I don't have a bias against gays and lesbians, but I'd have no trouble using the word "outed". There's enough social disapproval that some people like to keep their sexual preferences secret, and their private life should not be arbitrarily publicized by somebody else. There's social disapproval against owners of whatever the media is calling assault rifles today, also.
Some of these games are indeed targeted as kids. I have no idea why anybody would expect an adult to buy virtual smurfberries.
They're thinking that they authorized one purchase, and were billed for a lot more. Next question?
Google isn't doing anything illegal by having their system. They are, however, claiming the ability to charge you for things that you didn't authorize, without making that clear at the time. A legal contract is a meeting of the minds, and Google made it very easy to avoid that meeting.
Google can legally allow charges in this situation. Being legally able to collect is another thing entirely.
No, the adult didn't tell the cashier that. The adult used the card in the presence of the child. That's all.
Um, have you tried that with iOS? My son had no difficulty activating his iPad, despite not having a credit card (and following my advice about not using his debit card on line).
Non sequitur. I treated my son in different ways as he matured, not paying much attention to age-appropriate behavior (except for the times I started to tell him to act his age, and realized he was). He started very immature, and gained maturity as he aged. Since age is arbitrary, should I have treated him the same at 3 years old and 13, when he was much more responsible and self-controlled?
Hypothetical situation: You have the kid, and you find you need to do something (deal with another person, whatever), and it takes longer than you'd thought. The three-year-old is getting bored, and there's nothing to do that isn't potentially destructive. Is it so far-fetched to imagine that you could buy an entertainment app and then hand the phone to the kid to keep him amused for a few minutes?
How about handing them a device that can generate such charges without you realizing it?
In steady state, loans going out are balanced by loans being repaid, and fractional reserve lending is irrelevant to inflation. For every dollar (or whatever) originally deposited, there is a fixed limit (depending on the reserve rate) of loans that can come from that. There could be inflationary effects when FRL is getting going, but not once it's stabilized.
Now, suppose I deposit $1000, and in a given period I'm going to get $10 in interest. You borrow $900 of that, and agree to pay $20 in interest over that period. In practice, you spend that money on something, and don't keep it. Either you have additional money intended to pay the interest (such as a home mortgage) or you intend to make money with your loan, so you can pay the interest. Anyway, at the end of the period, you pay $920, I have $1010, and the bank has made $10. That $10 hasn't gone out of existence, so if you can make $10 off me and $10 off the bank (by providing goods and/or services we want), and enough to recoup your original investment, you can pay off the loan and everything's even again.
Please explain where the mathematical impossibility is in the above.
Sure. Then the FBI manages to pin the original wallet on you, and finds you spent 20 bitcoins of frozen assets, because if they have the wallet info they can tell what was spent when (correct me if I'm wrong). Cash is potentially traceable, but you aren't going to leave a possible eternal audit trail.
MMORPG currency is the extreme in centralized control. All transactions are recorded in one database, and if it's relational it's a matter of doing one transaction with one debit and one credit.
Banks do not keep track of every banking transaction everywhere. If I transfer money from my account at First National Bank into your Second National Bank account, it's not going to affect business between Singapore and Tokyo. In some ways, it's far less centralized than BTC.
At which point I have dealings with my bank. In practice, this doesn't seem to be a big problem. There is electronic theft, but people don't usually seem to permanently lose lots of money, and it's hard to get the money out of the banking system so the profits (and therefore temptations) are limited. Very often the money can be retrieved.
None of that applies to BTC.
My experience is that they charge fees but I haven't had any other problems. I've heard horror stories, but they seem to be due to too little regulation.
If I want to send money to somebody using BTC, I have to buy BTC, send it to them (the easy part), and they have to sell BTC. The first and last steps require trustworthy exchanges, which seem a bit scarce right now, and probably involve fees. I don't know what the fees are likely to be, but it wouldn't be difficult for them to exceed Paypal fees.
There are bad laws, yes, and there always will be.
Steve Jobs did not bribe his way to the top. He found the optimal place to live and moved there until he got his transplant. Anybody with savings could do the same thing. (He also had the ability to get to other transplant centers fast, which the average person could not do, but that was secondary.) The fact that not everybody has the money and/or insurance for a transplant is a failure of the US health care system, as opposed to laws limiting the transplants.