If planets 10 x earth turn into planets with oceans a 100km deep it still doesn't explain how planets like Earth develop.
The "best" theory I heard about that was the collision of Tiamat with Marduk, that had supposedly taken place in the solar system, Tiamat being one of those large 10 x Earth ocean planets and Marduk an extra-solar planet that came wandering in. The remnants of both planets formed the asteroid belt with huge chunks of water ice impacting the otherwise dry Earth.
More important however is if they find extra-solar water planets whether they will actually let us know about them. Personally I think they sustainable development / Agenda 21 would not be too pleased for us know about planets like that, as they need us to focus on the fragile Earth without no alternative to escape to. The discovery of earth-like planets could shift our attention back into space and increase interest in faster than light travel to get there.
--"There is no need to drag the IRS into this". There obviously is. People who have watched Aaron Russos Freedom to Fascism would _love_ to see you repeat the experiment. Go ahead and do it, come back and surprise us.
--"And while I agree that memes such as "hater" and "hate speech" are debilitating to a good discussion, I was not invoking either. I was saying that it is obvious that you are feel an intense and passionate dislike of taxes. That fulfills the definition of hate. Therefore, you hate taxes. I am not applying a label to you; I am saying that you hate taxes."
First you say you're not doing it and then you turn around and slap the hater-label on me. A classic, but it has the downside of being easy to spot.
And just who is funding the global warming proponents? I ask this question regularily when one of these GW articles pop up on Slashdot and I invite everybody and all to do the research and to find out.
The scientists who propose global warming theories out there are for the most part likely to be sincere in their findings - but they are also the most likely to be funded by the UN "Agenda 21" crowd through their network of Sustainable Development cronies.... while other scientists whose opposing theories hold just as valid are ignored at best, more often ridiculed and jeered by the publicity that same funding money also buys. A less __selective__ reporting would not just unearth one single case of the undesired sides shortcomings but in all fairness report on the funding that is going to both sides, both the official as well as the underhanded. (As an exception the official funding is far more interesting in this case).
Sustainable Development is going to be the pivot element of the UN global governance that has come knocking and a lot of effort is being invested into it to make the sustainable development - global warming paradigm package stick no matter what the opposition to the scientifism it is based on.
Here are a couple of things people might want to check out who want to learn more about this...
Here are a couple of points to google for "Sustainable Development" "Property rights" "Agenda 21" "Joan Peros" (also try this on http://video.google.com/
There is no need to "sir" me, and we've been civil so far I think we don't have to have overt courtesy here. As far as misinformation goes, up to now all you had to contribute to the discussion is that the constitution is the legal basis of all law. That would be _d_isinformation by omission. The constitution and procedural law based on it require that legislation meets requirements and preconditions and it may be discovered that legislation be flawed long after it has come into effect as "THE LAW" (again your capitalization, my quotation marks). Federal income taxation as it is put into practice today does not meet several of these requirements and again you are trying to mince words with me here by saying there _is_ a legal foundation for federal income tax while I am consistently pointing out that it is _flawed_.
So to that effect, I challenge you to ask the IRS the same easy question that is put to the IRS in Freedom to Fascism...
"What is the law that says I have to pay federal income tax?"
If they tell you what it is, please be sure to tell us.
--"It is quite obvious that you hate taxes; it is also quite obvious that you are blinded by that hatred, or willfully ignorant. It is sad."
Please try not to tap into memes like "hater" "hate speech" etc. They don't serve in this discussion.
--"I made absolutely no comments about perception of the law." As I said it is obvious from your tenacity here that you are trying to salvage a positive perception of "THE LAW" here (your capitalization, my quotation marks).
I'm sorry but "That income tax law has a legal basis in the Constitution" is superficial analysis and grossly insufficient.
People who want to learn more about the subject should also watch Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism documentary which explores the IRS's unwillingness (inability) to reveal the legal basis for collecting federal income tax. About half-ways into the documentary Russo interviews a former IRS director. I recommend you at least watch that interview.
If you follow John Yoo's reasoning ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo ) law professor at UCB contributor to the Patriot Act and author of the infamous torture of enemy combatant memos..... it would be legal to crush the testicle of infants with pliers.
Just to show what kind of people we're dealing here with, Yoo maintains his opinion on the _legality_ of torturing infant children all the while acknowledging that it is morally wrong to do so. The painfully obvious conclusion that "The Law" is immoral escapes him... and that's where the parallel to you comes in GeffDE. You seem to be just as anxious to preserve a positive perception of the law here in this thread and I frankly wonder why.
