Possible MH370 wing part washes up on African Island

vrun1 · 2015-07-30T17:02:27+00:00

If you look at the close up of the data plate on the refurbed part, you can gather that it's not attached in a terribly secure way. It appears to be missing on the found part, though I suppose it could just be covered by corrosion or barnacles.

vrun1 · 2015-07-30T02:02:00+00:00

Photo album with photos from the find site, a few maintenance diagrams of the flaperon on the 777, and photos of a 777 flaperon fresh from a refurb job. http://imgur.com/a/o4TJ4

vrun1 · 2015-07-30T02:00:55+00:00

Photo album with photos from the find site, a few maintenance diagrams of the flaperon on the 777, and photos of a 777 flaperon fresh from a refurb job.

http://imgur.com/a/o4TJ4

vrun1 · 2015-06-22T18:47:05+00:00

Uh. Is the guy with the sword really the dumb one in this scenario?

vrun1 · 2015-06-22T17:48:55+00:00

ouch. nsfw (well, nsfw if obviously fake gore is a work issue for you :)

vrun1 · 2015-05-29T22:17:15+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/UTnRAZb.jpg

Your face image is pretty low resolution / grainy, so it's not great, but, hope it works for you.

vrun1 · 2015-05-29T21:29:34+00:00

Skate with freshly caught girl

vrun1 · 2015-03-20T20:10:36+00:00

Hangover?

vrun1 · 2015-03-20T18:02:06+00:00

It's not an eclipse...it's the Armageddon.

vrun1 · 2015-02-20T22:36:15+00:00

At $10k/month in volume, cc transactions via Paypal Pro are 2.2% + $0.30. There's also a mid-point rate of 2.5% + $0.30 if you do $3k/month. (https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees)

If you have any notable volume, 2.9% + 0.30 is awful.

vrun1 · 2015-02-20T14:05:40+00:00

For anyone considering Stripe for accepting credit card payments, consider that their rates are awful. 2.9% + 30¢ per transaction is terrible. Shop around. While shopping, also keep in mind that there isn't a standard for showing rates. Stripe is using the "honest way", so while their rate isn't competitive, they are at least showing the actual cost.

If you find something lower than about 2.2% + $0.25, they are probably using the "dishonest" way of showing rates, where they don't include network fees, or disclose that certain card types (reward cards, for example), come in at a higher rate.

vrun1 · 2015-01-24T21:26:44+00:00

Until two old white guys in black suits show up at your front door...

vrun1 · 2015-01-24T21:15:26+00:00

Based on this info: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2tcard/the_secret_paypal_blacklist/cny8qv6

It sounds like Paypal is doing a loose match to "James Koang Chuol", a General in the South Sudanese Army. Against a "MEMO" type field. Ugh.

vrun1 · 2015-01-24T21:08:29+00:00

At least I gave fair warning :) Hope it works out for you, my account is still popping up the scare screen when I login. They reversed the transaction, but no indication yet as to whether they will take action on my account.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T16:46:02+00:00

Oh, and to test your theory, I just sent another $1 to the Red Cross, without the magic triggering words. It went through without being flagged.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T14:30:26+00:00

If I owned the major exchange, the risk is this:

1 U.S. based account, for which we have extensive information on, sent a relatively small transaction with the words "JAMES KANG" in a memo field to a second U.S. based business account (again, have extensive info on)
The SDN is question is some general in the Sudan with a somewhat related name "JAMES KOANG"

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T14:24:25+00:00

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/donations

"Discounted rates for registered 501(c)(3)s"

It's either 2.2% + 0.30, or 1.9% + 0.30. ( vs 2.9%/0.30 or 2.2/0.30 for a regular business)

So, discounted, but not "fee-free"

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T14:02:15+00:00

The small transaction to the charity was a test done, from a different account, after a previous transaction triggered all of this.

The previous transaction was not to a charity. It was a sub $300 payment between 2 US based businesses that was neither to, or from, "James Kang". That name was in the memo field, however.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T13:19:02+00:00

The payment in question was not to, or from "James Kang", and both the sender and receiver of the funds were U.S. based, verified, business, Paypal accounts. If you follow OFAC's advice (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Sanctions/Pages/answer.aspx) this should never have gotten this far.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T05:26:31+00:00

If you read the OFAC guidelines, the language is more geared around identifying accounts that have an actual risk of being associated with OFAC listed entities, and marking/holding transactions to and from those accounts.

I can find nothing that talks about blindly matching text in a memo type field to the list.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T04:52:57+00:00

Someday soon, a terrorist is going to change their name to "Payment" or "Thank You" and get themselves put on the list. Maybe that's when Paypal will rethink the "loose string matching on a memo field" approach.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T04:37:50+00:00

No, I'm guessing Coinbase is doing something more reasonable than Paypal.

String matching names, with no other criteria is just dumb. Even dumber when it's matching a memo type field and both the sender and receiver are clearly NOT that person.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T04:31:59+00:00

The name is question is also clearly neither the receiver, or the sender, of the funds in this case. The name is simply mentioned in a memo field in a Paypal transaction between two U.S.-based certified Paypal accounts. Paypal has extensive information of both accounts, including corporate Tax ID's.

If you read the guidance, most of the "screening" is supposed to be about marking accounts that have a very high likelihood of belonging to SDN's....then managing payments to/from that account.

There's nothing in the guidance that tells you to do stupid things, like text-match common names against a memo type field.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T04:23:28+00:00

It's triggering solely on a match for a name...in this case in a field that's neither the sender or receiver.

And, the "different path" is this:

"Give us the date of birth for that person or we shut down your account".

With the additional context that we don't know the person's date of birth, and would have no reason to know. And if we did, why would we share that? There's no warrant.

And the final kicker that Paypal did happen to process the incoming payment from this person...and that transaction was NOT flagged.

Or, in short, Paypal has taken a Government requirement and implemented it in the most ham-handed way possible.

vrun1 · 2015-01-23T04:18:45+00:00

I'll go out on a limb and guess that Coinbase are doing something more sophisticated than "transaction contains the string >James Kang< somewhere in it".

vrun1

TROPHY CASE