The Protection of Prepaid Credit Cards

Depending upon the country in which you reside, one of the ways to limit your exposure for online purchases is by using a prepaid credit card. This is relatively new in some countries. The prepaid cards function exactly like a normal credit card. The merchant will not be able to tell the difference between a regular credit card and a prepaid one.

The prepaid card has a limit which you set by the amount of funds that you place on the card. For example, if you purchase a hundred dollar credit card and use it to buy fifty five dollars of merchandise, your exposure is limited then to forty five dollars, without any further funds added to the card. If the merchant has a security issue and that particular credit card is exposed immediately, there be a limited concern about forty five dollars. It is far less that what would be at risk if a regular credit card had been used.

If the merchant keeps a data base and your credit card finds its way onto that information pool, there is the protection that your prepaid credit card may no longer be valid if there is a future security breach. Some people are using the prepaid credit cards in brick and mortar stores too. With data bases being compromised from outside hacker attacks and from personnel within companies, the prepaid credit cards provide protection from identity theft.

There are terms of service to consider. There are no universal standards that apply. The small administrative fee that is necessary is more than offset by the time and energy necessary if a normal credit card should happen to be compromised. The prepaid credit card provided one additional safeguard. It limits spending to what you have placed on the card already. You won’t be accumulating credit card debt.

Catherine Forsythe
Director of Operations
FlyingHamster: http://flyinghamster.com/

[tag]prepaid credit cards, security, data breach, identity theft, hackers, data base, debt[/tag]

A Dog Warns Before Biting

A dog will warn you that you are in danger and that he/she is upset. There are numerous clues in the dog’s body language. And these warning signs are very obvious, if you are aware of the dog’s body language communication. Here are some of the signs of danger:

• the set of the dog’s ears is back
• the legs are very stiff
• the body posture is very tense
• the fur on the back may be raised
• the dog may be showing its teeth
• there may be a growling

It is scary and it is also fascinating. One tends to stare and that is the worse thing to do. The staring is a challenge to the dog and it may heighten the aggressiveness and volatility of the situation.

The best thing to do is to freeze. Stop whatever you are doing. Do not run. Do not scream. Slowly look away from the dog. Hopefully, that will turn off the aggressive display.

[On a personal note, it seems from my limited experience with biting dogs that they lick their lips immediately before striking. I cannot find any documentation for this. Perhaps it is just a coincidence - I would be interested if anyone has had this experience or has seen this documented and reported anywhere else. Thanks!]

Catherine

A Dog Warns Before Biting

A dog will warn you that you are in danger and that he/she is upset. There are numerous clues in the dog’s body language. And these warning signs are very obvious, if you are aware of the dog’s body language communication. Here are some of the signs of danger:

• the set of the dog’s ears is back
• the legs are very stiff
• the body posture is very tense
• the fur on the back may be raised
• the dog may be showing its teeth
• there may be a growling

It is scary and it is also fascinating. One tends to stare and that is the worse thing to do. The staring is a challenge to the dog and it may heighten the aggressiveness and volatility of the situation.

The best thing to do is to freeze. Stop whatever you are doing. Do not run. Do not scream. Slowly look away from the dog. Hopefully, that will turn off the aggressive display.

[On a personal note, it seems from my limited experience with biting dogs that they lick their lips immediately before striking. I cannot find any documentation for this. Perhaps it is just a coincidence - I would be interested if anyone has had this experience or has seen this documented and reported anywhere else. Thanks!]

Catherine Forsythe
Director of Operations
FlyingHamster: http://flyinghamster.com/

[tag]dogs, biting, body language, warning signs, stare, aggression, display[/tag]

The Evil Genius Part of Gregg Popovich

Gregg Popovich is the coach of the highly successful San Antonio Spurs. His team has eliminated the Phoenix Suns to advance into the next round of post season play. During the series with Phoenix, Coach Popovich used a strategy that was used initially by Don Nelson. This involved intentionally fouling Shaquille O’Neal and sending him to shoot foul shots. Shaquille O’Neal is notoriously poor at scoring with foul shots.

Essentially, the strategy was to take a calculated gamble that the foul shots would be missed and the ball would be rebounded for a Spurs possession. Coach Popovich even used this ploy when his team was ahead in the score. It disrupted the flow of Phoenix’s offense.

Under the present rules, this “hack-a-shaq” ploy is entirely a legitimate strategy. Taken to the next step, two coaches could have their players intentionally foul the poor free throw shooters on the other team and reduce a portion of the game to a foul shooting contest. It would be extremely boring. Many basketball commentators have suggested that this intentional fouling necessitates a rule change.

The intentional fouling would stop if the NBA instituted a rule that such fouls would mean two foul shots plus retaining possession. Therefore, even if the foul shots are made (or missed), the team at the foul line retains possession of the ball. This would negate the value of forcing a poor shooter to go to make foul shots. It would not disrupt the offense because the team retains possession of the ball. Essentially, it would remove the value of intentional fouls away from the ball. It would allow teams to continue to gain an advantage by fouling as the game draws to a close. It would, however, stop the fouls away from a play on the ball.

Coach Popovich would need to find for another ploy to gain an advantage. - Of course, all this would be unnecessary if these professional basketball players could make their foul shots consistently. No, on second thought, it would be easier to institute a rule change…

Catherine

The Evil Genius Part of Gregg Popovich

Gregg Popovich is the coach of the highly successful San Antonio Spurs. His team has eliminated the Phoenix Suns to advance into the next round of post season play. During the series with Phoenix, Coach Popovich used a strategy that was used initially by Don Nelson. This involved intentionally fouling Shaquille O’Neal and sending him to shoot foul shots. Shaquille O’Neal is notoriously poor at scoring with foul shots.

Essentially, the strategy was to take a calculated gamble that the foul shots would be missed and the ball would be rebounded for a Spurs possession. Coach Popovich even used this ploy when his team was ahead in the score. It disrupted the flow of Phoenix’s offense.

Under the present rules, this “hack-a-shaq” ploy is entirely a legitimate strategy. Taken to the next step, two coaches could have their players intentionally foul the poor free throw shooters on the other team and reduce a portion of the game to a foul shooting contest. It would be extremely boring. Many basketball commentators have suggested that this intentional fouling necessitates a rule change.

The intentional fouling would stop if the NBA instituted a rule that such fouls would mean two foul shots plus retaining possession. Therefore, even if the foul shots are made (or missed), the team at the foul line retains possession of the ball. This would negate the value of forcing a poor shooter to go to make foul shots. It would not disrupt the offense because the team retains possession of the ball. Essentially, it would remove the value of intentional fouls away from the ball. It would allow teams to continue to gain an advantage by fouling as the game draws to a close. It would, however, stop the fouls away from a play on the ball.

Coach Popovich would need to find for another ploy to gain an advantage. - Of course, all this would be unnecessary if these professional basketball players could make their foul shots consistently. No, on second thought, it would be easier to institute a rule change…

Catherine Forsythe
Director of Operations
FlyingHamster: http://flyinghamster.com/

[tag]nba, gregg popovich, shaquille o’neal, interntional fouls, free throws, rules, playoffs[/tag]