If you did not buy or use any of the products you listed, then it did very well have an effect. Of course that's pretty worthless in the big picture if a hundred bazillion other people were still using or buying those products. OTOH, did "pirating" Starcraft, Diablo or Visa help in any way? Did that change anything beyond more DRM or more severe punishment?
If a boycott at least generates media attention, it sends a signal. The only way the big companies can respond to that signal is by offering a better product (or at least do nothing). Pirating sends a signal as well, but the way the big companies are going to respond to that signal is by adding more DRM or more legislation, because it is something they can fight (or at least they think so). A simple boycott cannot be fought with DRM or legislation.
In other words: you're the effing source of the problem! There'd be no countries blocking piracy websites or trying to enact ACTA or any similar such actions on a governmental level if there was no piracy to begin with, yet you could still influence the market by simply not buying what you don't like.
And while you're "killing" the distribution companies, the artists die with them because they depend on the same money you're not paying them.
Give money to the artists who deserve it and be picky about it. That is empowering the ones who deserve it, while starving the ones who don't. Grabbing the content from the establishment without paying for it is actually empowering the establishment, because the law is on their side; whether that is right or wrong in your opinion. Because you are "stealing" from the big ones they are able to move whole governments and push new legislation through, because they can point at actual wrongdoing going on from the POV of the law. If simply nobody was interested in their products, they'd have no club to swing.
Only on Slashdot can such a comment be modded Insightful.
We get that the current system is not perfect. But publicly declaring that you're not going to pay for anything anymore while obviously still expecting to get all the latest new stuff... how is that fair to anyone, especially the creators of the stuff you're consuming?
I for my part am simply more selective about who I'm giving my money. And if I decide I do not want to fork over money for something, I may simply not consume it. If you want something to change, vote with your attention. Otherwise it's no wonder this is turning into a war.
It must just be me, but the Apple users around me are routinely more knowledgable about computers than the average Windows users around me. In fact, most Apple users around me are developers or otherwise professionals whose main tool is a computer, while most Windows users around me have had their XP box for the last decade and use it to occasionally browse the web and download a virus or two.
I know that I'm probably biased due to my work and people I meet through it, but man, do I hate the generalization that Windows users are somehow the better computer users.
For this you'll need Apple to back pedal on some simplification they've made to make their OS more accessible to less technical people. (Like installing application simply by drag-droping an icon from an archive into a system folder. With no privilege asked).
Oh darn, I'll feed the troll...
OK, please elaborate how installing an application by simply copying the executable into a location where all executables are stored is insecure. Is there an exploit that has been facilitated by this that would have been impossible otherwise?/Applications is not a system folder BTW. The system is in/System, and/Library./Applications is a location to install applications, nothing more, nothing less.
True. Anybody with half a brain knew this of course. It was merely time for the practical proof. From here on Apple will have to proof itself in how well it does or doesn't respond to such incidents. For its first trial by fire, it didn't receive very high marks so far.
This! I wish I had mod points. Apparently long rants are more popular than actually trotting out the real details. Apple's In-App Purchase is really rather carefully designed. There are limited ways in which developers can charge users. These have to be explicitly, individually registered with and approved by Apple. They are displayed in the App Store before you even download the app. The item you are about to buy and its price are clearly displayed before you purchase.
Apple could hardly make it any more explicit you're about to pay money for something short of you needing to fax in an order sheet.
If you mean to say that the sun and the earth didn't exist back then and that hence the "year" didn't exist, then that's nonsense. A "year" is a somewhat well defined length of time, which applies just as much now as it did then, regardless of when that length of time was first defined or when the ingredients for defining it came into existence.
Now, if you'd be talking about whether the length of time we define as a "year" nowadays is the same now as it was back then, and whether time is a universal constant at all throughout the universe... you may be onto something.
Well, they could have gone with "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 2.0 Speed and Mobility Express Professional Server 2013 Edition for Workgroups" instead, or httpsmepew:// for short. I think "S&M" is already a pretty good try for them.
I really like that SPDY insists on SSL secured connections. This is what we should be moving towards and having it forced upon us in the next HTTP revision is a great step. But of course Microsoft tries to be backwards compatible, as they always are.
I say SPDY for modern devices, HTTP 1.1 for the foreseeable future for low powered devices. It still works fine, you know? And by the time HTTP 1.1 is retired, there will be no more devices so underpowered they can't establish a SPDY connection. For the love of god, drop legacy when you get the chance!
The car driver coming down the street at 200mph. Without him, there'd be no need to help the old lady across the street in the first place, she could do it alone.
Slashdot Mirror
If you did not buy or use any of the products you listed, then it did very well have an effect. Of course that's pretty worthless in the big picture if a hundred bazillion other people were still using or buying those products. OTOH, did "pirating" Starcraft, Diablo or Visa help in any way? Did that change anything beyond more DRM or more severe punishment?
If a boycott at least generates media attention, it sends a signal. The only way the big companies can respond to that signal is by offering a better product (or at least do nothing). Pirating sends a signal as well, but the way the big companies are going to respond to that signal is by adding more DRM or more legislation, because it is something they can fight (or at least they think so). A simple boycott cannot be fought with DRM or legislation.
