Oh, good grief. Do you do any cooking of your own?
Absolutely I do. I read books on the science and technique of cooking for fun. I know people who work in the food service industry. I read biographies of chefs.
You know, a food processor isn't "automation". It's a tool. Same for a blender, a stand mixer, a deep fryer, oven, or immersion blender.
While eating at a friend's place once, another friend commented on the fresh salsa and asked if she'd be able to do that in a food processor. I told her in no uncertain terms the quality of the salsa was entirely due to the knife skills of the person who prepared it, and a machine would not reproduce anything close. Because it really was down to a sharp knife wielded by someone who really knew how to use it, and a food processor would have produces mush.
The actual act of the food preparation, cooking, and making food taste good and look good? I don't believe for a minute that's something we'll just fire up a machine to do.
There a lot more to making good food than having some robot dump a pile of pasta on a plate, and heap some sauce on top of it.
Maybe the food you eat is something you could program into a computer. But Thai food, or Indian food, or Italian food... or pretty much any good food is going to be far more nuanced than telling a robot to combine these 15 things in this exact combination and boil it for 38 minutes.
That kind of food? You really can buy in a microwavable box.
Well, yeah... but I choose where I go out to eat usually based on the quality of the food, the service, and the overall dining experience.
If I wanted a stale sandwich out of a vending machine, I'd do that. Or, I'd simply buy some cheap meal in a box I could microwave.
Other than places like McDonald's, I don't think most restaurants are the kind of places where the food won't become institutional dreck... pretty much because the food at McDonald's already is institutional dreck.
You likely serve some pretty terrible food if it's something you can have a machine produce for you.
If you eat in garbage fast food restaurants, that may be true.
But for those of us who like our food to not be some mass-prepared crap, that's far from the case.
If your food is to easy to automate, it's probably not really worth eating.
Oh, and of course if nobody has any fucking jobs these companies will go out of business because nobody can afford to go out -- that is, except for the rich CEOs who cut all the jobs in the first place.
You show me a place in which the kitchen has been mostly automated, and I'll show you a place I refuse to eat at.
What "Investor-State Dispute Settlements" really does is hoodwink the world into having corporations have veto over the ability of nations to set policy which corporations don't like.
The only beneficiaries of this are corporations, and the people who are pushing these bullshit things are people are owners of large corporations, or have been bought and paid for by large corporations.
It's completely in-democratic, and intended to make the worst practices of globalization entrenched in law... and everybody except "shareholder value" will get fucked in the process.
That Americas foreign policy is now so blatantly corrupted and tied to the wishes of multinational corporations is alarming, and this treaty should be rejected on the basis that it is NOTHING but the US forcing a corporate agenda on the world and acting like it's going to benefit anybody else.
This is literally theft on a global scale, and a massive undermining of national sovereignty purely to advance corporate interests, to which America is so utterly beholden they've become little more than corporate lackeys. And many aspects of this stupid "treaty" are little more than ensuring nation-states are responsible for policing the interests of those corporations.
This treaty is utterly terrible, and will NOT in ANY WAY benefit the citizens of any country... except of course those who own stocks in, or have been bribed by, the multinational corporations it benefits. The rest of us get royally screwed in the process.
This will undermine labor laws, environmental laws, and pretty much any form of regulation under the insane premise that we must protect corporate profits at all fucking costs.
There is no upside to this if you're not a multinational corporation. Which is precisely why it is getting the backing of multi-billion dollar multinational corporations.
Sorry, I need to identify myself to a freaking web-page.... why?
I'm not posting to your comments section, and I'm sure as hell not signing up to pay you to read a random article Google pointed me to.
My anonymity comes when I refuse to let you set cookies, run scripts, or let any of your third party bullshit do anything at all.
If you're using private browsing, why are you authenticating yourself to websites at all? If I'm willing to authenticate with you, I'm not using private browsing... if I'm not willing to authenticate with you, I have no intention of doing so.
So, what the hell is the point? I really can't think of a good reason for them to be even bothering with this
It really is simple:
Greedy douchebags convinced they own something and seeking to capitalize on it.
Actually, shouldn't they be dead in the water already? Who is paying for the lawyers?
My guess, somewhere along the line the "property" SCO claims got transferred to some consortium of lawyers (wikipedia tells me the latest name is "TSG Operations, Inc.") and other bottom feeding assholes convinced they're going to eventually hit paydirt.
Someone has assigned a monetary value to that, and until all possible venues are finally killed off (and I have no idea what that entails), whatever deluded crooks claim to own it will keep coming. Someone is convinced they're sitting on a gold mine, and if they can establish the right precedent can go on a binge of shaking down the world.
the login security feature of Windows 10 that supports fingerprint scanners, facial recognition and even iris scanners
Given Microsoft's history with being utterly incompetent at security, why would I trust them, or any other vendor, with biometric information? Why would I want a fucking app or a web page to have access to that stuff?
I'm sorry, but I neither believe this is any more secure, nor do I believe this isn't going to lead to huge unintended privacy violations or whatever damned server Microsoft keeps this shit on from either being hacked, or subpoenaed by big brother.
Sorry, but I'll pass on this shit. It serves no value for apps and web pages, and it's being offered by a company who I simply don't trust with the information or the implementation.
When this gets hacked, expect me to be quite loudly laughing and pointing.
Personalized search results with "douchebots", which berate you for your search choices.
You could screw up the dominatrix market with "bitchbots", which both humiliate and confuse you; which oddly enough gets you girlfriend/wifebots.
Web sites can try to give you "assistbots" which will ensure you can never get any useful information out of their website, even by accident. But, I think HP may have patented this.
I'm really looking for "cashierbots" who will keep asking me if I have their loyalty program, if I'll give them my email to get promotions, and then saying an item won't scan. Again, WalMart may have patended this.
Don't even get me started about applications like renewing your drivers license.;-)
Even spam calls would be greatly improved than the idiots doing "the Microsoft support".
The number of ways in which people can be thwarted from accomplishing useful tasks by having a chatbot run interference goes well beyond angsty teenage nazi sexbots; they can be tailored to almost any application in which you wish to prevent successful outcomes.
The possibilities of annoying and pissing people off are endless. And, being a Microsoft product, pretty much guaranteed.
What I want to know is why anybody thinks this actually brings anything of value to the table.
Oooh, a chatbot. OK, so a bad attempt at an Eliza program? An utterly annoying customer service thing? A way to annoy the hell out of people?
There is not a single application I can think of where, short of a bit of technology onanism, there's a single benefit to having some damned chatbot.
It's like those stupid telephone trees where some useless menu of options has been designed to keep you from a human long enough to just hang up the phone.
Leave it to Microsoft to think we all want a new fucking version of Clippy to provide the tedium of not being of any fucking use.
Digital assistants my ass.
Later he explained that âoeconversations as a platformâ also sits âoeat the confluence of all of our three platformsâ â" that is, Azure, Office 365, and Windows 10.
And, as usual, Microsoft's vision of the future is a useless bit of technology, heavily tied to Office, which nobody really wants, and which won't be worth the resources allocated to it.
Gimmicks and other crap. Whatever.
I have no desire to pretend I'm having a "conversation" with software.
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
It's A model of "free", it's not THE model of "free". Even Linux is still GPLv2, precisely because it's a much more restrictive license. You know, kinda less "free".
As you have just inadvertently summed it up, the "freedom" the GPL offers is to use it under a very specific terms, or not use it at all. Which is kinda mostly free, except in the ways in which it isn't.
You're right, people are free to not use it. So, don't be surprised when people don't because they don't want someone else's ideology crammed up their ass.
Having benefited from BSD and Apache licenses, I'd be quite inclined to use those licenses, or at least things like the LPGL so you can link to stuff... precisely because they don't wish to assert control over how others use it. You know, they're more "free".
Oh, by the way, in quoting my posting you created an unlicensed derivative work, and you owe me twelve trillion dollars.;-)
The company also announced that it will be releasing Windows 10 Anniversary Update this summer for all Windows 10 users free of charge
I take this to mean the not-necessarily-voluntary year-long beta is almost complete... now wait for the next gob of shite we're going to force feed you.
See, when they started pushing this, it really wasn't complete. It was mostly complete, and they were still adding features.
Sorry, Microsoft. I didn't trust you with long release cycles. With "Agile" development, I trust you even less.
I'll keep my Windows 8.1 box with your Metro shit and your app store disabled. I'll pass on the telemetry, ads, and other bullshit you've not asked people before you installed it.
Well, they've essentially shoved it up the asses of the unsuspecting masses.
My in-law's laptop got updated, and they have no idea how, it just did it because Windows updates decided to and they never got asked as far as they know.
It's easy to get high adoption rates when you do the upgrade without actually asking permission.
It's not so much that the world is full of suckers, is most people haven't got much understanding of what Windows Update is doing to them. They just wake up one day and say "wow, my computer looks different".
Me, I figure Microsoft has made themselves VERY untrusted because they've taken to actively concealing what's really in updates. I figure I have more risk from running their updates than I do with my computer behind a firewall and not running any of their stuff except the OS.
"The vulnerabilities can be exploited remotely by attackers with low skills"
This also applies to the editors, for whom apparently the ability to edit text into something coherent in the English language is only a soft requirement.
This is Microsoft saying "due to our magical and proprietary Unicorn Poop (tm), we will be bringing Linux to the Windows desktop".
This is a PR stunt and a marketing exercise. And I expect this to work about as well as that toolset which was supposed to bring Android apps to Windows.
I view this as Microsoft just continuing to try to make people give a crap about Windows 10. And I don't think it's going to have much success.
So, whatever, lack of technical precision in a PR release about some vaporware? Yeah, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Yeah, I interpret "financial engineering" to essentially mean "massive fraud and cooking of books" and the other bullshit which is prevalent in the modern gibberish of finance which has nothing to do with value, reality, or honesty.
The term simply screams that it's either being used by lying bastards to describe what they think they're entitled to do, or to describe what lying bastards are actually doing.
To me, "financial engineering" is pretty much synonymous with "complete and utter bullshit and thinly disguised fraud".
It's an attempt by corporations to rewrite/bypass existing laws, and prevent you from having any recourse by forcing you to agree to arbitration (conducted by someone friendly to the outcome of the corporation).
Despite the idiocy we've been seeing as courts (*cough* American *cough*) decide it's OK for companies to fuck over consumers with bullshit EULAs which skirt around the law, I'm glad to see some common sense.
Of course, expect the next round of "trade negotiations" (*cough* American *cough*) to work to undermine this.
Because, let's face it, America is all lubed up and on the payroll of multinational corporations.
IFTTT doesn't generate money from users. In fact, I expect they generate, or will generate, money from sites they provide access to.
So, you agree that IFTTT is just a shakedown racket, with no business model other than conning people into maintaining their product, and with an over-inflated sense of the value what they bring to the table?
If your "business model" is "write connector for web sites, then demand those web sites maintain it and sign a license agreement with you", then you're little more than a con artist and deserve to go out of business. In fact, you're worse... you've made your money off someone else's product and are now trying to shake them down. That makes IFTTT a fucking scam.
I don't see why that is a reason for you or their CEO to get pushed out of shape.
If you don't see why parasitic douchebags running shakedown rackets piss people off... well, then maybe you're part of the fucking problem here? You're awfully vocally in support of them... so either you're part of this bullshit, or just in favor of con-men in general.
If IFTTT has no way of making money other than trying to scam companies into making their service keep running, then fuck IFTTT. They really are nothing more than parasites, and deserve for every web site to look at them and say "go fuck yourself", and let the world be rid of yet another damned parasitic startup who thinks the world owes them a fucking business model.
This isn't "normal day-to-day business", this is trying to coerce people into keeping your bullshit company running by pretending they need you more than you need them.
Guess what? That's not true. And with luck, a lot of other web sites will do the same thing... and I hope you're part of this Ponzi scheme and lose your shirt. Because "legitimate business" this isn't.
IFTTT deserve to fuck off and die, instead of pretending the world needs to write them a viable business model. Fucking useless startups who think the world owes them a fortune.
On my land line? Not so easily. On my cell phone I actually do have an app which blocks stuff like that.
But my Panasonic cordless phones can be set to hang up on "Unknown" and "Private Caller". That killed off many of the spam calls. If you won't identify yourself from me, I'm not interested in your call.
Now they've started sending bogus caller ID, usually something relatively close to mine. So, you can't even rely on that any more.
These days if I don't recognize the number or the caller ID, I just ignore it or pick up and hang up.
So if I do answer, I'm already assuming you're lying to me, because you probably are.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, you mean "real" irony? Or the Alanis Morissette kind of irony?
I fear the interwebs might implode due to this study.
Absolutely I do. I read books on the science and technique of cooking for fun. I know people who work in the food service industry. I read biographies of chefs.
You know, a food processor isn't "automation". It's a tool. Same for a blender, a stand mixer, a deep fryer, oven, or immersion blender.
While eating at a friend's place once, another friend commented on the fresh salsa and asked if she'd be able to do that in a food processor. I told her in no uncertain terms the quality of the salsa was entirely due to the knife skills of the person who prepared it, and a machine would not reproduce anything close. Because it really was down to a sharp knife wielded by someone who really knew how to use it, and a food processor would have produces mush.
The actual act of the food preparation, cooking, and making food taste good and look good? I don't believe for a minute that's something we'll just fire up a machine to do.
There a lot more to making good food than having some robot dump a pile of pasta on a plate, and heap some sauce on top of it.
Maybe the food you eat is something you could program into a computer. But Thai food, or Indian food, or Italian food ... or pretty much any good food is going to be far more nuanced than telling a robot to combine these 15 things in this exact combination and boil it for 38 minutes.
That kind of food? You really can buy in a microwavable box.
So, suddenly we seem to have only one editor, who mostly flogs Microsoft stuff, and utterly fails to identify what the hell the article is about.
What the hell is Xamarin? Why would I follow a link to find out that Microsoft is now giving away something I've never heard of.
Holy crap is Slashdot going downhill.
Well, yeah ... but I choose where I go out to eat usually based on the quality of the food, the service, and the overall dining experience.
If I wanted a stale sandwich out of a vending machine, I'd do that. Or, I'd simply buy some cheap meal in a box I could microwave.
Other than places like McDonald's, I don't think most restaurants are the kind of places where the food won't become institutional dreck ... pretty much because the food at McDonald's already is institutional dreck.
You likely serve some pretty terrible food if it's something you can have a machine produce for you.
If you eat in garbage fast food restaurants, that may be true.
But for those of us who like our food to not be some mass-prepared crap, that's far from the case.
If your food is to easy to automate, it's probably not really worth eating.
Oh, and of course if nobody has any fucking jobs these companies will go out of business because nobody can afford to go out -- that is, except for the rich CEOs who cut all the jobs in the first place.
You show me a place in which the kitchen has been mostly automated, and I'll show you a place I refuse to eat at.
What "Investor-State Dispute Settlements" really does is hoodwink the world into having corporations have veto over the ability of nations to set policy which corporations don't like.
The only beneficiaries of this are corporations, and the people who are pushing these bullshit things are people are owners of large corporations, or have been bought and paid for by large corporations.
It's completely in-democratic, and intended to make the worst practices of globalization entrenched in law ... and everybody except "shareholder value" will get fucked in the process.
That Americas foreign policy is now so blatantly corrupted and tied to the wishes of multinational corporations is alarming, and this treaty should be rejected on the basis that it is NOTHING but the US forcing a corporate agenda on the world and acting like it's going to benefit anybody else.
This is literally theft on a global scale, and a massive undermining of national sovereignty purely to advance corporate interests, to which America is so utterly beholden they've become little more than corporate lackeys. And many aspects of this stupid "treaty" are little more than ensuring nation-states are responsible for policing the interests of those corporations.
This treaty is utterly terrible, and will NOT in ANY WAY benefit the citizens of any country ... except of course those who own stocks in, or have been bribed by, the multinational corporations it benefits. The rest of us get royally screwed in the process.
This will undermine labor laws, environmental laws, and pretty much any form of regulation under the insane premise that we must protect corporate profits at all fucking costs.
There is no upside to this if you're not a multinational corporation. Which is precisely why it is getting the backing of multi-billion dollar multinational corporations.
Sorry, I need to identify myself to a freaking web-page .... why?
I'm not posting to your comments section, and I'm sure as hell not signing up to pay you to read a random article Google pointed me to.
My anonymity comes when I refuse to let you set cookies, run scripts, or let any of your third party bullshit do anything at all.
If you're using private browsing, why are you authenticating yourself to websites at all? If I'm willing to authenticate with you, I'm not using private browsing ... if I'm not willing to authenticate with you, I have no intention of doing so.
It really is simple:
Greedy douchebags convinced they own something and seeking to capitalize on it.
My guess, somewhere along the line the "property" SCO claims got transferred to some consortium of lawyers (wikipedia tells me the latest name is "TSG Operations, Inc.") and other bottom feeding assholes convinced they're going to eventually hit paydirt.
Someone has assigned a monetary value to that, and until all possible venues are finally killed off (and I have no idea what that entails), whatever deluded crooks claim to own it will keep coming. Someone is convinced they're sitting on a gold mine, and if they can establish the right precedent can go on a binge of shaking down the world.
Essentially the Ponzi scheme has new owners.
Given Microsoft's history with being utterly incompetent at security, why would I trust them, or any other vendor, with biometric information? Why would I want a fucking app or a web page to have access to that stuff?
I'm sorry, but I neither believe this is any more secure, nor do I believe this isn't going to lead to huge unintended privacy violations or whatever damned server Microsoft keeps this shit on from either being hacked, or subpoenaed by big brother.
Sorry, but I'll pass on this shit. It serves no value for apps and web pages, and it's being offered by a company who I simply don't trust with the information or the implementation.
When this gets hacked, expect me to be quite loudly laughing and pointing.
I thought the internet had already accomplished that.
In fact, I'm fairly certain of it.
Oh, come now, use your imagination ...
Personalized search results with "douchebots", which berate you for your search choices.
You could screw up the dominatrix market with "bitchbots", which both humiliate and confuse you; which oddly enough gets you girlfriend/wifebots.
Web sites can try to give you "assistbots" which will ensure you can never get any useful information out of their website, even by accident. But, I think HP may have patented this.
I'm really looking for "cashierbots" who will keep asking me if I have their loyalty program, if I'll give them my email to get promotions, and then saying an item won't scan. Again, WalMart may have patended this.
Don't even get me started about applications like renewing your drivers license. ;-)
Even spam calls would be greatly improved than the idiots doing "the Microsoft support".
The number of ways in which people can be thwarted from accomplishing useful tasks by having a chatbot run interference goes well beyond angsty teenage nazi sexbots; they can be tailored to almost any application in which you wish to prevent successful outcomes.
The possibilities of annoying and pissing people off are endless. And, being a Microsoft product, pretty much guaranteed.
What I want to know is why anybody thinks this actually brings anything of value to the table.
Oooh, a chatbot. OK, so a bad attempt at an Eliza program? An utterly annoying customer service thing? A way to annoy the hell out of people?
There is not a single application I can think of where, short of a bit of technology onanism, there's a single benefit to having some damned chatbot.
It's like those stupid telephone trees where some useless menu of options has been designed to keep you from a human long enough to just hang up the phone.
Leave it to Microsoft to think we all want a new fucking version of Clippy to provide the tedium of not being of any fucking use.
Digital assistants my ass.
And, as usual, Microsoft's vision of the future is a useless bit of technology, heavily tied to Office, which nobody really wants, and which won't be worth the resources allocated to it.
Gimmicks and other crap. Whatever.
I have no desire to pretend I'm having a "conversation" with software.
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
It's A model of "free", it's not THE model of "free". Even Linux is still GPLv2, precisely because it's a much more restrictive license. You know, kinda less "free".
As you have just inadvertently summed it up, the "freedom" the GPL offers is to use it under a very specific terms, or not use it at all. Which is kinda mostly free, except in the ways in which it isn't.
You're right, people are free to not use it. So, don't be surprised when people don't because they don't want someone else's ideology crammed up their ass.
Having benefited from BSD and Apache licenses, I'd be quite inclined to use those licenses, or at least things like the LPGL so you can link to stuff ... precisely because they don't wish to assert control over how others use it. You know, they're more "free".
Oh, by the way, in quoting my posting you created an unlicensed derivative work, and you owe me twelve trillion dollars. ;-)
LOL, yup, that's freedom ... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
GPL means you are "free" to be enslaved by a certain ideological view of "free", by telling you the ways in which you're not really free.
It has its place, but it's by no means perfect, and it certainly has a restricted definition of "free".
I take this to mean the not-necessarily-voluntary year-long beta is almost complete ... now wait for the next gob of shite we're going to force feed you.
See, when they started pushing this, it really wasn't complete. It was mostly complete, and they were still adding features.
Sorry, Microsoft. I didn't trust you with long release cycles. With "Agile" development, I trust you even less.
I'll keep my Windows 8.1 box with your Metro shit and your app store disabled. I'll pass on the telemetry, ads, and other bullshit you've not asked people before you installed it.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Well, they've essentially shoved it up the asses of the unsuspecting masses.
My in-law's laptop got updated, and they have no idea how, it just did it because Windows updates decided to and they never got asked as far as they know.
It's easy to get high adoption rates when you do the upgrade without actually asking permission.
It's not so much that the world is full of suckers, is most people haven't got much understanding of what Windows Update is doing to them. They just wake up one day and say "wow, my computer looks different".
Me, I figure Microsoft has made themselves VERY untrusted because they've taken to actively concealing what's really in updates. I figure I have more risk from running their updates than I do with my computer behind a firewall and not running any of their stuff except the OS.
"The vulnerabilities can be exploited remotely by attackers with low skills"
This also applies to the editors, for whom apparently the ability to edit text into something coherent in the English language is only a soft requirement.
And you're surprised ... why?
This is Microsoft saying "due to our magical and proprietary Unicorn Poop (tm), we will be bringing Linux to the Windows desktop".
This is a PR stunt and a marketing exercise. And I expect this to work about as well as that toolset which was supposed to bring Android apps to Windows.
I view this as Microsoft just continuing to try to make people give a crap about Windows 10. And I don't think it's going to have much success.
So, whatever, lack of technical precision in a PR release about some vaporware? Yeah, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Yeah, I interpret "financial engineering" to essentially mean "massive fraud and cooking of books" and the other bullshit which is prevalent in the modern gibberish of finance which has nothing to do with value, reality, or honesty.
The term simply screams that it's either being used by lying bastards to describe what they think they're entitled to do, or to describe what lying bastards are actually doing.
To me, "financial engineering" is pretty much synonymous with "complete and utter bullshit and thinly disguised fraud".
LOL .... or, more succinctly ... Dick, from the internet.
It's an attempt by corporations to rewrite/bypass existing laws, and prevent you from having any recourse by forcing you to agree to arbitration (conducted by someone friendly to the outcome of the corporation).
Despite the idiocy we've been seeing as courts (*cough* American *cough*) decide it's OK for companies to fuck over consumers with bullshit EULAs which skirt around the law, I'm glad to see some common sense.
Of course, expect the next round of "trade negotiations" (*cough* American *cough*) to work to undermine this.
Because, let's face it, America is all lubed up and on the payroll of multinational corporations.
So, you agree that IFTTT is just a shakedown racket, with no business model other than conning people into maintaining their product, and with an over-inflated sense of the value what they bring to the table?
If your "business model" is "write connector for web sites, then demand those web sites maintain it and sign a license agreement with you", then you're little more than a con artist and deserve to go out of business. In fact, you're worse ... you've made your money off someone else's product and are now trying to shake them down. That makes IFTTT a fucking scam.
If you don't see why parasitic douchebags running shakedown rackets piss people off ... well, then maybe you're part of the fucking problem here? You're awfully vocally in support of them ... so either you're part of this bullshit, or just in favor of con-men in general.
If IFTTT has no way of making money other than trying to scam companies into making their service keep running, then fuck IFTTT. They really are nothing more than parasites, and deserve for every web site to look at them and say "go fuck yourself", and let the world be rid of yet another damned parasitic startup who thinks the world owes them a fucking business model.
This isn't "normal day-to-day business", this is trying to coerce people into keeping your bullshit company running by pretending they need you more than you need them.
Guess what? That's not true. And with luck, a lot of other web sites will do the same thing ... and I hope you're part of this Ponzi scheme and lose your shirt. Because "legitimate business" this isn't.
IFTTT deserve to fuck off and die, instead of pretending the world needs to write them a viable business model. Fucking useless startups who think the world owes them a fortune.
Greedy useless assholes.
You mean, Manhattan is full of hot air? You know ...
On my land line? Not so easily. On my cell phone I actually do have an app which blocks stuff like that.
But my Panasonic cordless phones can be set to hang up on "Unknown" and "Private Caller". That killed off many of the spam calls. If you won't identify yourself from me, I'm not interested in your call.
Now they've started sending bogus caller ID, usually something relatively close to mine. So, you can't even rely on that any more.
These days if I don't recognize the number or the caller ID, I just ignore it or pick up and hang up.
So if I do answer, I'm already assuming you're lying to me, because you probably are.