So when the value hits $200k, a ton of people are going to try and dump their coins
That may be.... if Bitcoins hit $200,000, and I had some; I might start looking for someone who will let me buy a CFD,
for an increase in value of US Dollars, with respect to Bitcoins.
In other words --- rather than trying to liquidate $200K at once.... look towards opening suitable contracts to hedge out the price risk, and then sell the Bitcoins over time, before the contract expires.
If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
The regulators will never approve it, after they see the environmental impact statement:
In case of errors, relief well may become enlarged -- resulting in full scale eruption, and massive ash cloud
posing a minor threat to local ecosystems
And all the easily available metals and petro-fuels are basically gone, so once the 1% of humanity survives as cavemen we will never be able to handle those future events.
Eh? Metals are already in the products people have today. If 1% of the population is left, they can easily scavenge the remains the 99% left behind for metal scraps.
Humans didn't have petrofuels for most of their existence. However, natural gas and coal are still available to be found. There would also likely be a lot of unused petro fuel left by the 99% who died off --- although, much of it might have been destroyed, by the volcano setting it on fire.
maybe we wouldn't be better figuring out how to build long-term survival habitats underground or on the sea floor
Well.... many cities have underground structures. There is the whole london underground -- random assortment of subsurface tunnels, and then there are "tunnel dwellers" -- the homeless that live down there, so apparently, the tunnels are a "survivable habitat" in some sense.
The catch, is that in the event of a volcanic disaster --- the air supply would probably be just as tainted underground as above ground.
If one guy breaks his leg falling from a ladder, and another breaks his leg in a car accident, does the doctor treat that broken leg differently?
Broken bone is a poor analogy. The problem is you can't find some small number of treatments, and check Cancer off as cured -- since there's not a silver bullet. A better analogy would be "Difficulty breathing", "Difficulty swallowing", Random Vertigo while standing, Random fainting or loss of conciousness, Nervous ticks, "Continuous joint pain", "Constant soreness", "Continuous Migraines/severe headache", Whole-body Pruritus, "Dizziness", "Fever", "Loss of appetite", "Fealing of weakness", "Fatigue", "Inability to sleep", "Nausea", "Abdominal/chest pain", "Stomach ache",
Each of those could be caused as a result of a large number of problems. Oh yeah... and Cancer may be seen together (correlated) with any of them.
For example... a Fever can be caused by the common cold, or it could be correlated with a potentially deadly virus or bacteria, that often tends to induce feber -- the treatments are dramatically different. There are causes of Nausea or heartburn, that require a simple antacid, and then on the other hand, there are causes, that require surgery to repair: the approprirate treatment of the underlier of seemingly similar secondary effects -- is often very different.
In some cases "Cancer" may very well be a secondary effect of another problem, just like Fever or Stomach Ache, can be a secondary effect of a more complicated issue.
Different kinds of pathological replication of cells can occur. It's not just that there are different kinds of cells; there are completely different phenomena that result in a threat by the same name -- cancer.
The treatment that mitigates pathological cell replication of one type, may have no effect, or exacerbate a different pathology, with the same outcome -- cancer. The cancer may return, even after it appeared to be healed, because traces remain, or the cause has not been adequately dealt with. The cancer may become even more complicated and simultaneously interact with other types of cells, or invade other tissues.
Broken major bones are a lot simpler than cancer, in most cases, medical intervention might not even be necessary; unlike cancer, in a broken bone situation - the body is naturally working to heal ---- in a cancer situation, the natural outcome will be death -- the bone needs to be set into the proper place and immobilized for 4 to 6 weeks for optimal healing; the treatment most likely doesn't even involve medication, except in severe breaks perhaps pain relievers, and antiseptics to protect against infection -- if the skin is broken, or surgery required.
In this case; the broken bone is not a "disease", but a certain kind of damage caused by an accident outside the body. The "fall from a ladder" or "car accident", is actually extraneous to the body, and essentially irrelevent information, although the type of fracture that resulted (and thus the treatment, if any is required) may be completely different.
The TLD is irrelevant: what matters is whether they're doing business in Europe under that name. And they probably need a business presence in Europe in order to sell ads and monetise those European users.
They could simply put a link on their website under the "Buy Ad" button, that redirects you to their European "Ad management partner" which does not do business under the name Pinterest, but manages the advertisements for various European clients, and transfers the money collected, to yet a third company in a different country, who is ultimately responsible for disbursal.
