Schmidt: Google Once Considered Issuing Currency

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Schmidt: Google Once Considered Issuing Currency

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 28, 2012 @05:10PM from the not-willing-to-nationalize-the-us-government-yet dept.

itwbennett writes "In his keynote speech at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said the company once 'had various proposals to have [its] own currency [it was] going to call Google Bucks.' The idea was to implement a 'peer-to-peer money' system, but it was squelched by legal issues."

138 of 189 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Digital Rothschilds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Give me controll of a nation's money supply and i care who not sets its laws...."
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Given Google's veracity for hegemony, this type of news does not surprise me.
1. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actual quote: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
2. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Fluffeh · 2012-02-28 17:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  One would argue that they might not do a better job compared to the leaders that we currently vote in.
  Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country. I wonder how many might not try to be a part of such a thing. I often wondered what would happen if a group started buying up adjoining land and reserved it for new members, and spread out and out as more members joined. Set up a civilised statute early on and let people come in as they wanted to.
  It would be like colonising an already colonised land through market transactions and finance. I also think it would scare the bejesus out of the governments.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
3. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Entropius · 2012-02-28 17:35 · Score: 2
  
  I would sign up for this in a heartbeat.
4. Re:Digital Rothschilds by sg_oneill · 2012-02-28 17:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country.
  Awesome, two sets of laws to follow instead of one! Why just the other day I was thinking "Shit , you know what I dont have enough of in my life? Laws!"
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
5. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Luckyo · 2012-02-28 17:44 · Score: 2
  
  It would simply die to lack of recognition. It doesn't work if no one recognises you as a country, and no one would.
  Sure, you could set extra rules, laws and power structure. But these would only exist on top of what is already in existence in the location of your choice. These mechanisms already exist in many countries, ranging from religious enclaves in Israel and Amish settlements in USA to anarchists of Freetown of Christiania. There are also lesser cases of this, like agreeing to arbitrage by certain courts (for example sharia courts in UK).
6. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  go for it...
  http://www.wirtland.com/
7. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Gideon+Wells · 2012-02-28 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  You think laws are bad enough in lagging behind technology? This would take it to a whole new level. I can see it now.
  "By joining this territory free country you have rejected your citizenship in every physical country. The international laws do not recognize virtual countries. We are going to keep you in this cell for a while..."
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
8. Re:Digital Rothschilds by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-28 17:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!
9. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-02-28 17:59 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  There are also lesser cases of this, like agreeing to arbitrage by certain courts (for example sharia courts in UK).
  There are sharia courts in the UK? SCARY!
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
10. Re:Digital Rothschilds by EdZ · 2012-02-28 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  There are also lesser cases of this, like agreeing to arbitrage by certain courts (for example sharia courts in UK)
  Only if you fall into the insane alternate universe inhabited by the Daily Fail or similar nonsense-rags.
11. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Luckyo · 2012-02-28 18:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why? If people feel that they can get arbitrage which suits their beliefs better then government's system, and all parties agree to such arbitrage, and such arbitrage is fully compliant with the existing laws, why is it scary?
  I'll assume this was just a bad case of sarcasm malfunction on my part.
12. Re:Digital Rothschilds by timeOday · 2012-02-28 18:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Arbitration (not arbitrage) occurs in various contexts all the time. The same people who freak out about Muslims doing this among themselves, of course, have no qualms about this common practice in business, for example. Or maybe they are just mad because they assume the Muslims stole the idea from 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 in the New Testament (yes, secular courts are clearly unbiblical).
13. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Corbets · 2012-02-28 19:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Given Google's veracity for hegemony, this type of news does not surprise me.
  I'm guessing you meant voracity - but their habitual truthfulness in leadership may also be unsurprising, I don't know.
14. Re:Digital Rothschilds by phantomfive · 2012-02-28 19:39 · Score: 2
  
  "Give me controll of a nation's money supply and i care who not sets its laws...."
  When I read that quote, I think, "So, a banker thinks he's the most important person in the country. Who would have guessed that a banker would have an overinflated ego?"
  
  Seriously, the one making laws has so many ways to rip control from the one controlling the money, that only a serious lack of creativity could make you believe that the banker was more powerful. To take one example from US history, the lawmakers could confiscate everyone's gold.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
15. Re:Digital Rothschilds by CodeBuster · 2012-02-28 19:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!
  That's like living in the "People's Republic of Suburbia", complete with central committee (HOA board), secret police (rent-a-cops), and informants (nosy neighbors).
16. Re:Digital Rothschilds by LordSnooty · 2012-02-28 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  They do exist - without official recognition but if both sides agree to use one they can be as legally enforceable as a contract.
17. Re:Digital Rothschilds by gl4ss · 2012-02-28 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  arbitrage is fully compliant with the existing laws
  in which case no need for arbitrage was necessary, really. but in context of sharia.. it's not fully compliant in any way nor would it's decisions be lawfully binding so..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
18. Re:Digital Rothschilds by crutchy · 2012-02-28 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  so when you lose your job, do you sign up to their corporate welfare office?
  
  if i were a shareholder of such corporation, I would think it were a good idea
  
  corporations have no ethics. we would all wind up being slaves to corporate gluttony
19. Re:Digital Rothschilds by JoelKatz · 2012-02-28 21:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sharia arbitration courts issue rulings that are legally binding on those who have agreed to be bound by them. So, for example, if you and I both wanted to, we could enter into a contract that stipulates that any disputes that arise over the terms of the contract would be settled by a Sharia arbitration court. The rulings would be legally enforceable, provided:
  1) The only parties were those who had agreed by contract to be bound by the arbitration prior to the dispute arising.
  2) The case is purely civil, not criminal.
  3) The court doesn't violate public policy. (For example, if the court refused to allow women to testify, the ruling would likely be unenforceable.)
  Orthodox Jews and several other groups have their own "courts" that arbitrate disputes among those who consent by contract to their jurisdiction. Generally, their rulings are enforceable in ordinary civil courts.
20. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Cryacin · 2012-02-28 22:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, there are already several principalities around the world. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River
  
  The problem is how to be legally recognised as a seperate country. There have been several groups who have decided to take the easiest legal route, which is to declare war upon a country. Note that in the wikipedia article, the declaration of war is mentioned in the history section. The Australian government did not acknowledge these letters officially, as this would give creedence to the country's secession. They have issued their own coins, code of laws, and a tax rate of 0.5%.
  
