Thats an odd thing to say, considering there are millions of people in Africa that still live as if the developed world doesn't exist - subsistence farming using manual labour, hoes and oxen (just like we did a few hundred years ago), little to no access to modern medical practices (just like us a few hundred years ago), little access to education (just like us a few hundred years ago), little access to electricity (just like us a few hundred years ago) etc etc.

These people go about their daily lives tending the fields, trading small amounts of produce with each other and the surrounding villages, living in mud huts, boiling water over wood burning fires and treating broken bones with wooden splints. If someone can afford a token amount of modern medical help, they walk (or get carried) for dozens of miles to attend a clinic, otherwise they make do without.

In the event of a global collapse, these people will simply carry on as before.

Depends how much the transaction is for - here in the UK we have a £30 limit under which we can simply use NFC touch and go, no pin needed.

I take it that you are ascribing the Korean DMZ mine fields to the South Koreans then, even though they are supplied, placed and maintained by US forces?

No, HIPPA doesn't cover you plastering your own information all over the internet.

That worked well for Zimbabwe, hasn't it?

Greece doesn't need a currency, it needs liquidity - a crypto currency won't bring that. The entire current issue is not about which currency to go for, its how Greece keeps paying its creditors - if they can't service their current debts, their ability to borrow goes through the floor, and a crypto currency isn't going to reverse that. Greece can't back its own crypto currency with anything it has a monopoly on either because it doesn't have anything that valuable.

Did you even read the link you posted? It merely backs up exactly what I said - they don't have a monopoly on it, but claim to anyway.

The fact that it is a global non-profit doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.

The fact that they support and promote the open source movement doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.

The fact that they maintain a definition which they created doesn't give them doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.

The fact that they maintain a list of licenses which comply with their aforementioned definition doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.

Basically all that page says is "we made up a definition of 'open source' against which everyone else must measure up" and now they stomp around claiming to own the term. Fuck them.

Creating a definition doesn't give you exclusive rights to the term you are defining - they created one definition, that's all. That doesn't give them the right to claim themselves as the only measuring stick against the term - so saying "its not open source" is nothing more than marketing bullshit from them, because they have not added the proviso of "as per our definition of the term".

What about all those nefarious apps in the Android app store? Do you recommend not using Android either?

...it is not at all appropriate for [TrueCrypt] to describe itself as "open source." This use of the term "open source" to describe something under a license that's not only unapproved by OSI

Seriously, talk about pretentious - sorry, OSI you don't get to decide who gets to use the term, you don't have a monopoly on it.

You do - you can stay on the version of the software that works for you, you don't have to switch to a new version. And they don't have to put new versions of the software out.

Except a middle man does take a cut, because you pay to have the transaction written into the blockchain...

Why is it the worst possible name? Its supposed to give you a brand new view into your data - so in essence it is giving you the benefit of hindsight.

Why the hell should they offer anything? It was a mistake, tough luck. Why does the topic of compensation come up for every simple mistake these days?

So what if you were disappointed - welcome to the real world, sometimes your hopes are dashed after being raised.

Microsoft was a declared monopoly competing against no one in the desktop market - and actively attempting to prevent anyone from competing with them w.r.t to browser.

There is no such thing as a "declared monopoly", the government court cases we regularly refer to here on Slashdot that covered such issues as bundling IE, preventing OEMs from installing third party software, bullying OEMs into not carrying competitors products etc were the thing which proved Microsoft had a monopoly and that they were abusing it - no one "declared" that they had a monopoly.

And this Google issue is basically exactly the same - its a court case that will decide whether they have any undue influence over the market due to any dominance, and whether that influence is used to further unrelated products or in an anticompetitive manner.

The court case will decide whether they have "the right to bundle their product line anyway they want" - in exactly the same manner as the cases against Microsoft decided the very same thing for them.

American analogy: why does McDonalds force me to use their french fries in a combo deal? They should be required to offer Burger King's fries, or cook the ones I bring form home for me!

Uhm, can't you see how utterly off the point this analogy is, and how badly it fails?

The proper analogy is not McDonalds selling you a product directly, and getting to decide what goes in it (thats the Apple approach - a full product, top to bottom, directly to the consumer and not through OEMs).

The proper analogy is McDonalds agreeing to allow you to open a shop selling their burgers, on the condition that the public wifi in use in the building is one that they also provide. Completely separate products being bundled together for no reason other than McDonalds ends up supplying both.

The problem is not that you can't ship with Google products, its that you can't ship with *some* Google products - if you want the Play store, you have to also have X, Y and Z - oh, and you must also send all search traffic to Google as well.

So basically, you either get to bundle the best app store and go fully Google, or you get to cause your end users issues by bundling the second best app store but get to use your own solutions for other things such as search.

Why should Google be allowed to tie the search provider for the phone to the app store provider for the phone? That's the kind of thing Microsoft got shat on for.