There would be no cause of action for other trademark claimaints to sue the European subsidiary over, since they aren't doing business under the name Pinterest --- they do business with a number of overseas companies to get client's ads placed.
So at worst, I would think that Pinterest could continue to operate under the "Pinterest.com" domain name; the challenge would be whether they want to advertise in the European market, which might be prohibited without changing their name.
Pinterest themselves doesn't have to do business in Europe.
They can create a separate company in Europe -- business partner that will perform an "Ad placement business"; place ads, transfer the funds (sans a commission) to pinterest.
Chances are good these businesses already have the documents because they would be shopping to venture capital and angel investors, who require this stuff to even start talking to an unknown.
Of course that's so... startups that already have some funding, will have these documents. If your business already has half a million in funding, then you need good accounting systems, AND if your character is unknown, Angel investors will lose their shirt, if they plunk down a $10M investment, without some provable quantities to go on. It makes perfect sense, that the investors will force companies to provide some documentation, dependant on how much $$$ the company is looking to raise from that investor..
The investors should do that though. And only if the company is looking to raise more than $1m, or more than a few bucks from each investor.
However; I see a crowdfunding project as more like ---- "the business doesn't exist yet. Here's our detailed proposition. [bla bla] We need to raise $40,000 initial funding to buy these specific things and get started -- from as many as 40,000 different partners from all over the world."...
This is indeed very risky -- however, losing $1 is not a burden, AND you stood to turn that $1 into $1000 or more.
It's risky, BUT a much better deal than a lottery ticket --- with much higher probability of a jackpot. State governments sell lottery tickets all the time, with no apparent issues from the feds.
[A judicious investor who will be doing due-dilligence (which is a heck of a lot more than simply inspecting documents offered up to investors, and may include personally visiting founders, before even considering an investment), is likely to pick businesses whose value per ticket doesn't go to $0, with high probability -- and more than 1% probability of eventually getting the jackpot of ~$100 for $1 invested (Which can not be said of random lotteries). Careless investors will still lose it all, 99% of the time, and plenty of judicious investors lose plenty of times too, but hey, it was just $1 or 2.]
2. "... if our funding goal is not reached, then we are not funded, and no investors are charged....(More importantly: We didn't pay anything. We didn't pay an extra $50,000 to accountants and SEC just to make this listing, AND increase the money we're asking to $100K as a result..... AND resulting in investors' profits being slashed by 50% for a few years as a result.)
Providing initial funding to startup whether crowd funding or otherwise, is extremely risky.
Funding should also be extremely rewarding.... both for entrepreneur, prospective investors, AND for the overall economy. Massively increasing the risk by increasing the cost hurts everyone.
CPA Audits or SEC-approved documents do not substantially decrease business risk for startups.
They DO make sense for enterprises, or companies that inherently require large amounts of capital, since you could argue that 5% or less is a small price to pay --- just a small extra tax, for a lot of increase in investor confidence (Whether that confidence is misplaced or not is another matter -- it probably is. Most companies fail, and audited documents never stopped that from happening.).
They add large costs, with very little value.
"3. Each partner is allowed to contribute any amount from $1 to $100; larger investments require that you contact our agents, and make some verbal declarations about the source of the funds, your means, income, and your credentials and understanding of the business documents. Most contributions will be $10. The denoted $X in equity from this crowdfunding, will amount to the sum of contributed funds in totality, and represent 100% of the beneficial interest in the company. Up to a combined total of no more than a 10% interest
They do: and that option is to raise funds from friends and family.
Not everyone has rich friends and family, willing and able to offer startup funds, in exchange for equity.
In a free country, you should be able to market your startup idea to fellow citizens of similar means to yourself, for free.
If you need to raise $50,000 in capital for a small startup, and you're looking to get 50,000 people to each buy an equity share, for about $1 a person. The concept you should be required to have a CPA audit, and pay $30k to the SEC is patently absurd.
The market is better equipped to set the standard -- that investors should look for in such situations, to validate the character and business proposition.
An audit of the accounting systems of new firm, with essentially $0, doesn't even really make sense.
As the order is being drafted; Fox news/MSNBC breaks a scandal. The president's dirt hits the airwaves. Ultimately he sinks without a bubble.