  There are many such countries out there, but what has not been done to date, is a serious quantity of land to be bought by a serious number of citizens, an army mounted, and a genuine declaration of war. This would seriously best be done in a place such as Africa or regions of South America where there are areas of land that can be bought at reasonable rates, whilst not being a pacific island that would hold difficulties in sustaining a substantial population.
  
  Perhaps one day the need will be large enough for people to collectively leave and equitably found their own country, but don't forget, established countries will first scoff at a new country, possibly impose trade sanctions if they don't tow the line, and finally, simply declare war and "liberate" it from the "terrorists".
  
  The issues of state are far removed from the issues of daily life.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
21. Re:Digital Rothschilds by makomk · 2012-02-28 22:49 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, there's a special provision in UK law for religious courts that was only moved into the law on binding arbitration in general a few years ago, though even then I think they could only rule on cases where both parties had agreed to be bound by their ruling. The law was created in order to allow Jewish religious courts, so is unlikely to go away any time soon.
22. Re:Digital Rothschilds by CRCulver · 2012-02-28 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  "Give me controll of a nation's money supply and i care who not sets its laws...."
  
  That is a spurious quotation. There's no evidence Rothschild ever said such a thing. And considering that a great many instances of that quotation on the web are from white supremacist websites, by perpetuating it you don't make yourself look too good (though perhaps that's why you're an AC).
23. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Cryacin · 2012-02-28 23:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Israel was not established and ratified as a purchased country. It was held by the brits from the second world war, and when the British Mandate was about to expire, they declared independence. It was ratified as a country by the UN, which is quite distinct from the international law doctrine of natural ratification through the declaration of war upon another sovereign.
  
  Even though I'm probably feeding the worst kind of troll, I thought I would correct it before more misinformation was spread.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
24. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Pax681 · 2012-02-29 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the Federal Reserve isn't directly elected, and Bernanke et. all are doing a fairly good job. Inflation has been near rock bottom without ever going into deflation for years now, they've done just about everything they can to manage since 2008, including ditching any hint of presidential and congressional approval to make massive temporary loans to banks in order to keep more of them from going Lehman Brother on us, probably keeping the US and much of the rest of the world from collapsing into a second great depression. All said loans were swiftly paid back, and since the Fed has been responsible for the quickest, most coherent response to the recent hard economic times out of just about any governmental body in the world.
  Not that they haven't made some quibbling mistakes, inflation might technically be too low, helping banks to sit on top of cheap mounds of capital without the need to restart the process of actually giving out loans. But for the most part they've been doing an excellent job.
  all said loans paid back.. oh yeah and then swiftly claimed back against their tax bill and thus they didn't really pay it back if you know what i mean. it was just fucking free money to the banks
  in fact you will find the only people really paying interest on those loans would have been the US Govt , and thus the tax payer,who would have borrowed it from the Federal Reserve you better believe the Federal reserve would want it back with that interest.
  it was bankers bailing out bankers with a get out clause for returning the payment.. ie the ability to write it off against tax as a "legitimate" business expense
  Also the problem with havering VERY low interest rates is that unemployment goes up... this is a basic economic principle... the really key is finding the equilibrium between interest rates and unemployment rates and the banks don't really give a fuck about that they only care about the bottom line.
25. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Ash+Vince · 2012-02-29 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  People don't freak out about arbitration, they freak out about the sharia. You know because they stone people and hate women and stuff and think it's ok because the sharia demands it.
  If two muslims get some sort of sharia judgement in the UK that involves stoning someone to death, they are most likely both going to prison for a very long time unless they dispose of the corpse nice and quietly and nobody else finds out.
  As a brit I have no problems with a couple of Muslims settling their differences outside court by whatever means the like. Just don't expect me to be bound by that shit for a second.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
26. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 00:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Google: "Don't be evil"
  Money = root of all evil
  Google Bucks =? Divide by zero
27. Re:Digital Rothschilds by dimeglio · 2012-02-29 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck getting other countries to recognize your virtual nation.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
28. Re:Digital Rothschilds by saider · 2012-02-29 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Also the problem with havering VERY low interest rates is that unemployment goes up... this is a basic economic principle...
  This isn't necessarily cause and effect. Low interest rates are used to stimulate investment, which is typically done during times of economic distress. Yes you will see low interest rates when there is high unemployment, but low interest rates doesn't necessarily cause the unemployment. Rather the conditions that cause unemployment cause the Fed to lower interest rates.
  The problem we have now is that the Fed is lending with zero interest and there is still not a lot of investment, mainly because the banks are using the money to fill the gaping hole left by the collapse of the housing market and all the derivatives that evaporated back in 2008. The only way the Fed can improve on zero percent interest is to pay the banks to take the money. But then there is no guarantee that the banks will lend that money back out.
  Nevermind that money is pretty much imaginary (ones and zeros) these days. The Fed doesn't even have to print anything. They just adjust the balance on their books and call it "quantitative easing".
  
  --
  
  Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
29. Re:Digital Rothschilds by w_dragon · 2012-02-29 01:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Really it's the people who control the police, courts, and military. If all of the above can be bribed then yes, the bankers will run the country. If they can't then the lawmakers run the country. If they are all made up of citizens who don't feel they are above their own laws then the citizens run the country. Generally it's some mix, different countries have different balances of power based on who is capable of being above the law.
30. Re:Digital Rothschilds by dave420 · 2012-02-29 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Next time you should not assume such things, as it makes you look a bit knee-jerky-fox-watchy.
31. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Stormthirst · 2012-02-29 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Where does it say that?
32. Re:Digital Rothschilds by stdarg · 2012-02-29 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's not just people settling their differences outside of court, it's a legally enforceable arbitration process. So if one says "Eh, you know what, I changed my mind I don't like this sharia garbage" too bad.
  But I thought contracts or other agreements that have elements of discrimination is unenforceable? For instance if you said "To rent my property you have to agree to arbitration by Jim Crow law" -- and you apply that equally to all people -- that's still discriminatory against blacks and it wouldn't be enforceable.
  Sharia has even more problems because its discriminatory status can change over time. For instance if you agree at time X to sharia arbitration, then at time X+1 you leave Islam and become Christian, what happens? Christians are discriminated against under sharia, so are you still bound by the sharia decision?
  An agreement isn't supposed to be enforceable if it violates your rights and any agreement based on sharia does that, since sharia restricts your basic freedoms like freedom of religion which are in effect at all times in all situations.
33. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Stormthirst · 2012-02-29 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  corporations have no ethics. we would all wind up being slaves to corporate gluttony
  Hasn't that happened already?
34. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Stormthirst · 2012-02-29 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate
35. Re:Digital Rothschilds by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-29 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL; but there are a few, specific, cases where that(or something close enough for that to be approximately true) holds; but it is not a general matter.
  
