.

Most of my expenditure is cash or a Lloyds Visa card which gives a
modest amount of cash back. As a result more than a year passed before I
got around to linking the card to my pin at a Barclays cash outlet.
Tested it by drawing out £40.00.

Attempted use next day to settle a modest restaurant bill and it was
refused on the basis I had used the wrong pin 3 times.

Barclays tell me to re-enter the pin at a cash m/c. I suspect this will
be a circular route:-(

--
Tim Lamb

On 08/11/2023 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Nope - card is yonks old and is a 4659 prefix
> And they didn't accept when typed in over the phone *either*

I've found that some sites don't like spaces between groups of numbers.

And then there are some sites when cut/pasting the number it will insert
the spaces :(

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article <kr1fn1Fges9U1@mid.individual.net>,
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> > It is the usual Kafkaesque support roundabout.
> >

> My exercise in futility this morning was with Royal Main. A 24 hour
> tracked package is "still in transit" for the past 7 days (but
> supposedly in the same depot 30 miles away from my location for the past
> 6 days).

> If I wanted more information on the delay they suggested that I phone
> them. Twenty five minutes on hold and I speak to one of their employees
> who gives me exactly the same information I found on their tracking web
> site. No other information was available. I was also informed that 24
> hours didn't mean 24 hours but up to 10 days!

Similar to a problem my daughter had with a local council planning
department. Answered within 10 working days meant 10 weeks because Miss X
who was dealing with it only worked 1 day per week.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.
>
> Have I been debanked?
>
>
Just taxed mine & the wife's cars using Visa credit card. No problems.

On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.
>
> Have I been debanked?
>
>
Just taxed mine & the wife's cars using Visa credit card. No problems.

On 09/11/2023 00:20, John Miller wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.
>>
>> Have I been debanked?
>>
>>
> Just taxed mine & the wife's cars using Visa credit card. No problems.
I have a debit card

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 08 Nov 2023 at 17:30:02 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <kr1fn1Fges9U1@mid.individual.net>,
> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> It is the usual Kafkaesque support roundabout.
>
>> My exercise in futility this morning was with Royal Main. A 24 hour
>> tracked package is "still in transit" for the past 7 days (but
>> supposedly in the same depot 30 miles away from my location for the past
>> 6 days).
>
>> If I wanted more information on the delay they suggested that I phone
>> them. Twenty five minutes on hold and I speak to one of their employees
>> who gives me exactly the same information I found on their tracking web
>> site. No other information was available. I was also informed that 24
>> hours didn't mean 24 hours but up to 10 days!
>
> Similar to a problem my daughter had with a local council planning
> department. Answered within 10 working days meant 10 weeks because Miss X
> who was dealing with it only worked 1 day per week.

That's sophistry on their part. There are five working days in a calendar week
(fewer only due to public holidays). Such bollocks as you have described
merits a complaint at least to your local councillor (which is what they are
for).

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 11:42:37 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 11:28, GB wrote:
> > On 08/11/2023 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> Neither the website nor the telephone system will accept my card.

I've had the same problem. Wouldn't accept my normal card but would accept another one.

Bill

On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:45:41 UTC, Theo wrote:

> > No. It says 'your card number does not match the selected card type'. It
> > never got as far as the bank *at all*.
> That's normally done on the first few digits of the card number, which specify
> the card network (Visa/Mastercard/etc) and bank. This logic is simple
> enough that 'card type' checking is often done in Javascript in the browser
> - Visa is '4', Mastercard is '51-55', etc:
My Visa card starts with a 4 but they still wouldn't accept it.

Bill

On 09/11/2023 18:42, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:45:41 UTC, Theo wrote:
>
>>> No. It says 'your card number does not match the selected card type'. It
>>> never got as far as the bank *at all*.
>> That's normally done on the first few digits of the card number, which specify
>> the card network (Visa/Mastercard/etc) and bank. This logic is simple
>> enough that 'card type' checking is often done in Javascript in the browser
>> - Visa is '4', Mastercard is '51-55', etc:
> My Visa card starts with a 4 but they still wouldn't accept it.
>
> Bill
My Visa credit card also starts with a 4 and was accepted without any
problems. Weird!