Well, the president could very well anticipate that and draft the order without warning; it could include provisions appointing a new overseer the president trusts explicitly, and a "lockdown" of all NSA offices and facilities (unplugging the fiber --- temporary shutdown of outgoing communications, and all the infrastructure and access by any employee required to get any data out of the NSA's facilities, except to the president).
Doesn't matter if there is any blackmail material on the president; if by presidential order, there is no means to export such dirt.
But is trying (as directed by that law) to allow crowdfunding where the donor award is a security; the current regulatory structure, based on the Securities Act, largely makes this sort of model impossible due to the various requirements of public offerings.
If so... it's an improvement.... but the requirement that the entrepreneur front, essentially 39% of the funds, to raise less than $100K.. would appear to be unduly burdensome. The requirement for a CPA audit would also appear to be unduly burdensome.
The person raising this money, should have a less-expensive option: that does not require losing a significant amount of their funding. And they should have an option of disclosing that no audit has been or will be performed.
Whether no audit makes the offer unsatisfactory or not, should be the decision of potential investors,
to be made based on their careful judgement in selecting potential investments, not the federal government.
By definition... funding through such sites as Kickstarter --- is not an investment.
There is no equity. There is a small reward.
True investments involve equity.
Nobody in their right mind would go to crowdfunding, if the person has to front want amounts to 39% of the funds they might raise (if successful). Even 5% is unduly burdensome.
The SEC's proposed regulation amounts TO A CONSTRUCTIVE BAN on crowdfunding.
The proposed regulation incurs costs that are so UNDULY CRIPPLING upon entrepreneurial activity;
that the bulk of it would be SUPPRESSED completely, and NOT ON MERIT.
I support a free speech zone - it's called the United States.
The good news, is the US government has selected an even larger free speech zone than the United States.
The bad news is that the Free Speech zone is the entire continent of Antarctica.
And if you try to visit --- there is a chance your boat might get trapped along the way.
Rescue helicopters are sent, only for supporters of Obamacare.
I mean if they are "exempt" from being spied on it seems logical the "terrorists" would become members of congress and avoid being spied on.
Not only that... if the terrorists become congress members... they can effect legal terrorism against the American people: for example, passing destructive laws, such as massive tax increases, banning consumer products,
or conduct economically crippling activities such as getting the minimum wage increased, and instituting catastrophic healthcare laws.
With the current NSA guidelines, as revealed by Edward Snowden's revelations, any communications with foreign nationals would automatically be susceptible to monitoring.
P.S. "Foreign" has been redefined to mean, anyone outside the borders of a small patch of ground in Washington D.C.
The catch-22 is that if the guy at the top knows everything and he turns out to be a Russian mole (this has happened several times to the US), you just lost the game.
The guy at the top could and should know everything that the people in the agency are doing.
He/she should not be aware of the content of all the communications.
Likewise, everyone in the NSA who has access to significant information, should be under continuous surveillance, regarding their movements at all times --- tailed and monitored whenever outside the NSA building: and particularly, any and all communications made with their personal electronic devices or their friends' electronic devices when not working or when outside the NSA building.
When inside the NSA building; all electronic and other communications monitored as well.
Simply put...... for anyone in charge of the NSA; sacrificing all privacy should be a mandatory job requirement.
What is the president's clearance? If the president walked into the NSA and said "open all your files" would they? Could they? Since that's likely more than any one person could make it through, what about presidential aids?
The president is the executive. If he walked into the NSA and said "open all your files", they could tell him no -- we can't allow that.
The president could then go back to the whitehouse, and draft and sign a presidential order requiring the NSA to deliver all their files to his office in a timely manner. The order could also effect the immediate firing of a bunch of people in the NSA office, including whoever personally refused the president's request.
The order would then be effective, having the full power of the executive branch of government behind it.
The NSA being part of the executive branch, has to adhere to any order of the president: otherwise, they are now rogue, and law enforcement, or military forces could be used to enforce compliance
According to the FISA courts, all warrants are valid by virtue of having been issued by the government for an alleged national security purpose.
The constitution specifically says and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Your responsibility to provide the IRS your current address, to avoid default judgements in a dispute.
The IRS won't waste any resources to figure out your address -- because you are required by law to inform them of it.
