131–140 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately completely socializing the healthcare system would tank the economy thats why no serious person in washington is pro universal healthcare.
You would not call Bernie Sanders's plan socializing the healthcare system? (Serious question.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy into the implication that any decision is picking winners the outcomes don't have to be that absolute.
Every decision about what to enforce and when has a set of competitors that benefit from that decision and a set of competitors that are disadvantaged from that decision. And over time even a single, small benefit can be enough to guarantee a specific rational actor will win out over its competitors. Certainly not in all cases, but if the issue you have is that individual decisions aren't enough to pick a winner, no…
I can say in a given industry they can't pull some bait and switch... a company that relies on that tacit could go out of business, is that picking winners or regulating poor behavior?
Like anything working to maintain some level of competitiveness would be like hitting a moving target, you'll have to change what you do, address barrier of entry issues one day, who knows what next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, I think one problem is have too much mixing of public and private. We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private sector who manages to buy enough influence. Healthcare was far from a free market already before ObamaCare. But if we're going to regulate it as heavily as we do, I think we need to just…
Unfortunately completely socializing the healthcare system would tank the economy thats why no serious person in washington is pro universal healthcare.
There are many serious people in Washington talking about the universal healthcare, just not many talking about government takeover of providers.
Direct link to the news release (PDF): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf tl;dr the action would allow carriers to default to blocking calls on the part of their customers. Once SHAKEN/STIR (caller ID authentication) is available, this means carriers can block calls that don't include authenticated caller ID. Presumably they already could do this if the customer opted in. This all seems like a g…
That said, this is exactly what a competent FCC should do - in the absence of a larger ruling to require consumer-protecting behavior to be implemented by carriers, it should seek to clarify existing rulings - which is exactly what is happening here. Carriers interpreted an older FCC statement to prohibit them from blocking robocalls by default, and it's likely this was never the intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can be done by asking some obvious question for humans: "This is a anti-robocall system, please answer the question to complete the call. A mother cat and her three kittens are sleeping in a box. Dial the number of animals in that box." The number of kittens change randomly and maybe the system can put some pillows, blankets and other non-animals in the box too, making automated processing harder. AI will get ther…
Your example is a trick question that will catch some real humans.
The most common ones I get are from The Credit Card Company to tell me that because of my excellent credit history, I have qualified to get my credit card directly through them at a lower interst rate, instead of having it resold to me through Visa or Mastercard. For these calls, I'll generate a fake card number, SSN, name, address, etc, and start answering their questions. Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me to tell me how much of a cocksucking faggot I am and that they're going to come rape my daughter. I laugh at their attempts to form insults being less coherent than their English in general and move on with my day.
Of course, as soon as I tried to start recording these calls, they became much less frequent. I can't help but wonder if my number hasn't become blacklisted by these scam centers in India and the Philippines as a known unprofitable time waster or something. Why waste your time calling someone you know you can't get anything out of when there's lower-effort marks out there which will be more profitable?
All the same, I'd prefer not to have deal with these guys, so any actually workable solution would be welcome.
Edit: Hah! While reviewing this post, I got yet another call from these guys. And I got the most persistent one of 'em I've had yet. They're getting good with semi-plausible responses to the most common deflections. But, their geography skills aren't much better than mine. Apparently Lebanon is in Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree 100%. It's clear to me that the U.S. has the technical capability of hunting down the origins of these calls, and bring the offenders to trial. This leads me to believe it's a matter of political will, and I don't understand the inaction.
>It's clear to me that the U.S. has the technical capability of hunting down the origins of these calls, and bring the offenders to trial. Do they? From what I've gathered its mostly small distributed shops in India and the Philippines. Shut one down, three new ones pop up.
If anybody thinks that's too severe, explain to them that DDOSing a nation's telecom system is an act of cyberwar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's clear to me that the U.S. has the technical capability of hunting down the origins of these calls, and bring the offenders to trial. Do they? From what I've gathered its mostly small distributed shops in India and the Philippines. Shut one down, three new ones pop up.
Duterte pretends to be a hardass, right? Tell him to deal with it by any means necessary or else the USS Jimmy Carter starts to sever their submarine cables one by one until the problem is resolved that way. If anybody thinks that's too severe, explain to them that DDOSing a nation's telecom system is an act of cyberwar.