The invasive insect species have been devastating California forests since before the drought.
That, sir, is a lie told with weasel words. "Before the drought"? Only true if you take it to mean before this drought. But the pine borer really took off during the last drought. At best you are spectacularly ignorant of the fact that this problem was in fact brought about by drought.
No. The problem was not "brought about" by the drought. The drought increased the problem, it did not create the problem. The problem existed before the drought and there are other factors besides the drought that aggravate the problem, for example forest density. Any sort of competition aggravates the problem, not just competition for water.
Trees in the Southern California mountains have been dying for years due to smog. That's pretty much a home-grown problem. Ozone concentrations tend to be highest in the areas that have had good forests, and pines (especially) seem to be sensitive to it. Combine with drought and beetles...
Smog and ozone have both been declining since the 1970s. Things are far better on that criteria than in the past.
Those insects are taking root strongly because the trees have been under significant stress for years due to...
you guessed it: drought!
I recall insect problems from years before there were drought problems. I'm sure drought complicates things but things were not healthy before the drought.
Well most populous areas of CA would be a desert wasteland if it were not for civil engineering. Maybe ought to let it revert it it's natural environment.
The dying trees are in areas with naturally occurring forests, in regions above 5,000ft elevation that have local water sources. In the North and the South.
But the specific excuse for doing this mentioned reserves. They might as well just admit that they are on a fishing expedition.
The slashdot summary phrases things as "reserves". The actually court document introduction focuses on tax avoidance.
"The IRS is responsible for monitoring ways in which United States taxpayers evade their United States tax obligations by concealing or otherwise failing to report their proper amount of taxable income and thus underpay their taxes... In order to identify taxpayers who have may have underpaid taxes associated with transactions in virtual currency, the United States brings this ex parte proceeding under 7609(f) and (h) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) for leave to serve a John Doe summons on Coinbase." https://www.documentcloud.org/...
So, I need to declare when I give property to another person on my W2.
Well, yes, but not on the W2.
Who pays the gift tax?
The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement.
What is considered a gift?
Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return.
What can be excluded from gifts?
The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
They are not taxing your reserves. They seem to be looking for (a) people who traded in bitcoins but didn't report the gain/loss and (b) people who sold goods/services and were paid in bitcoins but didn't report the income.
Its not really the electoral college itself. Its the states adopting winner take all allocations of delegates. So the problem is really at the state level not the federal level. Unless of course you believe the small states should get a modest boost of influence to avoid being bullied by the large states. Yes, a modest boost. The electoral college delegates are based on how many House of Representative members a state gets, which is based on population, plus two electoral delegates for the two Senators the state gets. That's it. Each state gets two electors beyond what they normally get for population. Its only a big deal for the absolutely tiniest of states. Again, the real problem is not this electoral college scheme, its the winner take all schemes adopted at the state level.
The problem with the popular vote argument is that its just trivia. Neither candidate was going for the popular, both were going for the electoral. Both allocated time and money for the electoral. If the popular had been the goal then they would have allocated time and money very differently and we would have a very different popular vote as a result.
Its like the losing side in a football game saying we moved the ball more yards. Yes, but such yardage wasn't the goal. If such yardage had been how a game was to be decided then both teams would have played very differently and the resulting yardage would have been very different.
Not when the difference between the two candidates is 0.2%. The popular vote is effectively a tie. Its even a closer tie than Bush/Gore where the difference was 0.5%.
I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote...
The problem with the popular vote argument is that its just trivia. Neither candidate was going for the popular, both were going for the electoral. Both allocated time and money for the electoral. If the popular had been the goal then they would have allocated time and money very differently and we would have a very different popular vote as a result.
Its like the losing side in a football game saying we moved the ball more yards. Yes, but such yardage wasn't the goal. If such yardage had been how a game was to be decided then both teams would have played very differently and the resulting yardage would have been very different.
Give me a little time and I'll try to work out a car analogy.:-)
There just aren't that many experienced, prominent Democrats out there.
You don't necessarily need a prominent experienced Democrat to beat Hillary in a primary. A Freshman Senator with less than two years on the job and with no other national experience beat her in 2008.
