Slashback: Stupidity, Telebastardy, Fast Search 321
Thanks for the correction, Peter."I read your Overture/FAST story on Slashdot and wanted to make a clarification.Your headline implies that Overture is completely acquiring FAST. This is completely incorrect. Overture has only acquired FAST's Internet business unit assets, which includes FAST WebSearch, FAST PartnerSite and FAST's popular search site, AlltheWeb.com."
Isn't that the stuff that sells? icantblvitsnotbutter writes "In what looks like a scoop, The Register has an article covering the latest in the ongoing battle between Gary Kremen and VeriSign. The High Court of California has rejected a request to consider the legal issue of whether a domain can legally be deemed as property. This is a huge help for (relatively) money-strapped Kremen, whose opponent VeriSign was evidently using the request as a delaying tactic. VeriSign previously had breathlessly warned that a wrong decision would 'cripple the Internet'."
And they made such a pleasant version of Debian, too ... robmered writes "Three years after receiving US$135M in cash from Microsoft, and one and a half years after Xandros bought Corel's Linux assets, The Age is reporting that Corel has finally removed all Linux software from its website. The end of an era, or a margin note in history? The Age thinks the former, but the strength of Open Office, Gimp and numerous desktop environment efforts seem to indicate that the Linux bandwagon will roll on regardless."
Certainly, I would like to talk at length about your business proposal. Would you like to know my fees in advance? KC7GR writes "There's an article running at DMNews about a company called Castel, Inc. that has, supposedly, developed software that can be used by automated dialing equipment to bypass a TeleZapper, or similar SIT generators, and get through to your phone no matter what.
It is also claimed that the software can deliver any type of text or phone number to a recipient's caller ID box, no matter if it's true or false, and that it can also bypass the anti-telemarketer blocks made available by some telephone companies, such as SBC and Qwest.
Granted, this software is not cheap (about $2,700.00 per calling position, apparently), and Castel is quick to claim that they created this stuff primarily for collection agencies to help them get through to deadbeats who use TeleZappers. Does anyone here really think that'll stop telemarketers from using the same crap, just because they can?"
Brevity is one antidote to stupidity. Yoda2 writes "Here is Part II of the Salon story on the Loebner Prize that Slashdot covered yesterday."
Caller ID faking... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Caller ID faking... (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll become illegal when somebody finds a way to block telemarketers with it.
I always knew the day would come... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I always knew the day would come... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I always knew the day would come... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I always knew the day would come... (Score:3, Informative)
1. AFAIK they are superhet receivers like most other receivers. They have a local oscillator, which usually has some leakage. Detect that and you've detected the detector. Just as the UK used to enforce their radio/TV tax with detector vans. Or as the recent slashdot story about interactive billboards that tailor their pitch to what radio station you're listening to.
2. Stand up on the overpass watching traffic go by. Aim your radar gun at the vehicles moving away from you and press the trigger. Note which cars' brake lights suddenly come on. Radio the cop who's waiting up around the next curve.
Re:I always knew the day would come... (Score:2)
Are you saying Radar Detectors are legal now?
Re:I always knew the day would come... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I always knew the day would come... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/radar4.ht
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Er... (Score:2)
How do you convince them to pay for your local telephone service as well? If they're able to call you, you're obviously paying that particular bill...
Re:Er... (Score:3, Funny)
Am i the only one whos first thought was "Command Line Interface?"
Re:Er... (Score:3, Interesting)
And exactly how profitable would it be to spend $2700/seat for a system to telemarket to people who are going to great lengths to avoid telemarketers? Isn't that paying extra to reach the least profitable demographic? I can see collection agencies being interested, but telemarketers?
Telemarketers are fun! (Score:5, Funny)
Come home from work pissed (as in mad, not drunk), the phone rings, tear the jackass on the other end a new one. You don't know them, they are vermin, your karma is clean.
I have made MCI telemarketers cry before.
Hey, if they want respect they should pick up cans or work at MickeyD's...
