Yes, yes, because every bridge the government builds falls down three or four times a day in the first couple of weeks after it's opened.

Hmmm. The link Works For Me (TM). Probably your country's oppressive internet filter in action...

So right - but so bad for your karma.

The problem isn't the politicians' lack of intelligence, but the fact that their motives aren't aligned with what I want

FTFY. Your post is pure wishful thinking, Actually, when asked, the British public are widely supportive of ISP-level filtering to block pornography. The most on-point survey I can dig up[1] is from 2010, but shows that, even though only 16% of people think that a filter would be effective at blocking pornography and 60% think it would be relatively easy for technically-able people to circumvent it, still 60% of people supported a filter and only 22% opposed it.

So, actually, the politicians are doing what they should - implementing the will of the majority of the people. You don't like it personally? Tough.

That same survey, by the way, showed more support for an opt-out (ie default-on) filter than for an opt-in one, though other surveys have shown the other way around.

[1] http://yougov.co.uk/news/2010/12/22/pornography-protection/

That's where you're wrong. Move with the times.

Second, move somewhere where your taxes are not used on bombing villages in Pakistan, which has the downside that you can no longer feel patriotic about being an American.

This falls over the line into definite doublethink. Apparently, it's fine to feel patriotic about being an American while your government bombs hell out of innocent villagers in Pakistan; it's only if you leave America that you'd ever have to stop feeling patriotic.

Really? I've only ever tried this once, at Bristol international airport, but the scanner read off my LCD screen just fine.

Given the average update frequency and lack of greyscaling, I don't think anyone's going to be watching pr0n on these.

Similar idea to the Entourage eDGe. I thought these had fallen by the wayside (about two weeks after I bought one, incidentally) but at least the Wikipedia entry doesn't mention that they've gone out of business.

The simplest and most effective way is to let a few services go down for a few hours due to lack of maintenance and explain that you're too busy to get them all up again in short time.

No, those were promisory notes denominated in US dollars - which were issued by the US Treasury and which (then) had their value fixed by the US government.

The cattle claim probably has some validity - there is good evidence that the Assyrians accounted the value of debts in head of cattle, not necessarily representing physical cattle but an equivalent value. They were essentially exchanging promisory notes denominated in cattle. This forms some of the earliest evidence of writing we have.

The claim above that money has only been in use as we know it for a few hundred years is simply ludicrous, though. Throughout Europe, Africa and the Near East at the very least coins are dug regularly that are at least 2,000 years old. A very basic google search will find you images of Western coins that are ~2,700 years old. The Chinese have been minting coins for at least 3,000 years. This is only based on archaeological finds and there is no particular reason to think the history of money is not longer - coinage is, after all, something of value which is not just thrown away to be found thousands of years later.

So, yes, money in a form that is very recognisable from today's money has existed for a very large fraction of (recorded) human history.

System. It's called the Federal Reserve System - FRS. See? It's not 'owned' by anyone, any more than the Supreme Court is 'owned' by anyone.

Well, regulation and creation are also rather different things. My car exists because someone made it and sold it to me, and is subject to creation. The FRS exists because congress passed a law creating it.

What is money if not basically a promissory device? I promise to give you a certain amount of goods and services.

Fine. But that's not what banknotes are - they are a promise to give you a certain amount of money, not a certain amount of goods and services. You can then trade that promise in exchange for goods and services.