[OT} They are getting better at it

VOIP can send any Caller ID it likes.

Using more sophisticated software? Is it

No, that is fakeable too.

It will be via a VoIP provider, and they will be able to set any presentation number they like. You might be able to find the comms provider that hosts the number and report a fraud attempt to them. They may suspend the service to the scammer if they get enough complaints.

(it won't stop the scammers directly since they will have several VoIP accounts on the go at any one time - but each time one gets suspended the providers will not usually return the pre-paid fees which will cause them some grief).

Not really but my true call seems to clobber them as they simply cannot be arsed to say their name and wait for it to ring my phone and then of course I'll just put them on my zap list, so most tend to just ring off and try somebody else. The automated ones sometimes do get through, as they normally say hey did you know. leave a bit of dead air then continue so by the time I hear hey did you know on the name recording I just hit zap. Eventually they will run out of new numbers to pretend to be. To be honest the recordings do not annoy me as much as the time wasters, and if I am doing audio recordings I sip use lock down mode and everything is silently recorded. Brian

Depends. I think grammar is pretty fluid these days.

Its all the fault of The Stones. I can't get No Satisfaction. Which means you can. Brian

JoeJoe formulated on Saturday :

Spoofing a phone number is not difficult, the simply spoof the same code as the local code they are dialing. There is no way for you determine where the call originates, but the likes of BT get the proper originating phone number..

It happens that Brian Gaff formulated :

I thought all of the caller filters worked the same way - state your name and press a key. Mine is the # key.

Not easy for an auto system to get past and our nuisance callers have declined to zero, 24 months after installing, from the ten per day.

Depends, what Dave Plowman needs.

In message , JoeJoe writes

Ah! That's where they went:-) We had a series of those about 2 weeks back. No caller ID here. I find pressing the 9 button gives a certain level of satisfaction.

This is correct.

There are many languages where a double negative intensifies rather than annuls the negation, including English up to a couple of centuries ago. I blame logical minded prescriptive grammarians.

Yeah, right.

You're wrong. It doesn't "depend" at all. Correct grammar is not fluid (though neither is it set in stone).

No: what has changed is the number of people with access to public expression of their thoughts is now immensely greater than the number of people with a good, basic education.

The other thing that has changed is that people who make these mistakes, or spelling mistakes, have the attitude: "Do I give a stuff?". A bit like saying "yeah well illiteracy is equally as good as literacy innit"

John

maybe in the past people overcared. Grandma ease yews full bot knot a very thing.

NT

...as you hand the spliff on. (Do you pass it to the left, like port?)

You're sick. For some reason, that's a great compliment nowadays!

That seems like a contradictory statement. If its not "set in stone", then you are implying it is able to exhibit some fluidity.

The value of communication in the vast majority of cases will outweigh the value of that communication conforming to some ideal of perfection.

Also, recognise that we all strengths and weaknesses. So it seems difficult to make a credible argument that what you say should always be subordinate to how you say it, or worse, that you should not say it at all unless you can say it in a "acceptable" way.

Thanks, that is what I assumed - i.e. a more sophisticated software that tailors the fake CLID for each number dialled to make it more likely that someone will answer.

I've given that a bit of thought recently. If you're only allowed to discuss 'controversial matters' in flowery, poncey, nuanced terms then you are effectively denying the right of a large percentage of the population to express their views. I don't see why those who use flowery, poncey, nuanced language should enjoy an unchallenged monopoly wrt freedom of thought!

S'funny! I was wondering how to slip an example of a "Double Positive" into this thread. :-)