Once they have a judgement to collect, the IRS will spend money or use other resources in furtherance of their collection of your debt.
You can't hide from the collections arm of the IRS. At least not if you have any financial accounts or property at all -- businesses you deal with have to report your information, and the IRS will check public databases such as real-estate property records / credit reports, if necessary, to find you.
They will eventually find your property, or find you, or both.
And it's all legal, according to their interpretation of the law.
"Not only are we spying on all members of Congress.... on occasion, we may intercept, and prevent the delivery of an electronic communication to or from a congress member, or we may alter its content"
"We may also change the content of electronically recorded votes."
Why not create the required universe "on the fly"? I don't see any particular reason why every possible destination universe would need to be pre-created in advance.
Because, tunneling to an existing universe might be feasible some day.
Constructing a new universe would require way too much power output --- requiring essentially an amount of energy output greater than all the potential energy sources available in this universe
Not to mention that a fixed set of pre-created universes would still suffer from paradoxes as soon as the second time traveller jumped into the same destination universe as a previous time traveller
If the traveller is tunneling through universes that are mirror images running at different times --- then there is no time paradox, as nobody has travelled through time from the perspective of either universe.
The traveler loses their "identity" though, since the universe arrived at -- the traveller will either be an identical-appearing clone of someone else, or someone arriving in this parallel universe, whom will be completely unknown to it
The paradoxes are neatly avoided if the jump back in time causes a copy of the universe to be made
That theory only makes sense, if there are multiple "identical" mirror images of our universe, that are just behind us or ahead of us in time; for example, a pre-existing universe that is identical to ours in every way, but started 1 year after ours --- so the Earth calendar today would read Jan 3, 2013..... and of course, another existing universe at every offset between 1 second and 200+ trillion years behind us, and ahead of us.
I have no idea how far from earth you would be if you time traveled from 2014 to 1920, but I'm guessing it would be measured in parsecs.
It's only really going to be useful time travel, if you can move with the earth, as you go back in time -- it makes no sense to travel back in time from 2014 to 1920, and then take 90+ years of travel in a spaceship to meet earth.
Slashdot Mirror
So when the value hits $200k, a ton of people are going to try and dump their coins
That may be.... if Bitcoins hit $200,000, and I had some; I might start looking for someone who will let me buy a CFD, for an increase in value of US Dollars, with respect to Bitcoins. In other words --- rather than trying to liquidate $200K at once.... look towards opening suitable contracts to hedge out the price risk, and then sell the Bitcoins over time, before the contract expires.
Good idea. Some ABS pipe from the lumberyard should do the trick.
Make sure to get the high-temperature version. For optimal function -- coat the interior with a silicon or Obsidian gel.
If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
The regulators will never approve it, after they see the environmental impact statement: In case of errors, relief well may become enlarged -- resulting in full scale eruption, and massive ash cloud posing a minor threat to local ecosystems
And all the easily available metals and petro-fuels are basically gone, so once the 1% of humanity survives as cavemen we will never be able to handle those future events.
Eh? Metals are already in the products people have today. If 1% of the population is left, they can easily scavenge the remains the 99% left behind for metal scraps.
Humans didn't have petrofuels for most of their existence. However, natural gas and coal are still available to be found. There would also likely be a lot of unused petro fuel left by the 99% who died off --- although, much of it might have been destroyed, by the volcano setting it on fire.
Unfortunately the Yellowstone caldera has been swelling
Oil! Time to send some fracking teams in....
maybe we wouldn't be better figuring out how to build long-term survival habitats underground or on the sea floor
Well.... many cities have underground structures. There is the whole london underground -- random assortment of subsurface tunnels, and then there are "tunnel dwellers" -- the homeless that live down there, so apparently, the tunnels are a "survivable habitat" in some sense.
The catch, is that in the event of a volcanic disaster --- the air supply would probably be just as tainted underground as above ground.
If one guy breaks his leg falling from a ladder, and another breaks his leg in a car accident, does the doctor treat that broken leg differently?