  Section 105 of Public Law 108-21, for instance, makes it a domestic crime to engage in certain flavors of sex tourism involving children, regardless of the legality and enforcement(or lack thereof) in the local jurisdiction.
  
  I suspect that there is a patchwork of similar bandaid-type stuff regarding a few other hot categories of 'stuff the feds don't want you doing offshore', probably some financial things and/or stuff related to drug importation.
36. Re:Digital Rothschilds by FatdogHaiku · 2012-02-29 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  ... Love of Money = root of all evil
  FTFY
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
37. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Sigg3.net · 2012-02-29 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thing about govt is that there can be only one. A system such as the one you describe would be permitted only until it was fat enough for slaughter.
  Military trumps "terrorist assets" any day.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
38. Re:Digital Rothschilds by ironjaw33 · 2012-02-29 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Taiwan might be a better example. It meets your criteria of people moving to a particular place to declare sovereignty (or at least freedom from Communist rule). However, they have had difficulty in getting other nations to recognize their sovereignty, but if they didn't claim sovereignty over mainland China I wonder if things would be different.
39. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Hal_Porter · 2012-02-29 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh nonsense. I used to be very loyal to Microsoft until they introduced Windows Phone 7. Now I've switched over to Android and its a brilliant platform. It's free. You can write leave shit mostly in C/C++. It doesn't have the horrid Linux userland. It's not made by Apple.
  Also unlike Microsoft Google have a motto "Don't be evil". Microsoft's was "I'm gonna fucking kill Google" or maybe "Developers! Developers! Developers! [will need to rewrite every damn line of code in C#, pay us big bucks for a native code pass like the one we gave free to Adobe and EA or fuck off to Android. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, peasant]".
  So clearly Google are completely trustworthy. I say we let them have Corporate Marines and go off and harvest xenomorphs as biological weapons for use in their battle against Microsoft and obsolete ideas like privacy, individuality and not wanting to view the world through compulsory Google Goggles nanoimplants.
  Honestly if there's one thing you can trust about US megacorps is that they'll never screw over the developers, because it's not in their interests. Unless they're making a power play to force you to use a more proprietary technology than the one you used for the last decade, or they're a bit short of resources because the new outsourced development isn't working so well, or the marketing guys get a bad batch of drugs and start fearing The Bad Elves just before they write up the next quarter's strategy.
  Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
40. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Xeranar · 2012-02-29 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair it was not as sinister as it implies. It is the thinking that central banking has more affect on economics than legislature action. It isn't as if they could overrule the government on murder or control something in a deeper way. Also this is why in almost every modern western country the government has control of the money supply and sets policy from there...Including the US. We just simply choose to use a more autonomous system to avoid it being directly affected by short-term politics.
41. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Pax681 · 2012-02-29 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  oh yeah and then swiftly claimed back against their tax bill and thus they didn't really pay it back
  You don't seem to understand how tax deductions work. Let me guess, you are one of those people that given the opportunity to pay off your mortgage you wouldn't just so you could continue to take the tax deduction on the interest you're paying.
  . Posting anonymously because I do not feel like arguing with someone who uses [fucking] emotion rather than reason to form their opinion.
  erm.. i don't have a mortgage because......... my mortgage is paid off.......
42. Re:Digital Rothschilds by NonUniqueNickname · 2012-02-29 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  It was held by the brits from the second world war
  First World War, not Second World War.
43. Re:Digital Rothschilds by SleazyRidr · 2012-02-29 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the love of money that's the root of all evil, it's the lack of money.
  [Hideously paraphrased from Rich Dad Poor Dad]
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
44. Re:Digital Rothschilds by SleazyRidr · 2012-02-29 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  For instance if you agree at time X to sharia arbitration, then at time X+1 you leave Islam
  Well, leaving Islam carries a penalty of death under Sharia, so you won't live long enough for it to be a problem.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
45. Re:Digital Rothschilds by __aailob1448 · 2012-02-29 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Neal Stephenson used that very idea as a backdrop for two of his best novels: Snow Crash and The Diamond Age. Both incredibly entertaining reads, especially if you like sci-fi.
46. Re:Digital Rothschilds by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-29 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  believe this would reduce number of criminals in all western civilization because of fear from having your hand cut off (if you steal) or your head chopped off (in case you kill somebody) because current punishments of our legal system is so light too many people decide to go for life of crime
  We've had much harsher penalties, including torture and torture killing, historically in the Western civilization as well. It didn't help to deter crime - most criminals just don't believe that they'll ever get caught.
  Meanwhile, while we don't do all that nasty kind of stuff anymore, crime rates are at historic lows throughout Western countries. Especially if you look at those crimes committed by citizens who are not recent immigrants.
47. Re:Digital Rothschilds by painandgreed · 2012-02-29 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  arbitrage is fully compliant with the existing laws
  in which case no need for arbitrage was necessary, really. but in context of sharia.. it's not fully compliant in any way nor would it's decisions be lawfully binding so..
  So, essentially, you the People's Court (American TV show if you didn't know), which is the same concept, scary? People drop their civil lawsuits and enter into a contract to let somebody else decide the issue with the result being backed up by contract law. It's the same thing.
48. Re:Digital Rothschilds by crutchy · 2012-02-29 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  yes, but i don't really feel like congratulating them for it any more than i have to
49. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Ash+Vince · 2012-03-01 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's not just people settling their differences outside of court, it's a legally enforceable arbitration process.
  No, it isnt. If you think it is please post the relevant statute that makes it so.
  Any agreement between two parties in England or Wales is bound by the English law of contract. You can agree to anything you like but you cannot exempt you contract from English law. Likewise you can go to a sharia court for a divorce decision, but if one party decides they don't like the outcome they can go straight to the real court and see if they prefer that instead.
  In most cases people respect Sharia Law simply because their religion is important to them. It is not in the least bit legally enforceable by the english courts. It might be that you went to a court after you got the sharia decision and it turned out that in this case as you had both agreed to be bound by the sharia decision it did apply, but that is only because our law of contract had allowed you to sign that right of legal redress away.
  There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
50. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Stormthirst · 2012-03-01 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  What I find particularly ironic about what I understand of America is that they fought so hard (and continue to fight) against government tyranny - they let tyranny pass in the form of corporations. At least you can (nominally) vote out the people in government!
51. Re:Digital Rothschilds by NewYork · 2012-03-01 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland
  