Re:Er... (Score:2)
Ummm... The DMCA is a copyright law. Unless they're calling your number to sell you pirated material, I don't think you have a case.
Re:Er... (Score:2)
"users of this phone line are entering a contract to speak w/ me (name/addy/etc) for non-commercial purposes. Hang up now if you do not accept these conditions -- failure to do so results in a $1200.00 (whatever) fee to be paid net 5 days." and let the phone ring through...
if you end up with a telemarketer, you can get THEM to tell you where/who/whatever and then send the bastards a bill. record the call and other details and send the whole thing to a collections agency if they dont pay.
TeleZapper article, now with less /. effect (Score:5, Informative)
I'm curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious, how long do you think it would take a telemarketing company to pay off the huge chunk of change they'd require to buy enough copies of this program to outfit their entire outfit? As I recall, there were several hundred stations at the place I worked.
~SL
Re:I'm curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing evidentally can reduce the dead air before the caller is connected, which could help them avoid getting hung up on before they start talking.
It also can set the caller ID. People block based on lack of caller ID, but telemarketters could leave caller ID enabled if they really cared; the issue is mainly that they don't want people to call them back at the call center (they want people to call the client's number), but people rarely call telemarketters back anyway. The fact that they don't provide caller ID information suggests that they aren't really trying to reach people who don't want to be reached. They're mainly going after people who can be convinced over the phone to buy stuff, and these people generally answer the phone when it rings.
This call is from POTUS. (Score:4, Funny)
This new technology allows the telemarketers to make any name appear that they want. Great. Now I'm going to get calls from "President Bush" and "Saddam Hussein" and "Michael Jackson", instead of "Unknown Out of Area Caller". Which is worse? ;-)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:This call is from POTUS. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This call is from POTUS. (Score:2)
I got enough of those during election season last year. Apparently he needed my help or something.
Re:This call is from POTUS. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.junkbusters.com/fcc.html
BTW, I write software for ACDs not PDs; but I do know a little about the business.
Re:This call is from POTUS. (Score:3, Interesting)
--sex [slashdot.org]
worse (Score:2)
oh well, i remember reading extensive articles about these kinds of things 10 years ago on bbs's.. (how to block/change/build your own shit etc) i guess now its mainstream for telemarketers hooray
Re:This call is from POTUS. (Score:2)
What about the other units? (Score:3, Funny)
This software will do more harm to telemarketers (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think that this would do far more to hurt the industry than help them, especially as far as the government deciding whether or not to regulate do not call lists.
Faking callers id's always possible. (Score:5, Interesting)
What about 911? (Score:2)
But what about 911? They use something other than Caller ID, don't they? Something that can't be spoofed by the end user? If they don't, or it can in fact be spoofed as well, I can see quite a bit of abuse once this practice becomes mainstream.
What is their "special" Caller ID called? How is it transmitted to them? Can regular people receive it?
Re:What about 911? (Score:5, Informative)
What you're talking about is ANI, which IIRC is "automated number information". It's out-of-band information (unlike caller ID) which is primarily used for billing purposes by whatever carriers lie between the caller and callee. It cannot be blocked (unless you're one of the rated carriers in the middle, then you're regulated out the ass anyway.)
I used to write automated call software (incoming and outgoing) and I worked with this all the time. It used to REALLY piss off people who have their caller ID blocked (or have used *67) yet have their number recognized anyway. Hehehe.
Re:What about 911? (Score:3, Funny)
I used to write automated call software (incoming and outgoing) and I worked with this all the time. It used to REALLY piss off people who have their caller ID blocked (or have used *67) yet have their number recognized anyway. Hehehe.
In fact, I used to work for a guy that would hold a grudge against everybody that ever quit the job, and he would literally call them and harass them and do all kinds of weird shit. So, when I quit working for him, I quit answering the phone. He was also paranoid and had his call ID blocked, so nobody could see his number when he calls them. The first time he called (idiot, he left a message so I knew it was him) I waited until the answering machine finished, and then I picked up the phone and blocked his number. You don't have to know the number you're blocking, you just have to be able to block it right after they call.
