Which again is completely irrelevant. The fact is that by increasing the license options of the developer, user rights are restrict. So increasing the developer freedom does not increase freedom in the general term, as I said from the beginning, but can actually restrict freedom as a result.
And thanks to patent law restrictive licenses tend to affect far more than you think they do. By allowing someone to use your work to create a proprietary application you give this person the possibility to patent the result, thus preventing others from achieving similar solutions and further restricting user's rights. GPL prevents that.
Which is completely irrelevant to the argument. By allowing a restrictive license to exist you always give options to developer at the cost of taking choices from the user, even if some choices as "not using the software" still remain.
I am not trying to blame developer A, only pointing that by choosing a license other than GPL developer A allowed developer B to close source his software and release it under a proprietary license, which obviously restricts user rights. So although developer A is not directly to blame by any choice of developer B, the license chosen by A increases developer B freedom and decreases user freedom.
You may be comfortable with using software whose source cannot be examined by you or by anyone else but the developer, but that is your choice. By taking this choice from users you are restricting their freedom.
Certainly more freedom to the developer, but your ability to choose the license you want is also in a way the ability to limit the freedom of others if you so wish, or in this case the ability to grant another the ability to limit user choices.
More freedom to the developers always comes at the cost of less freedom to the user. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but it just debunks the theory that more license options implies in more freedom in the general sense.
My point is, that unlike your example, a big and catastrophic Earthquake in Japan is actually a reasonably possibility and almost a certainty in long term, as is a big Earthquake in California as other natural catastrophes, wars and many other things that can make fiat currencies rapidly devalue. The point is fiat currencies are not immune to external factors and can suffer volatility similar to BTC, as has already happened time and time again in the past.
I don't see why should I trust a currency that is based in a clear and known mathematical algorithm less than than I would trust currencies that can be freely tampered with by governments. BTC may be more volatile in average (at least for now), but it is certainly less due to catastrophic failure than any fiat currency in existence.
There are no guarantees in this world. Japan could be leveled by the biggest Earthquake ever tomorrow and Yen could plummet into oblivion, for example. The only reasonable reassurance of a market comes from use, and Bitcoin use is increasing.
Assuming you have Japanese taxes to pay, which is not the case or most of us here.
It is irrelevant if there is a country in the world that accepts a given currency as a means of payment for taxes when you have absolutely no need or intention to use it to this end.
Translation: I don't have a clue about how it works, so it is bad.
There is a very clear explanation of how Bitcoins are created and the system that creates them, for anyone who cares to look for it and read the explanation, but why would Mr Forbes do that before writing about the subject?
It is not impossible. It is just far more likely that he is being persecuted, though. He was judged guilty for things that accordingly to Swedish law, shouldn't ever grant the ridiculous fines he got and much less prison time by the Swedish law. The judge who judged the case was a member of the pro-copyright lobby as was the judge who judged the in second instance, but neither felt that there was any conflict of interests in their judging the case. And now, after he was hunted and extradited for his heinous copyright crimes some new "evidence" appears against him, after they held him 6 months in prison looking for such evidence, without further explanations or charges.
Next time you try to accuse someone of lack of critical thinking, try to look yourself at the mirror first.
Your assumptions are false. There is a lot to be had by persecuting and searing the reputation of a person who is still seen positively by those you want to intimidate. And Assange's case and the Piratebay judgement already proved that the Swedish judicial system is hopeless corrupt a easily maneuvered by external pressures.
Your answer is: no you do not. Even if you can restrict the scope of the transmissions to your property by shielding it you still cannot legally do it without FCC authorization. You can only use FCC approved equipment within FCC restraints as you can do outside your property. Obviously within a shielded property nobody will likely know what you are doing, and you will likely get away with it, but you are still doing something illegal.
Private businesses own the spectrum in question. And other private businesses want to block access to those airwaves on their own property. What you're arguing for is that the government should have the ability to tell you what you can (and cannot) do on your own property with regards to wireless spectrum.
No, they do not own it. Not in any country I know, including US. The spectrum is not ownable. All the EM spectrum is considered a public resource whose use is controlled by the government. The government can grant concessions for people and companies to use parts of it, but even then those parts are still not their property. You can physically block signals within your property by shielding it, but you cannot do that by emitting any signal without authorization.
And therefore you still don't have any privacy. You use credit cards, have a bank account and the govern you naively trust have a lot of information about you.
Unless you go live in a cave that is unfortunately untrue. You have no choice. All you can do is not to offer voluntarily information about yourself, but information will come from you compulsorily and leak time and time again.
No, are Store A and Store B's 30% cuts equally excessive?
Sure they are.
Is Store B's cut now acceptable because you can use the open air market on the outskirts?
Again, sure it is, and lets forget that in our case it is not only a single market in the outskirts. There is one other big store competing, several mid sized stores, and many open market stalls spread throughout the town.
Store A and Store B own all the land the respective towns are built on
Which is only true for store A. Store B doesn't own the land and cannot prevent you from putting your vendor shack anywhere, even if it wanted.
Sure it is, but the difference here is that nobody needs to sell through Google Play to sell android applications. There are several other android stores and developers can even sell applications at their own web sites, as Humblebundle does, for example. If you don't like their fee you are not forced to sell though them and they cannot prevent you from selling your Apps elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Which again is completely irrelevant. The fact is that by increasing the license options of the developer, user rights are restrict. So increasing the developer freedom does not increase freedom in the general term, as I said from the beginning, but can actually restrict freedom as a result.