  --
  Casteism
52. Re:Digital Rothschilds by stdarg · 2012-03-04 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, it isnt. If you think it is please post the relevant statute that makes it so.
  Umm... results of arbitration are legally enforceable. See the Arbitration Act of 1996. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents)
  Maybe you don't know how these sharia courts are set up in the UK. They operate as arbitration tribunals that both parties have agreed to.
  The problem, as I pointed out and you seem to have skipped over, is that sharia courts are discriminatory, and that a person's freedoms in religion, lifestyle, etc, may cause the sharia court to become discriminatory at a later date. For instance, if you, a Muslim, rent an apartment from me, another Muslim and agree to arbitration by sharia.. and then you become Christian.. and then next year we have a dispute? Guess what, the court will discriminate against you. Your testimony won't count as much as mine, for instance.
  So to me that's quite obviously not a legitimate arbitration. Do you see the problem?
  Compare that to a normal court, where no matter what you do in your personal life, you will have the same rights and privileges in court.
  
  There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
  Yeah, and the problem with that is a lot of victims of these sharia courts don't know their rights. They hear idiots saying stuff like "yeah you agreed to this, it's like a contract" and don't know that many things may not be contractually enforceable. Like if your mullah says a young girl in an arranged marriage can't divorce her abusive husband.. well she may not know that in the West women have more rights and she actually can get a divorce.
  For such reasons, the mere specter of legitimacy is harmful to apply to sharia courts. It makes far more sense to say that Islamic law is not a valid basis for arbitration, no matter what you agree to, because its tenets are inherently discriminatory. Just rules of arbitration under Jim Crow law would be illegal and unenforceable.. in fact if you advertised something like housing with a requirement to sign arbitration under Jim Crow law, that itself would probably be illegal. Why should sharia be legal? It's religious freedom gone too far.
53. Re:Digital Rothschilds by Ash+Vince · 2012-03-05 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Compare that to a normal court, where no matter what you do in your personal life, you will have the same rights and privileges in court.
  There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
  Yeah, and the problem with that is a lot of victims of these sharia courts don't know their rights. They hear idiots saying stuff like "yeah you agreed to this, it's like a contract" and don't know that many things may not be contractually enforceable. Like if your mullah says a young girl in an arranged marriage can't divorce her abusive husband.. well she may not know that in the West women have more rights and she actually can get a divorce.
  For such reasons, the mere specter of legitimacy is harmful to apply to sharia courts. It makes far more sense to say that Islamic law is not a valid basis for arbitration, no matter what you agree to, because its tenets are inherently discriminatory. Just rules of arbitration under Jim Crow law would be illegal and unenforceable.. in fact if you advertised something like housing with a requirement to sign arbitration under Jim Crow law, that itself would probably be illegal. Why should sharia be legal? It's religious freedom gone too far.
  I was going to post a long discussion about the bits of your post that are crap (like your understanding of the act you quoted) then decided not bother when I read the above paragraph. You sound like you are purely informed by reading the Daily Mail once you start going on about Mullah's and young girls in fictitious bullshit illegal marriages.
  In the example you gave sharia law is utterly irrelevant, since the girl is under age she is not legally married therefore needs no divorce. And hubby better not think he is avoiding child abuse charges if he is in this country just because of their "marriage". It is just a made up bs bogey man sharia law story that you are probably too stupid to have even dreamt up yourself and instead just quoted it from whatever horseshit news media made it up for you.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
54. Re:Digital Rothschilds by stdarg · 2012-03-05 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're a bit unhinged about this subject since you are obviously very sensitive about it. It's not my fault that, even though I explicitly was talking about the sharia law implemented in arbitration processes, you refused to believe that it could be legally enforceable. I didn't misunderstand the law, I suspect you just have no clue what you're talking about.
  Also by young girl I didn't mean 5 years old, but nice try. As I've gotten older myself I realize how young 18 year olds are and how much advantage can be taken of them, especially if the system itself is used against them. Not a lot of 18 year olds have the fortitude to fight for their rights, especially when they don't know them.
  
  It is just a made up bs bogey man sharia law story that you are probably too stupid to have even dreamt up yourself and instead just quoted it from whatever horseshit news media made it up for you.
  Nice! Well here's my equally insightful rebuttal. I see that you're already brainwashed by Muslim propaganda and you're probably too stupid and blinded by political correctness to think for yourself instead of regurgitating whatever bullshit you heard from the local "liberal" mullah.
For the love of God... by imamac · 2012-02-28 17:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Please no more bit coin stories...oh...my bad.
1. Re:For the love of God... by mosb1000 · 2012-02-28 17:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, as opposed to "real" money, which is different in some meaningfull way, I assure you!
2. Re:For the love of God... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-28 17:44 · Score: 2
  
  Well of course private money supplies ranks right up there with private militias as a threat to democracy.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
3. Re:For the love of God... by OrangeTide · 2012-02-28 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  The key difference with "real" money is non-geeks readily accept it.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
4. Re:For the love of God... by rtb61 · 2012-02-28 21:05 · Score: 2
  
