The difficulty comes in determining exactly what that fair cut is, given all the many ways to get income, and the many more ways to hide that income.
And I'd like to point out that this difficulty is due to the tax code and the patch work of laws the IRS is tasked with enforcing. We've been doing social engineering using the Tax Code for far too long and as all things governmental, it is hugely complex spaghetti mess of laws and unintended consequences which is beyond the average tax filer's ability to understand.
Not a currency, and instead merely a speculative instrument on par with stocks. Bitcoin is done.
I'm going to agree with others here. BitCoin is NOT done, at least not because of this. It is now just something you can own and trade as you see fit. For tax purposes it is treated as any other unregulated asset (Like trading in racing cars, or buying and selling small businesses.)
BitCoin was never really a "currency" (Officially). Some wanted to claim it was, but legally it never was or could be one. Best you could say was it was just property. The only thing this IRS action does is to solidify the fact that it's property for tax purposes. Which just means that gains and losses are only realized for tax purposes when you convert into a conventional currency (i.e. US $). This really changes nothing, except dismiss the "it's a valid currency" claim, at least for the US. Now it's just legally property you can buy, sell and trade. But you could do that anyway.
As I see it, you are passing judgment on the BitCoin creators' of intent. I'm assuming you are not the creator of BitCoin and I know I'm not so there is no way for either of us to actually know what their intent actually was. So at this point, I'll agree that we disagree on this.
I look at it this way. BitCoin is not in itself a scam, but it is a common vehicle used in scams and illegal activity.
Kind of like BitTorrent. There are some things out there you can download which are legal and don't infringe on anybodies copyrights, but the BULK of torrent downloads won't fall into that category. So, just because you are seeding torrents, doesn't mean you are infringing, although most people seeding ARE. Same with BitCoin, there are legal and legitimate uses for BitCoin, even though the majority of BitCoin use is not legitimate.
Look, I strongly recommend that folks not speculate in BitCoin as an investment, especially with money they cannot afford to loose. I think it is a lousy investment with way too much risk mainly because of the many scams we've seen that used BitCoin (and other cryptocurrencies). Exchanges are unregulated, the currency is awash in criminal activity. But so is the south side of Chicago. Stay safe and stay away..
Oh great. All we need is a pile of secondhand miner hardware out running on mom and dad's electric bill. I suppose the ROI is worth it if somebody else is paying the power bill, at least while they are still giving out coins for mining. There is just NO future in mining Coin in the long term. Once the last coin gets issued, unless the exchanges can support doing the hashing though their fees, this thing will die, and die quick.
everyone just needs to accept this: BITCOIN IS A SCAM
I am no fan of BitCoin but it is not a SCAM. It may be that people use BitCoin to run their scams, but that does not make BitCoin a scam. It may be used nearly exclusively as a tool for criminal activity, but I don't think the inverters of BitCoin intended to foist some cryptocurrency scam on the world.
Investing in BitCoin is stupid, to be sure, but that's because BitCoin and other cryptocurrencies are rife with people who don't mind getting you to part with your money. If you want to buy something using BitCoin and somebody doesn't mind accepting them, fine, just don't fool yourself into thinking BitCoin is an investment and try to hold them.
Full disclosure.. I don't hunt as an adult, but I was raised in a family which did.
IMHO There is nothing wrong with hunting for sport despite your feelings otherwise. Trophy hunting has ethical guidelines, and as long as folks stay within the traditional rules, I'm fine with it. Be responsible and have fun.
Just because *you* don't think it is a sport, or something you would be interested in trying, doesn't mean others don't find it worth while and rewarding. So you can drop the city slicker attitude about hunting and firearms and be willing to let others pursue happiness as they see fit. You might even try it once in your life, who knows, you might enjoy yourself... Naw, who am I kidding, stay home, you'd just be complaining about the food and lack of running water, making so much noise that nobody would have a good time...
One more time I'll try a bit of logic on you before I write you off as a troll..
1. I claimed that the Republicans generally *support* NASA and science... You claimed they don't..
2. I asked you why you think that... You said because they vote that way...
3. I said that I don't see that in the official record, so prove me wrong by showing me what votes you think support your claim that republicans don't support science, (specifically because they believe in creationism).
4. Now you are saying that you are right because I'm too dumb or lazy to find the evidence that proves me wrong? I looked, I didn't find any evidence of republicans voting down funding for NASA specifically, even without bringing the creationist issue into play.
You are asking me to prove a negative. Which is generally trollish behavior... So, which is it? Are you a troll or do you really have evidence for your claims?
Ahh.. So you cannot find it then.. OK, you loose this round.
Thomas.gov is the official Library of Congress site that provides public access to congressional records. On the internet it is the primary and authoritative location for official congressional records.