Once Microsoft "resolves" the issue by giving them new keys in a couple of weeks, how long do you think these keys will stay valid before they lock up the machine again...?
"Ok, that's great and all, but he was talking about the legal basis of income tax law"
I see what you are getting at but then you should also follow through with the rest and see that there is no legal basis to _enforce_ federal income tax. Possibly people could even win back in court to regain past payments which were made in good faith.
Of course this is theory because you can't sue for rights and property in courts that will simply not hear your case or withhold tax or rather "protection"-money from thugs that will shoot your family, burn down your house, throw you into prison and to top things off ridicule you in the media. So you see even though it is not really feasible to avoid being shaken down because they will go as far as kill you for it, the collection of federal income tax still has no legal basis whatsoever.
There is a whole lot more to "The Law" than fifty yards of paper in a bookshelf that goes all the way to the top of the ceiling. No matter what any piece of paper says, "The Law" does not apply equally to everybody... if it applies atall... US District Judge Dawson (presiding over the conviction of author Irwin Schiff) is quoted as saying:
"I will not allow the law in my court room" and then telling the jury "You must follow the law as I give it to you".
People (especially tax protestors) tend to forget that whatever happens to be "The Law" and its du jour interpretation is always ultimately enforced at gunpoint. But then... just because you can shoot Randy Weaver's son and his wife while holding a baby in her arms by your black op punks and not have to answer to the courts you own doesn't make what you do lawful.
You're making it sound like he demanded they show the legal basis for the federal income tax (there is none). Chances are the RIAA will cut him a deal where _they_ will pay him a couple of grand and then go after some other poor schmuck with much weaker legal defense who has downloaded one mp3 too many.
"Lord Patrick, Grand Duke of Massachusetts was not amused by the disruption of public life perpetrated by what can only be called cultist. As a punishment it is expected that commoners in Boston will be seized at random by Royal police and flogged in the streets as a reminder that such disorderly behaviour will not be tolerated."
Really, the fuck do I care whether Lord-Governor Deval Patrick is amused or not.
I just brought up Celestia because it visualizes the situation "military" vs. "civilian" sats best. Regarding the monitoring of satellite transmissions... I wonder if there is maybe somwhere out there someone who is "tuned" into Hubble if only to analyze the traffic? I'm sure they're not using something "shifty" like frequency hopping or UWB to draw people's attention.
"I wonder, is the ISS in the same boat? Is it encrypted links to/from earth?"
I don't know a 100% for sure but I would bet money on it. ISS does have a ham station with packet radio caps but that wont used be for "official business". Just think of what would happen if amateurs picked up exclamations like "My God! This thing is HUGE where did THAT come from?"
--"Well, it could be as simple if they didnt really get to the moon. They'd have to keep the data to themselves, and by that means controlling all ways to "see the moon". What would be neat would be if there was a detection of ETIs.. Then again, it would happen never the less."--
There should be two interesting man-made objects to be seen on the moon... a moon buggy and an US flag. It seems that there are no pictures to be found of them not even taken from moon orbit http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/04 32232 "Ask Slashdot: Are There Images of the Lunar Landers from Orbit?" But then as we all know NASA lost 700 boxes of the footage from the "first" moon landing.
Oh and about the ETs.. most science fiction rotates about the "Take me to your leader" fantasy of hovering over the White House or landing on the roof-top of the United Nations. What I suppose they really should be worried about are the ETs that completely _ignore them_ and instead talk to you directly.
I don't really think that's the case there. _They_ have in effect a virtually limitless budget and they could easily build and launch themselves a dedicated satellite that does exactly what they need it to do. If you don't already know about it, get Celestia at sourceforge and then get one of the satellite add-on packages for it. If you load that up you'll see there are in effect more "military" satellites up there than civilian ones and some of them have really peculiar orbits.
With amateur astronomers and other sat hobbyists monitoring orbiting objects I don't think it wouldn't do for them to hijack such a prominent piece of hardware as especially the sat people could at least detect the amount of tdrss traffic from Hubble and they'd have to find more excuses for the orbit monitoring people if they moved the satellite.
I don't know for sure _what_ they are hiding from us but I do know the _why_ of NASA secrecy especially when it comes to screening what should be completely innocous data like Hubble images: Whatever is potentially out there could be paradigm shattering and they certainly don't need that.
