Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:And any other CLI masking, please! (Score 1) 178

The ONLY way to fix this problem is to completely supplant the exiting carrier system. FCC is too slow moving and the carriers have too much to lose in the way of revenue. There is no technical reason that each and every call cannot be instantly traced, the calling number be authenticated, and the abuse stopped. Any carrier can today prevent a customer from spoofing a number that they do not own. It would not take much more for carriers to pass messages along with the call setup signal to affirm the legitimacy of the message. A this point blocking would easy at the end recipient. Even better if I could tell the carrier to only deliver verified calls. But this will NEVER happen because the carriers make too much money on connection services and call volume. As soon as call scamming stops there will be an appreciable drop in carrier revenue.

Comment Re: Real Stuff (Score 3, Insightful) 189

The "support contracts" also gain you access to developers when needed. At times I have had enterprise agreements with both RedHat and SUSE. On more that one occasion when facing esoteric bugs we have been able to escalate via our support contracts. As soon as they were able to reproduce the bugs they are were able to drive upstream code changes to fix the bugs.

Conversely I have worked directly with a number of open source software developer to address bugs, but I will say that it was much effective working with developers that are paid to address bug and already a reputation in the open source community. Because my team's time is much more valuable than the cost of enterprise support contracts I would much rather keep them focused on much higher value activities.

To put things into snarky terms you might understand, "real" Linux is a complete open source ecosystem of capabilities and services. [snark mode]If you do not need an enterprise support contract it is likely because you do not provide much value to a company and so your time is best spent tinkering and chasing down issues.[/snark mode]

The point is I know how to grow my own food, but I still go to the grocery store because my time is in demand. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate my neighbors who have beautiful gardens, and I doubt that they think of me as incompetent because I go to grocery store either.

Comment Re:Why is that legal in the first place? (Score 1) 97

Only the people behind closed doors know why the telcos did not require this, but in my experience it is likely for a few reasons:
1) Without a good architecture and integrated process managing CIDs requires an amount of administrative overhead
2) Telcos could not figure out how to charge customers for locking down CIDs
3) Locking down CIDs reduces call volumes and exchange fees

Comment Re:Why is that legal in the first place? (Score 1) 97

Maybe read the entire reply first before getting all indignant. The existing protocols carry sufficient information for carriers to lock customers into displaying only CIDs that the customer is authorized to display. Carrier equipment has had the ability to lock PRIs to customer CIDs for the past 20 years that I am aware of, likely much longer. VoIP still relies on a carrier unless you are talking about a limited VoIP deployment within a contained network. At the point of ingress a carrier can block unauthorized CIDs regardless of connection method. You would have to solve the problem at the protocol level if you tried to block the abuse between carrier.

There is no technical reason preventing carriers from blocking their customers from using unauthorized CIDs except the decisions that are made within the carriers themselves; either poor choice of equipment purchases or poor implementation/design.

Comment Re:Why is that legal in the first place? (Score 2) 97

VoIP is actually irrelevant; there is still a hand-off from a customer to a carrier in order for the call to be connected outside of a local network. There will either be a voice gateway with PRIs or some sort of SIP trunk. The carrier has the option of restricting CIDs but few do.

Comment Re:Why is that legal in the first place? (Score 2) 97

You explanation is perfectly valid for why a business might assert a particular CID that is valid within the company, but not what carriers allow people to assert any CID not registered to that individual or company.

The only way to solve this problem is to make the carriers accountable for allowing such behavior. To be clear, I am less concerned about unwanted calls and much more concerned about scammers. If a carrier allows scammers to forge their identities then the carriers are complicit in the scammers illegal acts.

Comment Re:fun fact (Score 1) 136

It helps if you understand how to read financial statements instead of just repeating the statements of others who have an ax to grind.

The per vehicle loss that is often mentioned takes total expenditures minus total revenues and divides by cars sold. While this seems reasonable it does not take into account that much of the expenditures are being invested in growth.

This is sort of like telling your kid to quit their part-time job because the cost of raising them (feeding, housing, educating, etc.) is too high and your family is losing money on every hour they work. The fact of the matter is that they make money at their part-time independent of the cost of raising them. Kids having a part-time job means they may no longer need an allowance and will help prepare them for a full-time job.

The fact of the matter is that Tesla earns a healthy margin on every car they sell, but that margin is not sufficient to cover the investments they are making in building factories need to accelerate growth of the company. If Tesla really lost money on every car sold no institutional investor would include Tesla in their portfolios becasue Tesla would have no path profitibaily. Institutional investors know how to read financial statements and are very intersted in Tesla's potential.

Comment Re:Horrendously Expensive Windshield Wipers (Score 4, Funny) 286

The problem with electric cars is that windshield wipers are horrendously expensive to replace. With my previous car windshield wipers were way less than 1% of total maintenance over five years. My Leaf is about to turn 5 years old and windshield wiper replacements 75% of my total maintenance costs. This is outrageous!

Comment Re: Hardly news.. (Score 1) 89

"This is completely wrong. A race does not "instill systematic impediments" - individual people do that." OK, I stand corrected: individual of a specific race instill systematic impediments.

"Note that I'm not trying to say that racism is good or bad." I would hate for you to go out too far on such a moral limb.

Comment Re: Hardly news.. (Score 1) 89

Are you trying to draw a parallel between people who have a beef with Microsoft with racists?

- My OS good yours bad even though they're simply very complicated hammers for different nails.
People get frustrated because a monopoly power has a long history of poor design decisions and forcing users to apply "updates" that create more flaws which leads to unpreventable system compromises. Seems like a legitimate reason to hold a grudge to me.

- My race good your race bad even though genetically they're indistinguishable.
One race instills systematic impediments that create an uneven playing field holding back other races from equitably participating in the riches of our society. This is just wrong!

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.