I'll take it that because you don't know where or how to find your supporting information on the primary authoritative source, it likely doesn't exist.
Go to Thomas.gov and find the votes you think best reflect the republicans trying to gut NASA and let me know what they are because I don't recall any republican at the federal level making any issue out of funding NASA in general much less based on their creationist stance and a quick search of bills with NASA in them seems to indicate a general support of NASA from the Republican introduced bills I've saw.
They've been fighting hard against science and technology for decades. They've been almost successful in destroying NASA. Now they have the private space industry in their sights. Expect someone to go to prison for attempting to advance science.
AC, you are either an idiot or very sarcastic..
Republicans are decidedly NOT anti science and technology, just for reasonable spending levels. The Democrats are all about spending on social programs and just about anything else that they can construct some emotional case for. Who cares about how much it costs or what real science is being done, we are just printing the cash anyway.
Next you are going to tell me that the Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff, take food from starving children, and ruin the environment... Shesh..
hunting with weapons is not a sport, its an uneven battle of slaughter with 99% of the advantage weighted on the human side.
Haven't been on a *real* big game trophy hunt, have you. Trust me, it's a sport. Even with modern hunting weapons (GPS, long distance rifles, scopes etc), it's not easy, nor is it a foregone conclusion that a hunter will come back with the trophy desired. It takes effort, time, skill and luck (Not to mention money for the right guides and getting to the right locations). I assure you, it's NOT a slaughter with 99% advantage to humans. Many hunters go home empty handed. (Both without a trophy and a lighter wallet).
Hunting for food, IS more of a slaughter, and should be, but it's not 99% assured. Getting a deer tag, is not going to put a deer in the freezer for you, you still have to go out and find one, shoot it, dress it and get it home. But raising farm animals for food is 100% slaughter and we do that ALL the time.
Hunting as a sport using advanced technology? Um, nope. Maybe for food or population control, but for sport? No, I don't think so.
I'm good with hunting for sport, but where's the thrill in killing that big buck using a spotlight to get him to stand still? For sport hunting, you need to get out and tromp around the woods and actually engage in the sport. You don't break out the night vision goggles and set up feeding/salt stations to draw animals in, you go out and find them Now for population control or food, the gloves come off in my mind. Let's be efficient in these cases. Culling herds and eating the kills is even better.
So if this law prevents the outfitters/guides from "cheating" on the sport part for their customers, I'm good with banning drones. But if it keeps folks from being more efficient in gathering food, I'm not so sure.
You are going to pay to retool to Linux, but you get to step away from Microsoft license fees.
What do you think will cost less: Re-writing your apps for Linux or spending a day fixing a few niggles because you had to upgrade to Visual Studio 2012 and Windows 7?
Short term? Windows, long term Linux. Pick your poison, stay under the oppression of paying license fees to Micro$oft forever or pay to retool your development environment once. Personally, I'd pay up front and do this once, but I guess that is why I'm not in management..
Why an ATM was hosted on XP in the first place is beyond me. I suppose you dance with the one who brought you and banks are solidly Windows shops, but using XP for a device where security and reliability is paramount seems like a bad choice, at least in hindsight. I suppose in the depths of the XP heyday, when the base design decisions where being made, Linux was a decidedly hit and miss affair (mostly miss). X support was spotty and other devices had limited support. I remember the heady days of installing slackware and configuring video card and monitor by editing that text file. XP must have looked pretty good.
Now, ATM venders are faced with having to port everything to newer versions of Windows, which forces them into more expensive hardware (faster CPU's, more memory, greater drive space, modern video hardware etc.). This in the face of being able to keep using the old proven hardware, put Linux on it and get another decade or two, not to mention control of your own destiny because the source code is available and free. You are going to pay to retool to Linux, but you get to step away from Microsoft license fees. It's a long term gain, short term loss.
Maybe they will make the right choice this time? Who are we kidding... You KNOW that Microsoft has pulled out all the stops on the Redmond FUD machine and would gladly cut some "deals" to keep these guys on the hook and make Linux look less desirable in terms of ROI.
Injured on the job? Are you talking paper cuts or what?
Have you actually seen a programmer injured on the job?
Yes. I knew a lady that slipped on the stairs and broke her hip on the way down and a guy who tumbled off his office char and broke some bones too. Slips and falls are more likely to lead to serious injuries as you get older and loose strength, coordination, eyesight and hearing. Bone density goes down, breaks are more likely etc. The joys of getting older... Then there is the carpal tunnel issue that affects older people more often too....
Programming is generally a "safe" profession, but normal office type injuries can still occur.
Also, older workers have higher costs for medical and sick leave and are more often injured on the job.