Hi Creepy, good to see people reading the thread even though it got swatted down with a -1, Troll. As far as the AC is concerned, he is just feeding us the official line here.
Regarding the encryption angle, again you're right Creepy, nothing that goes on between Hubble and ground control needs to be a secret and a cryptographic checksum would have been enough to secure message authenticity. There is definitely no need whatsoever for encryption here unless somebody (@NASA) wanted to screen the data first before it gets released.
Access to Hubble has always been severely limited and imagery and other data was screened by NASA. Even images transmitted to the ground were encrypted.
They're in praise of a device that is non-lethal IF used at a "safe" range for a "safe" duration on a "safe" subject... they're not talking about what happens if it gets used in a real-life crowd control situation at close range and/ot on much longer than "recommended".
Oh but I forget... you're the kind of guy who builds his bizeps with a taser ROFL.
Going from the clip's English description this young girl was possibly executed for being a prostitute and without a trial. I doubt she didn't get some sort of a trial because regimes like China thrive on formalities but hey: No matter what she did... she didn't deserve this.
To be fair you might not want to see it, the execution by rifle shown in the clip is extremely graphic and they show a close-up of her head half of which is missing.
Why do we afford scumsucking regimes like China "Most Favored Nation" status??!
Giving a private corporation special powers by the way of law is nothing new under the sun and a continuing trend as privatized law enforcement and private prison corporations etc. come to mind. I see nothing unique about that kind of entity.
Looking at the WP-article and what you cited from it you most have overlooked this interesting paragraph, right after you stop citing it says:
"Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by private "member banks" (in that each member bank owns n nonnegotiable shares of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank; see below). In Lewis v. United States, [2], the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion also stated that "the Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." [1]
I would contest the quotation marks around the "owned" even just because those shares can not be sold.
And coming to a close and speaking of thugs, the original stockholders in the Federal Reserve Banks were the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, Rothschilds, the Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, the Warburgs, the Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, in other words the same people who financed all major wars since the French Revolution.
Without question, people to be trusted to do whatever in their power towards your best interests.
"I think the more interesting question is what if there was a classic "bank run" in Second Life? Could Linden pay up? The US banks are FDIC insured."
They'll reimburse you with virtual land or other virtual goods. Buzzing clouds of electron charge is what they have a virtually unlimited supply of.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on "Fiat Currency" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency) reads:
"In economics, fiat currency or fiat money is money that enjoys legal tender status derived from a declaratory fiat or an authoritative order of the government."
It should read: Fiat currency is money that is backed by the trust in the promise that goods will be delivered in exchange. Neither the Euro nor the "modern" Federal Reserve Dollar are backed up by anything but promises, they are fiat currencies. What's more, the dollar is given out by a _private corporation_: "The Federal Reserve".
If you give it enough tought you will find that the Linden has no more and no less substance than the US dollar. The only real difference between the two is that the USD is backed by a bunch of exceedingly tougher thugs who may or may not suffer the Linden.
So what if I were journalist and radio host like Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com) and I made a living investigating the US government and the United Nations and exposing them in television documentaries like you can _buy_ on DVD from hist site at http://www.infowars.com/ ( or watch for free on http://video.google.com/
... is the first step. Once everbody is registered they have to have license to have a public opinion. I'm not saying here that astroturfing isn't a huge problem, but if I started speaking out against the govt/big business astroturfers guess whose license would be revoked?
Slashdot Mirror
If planets 10 x earth turn into planets with oceans a 100km deep it still
doesn't explain how planets like Earth develop.
The "best" theory I heard about that was the collision of Tiamat with Marduk,
that had supposedly taken place in the solar system, Tiamat being one of those
large 10 x Earth ocean planets and Marduk an extra-solar planet that came
wandering in. The remnants of both planets formed the asteroid belt with
huge chunks of water ice impacting the otherwise dry Earth.
More important however is if they find extra-solar water planets whether they
will actually let us know about them. Personally I think they sustainable
development / Agenda 21 would not be too pleased for us know about planets
like that, as they need us to focus on the fragile Earth without no alternative
to escape to. The discovery of earth-like planets could shift our attention back into space and increase interest in faster than light travel to get there.
--"There is no need to drag the IRS into this".
There obviously is. People who have watched Aaron Russos
Freedom to Fascism would _love_ to see you repeat the experiment.