In other words: you're the effing source of the problem! There'd be no countries blocking piracy websites or trying to enact ACTA or any similar such actions on a governmental level if there was no piracy to begin with, yet you could still influence the market by simply not buying what you don't like.
And while you're "killing" the distribution companies, the artists die with them because they depend on the same money you're not paying them.
Give money to the artists who deserve it and be picky about it. That is empowering the ones who deserve it, while starving the ones who don't.
Grabbing the content from the establishment without paying for it is actually empowering the establishment, because the law is on their side; whether that is right or wrong in your opinion. Because you are "stealing" from the big ones they are able to move whole governments and push new legislation through, because they can point at actual wrongdoing going on from the POV of the law. If simply nobody was interested in their products, they'd have no club to swing.
Only on Slashdot can such a comment be modded Insightful.
We get that the current system is not perfect. But publicly declaring that you're not going to pay for anything anymore while obviously still expecting to get all the latest new stuff... how is that fair to anyone, especially the creators of the stuff you're consuming?
I for my part am simply more selective about who I'm giving my money. And if I decide I do not want to fork over money for something, I may simply not consume it. If you want something to change, vote with your attention. Otherwise it's no wonder this is turning into a war.
It must just be me, but the Apple users around me are routinely more knowledgable about computers than the average Windows users around me.
In fact, most Apple users around me are developers or otherwise professionals whose main tool is a computer, while most Windows users around me have had their XP box for the last decade and use it to occasionally browse the web and download a virus or two.
I know that I'm probably biased due to my work and people I meet through it, but man, do I hate the generalization that Windows users are somehow the better computer users.
There you go, even better. :)
For this you'll need Apple to back pedal on some simplification they've made to make their OS more accessible to less technical people. (Like installing application simply by drag-droping an icon from an archive into a system folder. With no privilege asked).
Oh darn, I'll feed the troll...
OK, please elaborate how installing an application by simply copying the executable into a location where all executables are stored is insecure. Is there an exploit that has been facilitated by this that would have been impossible otherwise? /Applications is not a system folder BTW. The system is in /System, and /Library. /Applications is a location to install applications, nothing more, nothing less.
True. Anybody with half a brain knew this of course. It was merely time for the practical proof.
From here on Apple will have to proof itself in how well it does or doesn't respond to such incidents.
For its first trial by fire, it didn't receive very high marks so far.
This! I wish I had mod points. Apparently long rants are more popular than actually trotting out the real details. Apple's In-App Purchase is really rather carefully designed. There are limited ways in which developers can charge users. These have to be explicitly, individually registered with and approved by Apple. They are displayed in the App Store before you even download the app. The item you are about to buy and its price are clearly displayed before you purchase.
Apple could hardly make it any more explicit you're about to pay money for something short of you needing to fax in an order sheet.
Hint: North Korea and South Korea do not have the same kind of relationship as North Dakota and South Dakota.
If you mean to say that the sun and the earth didn't exist back then and that hence the "year" didn't exist, then that's nonsense. A "year" is a somewhat well defined length of time, which applies just as much now as it did then, regardless of when that length of time was first defined or when the ingredients for defining it came into existence.
Now, if you'd be talking about whether the length of time we define as a "year" nowadays is the same now as it was back then, and whether time is a universal constant at all throughout the universe... you may be onto something.
Who said it's undesirable?
Oh right, this is KeepYourRemoteFingersAwayDot, sorry.
the browsers won't cache as a precaution -- it can be overridden.
Say what now? Precaution against what?
And browsers cache assets transferred over HTTPS just fine.
Correct me if I am wrong, but encryption prevents caching.
Well, you are wrong. At least as a general statement. :)
It prevents caching by proxies, but it works fine with regular client/server HTTP caching.
I actually wouldn't mind typing that in or dictating it.
msblows://microsoft.com
Mmmm, braiiiiiiins...
Sorry, you were saying?
Well, they could have gone with "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 2.0 Speed and Mobility Express Professional Server 2013 Edition for Workgroups" instead, or httpsmepew:// for short. I think "S&M" is already a pretty good try for them.
I really like that SPDY insists on SSL secured connections. This is what we should be moving towards and having it forced upon us in the next HTTP revision is a great step. But of course Microsoft tries to be backwards compatible, as they always are.
I say SPDY for modern devices, HTTP 1.1 for the foreseeable future for low powered devices. It still works fine, you know? And by the time HTTP 1.1 is retired, there will be no more devices so underpowered they can't establish a SPDY connection. For the love of god, drop legacy when you get the chance!
Oui, c'est suoirálih.
Well, soon you'll be able to try your luck on Arctic call-in shows. I'd say the chances should be pretty decent there.
I really have no clue whether 230ms is a realistic number.
I currently get a 431ms Japan <> UK ping on a pretty mediocre Japanese ADSL line in the country side.
So, yes, that's realistic.
A lot of members must've brought their kids to work that day.
But that's going to be the other way around soon, what with the Euro going down and the US$1 per bought-European-vote rate increasing.
Then, where is the bad guy in this example?
The car driver coming down the street at 200mph. Without him, there'd be no need to help the old lady across the street in the first place, she could do it alone.
QED.
Ah, grasshopper... the article _is_ the first post. What we need after that is a frist post.
You blew it.
Getting caught in a swarm of thrashing sharp dental structures would make a good horror film.
Yup, coming to a theater near you April 19.