  In this case private money, or a system of internal credit is all about tax evasion and lock in. Goggle would have gained the opportunity to trade in services tax free, buying in for example user content with goggle currency and then on-selling that content for goggle currency not taxable cash. It then treats purchases of google currency not as a purchase but as a deposit. It would then seek to block the sale of google currency for cash to drive lock in to the google currency system. For end users it allows them to trade google currency for services tax free. Once trade in the currency reached at certain level, laws would change and the shit would hit the fan in back taxes.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
5. Re:For the love of God... by diamondmagic · 2012-02-28 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Because Bitcoin is completely irrelevant to news for nerds. Oh, wait, no it isn't.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
6. Re:For the love of God... by Ihmhi · 2012-02-28 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  No please, keep them coming. Then maybe Google will buy Bitcoin, rebrand it as "Money+", and it will be gone within a year.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
7. Re:For the love of God... by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-29 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, besides the part where I can take it to any commercial establishment in my country, and have it accepted as payment for goods and services?
  Dollars have that, bitcoin does not.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
8. Re:For the love of God... by sidthegeek · 2012-02-29 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, since Bitcoin is Free software, technically they could just fork it and market it heavily. That would most likely kill the original project.
9. Re:For the love of God... by DrXym · 2012-02-29 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Even geeks accept real money. I realise there are a handful of people boosting bitcoin or similar harebrained virtual currency schemes but I suspect most of them were still hoping to cash out in real money while the going was good.
10. Re:For the love of God... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-29 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Goggle would have gained the opportunity to trade in services tax free, buying in for example user content with goggle currency and then on-selling that content for goggle currency not taxable cash.
  Any sane government would just treat that as barter, which is already legally taxed pretty much everywhere (usually at "fair market value").
11. Re:For the love of God... by mosb1000 · 2012-02-29 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you're serious ou not, but both those things were not unusual in the US during the 19th century. Several of the founding fathers actually felt public currency was a threat to democracy, that's why there was not initially a central bank.
I believe they did issue currency by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:23 · Score: 5, Funny

back in 2004 at an exchange rate of about 85 USD per share. The dollar hasn't fared so well against it since then.
1. Re:I believe they did issue currency by FreeUser · 2012-02-29 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  My credit card has issued its own currency, called "Thank You Points." The exchange rate is TYP 100 = USD 1.00, and has a volatility of zero. I exchange it for real cash whenever I hit 20,000 points or more.
  On the other hand, the dollar is doing very well against my bank's currency (BAC), though volatility has been quite high the last few years.
  
  --
  The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Google Citizenship by fredc97 · 2012-02-28 17:23 · Score: 1

With the new EULA they will probably introduce a Google Citizenship somewhere in there. This way you could simply sign in to Google+ at the various borders to prove your identity and the border patrol would in return Google your browsing history to see if you pose any threat to national security.
As for Google Bucks well they already have the Google shares which you can buy for their weight in gold and some more.
1. Re:Google Citizenship by Xeranar · 2012-02-29 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  That actually sounds like an intriguing way of dealing with passports. Outlandish for sure and meant to be satirical but intriguing none the less. We get into most foreign countries with far less background check unless we're traveling far and need a visa and even then they don't check that far, usually criminal records. I know /. is a hardcore paranoia crowd about what they look at on the internet (I can only imagine they must all be looking at giraffe porn...such long necks). But imagine an instant background check that factored in your internet history and other quickly attainable information to be let into a country and issued a visa on the spot rather than waiting months. I know nobody is going to go to a country seeking a visa without one but it's an example of the power of our internet browsing history as an acceptable and fast tool for background checks.
Currency? by Mitchell314 · 2012-02-28 17:25 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for the Google national flag and anthem.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
1. Re:Currency? by plover · 2012-02-28 18:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm not sure, but I imagine their anthem will go something like this:
  [chant and response]
  "What are we going to do today, Sergey?"
  "Same thing we do every day, Eric. Try to take over the world!"
  [music]
  They're Pinky and the Brain.
  Yes, Pinky and the Brain!
  One is a genius,
  The other is insane!
  They're laboratory mice.
  Their genes have been spliced!
  They're dinky, they're Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain,
  Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain,
  Brain.
  Before each night is done
  Their plan will be unfurled.
  By the dawning of the sun
  They'll take over the world.
  They're Pinky and The Brain.
  Yes, Pinky and The Brain
  Their twilight campaign
  Is easy to explain.
  To prove their mousy worth,
  They'll overthrow the Earth.
  They're dinky, they're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
  Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
  Narf!
  
  --
  John
2. Re:Currency? by Jappus · 2012-02-29 00:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A very subtle and easy alteration is all that is needed to make that joke fit that much better:
  [chant and response]
  "What are we going to do today, Sergey?"
  "Same thing we do every day, Larry. Try to take over the world!"
  [music]
  They're Page-y and the Brin.
  Yes, Page-y and the Brin!
  One is a genius,
  The other is insane!
  They're laboratory mice.
  Their genes have been spliced!
  They're dinky, they're Page-y and the Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin,
  Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin,
  Brin.
  Before each night is done
  Their plan will be unfurled.
  By the dawning of the sun
  They'll take over the world.
  They're Page-y and The Brin.
  Yes, Page-y and The Brin
  Their twilight campaign
  Is easy to explain.
  To prove their mousy worth,
  They'll overthrow the Earth.
  They're dinky, they're Page-y and The Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin
  Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin
  Narf!
3. Re:Currency? by tigre · 2012-02-29 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  A few seggestions:
  
  Try to take over the world
  Try to index the world's information
  
  They're Page-y and the Brin.
  Larry and the Brin?
  
  They're dinky, they're Page-y and the Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin,
  They're cagey, they're Page-y...
  They're scary, they're Larry...
  
  They'll take over the world
  They'll catalog the world
  
  They'll overthrow the earth
  They'll monetize the earth
4. Re:Currency? by Jappus · 2012-02-29 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  They're Page-y and the Brin.
  Larry and the Brin?
  Thought about it, but then the stickler in me pointed out that using the surname of one and the first name of another somehow feels ... off.
  And I guess I wouldn't be a true Slashdotter if I let unimportant things like rhyme and beauty override my (of course flawless) sense of reason. ;-)
Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Social Networking is missing a major concept right now. Everyone has something they want to sell. Why not let every social networking user setup a "web store" in their profile to sell things to other users. Think Facebook + Paypal + EBay. Some people will sell services, while others will sell crafts, home made things, or even used items. I know my local club, which has a Facebook group page, would love to sell T-Shirts and buttons to fans of ours. This seems like a missed opportunity. If Google want to get involved with commerce then all they need to do is set it up in Google+.
Don't get me started on my other Google rant. Google+ should have been named "Google Me". Would have been a lot more cool.
1. Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall? by Splab · 2012-02-28 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because craigslist already fills this niche, and somewhat better...
  I don't want to buy my friends used stuff - and I wouldn't sell it to them, if I have something I'm not using and my friend can use it it's his for free.
  If I want to buy something used I go to the local equivalent of craigslist.
2. Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall? by ajlisows · 2012-02-29 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, that seems like something that could get really ugly for facebook really quickly. It would be nice while everyone is happy with their transactions, but eventually there will be transactions that go wrong. I don't think Facebook wants to arbitrate "He sold me a PS3 game but it didn't work" over and over again.
Bitcoin? by Yvan256 · 2012-02-28 17:28 · Score: 1