He was confused, and it took him something close to a week to figure out that he should call from another phone. Heh. Then he didn't harass me, saying something about respecting me for figuring out how to block his phone. Idiot.
Re:Can we use ANI instead of CID? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can we use ANI instead of CID? (Score:3, Informative)
It's been five years since I was in the telecom industry, so things have probably changed. But at the time, the only way to get ANI was to have a leased line directly into the switch of a carrier who was willing to provide it. (Not all were... some would only provide it to other tarriffed carriers. I don't know if this was a legal thing or just their way of not having to deal with riff-raff like me.) However, in any given area (basically all over the US) I never had any problem finding a provider, although since it involved a leased line (be it POTS, ISDN, whatever) it was very expensive, and as someone else mentioned, it's only available with a toll-free number, so in addition to leased-line costs you get to pay for all the phone calls too.
Re:What about 911? (Score:3, Informative)
CID has always been a consumer-level service, and this just shows that a little better.
Anonymous surfing using this technology? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need to give them your real name, address, or anything, just surf over to their website and create an account with fake info. However, they do tend to require a caller ID, one soldier was kicked because his base's phone system blocked outgoing caller ID. So the ISP still has your real phone number.
If it is indeed possible to transmit an arbitrary caller ID, then one could spoof caller ID, and create and use an account completely anonymously. Which would be nice.
Re:Anonymous surfing using this technology? (Score:2)
But if you dial 141 first they can't log your number either.
Re:Anonymous surfing using this technology? (Score:2)
Re:Anonymous surfing using this technology? (Score:2, Informative)
Try it on a mate on a regonal private phone network - I seem to remember calling BT->Mercury your number would still come up.
141 as a prefix won't hide your number. 999 services don't honour it and I can't see why by special arrangement that the terminating equipment at your ISP would honour it as well, especially with new data rentention laws being bandied around.
Other ways to fight TeleSpam... (Score:3, Informative)
(As I mentioned [slashdot.org] early Thursday...)
There are still ways to fight [bidstrup.com] the estimated 19 million calls per day (6.8 billion/year), but passing the out of service tones might not be one of them any longer.
"Rain [slashdot.org]" posted [slashdot.org] these tones in a prior discussion [slashdot.org].
Deadbeats? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so let me get this straight. I'm Joe deadbeat, but I still pay for a phone. But, since I've been labled a "deadbeat" by EQUIFAX or some rabid collecation agency, it's OK for them to spoof my CallerID or bypass means that I have put in place to try to require callers to present a valid call?
This type of morality, it's OK to do X to Y beacuse they are Z, just sickens me. I personally think that anyone who subscribes to this kind of slipperly slope logic should get a punch in the mouth.
Re:Deadbeats? (Score:2)
Re:Deadbeats? (Score:2)
Sheesh. Some people just don't get it.
KFG
Caller ID was already compromised... (Score:5, Interesting)
And this system, is several years old.
A Business Held Accountable? Oh My! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, a business being held accountable for their actions? Who would have thought!
Of course VeriSign would have no problem nuking your domain should you fail to pay them for registering your domain name to you. By definition then you are paying for the domain name to be registered to you.
If I purchased a car and the dealership turned around and gave my car to someone else do you think they'd get away with it for long?
If I order food from a restaraunt and they make an error on my order do they turn around and tell my "Tough sh*t"?
Why then, if someone were to pay VeriSign for a service, should VeriSign not be accountable for said paid for service?
Re:A Business Held Accountable? Oh My! (Score:4, Funny)
Because if they'd really wanted a vendor who was accountable to the customer, and who delivered what was paid for, why the fuck'd they choose Verisign in the first place?
Old joke:
Q: How do you know someone in your office is talking to someone at Verisign?
A: You hear someone three cubes away, screaming at the top of their lungs into the telephone "you dumb motherfucker!"
