Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:they need to work the other end (Score 1) 120

I wouldn't. Most residential phones are moving to VOIP; if you have Internet it dramatically cuts your phone bill.

You don't have to. But it would be nice to have the choice.

The "Callers'" number can be blocked, and some unreputable robocallers do that. But, then I block all calls that don't identify themselves via Caller ID.

Which is close to pointless, since most robocallers just use a fake caller ID number anyway.

Comment Re:I'm sure they will fully comply (Score 1) 120

Just curious, How many times did you report the calls to the FCC?

Doing so is essentially pointless. The FCC is well aware of the extent of the whole "cardholder services" scam, so you're not giving them any information that they don't already have. Since they fake their caller ID anyway, it's not like you're able to provide any more information about who is actually originating the call.

I still submit complaints when the calls provide real identifying information that I can report, but most of the robocalls aren't that sort.

Comment Re:they need to work the other end (Score 1) 120

It seems unfair to completely block legitimate VOIP calls to cell phones, but there has to be some way to block the scammers without putting undue burdens on legitimate companies.

All you need is for the information that it's a VOIP call to be carried along with the call, and then let the user decide whether they want to drop such calls or not.

I sure would.

Comment Converse (Score 1) 346

Actually I've had a problem recently in that I wanted to get some good Converse knockoffs and Amazon was facing limited supply because of attempts on the part of Converse to crack down on this helpful customer-friendly business practice.

[Birkenstock] added that it will also ban any sales of its products by third-party sellers on Amazon

How can they even do that? Amazon isn't their site, and they aren't even going to be an Amazon seller any more. I suppose what they mean is that they won't sell to resellers who sell on Amazon, perhaps? Good luck with that whackamole game.

I guess we'll all turn to Birkenstock knockoffs! :D

Comment Re:License to work (Score 1) 639

Would you apply the same standard to IBM for their mainframes?

Yes. Why wouldn't I? If you buy a doohickey and want to maintain it yourself rather than pay the manufacturer for service, you should be entitled to do so, regardless of what loss-leader pricing that you got the doohickey for. Whether the doohickey is a tractor or a mainframe doesn't matter.

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 1) 364

It's an interesting poll, but the ability to comment anonymously and the moderation system are part of what make Slashdot Slashdot. I don't see most of the trolls because I read at +5 and only dig into something when I am interested in a particular line of discussion. I used to read at +4 back when I had more time. :) I also give a +1 bonus to anything that is modded insightful and that usually gives me a great stream of great comments.

Comment Re:License to work (Score 4, Insightful) 639

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

If I buy somebody's loss leader and then don't want to participate in the business model they were expecting, that doesn't mean I've "altered the deal" unless there was an actual deal.

And if somebody's trying to save a buck that doesn't make him bad. In fact if he's the guy supplying our food or something else we need that makes him good.

Comment Re:License to work (Score 4, Insightful) 639

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

Well then, John Deere should get a lesson on what happens when you have a stupid business model. If they want to make a profit on equipment sales, they'd better price their equipment such that they can turn a profit.

Whether or not the farmers are cheap bastards -- given human nature, they probably are -- is really irrelevant.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...