Broken bone is a poor analogy. The problem is you can't find some small number of treatments, and check Cancer off as cured -- since there's not a silver bullet. A better analogy would be "Difficulty breathing", "Difficulty swallowing", Random Vertigo while standing, Random fainting or loss of conciousness, Nervous ticks, "Continuous joint pain", "Constant soreness", "Continuous Migraines/severe headache", Whole-body Pruritus, "Dizziness", "Fever", "Loss of appetite", "Fealing of weakness", "Fatigue", "Inability to sleep", "Nausea", "Abdominal/chest pain", "Stomach ache",
Each of those could be caused as a result of a large number of problems. Oh yeah... and Cancer may be seen together (correlated) with any of them. For example... a Fever can be caused by the common cold, or it could be correlated with a potentially deadly virus or bacteria, that often tends to induce feber -- the treatments are dramatically different. There are causes of Nausea or heartburn, that require a simple antacid, and then on the other hand, there are causes, that require surgery to repair: the approprirate treatment of the underlier of seemingly similar secondary effects -- is often very different.
In some cases "Cancer" may very well be a secondary effect of another problem, just like Fever or Stomach Ache, can be a secondary effect of a more complicated issue.
Different kinds of pathological replication of cells can occur. It's not just that there are different kinds of cells; there are completely different phenomena that result in a threat by the same name -- cancer.
The treatment that mitigates pathological cell replication of one type, may have no effect, or exacerbate a different pathology, with the same outcome -- cancer. The cancer may return, even after it appeared to be healed, because traces remain, or the cause has not been adequately dealt with. The cancer may become even more complicated and simultaneously interact with other types of cells, or invade other tissues.
Broken major bones are a lot simpler than cancer, in most cases, medical intervention might not even be necessary; unlike cancer, in a broken bone situation - the body is naturally working to heal ---- in a cancer situation, the natural outcome will be death -- the bone needs to be set into the proper place and immobilized for 4 to 6 weeks for optimal healing; the treatment most likely doesn't even involve medication, except in severe breaks perhaps pain relievers, and antiseptics to protect against infection -- if the skin is broken, or surgery required.
In this case; the broken bone is not a "disease", but a certain kind of damage caused by an accident outside the body. The "fall from a ladder" or "car accident", is actually extraneous to the body, and essentially irrelevent information, although the type of fracture that resulted (and thus the treatment, if any is required) may be completely different.
The TLD is irrelevant: what matters is whether they're doing business in Europe under that name. And they probably need a business presence in Europe in order to sell ads and monetise those European users.
They could simply put a link on their website under the "Buy Ad" button, that redirects you to their European "Ad management partner" which does not do business under the name Pinterest, but manages the advertisements for various European clients, and transfers the money collected, to yet a third company in a different country, who is ultimately responsible for disbursal.
There would be no cause of action for other trademark claimaints to sue the European subsidiary over, since they aren't doing business under the name Pinterest --- they do business with a number of overseas companies to get client's ads placed.
So at worst, I would think that Pinterest could continue to operate under the "Pinterest.com" domain name; the challenge would be whether they want to advertise in the European market, which might be prohibited without changing their name.
Pinterest themselves doesn't have to do business in Europe. They can create a separate company in Europe -- business partner that will perform an "Ad placement business"; place ads, transfer the funds (sans a commission) to pinterest.
Of course that's so... startups that already have some funding, will have these documents. If your business already has half a million in funding, then you need good accounting systems, AND if your character is unknown, Angel investors will lose their shirt, if they plunk down a $10M investment, without some provable quantities to go on.
It makes perfect sense, that the investors will force companies to provide some documentation, dependant on how much $$$ the company is looking to raise from that investor..
The investors should do that though. And only if the company is looking to raise more than $1m, or more than a few bucks from each investor.
However; I see a crowdfunding project as more like ---- "the business doesn't exist yet. Here's our detailed proposition. [bla bla] We need to raise $40,000 initial funding to buy these specific things and get started -- from as many as 40,000 different partners from all over the world." ...
This is indeed very risky -- however, losing $1 is not a burden, AND you stood to turn that $1 into $1000 or more.
It's risky, BUT a much better deal than a lottery ticket --- with much higher probability of a jackpot. State governments sell lottery tickets all the time, with no apparent issues from the feds.
[A judicious investor who will be doing due-dilligence (which is a heck of a lot more than simply inspecting documents offered up to investors, and may include personally visiting founders, before even considering an investment), is likely to pick businesses whose value per ticket doesn't go to $0, with high probability -- and more than 1% probability of eventually getting the jackpot of ~$100 for $1 invested (Which can not be said of random lotteries). Careless investors will still lose it all, 99% of the time, and plenty of judicious investors lose plenty of times too, but hey, it was just $1 or 2.]