Not in Texas (forged caller id) (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that by having ANY id, your equipment can obviously present callerID.
For once, Texas has a useful law.
How do you enforce that? (Score:2)
It allways takes longer then 30 sec to get that far.
Re:How do you enforce that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then put the phone down until you hear it buzzing (they hang up).
this stretches the calls out so they cant bother more people.
pass it on
Yet another (mostly) shameless plug... (Score:4, Interesting)
Experience-Based Language Acquisition (EBLA) is an open source software system written in Java that enables a computer to learn simple language from scratch based on visual perception. It is the first "grounded" language system capable of learning both nouns and verbs. Moreover, once EBLA has established a vocabulary, it can perform basic scene analysis to generate descriptions of novel videos.
A more detailed summary is available here [osforge.com] and this [greatmindsworking.com] is the project web site.
Are we supposed to take Salon seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Decision sciences, by the simplest possible definition, refers to computerized assistance in resource allocation. An example provided by a press release from MIT announcing the creation of a decision sciences program was "complex computer-based 'passenger yield management' systems and models that the airlines use to adjust pricing of each flight's seats in order to maximize revenue and profitability to the airline." That's a far cry from the bold claims made by A.I. visionaries in decades past. But focusing on such systems has a signal advantage for scientists who have been failing miserably at the Turing test. It gets them off the hook.
And later: In other words, if you read between the lines what you come up with is that one reason "serious" A.I. scientists don't try to mimic human speech anymore is that they discovered they can't do it.
Okay, so he's holding up the academics to ridicule because they abandoned the Turing Test. Why did they abandon the Turing Test. Will, according to the filty academic, it's because: ""The Turing test is not very useful for many A.I. scientists today because they work on projects that have nothing to do with human linguistic performance."
So, the respectable AI people aren't working with the Turing Test because they aren't working with linguistics. Gosh, that seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean, I suppose it's possible that the entire AI academic community, en masse, chose to boycott a hack contest run by an East Coast elite who started the contest because "He's a hedonist who thinks work is an abomination and sloth is our greatest virtue. He got interested in A.I. because he hoped the day would come when robots and A.I.'s could do all the work and people could play all the time." The rich kid wants to play so those damn academics better make me a robot who can bake me a pie. But I digress....
The contest focuses on a field that has been abandoned by current AI research. Why? Because we can't make it work yet. The hardware isn't there yet. So we're doing other stuff. Look at the progress of chess programs, mission-critical systems, UT bots. AI is getting better. A souped-up ELIZA isn't going to confirm that. They attack the AI people for not producing better entries for a contest the AI people don't find valid. Loebner and the author, who are obviously in the same camp, are trying to have it both ways. Bullshit. If Salon wants my money [slashdot.org] to stay afloat, they'll have to do better than this.
~Chazzf
Re:Are we supposed to take Salon seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I will agree with your asserion of a pro-Loebner bias, the embarrassment rests firmly with the Gods-o'-AI that Loebner has made look like fools.
Even if you ignore all the peripheral circumstances, this comes down to one issue only - If everyone hates Loebner, they all have the option of ignoring him. A wealthy eccentric offering real US cash for a sci-fi-esque goal does NO harm whatsoever to the field.
However, I do find it somewhat interesting the way AI has divided into different camps, separated into decision making processes (DS), and overt system behavior (MS, "mimetics sciences"). As much as DS has to offer computer science in general, no amount of grandstanding and assertion by the "experts" can hide the fact that, fundamentally, they no longer have anything to do with AI-proper. So if they dislike the label... Not a problem. Their work doesn't involve it anyway, just a sort of "natural" approach to design and analysis of algorithms. If they can live with that fact, that they've completely abandoned the goals they started with, I'll gladly call them "decision scientists". But I won't stop hoping that real AI researchers will eventually make something that acts passably human.