Google Bitcoins? What?
1. Re:Bitcoin? by gox · 2012-02-28 18:35 · Score: 2
  
  Schmidt actually brought up Bitcoin himself. Full quote:
  
  6:36 pm Q: If it comes to real democracy, payment has to be peer-to-peer. Would you like to know about my technology called FairCash?
  6:37 pm A: Are you familiar with BitCoin? There are some issues with peer-to-peer money. In most cases it's illegal, besides that it's a great idea. We had our own proposal called Google Bucks, but we didn't want to get into these issues. Most of these systems will have reguatory
  issues.
Did they steal this idea... by MrEricSir · 2012-02-28 17:28 · Score: 1

...from Emperor Norton?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Re:This company scares me more and more by Mouldy · 2012-02-28 17:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then I guess that includes small indie games that have in-game currency or use Facebook credits (which are bought for real world money) should also be shut down. Or casinos that use chips rather than letting you bet at the tables with real money?

Point is, companies have had their own currencies for years. While some people might disagree with those practises - company-specific currency isn't intrinsically bad
Re:This company scares me more and more by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-28 17:46 · Score: 1

It's actually "Don't be evil", which some Googlers seem to interpret as a loophole.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
and? by Osgeld · 2012-02-28 17:54 · Score: 1

I once had the idea to bit bang digital audio out of a scsi port, pipe it over CB and decode it 8 miles away on a Packard Bell. Crazy ideas that failed to be is what keeps things rolling in the world... but since its google a basic idea that has failed many times gets a front page story based on 4 sentences
those damn geniuses, maybe next they will introduce the world to "social networking"!
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-28 17:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is government-issued currency any more legitimate?
Google Money.... Gooney? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2012-02-28 18:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder what the conversion rate of a 50 dollar bill is into Gooney.

Ah, Gooney sounds kinda lame, I'd have went for street rep instead and called it G-Money.

--
God spoke to me
Would you accept google's governance? by mykos · 2012-02-28 18:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Right now, we get nothing in return for getting all our private data rummaged through by the government.

At least google gives us useful free stuff.
1. Re:Would you accept google's governance? by JoelKatz · 2012-02-28 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  But they do buy it from everyone.
2. Re:Would you accept google's governance? by rmelton · 2012-02-29 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Our governments don't sell our private data to everyone.
  wrong!
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/frompost/march98/privacy9.htm
One requirement by basecastula+ · 2012-02-28 18:10 · Score: 2

a direct democracy with mandatory voting.
1. Re:One requirement by FireFury03 · 2012-02-28 19:58 · Score: 2
  
  So the right answer is just C??
  Seriously, think before you write stuff. Mandatory voting just gets you more uninformed morons voting. Even worse, they just vote randomly.
  If the morons voted randomly then it wouldn't be a problem - the signal is easilly extractable from random noise. The problem is that morons are usually easy to manipulate, so rather than adding random noise they add bias induced by the press.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:This company scares me more and more by basecastula+ · 2012-02-28 18:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is government-issued currency any more legitimate?
Because you can exchange it for goods that don't originate from said company. Much like cash as opposed to a gift card.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:15 · Score: 1

In thoery a country has significantly more assets to back its currency than google and whereas google could in theory disappear overnight with a few bad decisions, most countries will be here tomorrow, next year and possibly even the year after that, you definitely can't say the same of a company that depends 100% on virtual assets.
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-28 18:19 · Score: 1

This didn't sound like scrip though. Maybe I misinterpreted the article.
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-28 18:27 · Score: 1

Right, but the parent seemed to distrust companies with the power to issue money. It didn't seem to be an issue of whether the value of the currency was reliable. In fact, it was the opposite.
competing currencies = good by droidsURlooking4 · 2012-02-28 18:33 · Score: 1

Well if it was backed in ANYTHING it would have more going for it that USD. Long live Liberty Dollar!
1. Re:competing currencies = good by droidsURlooking4 · 2012-02-29 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  That really says something about the government and USD. But I concur, the best strategy would have been for Liberty Dollar to stick to coin at first until it was apparent the federal government wasn't going to try and steal it all. Then as the confidence grows, start issuing paper receipts. I can't see how the US govt. calling USLD counterfeit USD and putting von NotHaus in jail is different from the Stamp Act which ultimately lead to the (real) Boston Tea Party. Separately, with USD you DO have to worry about the government busting into the warehouse. Except for the fact that there is no warehouse, they just type it in the computer and "print" more money. That is stealing.
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-28 18:53 · Score: 1

So "backed by guys with guns" make a currency legitimate in your eyes? So a company with enough firepower could issue "legitimate currency"? I would think legitimacy has more to do with the way the people who control the money issuing is determined. I guess might makes right usually wins out in the end though.
Ripple Monetary System by crf00 · 2012-02-28 19:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

When I saw the phrase "peer to peer money's system" I immediately think of the Ripple Monetary System. Please also check out the new Ripple website, Villages.cc, created by Ripple's founder Ryan Fugger last year.

I am not sure whether Google was trying to do the same thing, but it would be a total waste if they gave up on the exact same idea. If there is one thing that Google should do with it's power, it would be P2P money. The entire economic system is in total mess now, and the whole world is in deep need right now for a better economic system, yet why is the financial regulation trying to stop all innovations happening?

The US government is seriously killing all financial innovations by labeling everything alternative to the USD as "money laundering". Remember how Liberty dollar and other gold currencies ended up? How about the countless payment startups that has been killed under the name "money laundering" during the dotcom boom? The Hawala System is very useful even today and it has a very similar concept to Ripple, but it's whole advantages are completely denied by US in the name of money laundering, again. I bet that the FBI would even declare Bitcoin as illegal when it generates enough threat.