2. "... if our funding goal is not reached, then we are not funded, and no investors are charged. ...(More importantly: We didn't pay anything. We didn't pay an extra $50,000 to accountants and SEC just to make this listing, AND increase the money we're asking to $100K as a result..... AND resulting in investors' profits being slashed by 50% for a few years as a result.)
Providing initial funding to startup whether crowd funding or otherwise, is extremely risky.
Funding should also be extremely rewarding.... both for entrepreneur, prospective investors, AND for the overall economy. Massively increasing the risk by increasing the cost hurts everyone.
CPA Audits or SEC-approved documents do not substantially decrease business risk for startups.
They DO make sense for enterprises, or companies that inherently require large amounts of capital, since you could argue that 5% or less is a small price to pay --- just a small extra tax, for a lot of increase in investor confidence (Whether that confidence is misplaced or not is another matter -- it probably is. Most companies fail, and audited documents never stopped that from happening.).
They add large costs, with very little value.
"3. Each partner is allowed to contribute any amount from $1 to $100; larger investments require that you contact our agents, and make some verbal declarations about the source of the funds, your means, income, and your credentials and understanding of the business documents. Most contributions will be $10. The denoted $X in equity from this crowdfunding, will amount to the sum of contributed funds in totality, and represent 100% of the beneficial interest in the company. Up to a combined total of no more than a 10% interest
They do: and that option is to raise funds from friends and family.
Not everyone has rich friends and family, willing and able to offer startup funds, in exchange for equity.
In a free country, you should be able to market your startup idea to fellow citizens of similar means to yourself, for free.
If you need to raise $50,000 in capital for a small startup, and you're looking to get 50,000 people to each buy an equity share, for about $1 a person. The concept you should be required to have a CPA audit, and pay $30k to the SEC is patently absurd.
The market is better equipped to set the standard -- that investors should look for in such situations, to validate the character and business proposition.
An audit of the accounting systems of new firm, with essentially $0, doesn't even really make sense.
As the order is being drafted; Fox news/MSNBC breaks a scandal. The president's dirt hits the airwaves. Ultimately he sinks without a bubble.
Well, the president could very well anticipate that and draft the order without warning; it could include provisions appointing a new overseer the president trusts explicitly, and a "lockdown" of all NSA offices and facilities (unplugging the fiber --- temporary shutdown of outgoing communications, and all the infrastructure and access by any employee required to get any data out of the NSA's facilities, except to the president).
Doesn't matter if there is any blackmail material on the president; if by presidential order, there is no means to export such dirt.
But is trying (as directed by that law) to allow crowdfunding where the donor award is a security; the current regulatory structure, based on the Securities Act, largely makes this sort of model impossible due to the various requirements of public offerings.
If so... it's an improvement.... but the requirement that the entrepreneur front, essentially 39% of the funds, to raise less than $100K.. would appear to be unduly burdensome. The requirement for a CPA audit would also appear to be unduly burdensome.
The person raising this money, should have a less-expensive option: that does not require losing a significant amount of their funding. And they should have an option of disclosing that no audit has been or will be performed.
Whether no audit makes the offer unsatisfactory or not, should be the decision of potential investors, to be made based on their careful judgement in selecting potential investments, not the federal government.
By definition... funding through such sites as Kickstarter --- is not an investment. There is no equity. There is a small reward.
True investments involve equity.
Nobody in their right mind would go to crowdfunding, if the person has to front want amounts to 39% of the funds they might raise (if successful). Even 5% is unduly burdensome.
The SEC's proposed regulation amounts TO A CONSTRUCTIVE BAN on crowdfunding.
The proposed regulation incurs costs that are so UNDULY CRIPPLING upon entrepreneurial activity; that the bulk of it would be SUPPRESSED completely, and NOT ON MERIT.
I support a free speech zone - it's called the United States.
The good news, is the US government has selected an even larger free speech zone than the United States.
The bad news is that the Free Speech zone is the entire continent of Antarctica. And if you try to visit --- there is a chance your boat might get trapped along the way.
Rescue helicopters are sent, only for supporters of Obamacare.