I personally feel (and suspect many geeks who grew up on Neuromancer, 2001, and countless other staples of sci-fi do as well), that "real" AI means "able to fake humanity well enough to convince a real human". If Minsky et al don't believe that, fine, they can do their own thing (which, ironically enough, they want to *deprive* the other camp of that same right). But going out of their way to denounce a contest... Who should feel ashamed of themselves?
Re:Are we supposed to take Salon seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
I had the same opinions throughout the first section, but at the end, he points out that the Turing test will likely be won by a program which is no smarter "than a bucket of hammers," and that real AI will come from the academic research.
The main reason he likes Loebner is that he approves of his support of hobbyists and underdogs. At the same time he compares him to (the literary version of) Don Quixote, who was dangerous, silly, unreasonable and idiotic.
At the same time, he appears to dislike the standoffish nature of the academics who appear unable to come to grips with the slow development in their field... whatever, I can understand that. Ivory tower science is not something I'm a big fan of, and I'm a scientest.
My main problem with the article is that this all comes out in the last page. Kind of like "surprise, this is what I REALLY think".
The worst people to call (Score:5, Insightful)
It might even be possible to say that by intentionally bypassing someone's blocks they put on your incoming calls that you're harassing them. IANAL though. I only play one on slashdot.
Re:The worst people to call (Score:3, Interesting)
*it was a very long time ago, and I am not proud of it. Interesting note, I found out if I took my merchendise to a strip club, people would by it in droves. I had to give the girls 10%,but hey everyone gets there cut.
Re:The worst people to call (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes sense. If you know you're pathologically susceptible to marketing, your best course of action is to try not to be marketed-at in the first place.
phone teergrube/SPEWS (Score:3, Funny)
And why exactly can't we have a SPEWS/blackhole type of call blocking list? I'm paitently waiting.
Re:phone teergrube/SPEWS (Score:3, Interesting)
Holding the line clogs up your precious line, too. Even if you're not listening, it still wastes your time (and maybe money).
I think we need either more advanced telephone technology, or a different idea.
Those that won't buy (Score:4, Insightful)
If people are willing to subscribe to/buy telezappers, block lists, do not call lists, etc...
Can't telemarketers get the point that these people are not potential sales, they're only potential angry call recipients?
Not only that, but wouldn't forging a phone number come under some sort of legal troubles... especially if you used a number that somebody else owns?
Re:Those that won't buy (Score:2)
There's got to be a buck somewhere in that.
Yeah, right (Score:3, Informative)
Anybody with an IDSL or PBX phone system can put in anything they want on Caller ID. And recognizing SIT tones is a feature on better telemarketing rigs, and generally one that can be turned off. They don't "bypass" the telezapper, they simply ignore it. Duh.
On the other hand, any telemarketer that pays $2700 for something so obivously a ripoff will get no sympathy from me.
DMCA Violation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Telezapper and other cheese (Score:5, Informative)
by the way, you don't NEED a telezapper... if you use an answering machine, just record the SIT tone (or even the first 1/3rd of it) at the beginning of your outgoing message. Human callers expect weird noises from answering machines, they just ignore it. But automated dialers which are programmed to look for it assume the number is disconnected.
To get the SIT tones, just google up sit.wav, you can find it all over the place.
Overcoming Telezapper Type Blocks (Score:3, Informative)
As to sending false CLID, a PRI trunk can be made to do it, if the carrier doesn't enforce checking. For that much outbound calling, probably a lot of carriers would be more than happy, if they bother doing that in any case.
I don't know, or perhaps don't recall, where the name lookup is done. If it is from the A end, it would be equally easy to fake. If it is done at the receiving telco, they would have to give the real number of the institution being faked.
There is a plethora of discussion on Telezappers in comp.dcom.telecom. Check the Google archive.
The real cost of competition (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Loebner prize isn't respected by your peers, then the competition isn't that much worth the work of cleaning up your system for the competition. If competing was simply a case of opening up a telnet port to the equivalent of your running nightly build, it wouldn't be such a big issue running in each and every competition out there.