Oh for crying out loud, he wants to be a programmer... do you know of a single job related injury of a programmer that didn't involve something involving a nomination in a non-fatal Darwin-award category (like chair races)?
I knew an older lady programmer who fell down the stairs at work, so Yes! I have stories to illustrate my point. She slipped on a pen that somebody dropped and didn't have the strength or coordination to keep from going down 3/4'ths of a flight of stairs. Paramedics had to be called. She was out for months for a broken hip. I know of an older guy who was rolling across the floor in his office chair and hit a bump. He got dumped onto the floor and because he tried to catch himself messed up his arm and hand. He wasn't out of work for months, but he was reduced to one hand. (Yea, that's Darwin-esk, but hey, it was IN his cube.)
Then there is the fact that older folks do get sick more often...
Slashdot Mirror
Its just a barter system
This applies to any currency, unless you are dealing in chocolate coins.
Actually, I like your example.. BitCoins are almost EXACTLY like trading chocolate coins, except they are not filled with chocolate..
The difficulty comes in determining exactly what that fair cut is, given all the many ways to get income, and the many more ways to hide that income.
And I'd like to point out that this difficulty is due to the tax code and the patch work of laws the IRS is tasked with enforcing. We've been doing social engineering using the Tax Code for far too long and as all things governmental, it is hugely complex spaghetti mess of laws and unintended consequences which is beyond the average tax filer's ability to understand.
Not a currency, and instead merely a speculative instrument on par with stocks. Bitcoin is done.
I'm going to agree with others here. BitCoin is NOT done, at least not because of this. It is now just something you can own and trade as you see fit. For tax purposes it is treated as any other unregulated asset (Like trading in racing cars, or buying and selling small businesses.)
BitCoin was never really a "currency" (Officially). Some wanted to claim it was, but legally it never was or could be one. Best you could say was it was just property. The only thing this IRS action does is to solidify the fact that it's property for tax purposes. Which just means that gains and losses are only realized for tax purposes when you convert into a conventional currency (i.e. US $). This really changes nothing, except dismiss the "it's a valid currency" claim, at least for the US. Now it's just legally property you can buy, sell and trade. But you could do that anyway.
Nothing has changed.
Which I suggest you do ASAP..
As I see it, you are passing judgment on the BitCoin creators' of intent. I'm assuming you are not the creator of BitCoin and I know I'm not so there is no way for either of us to actually know what their intent actually was. So at this point, I'll agree that we disagree on this.
Now to put you on my ignore list....
I look at it this way. BitCoin is not in itself a scam, but it is a common vehicle used in scams and illegal activity.
Kind of like BitTorrent. There are some things out there you can download which are legal and don't infringe on anybodies copyrights, but the BULK of torrent downloads won't fall into that category. So, just because you are seeding torrents, doesn't mean you are infringing, although most people seeding ARE. Same with BitCoin, there are legal and legitimate uses for BitCoin, even though the majority of BitCoin use is not legitimate.
Look, I strongly recommend that folks not speculate in BitCoin as an investment, especially with money they cannot afford to loose. I think it is a lousy investment with way too much risk mainly because of the many scams we've seen that used BitCoin (and other cryptocurrencies). Exchanges are unregulated, the currency is awash in criminal activity. But so is the south side of Chicago. Stay safe and stay away..
Oh great. All we need is a pile of secondhand miner hardware out running on mom and dad's electric bill. I suppose the ROI is worth it if somebody else is paying the power bill, at least while they are still giving out coins for mining. There is just NO future in mining Coin in the long term. Once the last coin gets issued, unless the exchanges can support doing the hashing though their fees, this thing will die, and die quick.
everyone just needs to accept this: BITCOIN IS A SCAM
I am no fan of BitCoin but it is not a SCAM. It may be that people use BitCoin to run their scams, but that does not make BitCoin a scam. It may be used nearly exclusively as a tool for criminal activity, but I don't think the inverters of BitCoin intended to foist some cryptocurrency scam on the world.
Investing in BitCoin is stupid, to be sure, but that's because BitCoin and other cryptocurrencies are rife with people who don't mind getting you to part with your money. If you want to buy something using BitCoin and somebody doesn't mind accepting them, fine, just don't fool yourself into thinking BitCoin is an investment and try to hold them.
Full disclosure.. I don't hunt as an adult, but I was raised in a family which did.
IMHO There is nothing wrong with hunting for sport despite your feelings otherwise. Trophy hunting has ethical guidelines, and as long as folks stay within the traditional rules, I'm fine with it. Be responsible and have fun.