I mean if they are "exempt" from being spied on it seems logical the "terrorists" would become members of congress and avoid being spied on.
Not only that... if the terrorists become congress members... they can effect legal terrorism against the American people: for example, passing destructive laws, such as massive tax increases, banning consumer products, or conduct economically crippling activities such as getting the minimum wage increased, and instituting catastrophic healthcare laws.
With the current NSA guidelines, as revealed by Edward Snowden's revelations, any communications with foreign nationals would automatically be susceptible to monitoring.
P.S. "Foreign" has been redefined to mean, anyone outside the borders of a small patch of ground in Washington D.C.
The catch-22 is that if the guy at the top knows everything and he turns out to be a Russian mole (this has happened several times to the US), you just lost the game.
The guy at the top could and should know everything that the people in the agency are doing. He/she should not be aware of the content of all the communications.
Likewise, everyone in the NSA who has access to significant information, should be under continuous surveillance, regarding their movements at all times --- tailed and monitored whenever outside the NSA building: and particularly, any and all communications made with their personal electronic devices or their friends' electronic devices when not working or when outside the NSA building.
When inside the NSA building; all electronic and other communications monitored as well.
Simply put...... for anyone in charge of the NSA; sacrificing all privacy should be a mandatory job requirement.
What is the president's clearance? If the president walked into the NSA and said "open all your files" would they? Could they? Since that's likely more than any one person could make it through, what about presidential aids?
The president is the executive. If he walked into the NSA and said "open all your files", they could tell him no -- we can't allow that.
The president could then go back to the whitehouse, and draft and sign a presidential order requiring the NSA to deliver all their files to his office in a timely manner. The order could also effect the immediate firing of a bunch of people in the NSA office, including whoever personally refused the president's request.
The order would then be effective, having the full power of the executive branch of government behind it. The NSA being part of the executive branch, has to adhere to any order of the president: otherwise, they are now rogue, and law enforcement, or military forces could be used to enforce compliance
According to the FISA courts, all warrants are valid by virtue of having been issued by the government for an alleged national security purpose.
The constitution specifically says and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Your responsibility to provide the IRS your current address, to avoid default judgements in a dispute. The IRS won't waste any resources to figure out your address -- because you are required by law to inform them of it.
Once they have a judgement to collect, the IRS will spend money or use other resources in furtherance of their collection of your debt.
You can't hide from the collections arm of the IRS. At least not if you have any financial accounts or property at all -- businesses you deal with have to report your information, and the IRS will check public databases such as real-estate property records / credit reports, if necessary, to find you.
They will eventually find your property, or find you, or both.
And it's all legal, according to their interpretation of the law.
"Not only are we spying on all members of Congress.... on occasion, we may intercept, and prevent the delivery of an electronic communication to or from a congress member, or we may alter its content"
"We may also change the content of electronically recorded votes."
"That's all legal too."
Why not create the required universe "on the fly"? I don't see any particular reason why every possible destination universe would need to be pre-created in advance.
Because, tunneling to an existing universe might be feasible some day. Constructing a new universe would require way too much power output --- requiring essentially an amount of energy output greater than all the potential energy sources available in this universe
Not to mention that a fixed set of pre-created universes would still suffer from paradoxes as soon as the second time traveller jumped into the same destination universe as a previous time traveller
If the traveller is tunneling through universes that are mirror images running at different times --- then there is no time paradox, as nobody has travelled through time from the perspective of either universe.
The traveler loses their "identity" though, since the universe arrived at -- the traveller will either be an identical-appearing clone of someone else, or someone arriving in this parallel universe, whom will be completely unknown to it
The paradoxes are neatly avoided if the jump back in time causes a copy of the universe to be made
That theory only makes sense, if there are multiple "identical" mirror images of our universe, that are just behind us or ahead of us in time; for example, a pre-existing universe that is identical to ours in every way, but started 1 year after ours --- so the Earth calendar today would read Jan 3, 2013..... and of course, another existing universe at every offset between 1 second and 200+ trillion years behind us, and ahead of us.
I have no idea how far from earth you would be if you time traveled from 2014 to 1920, but I'm guessing it would be measured in parsecs.
It's only really going to be useful time travel, if you can move with the earth, as you go back in time -- it makes no sense to travel back in time from 2014 to 1920, and then take 90+ years of travel in a spaceship to meet earth.