Go ahead and do it, come back and surprise us.
--"And while I agree that memes such as "hater" and "hate speech" are debilitating to a good discussion, I was not invoking either. I was saying that it is obvious that you are feel an intense and passionate dislike of taxes. That fulfills the definition of hate. Therefore, you hate taxes. I am not applying a label to you; I am saying that you hate taxes."
First you say you're not doing it and then you turn around and slap the hater-label on me.
A classic, but it has the downside of being easy to spot.
Too bad, you are obviously for loss of arguments stuck with playing
the magical "kook" card. You sure that trump is still working?
And just who is funding the global warming proponents? I ask this question regularily
.. .. while other scientists whose opposing theories hold just as valid are ignored
when one of these GW articles pop up on Slashdot and I invite everybody and all to do the
research and to find out.
The scientists who propose global warming theories out there are for the
most part likely to be sincere in their findings - but they are also the most
likely to be funded by the UN "Agenda 21" crowd through their network of Sustainable
Development cronies
at best, more often ridiculed and jeered by the publicity that same funding money
also buys. A less __selective__ reporting would not just unearth one single case of the
undesired sides shortcomings but in all fairness report on the funding that is
going to both sides, both the official as well as the underhanded. (As an exception
the official funding is far more interesting in this case).
Sustainable Development is going to be the pivot element of the UN global governance
that has come knocking and a lot of effort is being invested into it to make the
sustainable development - global warming paradigm package stick no matter what the opposition
to the scientifism it is based on.
Here are a couple of things people might want to check out who want to learn more
about this...
Here are a couple of points to google for "Sustainable Development" "Property rights"
"Agenda 21" "Joan Peros" (also try this on http://video.google.com/
There is no need to "sir" me, and we've been civil so far I think we don't have
to have overt courtesy here. As far as misinformation goes, up to now all you
had to contribute to the discussion is that the constitution is the legal basis
of all law. That would be _d_isinformation by omission.
The constitution and procedural law based on it require that legislation meets
requirements and preconditions and it may be discovered that legislation be
flawed long after it has come into effect as "THE LAW"
(again your capitalization, my quotation marks). Federal income taxation as it
is put into practice today does not meet several of these requirements and again
you are trying to mince words with me here by saying there _is_ a legal
foundation for federal income tax while I am consistently pointing out that it
is _flawed_.
So to that effect, I challenge you to ask the IRS the same easy question that
is put to the IRS in Freedom to Fascism...
"What is the law that says I have to pay federal income tax?"
If they tell you what it is, please be sure to tell us.
--"It is quite obvious that you hate taxes; it is also quite obvious that you
are blinded by that hatred, or willfully ignorant. It is sad."
Please try not to tap into memes like "hater" "hate speech" etc. They don't
serve in this discussion.
--"I made absolutely no comments about perception of the law."
7 7175242198 Freedom To Fascism
As I said it is obvious from your tenacity here that you are trying to salvage
a positive perception of "THE LAW" here (your capitalization, my quotation marks).
I'm sorry but "That income tax law has a legal basis in the Constitution" is superficial
analysis and grossly insufficient.
People who want to learn more about the subject should also watch Aaron Russo's
Freedom To Fascism documentary which explores the IRS's unwillingness (inability) to
reveal the legal basis for collecting federal income tax. About half-ways into the
documentary Russo interviews a former IRS director. I recommend you at least watch
that interview.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-43127302
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
If you follow John Yoo's reasoning ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo ) law professor at UCB ... .. it would be legal to crush the testicle of infants with pliers.
... and that's where the
e ing_asked_justify_crushing_childrens_testicls.htm
contributor to the Patriot Act and author of the infamous torture of enemy combatant memos
Just to show what kind of people we're dealing here with, Yoo maintains his opinion on the _legality_
of torturing infant children all the while acknowledging that it is morally wrong to do so.
The painfully obvious conclusion that "The Law" is immoral escapes him
parallel to you comes in GeffDE. You seem to be just as anxious to preserve a positive perception of the
law here in this thread and I frankly wonder why.
People who want to find out more about who is saying it is legal to crush children's testicles should
watch this:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/torture_yoo_b
Once Microsoft "resolves" the issue by giving them new keys in a couple of weeks,
how long do you think these keys will stay valid before they lock up the machine
again...?