And thanks to patent law restrictive licenses tend to affect far more than you think they do. By allowing someone to use your work to create a proprietary application you give this person the possibility to patent the result, thus preventing others from achieving similar solutions and further restricting user's rights. GPL prevents that.
Which is completely irrelevant to the argument. By allowing a restrictive license to exist you always give options to developer at the cost of taking choices from the user, even if some choices as "not using the software" still remain.
I am not trying to blame developer A, only pointing that by choosing a license other than GPL developer A allowed developer B to close source his software and release it under a proprietary license, which obviously restricts user rights. So although developer A is not directly to blame by any choice of developer B, the license chosen by A increases developer B freedom and decreases user freedom.
You may be comfortable with using software whose source cannot be examined by you or by anyone else but the developer, but that is your choice. By taking this choice from users you are restricting their freedom.
Certainly more freedom to the developer, but your ability to choose the license you want is also in a way the ability to limit the freedom of others if you so wish, or in this case the ability to grant another the ability to limit user choices.
More freedom to the developers always comes at the cost of less freedom to the user. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but it just debunks the theory that more license options implies in more freedom in the general sense.
Or so you say,
My point is, that unlike your example, a big and catastrophic Earthquake in Japan is actually a reasonably possibility and almost a certainty in long term, as is a big Earthquake in California as other natural catastrophes, wars and many other things that can make fiat currencies rapidly devalue. The point is fiat currencies are not immune to external factors and can suffer volatility similar to BTC, as has already happened time and time again in the past.
I don't see why should I trust a currency that is based in a clear and known mathematical algorithm less than than I would trust currencies that can be freely tampered with by governments. BTC may be more volatile in average (at least for now), but it is certainly less due to catastrophic failure than any fiat currency in existence.
Presumably,
The OS 6.1 for 3GS with striped features is about as "updated" as Android 2.3.6.
There are no guarantees in this world. Japan could be leveled by the biggest Earthquake ever tomorrow and Yen could plummet into oblivion, for example. The only reasonable reassurance of a market comes from use, and Bitcoin use is increasing.
Assuming you have Japanese taxes to pay, which is not the case or most of us here.
It is irrelevant if there is a country in the world that accepts a given currency as a means of payment for taxes when you have absolutely no need or intention to use it to this end.
We don’t really know how this coin is created.
Translation: I don't have a clue about how it works, so it is bad.
There is a very clear explanation of how Bitcoins are created and the system that creates them, for anyone who cares to look for it and read the explanation, but why would Mr Forbes do that before writing about the subject?
It is not impossible. It is just far more likely that he is being persecuted, though. He was judged guilty for things that accordingly to Swedish law, shouldn't ever grant the ridiculous fines he got and much less prison time by the Swedish law. The judge who judged the case was a member of the pro-copyright lobby as was the judge who judged the in second instance, but neither felt that there was any conflict of interests in their judging the case. And now, after he was hunted and extradited for his heinous copyright crimes some new "evidence" appears against him, after they held him 6 months in prison looking for such evidence, without further explanations or charges.
Next time you try to accuse someone of lack of critical thinking, try to look yourself at the mirror first.
Your assumptions are false. There is a lot to be had by persecuting and searing the reputation of a person who is still seen positively by those you want to intimidate. And Assange's case and the Piratebay judgement already proved that the Swedish judicial system is hopeless corrupt a easily maneuvered by external pressures.
Your answer is: no you do not. Even if you can restrict the scope of the transmissions to your property by shielding it you still cannot legally do it without FCC authorization. You can only use FCC approved equipment within FCC restraints as you can do outside your property. Obviously within a shielded property nobody will likely know what you are doing, and you will likely get away with it, but you are still doing something illegal.
Private businesses own the spectrum in question. And other private businesses want to block access to those airwaves on their own property. What you're arguing for is that the government should have the ability to tell you what you can (and cannot) do on your own property with regards to wireless spectrum.
No, they do not own it. Not in any country I know, including US. The spectrum is not ownable. All the EM spectrum is considered a public resource whose use is controlled by the government. The government can grant concessions for people and companies to use parts of it, but even then those parts are still not their property. You can physically block signals within your property by shielding it, but you cannot do that by emitting any signal without authorization.
And therefore you still don't have any privacy. You use credit cards, have a bank account and the govern you naively trust have a lot of information about you.
That leaves the rest of your life, of course, it's hard to wear your Guy Fawkes mask everywhere.
Exactly.
Unless you go live in a cave that is unfortunately untrue. You have no choice. All you can do is not to offer voluntarily information about yourself, but information will come from you compulsorily and leak time and time again.
No you cannot, and the major responsibles for that are the governments with their increasing hunger for information and control.
There is no such thing as privacy for a time now. And Google is not even the major responsible for that. Thinking otherwise is an illusion.
Nah. Google is reacting to Apple's several lawsuits against Android.
Sure he did, but one of them is just reacting to the other.
No, are Store A and Store B's 30% cuts equally excessive?
Sure they are.
Is Store B's cut now acceptable because you can use the open air market on the outskirts?
Again, sure it is, and lets forget that in our case it is not only a single market in the outskirts. There is one other big store competing, several mid sized stores, and many open market stalls spread throughout the town.
Store A and Store B own all the land the respective towns are built on
Which is only true for store A. Store B doesn't own the land and cannot prevent you from putting your vendor shack anywhere, even if it wanted.
Sure it is, but the difference here is that nobody needs to sell through Google Play to sell android applications. There are several other android stores and developers can even sell applications at their own web sites, as Humblebundle does, for example. If you don't like their fee you are not forced to sell though them and they cannot prevent you from selling your Apps elsewhere.
30% is far to much, and extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have.