Better than blocking... maybe. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder why there aren't more phone companies offering such a service and why more states don't back up the disturbances with hefty fines. Maybe the telemarketers' lobbyists are lining pockets... maybe(?).
Re:Better than blocking... maybe. (Score:2)
id be collecting the fine
any numbfuck who still presses one deserves it
Re:Better than blocking... maybe. (Score:2, Funny)
One lady I called had an unlisted number. She was really upset and asked how we were able to call her. I explained that we were using an autodialer that dialed numbers at random.
She then said, and I quote, "Well, what I want to know is how can you randomly dial an unlisted number!!", and then abruptly hung up. Good thing to, since I started laughing my ass off at that point.
Telemarketers and the Loebner Prize (Score:2)
2. Adapt it to answer telemarketing calls
3. Fun and maybe Profit
SBC, spam, "pink contracts," and telemarketers... (Score:2)
And they do. Pacbell, an SBC company, has been doing this for years. Even if you sign up for an unlisted number, certain companies, notably the LA Times, seem to automatically get it within hours of your establishing a new line. This has happened to me every time I've gotten a new phone line in the last 15 years. When I ask how they could have gotten my unlisted number, they say it's automatic whenever someone gets a new phone. So there you go -- the number *is* being given out, even when you've *paid extra* to not have this happen.
Taking this one step further -- if unlisted numbers are for sale to the right bidder -- why wouldn't they let certain companies, for the right price, get through caller ID blocking systems?
The fact is, there's no real protection. Whatever the laws are, companies seem to flout them freely. That's because there's no practical means of enforcement.
Take faxes, for example. Junk faxes are clearly illegal, and have been for at least 10 years, yet I know people whose offices receive dozens per day. And these tie up phone lines much worse than junk phone calls do. But still, no one bothers to track down the culprits and prosecute, even when it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem is that each junk email, call, or even fax is too much trouble to pursue individually for the amount of nuisance it creates. And that's the perpetrators' inherent advantage.
beating the telezapper is not hard (Score:2)
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not willing to fight for your privacy, you don't deserve it in the first place.
Re:Privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Parent-parent posting was worded cleverly (or stupidly, depending on intent):
"Fight it", not "fight for it".
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you claim to have nothing to hide, and there should be no concern for privacy, please post your full name and address. I'll be by shortly with a few miniature camera's to install in your bedroom, bathroom, and living room. A few taps for the phone, and other assorted recording and monitoring device. Please also pop the hood on your car so I can install the GPS tracking system. Got a cell phone? I'll need your ESN and number please.
What? You don't want to provide that? Not even your name, phone number, and address? Why ever not? I though you didn't think privacy mattered!
Gasp! You must have something to hide!
Re:Privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because someone has nothing to hide it doesn't mean they are happy for everyone to know everything in intimate detail. That I have nothing to hide as far as the government or law enforcement is concerned doesn't mean I am happy to have you watch me in the shower.
I always assumed that the term "nothing to hide" meant roughly that I had nothing that would cause me too much grief if it became known to people who mattered to me in some way (eg I don't want my wife to know about the pr0n or my boss to know its gay pr0n).
As you don't particularly matter to me its not a question of 'nothing to hide', it's just none of your damn business.
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
It might not be illegal, but technically, neither is getting a bj'er in the oval office.
Everyone has a skeleton in their closet. Everyone has some dark, dirty secret, that although not illegal, may show some character flaw which could be embarassing, or destructive. You just gotta dig.
Hell you dig deep enough and in the right place, you might just find some things that I'm not proud of. And that's the stuff that I don't want you, the neighbours, or the family dog digging up.
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
I have something to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
2.Their ages
3.Their birthdates
4.The school they go to
5.My address
6.What they look like
7.What route they take home from school
8.Who their teachers are
9.Where hteir soccer practice is held
10.The secret password we use to authenticate and
11.When I am home and when I am not
authorize pick-up-the-kid-from-wherever functions
Oh and privacy isn't just about secrecy, it's about private spaceand private property. Private property means control over that property.