"Ok, that's great and all, but he was talking about the legal basis of income tax law"
I see what you are getting at but then you should also follow through with the rest
and see that there is no legal basis to _enforce_ federal income tax. Possibly people
could even win back in court to regain past payments which were made in good faith.
Of course this is theory because you can't sue for rights and property in
courts that will simply not hear your case or withhold tax or rather "protection"-money
from thugs that will shoot your family, burn down your house, throw you into prison
and to top things off ridicule you in the media.
So you see even though it is not really feasible to avoid being shaken down because
they will go as far as kill you for it, the collection of federal income tax still
has no legal basis whatsoever.
People wanting to learn more about this directly from a former IRS agent can watch
... if it applies atall... US District Judge Dawson (presiding
the Alex Jones Interview with former IRS Agent Joe Banister:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3KMGK22gOs part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFmeoGn0kwQ part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavy91QnRsc part3
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
There is a whole lot more to "The Law" than fifty yards of paper in
a bookshelf that goes all the way to the top of the ceiling. No matter
what any piece of paper says, "The Law" does not apply equally to
everybody
over the conviction of author Irwin Schiff) is quoted as saying:
"I will not allow the law in my court room" and then telling the jury
"You must follow the law as I give it to you".
People (especially tax protestors) tend to forget that whatever happens
to be "The Law" and its du jour interpretation is always ultimately enforced
at gunpoint. But then... just because you can shoot Randy Weaver's son and his wife
while holding a baby in her arms by your black op punks and not have to answer
to the courts you own doesn't make what you do lawful.
You're making it sound like he demanded they show the legal basis for the federal income tax
(there is none). Chances are the RIAA will cut him a deal where _they_ will pay him a couple of
grand and then go after some other poor schmuck with much weaker legal defense who has downloaded
one mp3 too many.
"Lord Patrick, Grand Duke of Massachusetts was not amused by the disruption
of public life perpetrated by what can only be called cultist. As a punishment
it is expected that commoners in Boston will be seized at random by Royal
police and flogged in the streets as a reminder that such disorderly behaviour will
not be tolerated."
Really, the fuck do I care whether Lord-Governor Deval Patrick is amused or
not.
I just brought up Celestia because it visualizes the situation "military" vs. "civilian" sats best.
4 32232 "Ask Slashdot: Are There Images of the Lunar Landers from Orbit?"
Regarding the monitoring of satellite transmissions... I wonder if there is maybe somwhere out there
someone who is "tuned" into Hubble if only to analyze the traffic? I'm sure they're not using
something "shifty" like frequency hopping or UWB to draw people's attention.
"I wonder, is the ISS in the same boat? Is it encrypted links to/from earth?"
I don't know a 100% for sure but I would bet money on it. ISS does have a ham station with packet radio
caps but that wont used be for "official business". Just think of what would happen if amateurs picked
up exclamations like "My God! This thing is HUGE where did THAT come from?"
--"Well, it could be as simple if they didnt really get to the moon. They'd have to keep the data to themselves, and by that means controlling all ways to "see the moon". What would be neat would be if there was a detection of ETIs.. Then again, it would happen never the less."--
There should be two interesting man-made objects to be seen on the moon... a moon buggy and an US flag. It seems that
there are no pictures to be found of them not even taken from moon orbit http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/0
But then as we all know NASA lost 700 boxes of the footage from the "first" moon landing.
Oh and about the ETs.. most science fiction rotates about the "Take me to your leader" fantasy of hovering over
the White House or landing on the roof-top of the United Nations. What I suppose they really should be worried about are
the ETs that completely _ignore them_ and instead talk to you directly.
I don't really think that's the case there. _They_ have in effect a virtually
limitless budget and they could easily build and launch themselves a
dedicated satellite that does exactly what they need it to do. If you don't
already know about it, get Celestia at sourceforge and then get one of the
satellite add-on packages for it. If you load that up you'll see there are in
effect more "military" satellites up there than civilian ones and some of them
have really peculiar orbits.
With amateur astronomers and other sat hobbyists monitoring orbiting objects
I don't think it wouldn't do for them to hijack such a prominent piece of
hardware as especially the sat people could at least detect the amount of
tdrss traffic from Hubble and they'd have to find more excuses for the orbit
monitoring people if they moved the satellite.
I don't know for sure _what_ they are hiding from us but I do know the _why_
of NASA secrecy especially when it comes to screening what should be completely
innocous data like Hubble images: Whatever is potentially out there could
be paradigm shattering and they certainly don't need that.