I have only been staying in Stockholm for a month, but currently it gives me the feeling that Sweden and some other Europe countries have much more financial freedom than in US. If I were to create a startup based on alternative currencies ideas similar to Google's P2P money or Ripple, then Stockholm would be a much better place than Silicon Valley, all due to the absurd US anti-money laundering regulation.
1. Re:Ripple Monetary System by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  I also tried to build a currency based on Ripple once, but I couldn't remember where I'd hidden it all at when the hangover wore off.
2. Re:Ripple Monetary System by u38cg · 2012-02-28 21:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
3. Re:Ripple Monetary System by Kjella · 2012-02-29 02:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I have only been staying in Stockholm for a month, but currently it gives me the feeling that Sweden and some other Europe countries have much more financial freedom than in US. If I were to create a startup based on alternative currencies ideas similar to Google's P2P money or Ripple, then Stockholm would be a much better place than Silicon Valley, all due to the absurd US anti-money laundering regulation.
  Oh, I wouldn't bet on it. I'm in Norway, not Sweden but both fairly socialist countries that depend heavily on income taxes and sales taxes. Strictly speaking you can use cash most everywhere, but it's getting more and more biased against it. The last item they've been pushing is electronic tickets for local buses, because they don't want neither bus drivers nor ticket machines getting robbed. You get heavy price incentives to use electronic cards or to pay over your cell phone - there's no such thing as an anonymous cell phone here by the way, that was outlawed quite a few years ago so it's all traceable back to me and there's no such thing as an anonymous debit cards either, they're all registered to your unique id. If I pay any person or company over 10k NOK - about $1800 - in cash during a year, I can be charged as co-conspirator in their tax fraud if they cheat on their taxes for doing nothing other than paying in cash.
  Another example is the employee cafeteria, there are several I know of that no longer take cash, either taking just plastic directly or through their own cards you can only charge with plastic. Even if you're a homeless crack addict you don't get food coupons anymore, you get an electronic card only valid in the grocery store - but not for beer. Honestly if it wasn't for a generation of elderly who insist on using cash I'm pretty sure we'd have pushed through a cashless society, because while we're not so heavy on the organized crime and terrorism propaganda, there's plenty of the tax fraud, black economy, anti-robbery propaganda with a good smear of if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:Ripple Monetary System by DerekLyons · 2012-02-29 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  The US government is seriously killing all financial innovations by labeling everything alternative to the USD as "money laundering".
  Nope. Community currencies are as alive and well as they've ever been.
  
  Remember how Liberty dollar and other gold currencies ended up?
  The backers of the Liberty Dollar broke the law by revaluing their currency to something other than the US dollar. That the authorities took a dim view of breaking the law should neither be a surprise or be seen as evidence of some dark conspiracy. That, along with the list of community currencies in the link above should serve as evidence that you're either ill-informed, or operating on bias and assumptions rather than facts. (Or in the worst case, both.) The fact is, it's trivially easy and completely legal to start an alternative currency in the US and the laws surrounding them are astonishingly simple to comply with.
  
  Google's problems, I suspect, stem from the need/desire to operate an alternative currency internationally - which is indeed fraught with problems.
  
  If I were to create a startup based on alternative currencies ideas similar to Google's P2P money or Ripple, then Stockholm would be a much better place than Silicon Valley, all due to the absurd US anti-money laundering regulation.
  That sounds suspiciously like a "no true Scotsman" argument - especially as I doubt that Sweden doesn't have laws and regulations to prevent money laundering. In fact, a quick Google search reveals that indeed they do.
5. Re:Ripple Monetary System by russotto · 2012-02-29 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.
  Eliminate most of the crimes (that is, remove the laws making them illegal) that money laundering is used to cover up. The list would be something like
  #1: Drugs
  #2: Drugs
  #3: Drugs
  then you'd have prostitution, illegal gambling, and other vices.
  Once you got rid of those laws, you'd find that money laundering would be not nearly as effective in fighting crime, as most of your remaining crimes wouldn't be helped by it. Of course there'd still be some such crimes.
6. Re:Ripple Monetary System by u38cg · 2012-03-01 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Political reality, meet russotto. Russotto, this is political reality. Those things are not going to happen and are going to continue being crimes - I agree not all of them should be, but imagining they are going to go away is as pointless as voting for Ron Paul.
  And you didn't mention white-collar fraud, one of the best uses of anti-money laundering rules.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
Re:This company scares me more and more by Fjandr · 2012-02-28 19:29 · Score: 1

Pretty much any artificial medium of trade must be backed up by guns unless it is sufficiently hard to counterfeit or not accepted widely enough to be worth counterfeiting.
They Used That One Thing They Never Use? by Greyfox · 2012-02-28 20:21 · Score: 1

Restraint? Corporations never use that! Zynga probably has a patent on Zynga bucks or something.
Anywhoo, I'm sure we'd all be happy citizens of Googlandia! They'd know what each and every one of us likes and they'd probably be happy to give it to us. Being unhappy would probably be illegal. Unhappy citizens would be rounded up by Unhappiness Death Squads and sent off to be reeducated. Or at least heavily medicated. A lovely dystopian utopia to spend your years!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:This company scares me more and more by tehlinux · 2012-02-28 20:39 · Score: 2

More like "Don't get caught," am I right?

--
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
Canadian Tire Money by flyingfsck · 2012-02-28 21:01 · Score: 1

Google can always distribute Canadian Tire money. All Canuks have big wads of the stuff.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Canadian Tire Money by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-29 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Now that would be a good use of digital currency. A big thick wad of Canadian Tire money only comes up to a few dollars.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:Canadian Tire Money by Pope · 2012-02-29 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Canadian Tire is switching to a loyalty card/rewards system. They'll still take the funny money, but you'll get a better return with the card: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=6156461
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Google, Facebook, (fill in) money is inevitable by rainhill · 2012-02-28 21:06 · Score: 1

ka-ching!
or as Agent Smith would say, Sound of inevitability.
Re:This company scares me more and more by GofG · 2012-02-28 21:45 · Score: 2

In order to live in the United States, you must pay the United States Government a tax. This tax must be in the form of United States Dollars. You can always use USD to pay your taxes. The government is never going to accept anything other than USD, and so there is an anchoring point for USD where there is none for, say, bitcoins. That is what makes USD legitimate; the fact that you can *always guaranteed* use it to pay your taxes.