The election was lost long before the voting, the DNC should not have attempted a coronation.
This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.
It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same "mistake" and essentially ran her "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".
[sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].
"By the way, and if he gets to pick his judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
You truly do not know. The "second amendment solution" was shown in 1994 when they absolutely devastated and destroyed Bill Clinton's Democrat controlled Congress because of the passage of the Assault Weapons ban.
If second amendment types are know for anything it is showing up on election day to protect their rights. Politicians at the more local levels (i.e. Congress) are very well aware of this. That is why even reasonable reforms like a universal background check go nowhere, because the politicians remember the "second amendment solution" of 1994 very well.
The NRA's power is not campaign contributions, its delivering motivated single issue voters to the polls. And with margins so close in the swing states the NRA delivered the message to Democrats again.
And thus - was not impeached. Only two impeachments ever. Interestingly, both were Democrats.
Its not that simple. Force does not have to be applied to reach a desired outcome, sometimes only the threat of such force is necessary. I would think someone with your signature would well understand that reality.:-)
The DNC's failure started long before that, they should not have attempted a coronation.
This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.
It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same mistake and essentially ran here "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".
[sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].
When on the road there is even less chance someone else will be booting, rather than waking, the machine. Also you can always download Linux again in the very unlikely event.
Plus the reenable OS verifications prompt times out, its largely lost in all the other pre-OS boot type messages. In other words is nearly universally ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Carrying around a tiny radioactive battery in every phone, watch, pacemaker, and remote control seems like a great idea,
Fine, power your bitcoin asic in the closet.
Or move the remote control a few centimeters away from you when not actively clicking.
From the summary: "Carbon-14 is a low-yield beta particle emitter that can't penetrate even a few centimeters of air"
What is the energy input required to create this vs the energy it will output?
Its not that simple. Basically the true comparisons are the alternative nuclear waste storage and energy storage (battery) options?
The invasive insect species have been devastating California forests since before the drought.
That, sir, is a lie told with weasel words. "Before the drought"? Only true if you take it to mean before this drought. But the pine borer really took off during the last drought. At best you are spectacularly ignorant of the fact that this problem was in fact brought about by drought.
No. The problem was not "brought about" by the drought. The drought increased the problem, it did not create the problem. The problem existed before the drought and there are other factors besides the drought that aggravate the problem, for example forest density. Any sort of competition aggravates the problem, not just competition for water.
Trees in the Southern California mountains have been dying for years due to smog. That's pretty much a home-grown problem. Ozone concentrations tend to be highest in the areas that have had good forests, and pines (especially) seem to be sensitive to it. Combine with drought and beetles...
Smog and ozone have both been declining since the 1970s. Things are far better on that criteria than in the past.
Those insects are taking root strongly because the trees have been under significant stress for years due to... you guessed it: drought!
I recall insect problems from years before there were drought problems. I'm sure drought complicates things but things were not healthy before the drought.
Its not just the North, the South has the invasive species problem too. Large swaths of forest have been killed by them.
I know stuff-all about american species but any tree that is stressed from insufficient water will be more vulnerable to insect and disease attack.
The invasive insect species have been devastating California forests since before the drought.
There are invasive non-indigenous inspect species that are killing large swaths of California forest. Its not just drought problem.
Well most populous areas of CA would be a desert wasteland if it were not for civil engineering. Maybe ought to let it revert it it's natural environment.
The dying trees are in areas with naturally occurring forests, in regions above 5,000ft elevation that have local water sources. In the North and the South.
But the specific excuse for doing this mentioned reserves. They might as well just admit that they are on a fishing expedition.
The slashdot summary phrases things as "reserves". The actually court document introduction focuses on tax avoidance. ... In order to identify taxpayers who have may have underpaid taxes associated with transactions in virtual currency, the United States brings this ex parte proceeding under 7609(f) and (h) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) for leave to serve a John Doe summons on Coinbase."
"The IRS is responsible for monitoring ways in which United States taxpayers evade their United States tax obligations by concealing or otherwise failing to report their proper amount of taxable income and thus underpay their taxes
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
So, I need to declare when I give property to another person on my W2.