Hi Creepy, good to see people reading the thread even though it got
swatted down with a -1, Troll. As far as the AC is concerned, he is
just feeding us the official line here.
Regarding the encryption angle, again you're right Creepy,
nothing that goes on between Hubble and ground control needs to be
a secret and a cryptographic checksum would have been enough to secure
message authenticity. There is definitely no need whatsoever for encryption
here unless somebody (@NASA) wanted to screen the data first before it gets
released.
No dice, AC.
Actually it would deserve to be orbiting a better world.
Access to Hubble has always been severely limited and imagery and other data
was screened by NASA. Even images transmitted to the ground were encrypted.
They're in praise of a device that is non-lethal IF used at a "safe" range for
a "safe" duration on a "safe" subject... they're not talking about what happens
if it gets used in a real-life crowd control situation at close range and/ot on much
longer than "recommended".
Oh but I forget... you're the kind of guy who builds his bizeps with a taser ROFL.
They've already used that on people. Another "nonlethal" weapon that will
a in+weapon
hideously kill at close range.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=microwave+p
Going from the clip's English description this young girl was possibly executed for
3 7548917870
being a prostitute and without a trial. I doubt she didn't get some sort of a trial
because regimes like China thrive on formalities but hey: No matter what she did...
she didn't deserve this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-45633855
To be fair you might not want to see it, the execution by rifle shown in the clip is
extremely graphic and they show a close-up of her head half of which is missing.
Why do we afford scumsucking regimes like China "Most Favored Nation" status??!
Giving a private corporation special powers by the way of law is nothing new under the
sun and a continuing trend as privatized law enforcement and private prison corporations
etc. come to mind. I see nothing unique about that kind of entity.
Looking at the WP-article and what you cited from it you most have overlooked this interesting
paragraph, right after you stop citing it says:
"Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by private "member banks" (in that each member bank owns n
nonnegotiable shares of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank; see below). In Lewis v. United States,
[2], the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal
instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned
and locally controlled corporations." The opinion also stated that "the Reserve Banks have properly been held
to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." [1]
I would contest the quotation marks around the "owned" even just because those shares can not be sold.
And coming to a close and speaking of thugs, the original stockholders in the Federal Reserve Banks were the
Rockefellers, JP Morgan, Rothschilds, the Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, the Warburgs, the Lehman Brothers
and Goldman Sachs, in other words the same people who financed all major wars since the French Revolution.
Without question, people to be trusted to do whatever in their power towards your best interests.
"I think the more interesting question is what if there was a classic "bank run" in Second Life? Could Linden pay up? The US banks are FDIC insured."
They'll reimburse you with virtual land or other virtual goods. Buzzing clouds of electron charge is what they have a
virtually unlimited supply of.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on "Fiat Currency" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency) reads:
"In economics, fiat currency or fiat money is money that enjoys legal tender status derived from a declaratory fiat or an authoritative order of the government."
It should read: Fiat currency is money that is backed by the trust in the promise that goods will be delivered in exchange.
Neither the Euro nor the "modern" Federal Reserve Dollar are backed up by anything but promises, they are fiat currencies.
What's more, the dollar is given out by a _private corporation_: "The Federal Reserve".
If you give it enough tought you will find that the Linden has no more and no less substance than the US dollar. The only real
difference between the two is that the USD is backed by a bunch of exceedingly tougher thugs who may or may not suffer the
Linden.
Inquiring minds want to know.
So what if I were journalist and radio host like Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com) and I made
6 1605341661&q=alex+jones4 395043413&q=alex+jones+order+of+death2 703884418&q=alex+jones
a living investigating the US government and the United Nations and exposing them in
television documentaries like you can _buy_ on DVD from hist site at http://www.infowars.com/ (
or watch for free on http://video.google.com/
Watch Terrorstorm http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=terrorstorm
Watch 911 The Road To Tyranny http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-64954627
Watch The Order of Death (Bohemian Grove Exposed!) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=492717506
Watch Police State 2: The Takeover by Alex Jones http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-73284568
Why should _he_ or anybody else for that matter register for the RIGHT to express their opinions in public
to any arbitrarily large audience?!
... is the first step. Once everbody is registered they have to have license to have a public opinion.
I'm not saying here that astroturfing isn't a huge problem, but if I started
speaking out against the govt/big business astroturfers guess whose license
would be revoked?