--
GFA/M/S d-- s: a--- C++++ UBL++$ P+ L+++ !E- W++ N+ !o K- w--- !O !M !V PS++ PE Y+ PGP+ t+++ 5- X+ R tv@ b++ DI++++ D+ G
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-28 22:19 · Score: 1

Ok... now take my question in the context of what I was responding to.
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-28 22:24 · Score: 1

Right, what I was asking is: Why it is scary if a company does this, but not if it is a government?
Re:This company scares me more and more by Hentes · 2012-02-28 22:38 · Score: 1

Because every store is required by law to accept it.
Why legal issues? by kbg · 2012-02-28 23:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would that have legal issues? Doesn't Microsoft have it's own currency called "Microsoft Points"? There doesn't seem to be any problems using that currency?
1. Re:Why legal issues? by kbg · 2012-02-28 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Also most airline companies have their own currencies also, they are called "Frequent flyer points".
2. Re:Why legal issues? by jeffc128ca · 2012-02-29 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Because there are many laws in many nations one what can be called currency. You can't just start a new currency and expect it to interact with the current financial system. There are a sh*t load of other laws and regulations, especially if you are engaging in deposit taking or credit lending. You need the appropriate approvals and must conduct your self like other financial institutions do.
  Microsoft can get away with points because it's only a one way exchange. You buy MS points to get stuff on the X-Box. You can not convert MS points back into cash.
3. Re:Why legal issues? by kbg · 2012-02-29 02:24 · Score: 2
  
  You can not convert MS points back into cash.
  I beg to differ
  Microsoft Points is just like any other currency. Microsoft can create money from nothing by just "printing" points. There is an exchange rate for the points to other currencies. I really don't see the difference.
4. Re:Why legal issues? by jeffc128ca · 2012-02-29 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  You can not convert it back to cash, only for products in a MS store. You can not convert those points into Euro's, or Austrailian dollars on any currency exchange. Your local grocery store is not legally obliged to accept your MS points to pay for purchases as stipulated by government laws determining what legal tender is. Central banks do not recognize nor accept MS points as capital. The bank teller will laugh in your face if you try and deposit MS points.
  Face it, it is not a currency and any one who has taken economics 101 knows this. It should also be pointed out that the MS points in the link you provided and not real points yet. They are vouchers to activate for real points. You can not un-activate those points back into cash or a card that can be sold. Once that card is activated you can not un-activate it and sell it for more cash.
Re:This company scares me more and more by icebraining · 2012-02-28 23:21 · Score: 1

The government issiued currency is backed by the whole economy and not just by one company.
Yeah, tell me how did that work out for Germans and Poles circa 1923, Brazilians circa 1994, Greeks circa 1944, Peruvians circa 1990... shall I go on?

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:This company scares me more and more by netsavior · 2012-02-29 01:07 · Score: 1

not to mention gift cards. If gift cards had verifiable values (i.e. you could tell how much they were worth without going into a store) then they could be freely traded between individuals. A smart chip embeded in the card that is readable by your phone could serve authentication purposes.

after that, how is a transferrable 50 dollar walmart gift card, which can be traded for anything walmart sells (read: anything) any different from walmart issued cash?
Re:This company scares me more and more by dave420 · 2012-02-29 01:49 · Score: 1

Well, you could go on by mentioning the countries and years in which currencies have worked well enough to provide the benefits stated, but that would blow your argument out of the water.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Muad'Dave · 2012-02-29 01:52 · Score: 3, Informative

I am not a lawyer, but IMHO no private entity that is not a creditor is "required by law" to accept dollars as payment, either physically as actual notes or as the unit of a promissory note (check). It would be business suicide for a US store to _not_ accept them, but there's plenty of precedent for businesses not accepting physical notes, and pure barter is still quite legal.
Note that I said creditor - the rule of 'all DEBTS public and private' comes in to play when there's a debt owed. Attempting to buy something does not create a debt, so that rule does not apply. Eating in a restaurant that collects payment after the meal DOES create a debt, therefore they must accept currency as payment.
This article has a good discussion.
This guy gets it close, but confuses creditor with seller.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:This company scares me more and more by dunkelfalke · 2012-02-29 02:09 · Score: 1

Because the government is supposed to act in the best interest of its subjects.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Don't online games do something like this? by walterbyrd · 2012-02-29 02:11 · Score: 1

I don't play any of those games. But, as I understand it, WoW, and 2nd life, have their own sort of money. In fact, some people make their living from that stuff.
Oh for crap sake. by walterbyrd · 2012-02-29 02:15 · Score: 1

Google was not looking to control the nation's money supply. Just it's own money point system. Online games like WoW and 2nd life do this. I think MS tried to do this also.
The nation's money supply is managed by people much more evil than Google.
German? by alexander_686 · 2012-02-29 03:53 · Score: 1

I don't think Rothschild spoke that quote in english, so I think we may have some room for translator interpation.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Pope · 2012-02-29 04:07 · Score: 1

You can, silly. They generally have an ID number behind a foil seal that you can use to the balance online.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
business by KingAlanI · 2012-02-29 04:26 · Score: 1

when doing business in a foreign country, you often have to be aware of both your home country's laws and the host country's laws.
I assume this applies to tax stuff and various other things I'm not thinking of, but here's a more-direct example involving bribery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Ryanrule · 2012-02-29 04:43 · Score: 1

Because the people who created the govt gave it permission. You could take that away, with enough votes.
Re:This company scares me more and more by repapetilto · 2012-02-29 06:35 · Score: 1

This is pretty much my line of thinking. I guess if a government is not doing this the power to issue currency is one of the less scary things about it.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-02-29 06:47 · Score: 1

Airline frequent flier miles can be exchanged for non-airline goods and services, making them a form of money.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Tyndmyr · 2012-02-29 10:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, enough guys with guns can force a thing to be used. It's a pretty good barometer for how much power an organization has.

--
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Re:This company scares me more and more by jedwidz · 2012-02-29 12:30 · Score: 1

Musical interlude: Sixteen Tons
I loaded sixteen tons, I tried to get ahead,
Got deeper and deeper in debt instead.
Well they got what I made, and they wanted some more,
And now I owe my soul at the company store.
Re:This company scares me more and more by Tim+C · 2012-03-01 01:13 · Score: 1

That's why casinos have chips as you mentioned, because it removes you one step further from the thought that you're spending your real money and thus makes you spend more.
While I agree with you that using tokens makes impulse-spending that much easier, there is another aspect to it. Can you buy chips at the table (or slot machine, or whatever)? If not then you could argue that having to get up and go to the cashier makes it that little bit *less* likely that you'll think "Ah, what the hell" and throw another few (hundred) dollars in the pile.

Of course I've never actually been to a casino so I don't know the typical layout, etc, but if you have to literally head towards the exit to go get more chips, that gives you a little psychological push to cut your losses and keep walking right out the door which wouldn't be there if you were playing with cash. (Until you ran out of cash and had to go to the ATM, of course)

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.