On 09/11/2023 23:56, John Miller wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 18:42, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:45:41 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>
>>>> No. It says 'your card number does not match the selected card
>>>> type'. It
>>>> never got as far as the bank *at all*.
>>> That's normally done on the first few digits of the card number,
>>> which specify
>>> the card network (Visa/Mastercard/etc) and bank. This logic is simple
>>> enough that 'card type' checking is often done in Javascript in the
>>> browser
>>> - Visa is '4', Mastercard is '51-55', etc:
>> My Visa card starts with a 4 but they still wouldn't accept it.
>>
>> Bill
> My Visa credit card also starts with a 4 and was accepted without any
> problems. Weird!

Specifically 4259 23xx xxxx xxxx

Anyway it worked fine at the post office.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 10/11/2023 09:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 23:56, John Miller wrote:
>> On 09/11/2023 18:42, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:45:41 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No. It says 'your card number does not match the selected card
>>>>> type'. It
>>>>> never got as far as the bank *at all*.
>>>> That's normally done on the first few digits of the card number,
>>>> which specify
>>>> the card network (Visa/Mastercard/etc) and bank. This logic is simple
>>>> enough that 'card type' checking is often done in Javascript in the
>>>> browser
>>>> - Visa is '4', Mastercard is '51-55', etc:
>>> My Visa card starts with a 4 but they still wouldn't accept it.
>>>
>>> Bill
>> My Visa credit card also starts with a 4 and was accepted without any
>> problems. Weird!
>
> Specifically 4259 23xx xxxx xxxx
>
4659 23xx xxxx xxxx - sorry

>
> Anyway it worked fine at the post office.
>

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 08/11/2023 16:57, alan_m wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Nope - card is yonks old and is a 4659 prefix
>> And they didn't accept when typed in over the phone *either*
>
> I've found that some sites don't like spaces between groups of numbers.
>
> And then there are some sites when cut/pasting the number it will insert
> the spaces :(
>
>

And with automated telephone systems don't say O if you mean zero.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10/11/2023 11:03, alan_m wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 16:57, alan_m wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Nope - card is yonks old and is a 4659 prefix
>>> And they didn't accept when typed in over the phone *either*
>>
>> I've found that some sites don't like spaces between groups of numbers.
>>
>> And then there are some sites when cut/pasting the number it will
>> insert the spaces :(
>>
>>
>
> And with automated telephone systems don't say O if you mean zero.
>

And some forms auto complete the country code for the UK, 44
which technically means that you should OMIT the leading
zero on the STD code, but most forms just accept it.

On 08/11/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
> In article <kr1fn1Fges9U1@mid.individual.net>,
> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>
>>> It is the usual Kafkaesque support roundabout.
>>>
>
>> My exercise in futility this morning was with Royal Main. A 24 hour
>> tracked package is "still in transit" for the past 7 days (but
>> supposedly in the same depot 30 miles away from my location for the past
>> 6 days).
>
>> If I wanted more information on the delay they suggested that I phone
>> them. Twenty five minutes on hold and I speak to one of their employees
>> who gives me exactly the same information I found on their tracking web
>> site. No other information was available. I was also informed that 24
>> hours didn't mean 24 hours but up to 10 days!
>
> Similar to a problem my daughter had with a local council planning
> department. Answered within 10 working days meant 10 weeks because Miss X
> who was dealing with it only worked 1 day per week.
>

How many people is she 'job sharing' with ?

In article <uioc41$3hi83$2@dont-email.me>, Andrew
<Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
> > In article <kr1fn1Fges9U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
> > <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 08/11/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> It is the usual Kafkaesque support roundabout.
> >>>
> >
> >> My exercise in futility this morning was with Royal Main. A 24 hour
> >> tracked package is "still in transit" for the past 7 days (but
> >> supposedly in the same depot 30 miles away from my location for the
> >> past 6 days).
> >
> >> If I wanted more information on the delay they suggested that I phone
> >> them. Twenty five minutes on hold and I speak to one of their
> >> employees who gives me exactly the same information I found on their
> >> tracking web site. No other information was available. I was also
> >> informed that 24 hours didn't mean 24 hours but up to 10 days!
> >
> > Similar to a problem my daughter had with a local council planning
> > department. Answered within 10 working days meant 10 weeks because Miss
> > X who was dealing with it only worked 1 day per week.
> >

> How many people is she 'job sharing' with ?

This was about 20 years ago, no idea

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle