On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:00:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/10/2011 5:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> I dislike most of it, to the point where I stopped watching TV for many
>> years, and even now watch maybe one or two shows a week sometimes. That
>> doesn't mean I consider it "spam" instead of advertising.
> 
> I know what you mean. I don't know how Americans can put up with the
> ratio of adverts to programme.

Fast forward is a wonderful thing on a DVR. :)

> Having said that I loved the Guinness adverts. To me they were art.

Those do tend to be pretty good. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 4:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Fast forward is a wonderful thing on a DVR. :)

Lifextender.  With one "e".  Don't even need to fast-forward. Just give it 
10 minutes to do the job after the show finishes recording. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:25:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 4:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Fast forward is a wonderful thing on a DVR. :)
> 
> Lifextender.  With one "e".  Don't even need to fast-forward. Just give
> it 10 minutes to do the job after the show finishes recording. :-)

Handy, thanks. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/10/07 15:20, Stephen a écrit :
> On 07/10/2011 8:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> And phone calls. I've been getting a spate of them recently about
>>> accidents that I’ve never had.
>>
>> Oh, there's a special circle of hell for telemarketers.
>>
> And r-e-c-o-r-d-e-d –a-n-n-o-u-n-c-e-m-e-n-t-s.
>
>

You can get the caller's number. Don't you hate it when that number 
turns out to be something like:

Your number. You receive that recorded message and it pretends to be 
comming from YOU!
areacode-000-0000
areacode-555-1234
.
.
.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/10/2011 12:55 AM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/10/07 15:20, Stephen a écrit :

>>>
>>> Oh, there's a special circle of hell for telemarketers.
>>>
>> And r-e-c-o-r-d-e-d –a-n-n-o-u-n-c-e-m-e-n-t-s.
>>
>>
>
> You can get the caller's number. Don't you hate it when that number
> turns out to be something like:
>
> Your number. You receive that recorded message and it pretends to be
> comming from YOU!

I've not had that particular perversion. Yet.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:13:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 12/10/2011 12:55 AM, Alain wrote:
>> Le 2011/10/07 15:20, Stephen a écrit :
> 
> 
>>>> Oh, there's a special circle of hell for telemarketers.
>>>>
>>> And r-e-c-o-r-d-e-d –a-n-n-o-u-n-c-e-m-e-n-t-s.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You can get the caller's number. Don't you hate it when that number
>> turns out to be something like:
>>
>> Your number. You receive that recorded message and it pretends to be
>> comming from YOU!
> 
> I've not had that particular perversion. Yet.

It's pretty common here in the US, even though it's illegal to spoof 
caller ID.  Funny thing about spoofed caller ID - you can't find out 
easily where they're calling from. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 3:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:13:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2011 12:55 AM, Alain wrote:
>>> Le 2011/10/07 15:20, Stephen a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>>> Oh, there's a special circle of hell for telemarketers.
>>>>>
>>>> And r-e-c-o-r-d-e-d –a-n-n-o-u-n-c-e-m-e-n-t-s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You can get the caller's number. Don't you hate it when that number
>>> turns out to be something like:
>>>
>>> Your number. You receive that recorded message and it pretends to be
>>> comming from YOU!
>>
>> I've not had that particular perversion. Yet.
>
> It's pretty common here in the US, even though it's illegal to spoof
> caller ID.  Funny thing about spoofed caller ID - you can't find out
> easily where they're calling from. ;)
>
> Jim
Was an article on that one in at least two recent 2600 magazines. Seems, 
there are two numbers that can come up, one is the "local exchange" 
number, which can be spoofed, and the other is a number identification 
thing, which can't. But, do to how the bloody system is set up, the one 
your caller ID box gets is the "local" spoofable one. Spoofing, if I 
remember, involves triggering an ID failure on the calling end, such 
that the system can't properly figure out where the call is from, then 
substituting data into the system, which it takes as a "local exchange" 
ID, or.. something like that. I really don't remember.

Basically, there *is* a way to figure out who really called you, but 
doing it requires more understanding of the system than like 99.9% of 
the people using it, including most of the people at the phone company 
you might contact about it, especially certain operators, which have to 
rely on the same ID data that just got mis-reported to your own phone. 
The only reason this *is* possible, ironically, is because they decided 
to design the system with such a flaw, instead of using something less 
prone to error, and redirection.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 19:40, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> this *is* possible, ironically, is because they decided to design the system
> with such a flaw,

You're talking about ANI vs CID. CID is intentionally spoofable so you can 
program your PBX to provide the number the person should actually call back 
(e.g., the 800-number customer service) rather than the number of the desk 
phone of the one guy who you happen to be talking to in a cubicle farm.

ANI is automatic number identification, which is what you get when (for 
example) someone calls you on your 800 number. It's what the billing is 
based on.

CID is whatever the system decides it is, and some people can get permission 
to provide that. You don't have to cause any sort of "failure" or 
"injection". It's an intentional feature being misused.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:40:21 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Was an article on that one in at least two recent 2600 magazines. Seems,
> there are two numbers that can come up, one is the "local exchange"
> number, which can be spoofed, and the other is a number identification
> thing, which can't. But, do to how the bloody system is set up, the one
> your caller ID box gets is the "local" spoofable one. Spoofing, if I
> remember, involves triggering an ID failure on the calling end, such
> that the system can't properly figure out where the call is from, then
> substituting data into the system, which it takes as a "local exchange"
> ID, or.. something like that. I really don't remember.
> 
> Basically, there *is* a way to figure out who really called you, but
> doing it requires more understanding of the system than like 99.9% of
> the people using it, including most of the people at the phone company
> you might contact about it, especially certain operators, which have to
> rely on the same ID data that just got mis-reported to your own phone.
> The only reason this *is* possible, ironically, is because they decided
> to design the system with such a flaw, instead of using something less
> prone to error, and redirection.

I'd be interested in knowing more about this, because those damned credit 
card interest rate scams spoof the entire number, it seems.  800-300-0000 
doesn't seem like a legitimate number at all, but IIRC that's the last 
one that hit our phone.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 8:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:40:21 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Was an article on that one in at least two recent 2600 magazines. Seems,
>> there are two numbers that can come up, one is the "local exchange"
>> number, which can be spoofed, and the other is a number identification
>> thing, which can't. But, do to how the bloody system is set up, the one
>> your caller ID box gets is the "local" spoofable one. Spoofing, if I
>> remember, involves triggering an ID failure on the calling end, such
>> that the system can't properly figure out where the call is from, then
>> substituting data into the system, which it takes as a "local exchange"
>> ID, or.. something like that. I really don't remember.
>>
>> Basically, there *is* a way to figure out who really called you, but
>> doing it requires more understanding of the system than like 99.9% of
>> the people using it, including most of the people at the phone company
>> you might contact about it, especially certain operators, which have to
>> rely on the same ID data that just got mis-reported to your own phone.
>> The only reason this *is* possible, ironically, is because they decided
>> to design the system with such a flaw, instead of using something less
>> prone to error, and redirection.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing more about this, because those damned credit
> card interest rate scams spoof the entire number, it seems.  800-300-0000
> doesn't seem like a legitimate number at all, but IIRC that's the last
> one that hit our phone.
>
> Jim
Was in 2600 magazine, but not sure which issue.

Post a reply to this message