I think every address should have a public phone to which certain callers are restricted to only leaving messages. Kind of like how you can yell from across the street at me all you like, bu the minute you get on my property I cantell you to go away in which case refusal to do might cause your yell-from-across-the-street privileges to be legally revoked as well.
Dinner time is highly private property. Weekends and afternoons are highly private property. Ho
I have something to hide too (Score:3, Funny)
2. The fact I use M$ Windoze
3. The fact that I like vi and COBOL.
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody is 100% innocent.
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
I want to keep everything about them private.
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
If I included postage on them would you use them? It's not a bad deal really. I mean, if you have nothing to hide, why should you worry if the postman you hate across the street opens all your mail (undetected, because it's ziplock!) and gives it a peruse. Maybe he can even report any mistakes you've made on paying your Visa to the credit agency for you, or errors on your income tax report to the IRS! How excellent!
If you don't want that, well, you must have something to hide. I mean, it's not like it's even going to cost you anything to do this, you'd _make_ money, and your only cost is the privacy you don't value anyways!
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
Re:Privacy (or why should the parent be modded UP) (Score:2)
There should be a mod +1 "Common misconception shared by many".
The parent is *serious*, it seems. I think a couple of good replies have been posted and modded up already. But please, mod him up or put up an explanation for him. Unless its a troll do not mod him down and pretend he does not exist.
Re:Privacy (or why should the parent be modded UP) (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls (Score:2)
-B
Re:Don't feed the trolls (Score:2)
Re:Don't feed the trolls (Score:2)
Some trolls are just a good respose waiting the happen.
KFG
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
I'd like to know your preferred brand of bread.
And I'd like to know if you like mayonnaise.
Could you also tell me whether you make between 40-75k a year or 75-100k a year or more?
In addition, I would like your full name, address, phone number, and your nationality.
What is your checking account routing number?
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
I'm more worried about lack of context. For example, if the MPAA finds a log somewhere that shows my computer downloaded Harry Potter.avi, how do they know the following:
1.) That the
2.) That I don't already own the DVD.
3.) That I was the one who downloaded it, as opposed to a clever e-mail virus or something.
4.) That I downloaded it beacuse I clicked the wrong link or because it was misrepresented.
Not having anything to hide does not mean you're exempt from being burned by this. People can draw all kinds of wild conclusions with little bits of data like that. Do you want to be labeled as a music pirate because you made a copy of a music CD to keep in your car?
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
The privacy issue is the privacy of the telemarketer or collection agency. *They* are the ones crying right to "privacy" while trying to devise ways to violate my *right* to be secure in my home by demanding entry without revealing who they are first.
If someone comes to my door wearing a ski mask and asks to be let in but won't tell me who they are, well guess what? *I ain't lettin' 'em in.*
Go figure.
What this software does is allow them to knock on my door and request entry *while disguised as my girlfriend.*
Well, as my dear, sweet, little old granny used to say, " They can blow that shit right out their fuckin' ass!"
Granny was a pisser. I miss the old bat.
Well, I can just pull the plug on the damned phone I guess. The telemarketers get more use out of it than I do. I'm not sure why I bother paying thirty bucks a month so MCI can call me and ask me to pay fifty bucks a month anyway.
I suppose then they'll find a way to legally force me to have a phone as way to protect their "freedom" to try to sell me shit I don't want.
Oh. Wait. *I didn't say that.*
Oh Shit. Now I've gone and done it.
KFG
Re:Incoming Call (Score:3, Funny)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Incoming Call (Score:3, Funny)
> > Abort, Retry, Fail?
>
> Phuleeeze. These are telemarketers. It'll be:
> Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?
Puhleeeze. These are TELEMARKETERS. Itll be:
Retry, Retry, Retry, Retry?
Re:Incoming Call (Score:4, Funny)
GNU/Decline?
Re:Loebner Prize winner story (Score:2, Funny)
thanks god for canada... we rarely ever get any kind of marketing calls here