Well, yes, but not on the W2.
Who pays the gift tax?
The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement.
What is considered a gift?
Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return.
What can be excluded from gifts?
The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses...
They are not taxing your reserves. They seem to be looking for (a) people who traded in bitcoins but didn't report the gain/loss and (b) people who sold goods/services and were paid in bitcoins but didn't report the income.
Its not really the electoral college itself. Its the states adopting winner take all allocations of delegates. So the problem is really at the state level not the federal level. Unless of course you believe the small states should get a modest boost of influence to avoid being bullied by the large states. Yes, a modest boost. The electoral college delegates are based on how many House of Representative members a state gets, which is based on population, plus two electoral delegates for the two Senators the state gets. That's it. Each state gets two electors beyond what they normally get for population. Its only a big deal for the absolutely tiniest of states. Again, the real problem is not this electoral college scheme, its the winner take all schemes adopted at the state level.
The problem with the popular vote argument is that its just trivia. Neither candidate was going for the popular, both were going for the electoral. Both allocated time and money for the electoral. If the popular had been the goal then they would have allocated time and money very differently and we would have a very different popular vote as a result.
Its like the losing side in a football game saying we moved the ball more yards. Yes, but such yardage wasn't the goal. If such yardage had been how a game was to be decided then both teams would have played very differently and the resulting yardage would have been very different.
Popular vote creates a mandate.
Not when the difference between the two candidates is 0.2%. The popular vote is effectively a tie. Its even a closer tie than Bush/Gore where the difference was 0.5%.
I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote ...
The problem with the popular vote argument is that its just trivia. Neither candidate was going for the popular, both were going for the electoral. Both allocated time and money for the electoral. If the popular had been the goal then they would have allocated time and money very differently and we would have a very different popular vote as a result. :-)
Its like the losing side in a football game saying we moved the ball more yards. Yes, but such yardage wasn't the goal. If such yardage had been how a game was to be decided then both teams would have played very differently and the resulting yardage would have been very different.
Give me a little time and I'll try to work out a car analogy.
There just aren't that many experienced, prominent Democrats out there.
You don't necessarily need a prominent experienced Democrat to beat Hillary in a primary. A Freshman Senator with less than two years on the job and with no other national experience beat her in 2008.
The election was lost long before the voting, the DNC should not have attempted a coronation.
This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.
It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same "mistake" and essentially ran her "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".
[sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].
There is also something called bluffing with a "threat of force", and having your bluff called.
It wasn't a bluff, Republicans were deserting Nixon and advising resignation.
"By the way, and if he gets to pick his judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
You truly do not know. The "second amendment solution" was shown in 1994 when they absolutely devastated and destroyed Bill Clinton's Democrat controlled Congress because of the passage of the Assault Weapons ban.
If second amendment types are know for anything it is showing up on election day to protect their rights. Politicians at the more local levels (i.e. Congress) are very well aware of this. That is why even reasonable reforms like a universal background check go nowhere, because the politicians remember the "second amendment solution" of 1994 very well.
The NRA's power is not campaign contributions, its delivering motivated single issue voters to the polls. And with margins so close in the swing states the NRA delivered the message to Democrats again.
And thus - was not impeached. Only two impeachments ever. Interestingly, both were Democrats.
Its not that simple. Force does not have to be applied to reach a desired outcome, sometimes only the threat of such force is necessary. I would think someone with your signature would well understand that reality. :-)
Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.
The DNC's failure started long before that, they should not have attempted a coronation.
This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.
It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same mistake and essentially ran here "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".
[sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].
Perhaps on a clear day with little wind.
That's what the GPS is for.
Also note that this new projectile is 155mm (6.1in) or about half the size of the big guns from WW1.
Its a Destroyer gun and US Destroyers have been armed with 5 inch guns. So the shell is about 20% larger.
When on the road there is even less chance someone else will be booting, rather than waking, the machine. Also you can always download Linux again in the very unlikely event.
Plus the reenable OS verifications prompt times out, its largely lost in all the other pre-OS boot type messages. In other words is nearly universally ignored.