Just because *you* don't think it is a sport, or something you would be interested in trying, doesn't mean others don't find it worth while and rewarding. So you can drop the city slicker attitude about hunting and firearms and be willing to let others pursue happiness as they see fit. You might even try it once in your life, who knows, you might enjoy yourself... Naw, who am I kidding, stay home, you'd just be complaining about the food and lack of running water, making so much noise that nobody would have a good time...
One more time I'll try a bit of logic on you before I write you off as a troll..
1. I claimed that the Republicans generally *support* NASA and science... You claimed they don't..
2. I asked you why you think that... You said because they vote that way...
3. I said that I don't see that in the official record, so prove me wrong by showing me what votes you think support your claim that republicans don't support science, (specifically because they believe in creationism).
4. Now you are saying that you are right because I'm too dumb or lazy to find the evidence that proves me wrong? I looked, I didn't find any evidence of republicans voting down funding for NASA specifically, even without bringing the creationist issue into play.
You are asking me to prove a negative. Which is generally trollish behavior... So, which is it? Are you a troll or do you really have evidence for your claims?
Ahh.. So you cannot find it then.. OK, you loose this round.
Thomas.gov is the official Library of Congress site that provides public access to congressional records. On the internet it is the primary and authoritative location for official congressional records.
I'll take it that because you don't know where or how to find your supporting information on the primary authoritative source, it likely doesn't exist.
Hmmmm... So.. Time to put up some facts on that.
Go to Thomas.gov and find the votes you think best reflect the republicans trying to gut NASA and let me know what they are because I don't recall any republican at the federal level making any issue out of funding NASA in general much less based on their creationist stance and a quick search of bills with NASA in them seems to indicate a general support of NASA from the Republican introduced bills I've saw.
Republicans are decidedly NOT anti science and technology, just for reasonable spending levels.
Right, and what's reasonable to them is whatever doesn't conflict with creationism, which most of them believe in. Science is right out.
Seriously? Ignorance knows no bounds.
Besides, we where talking about the false narrative that says the Republicans wanted to destroy NASA. I don't think that is true.
They've been fighting hard against science and technology for decades. They've been almost successful in destroying NASA. Now they have the private space industry in their sights. Expect someone to go to prison for attempting to advance science.
AC, you are either an idiot or very sarcastic..
Republicans are decidedly NOT anti science and technology, just for reasonable spending levels. The Democrats are all about spending on social programs and just about anything else that they can construct some emotional case for. Who cares about how much it costs or what real science is being done, we are just printing the cash anyway.
Next you are going to tell me that the Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff, take food from starving children, and ruin the environment... Shesh..
hunting with weapons is not a sport, its an uneven battle of slaughter with 99% of the advantage weighted on the human side.
Haven't been on a *real* big game trophy hunt, have you. Trust me, it's a sport. Even with modern hunting weapons (GPS, long distance rifles, scopes etc), it's not easy, nor is it a foregone conclusion that a hunter will come back with the trophy desired. It takes effort, time, skill and luck (Not to mention money for the right guides and getting to the right locations). I assure you, it's NOT a slaughter with 99% advantage to humans. Many hunters go home empty handed. (Both without a trophy and a lighter wallet).
Hunting for food, IS more of a slaughter, and should be, but it's not 99% assured. Getting a deer tag, is not going to put a deer in the freezer for you, you still have to go out and find one, shoot it, dress it and get it home. But raising farm animals for food is 100% slaughter and we do that ALL the time.
Dude... A bush plane? You are LOW class. What about a helicopter?
Spying on the neighbor's dog?
Hunting as a sport using advanced technology? Um, nope. Maybe for food or population control, but for sport? No, I don't think so.
I'm good with hunting for sport, but where's the thrill in killing that big buck using a spotlight to get him to stand still? For sport hunting, you need to get out and tromp around the woods and actually engage in the sport. You don't break out the night vision goggles and set up feeding/salt stations to draw animals in, you go out and find them Now for population control or food, the gloves come off in my mind. Let's be efficient in these cases. Culling herds and eating the kills is even better.
So if this law prevents the outfitters/guides from "cheating" on the sport part for their customers, I'm good with banning drones. But if it keeps folks from being more efficient in gathering food, I'm not so sure.
You are going to pay to retool to Linux, but you get to step away from Microsoft license fees.
What do you think will cost less: Re-writing your apps for Linux or spending a day fixing a few niggles because you had to upgrade to Visual Studio 2012 and Windows 7?
Short term? Windows, long term Linux. Pick your poison, stay under the oppression of paying license fees to Micro$oft forever or pay to retool your development environment once. Personally, I'd pay up front and do this once, but I guess that is why I'm not in management..
Why an ATM was hosted on XP in the first place is beyond me. I suppose you dance with the one who brought you and banks are solidly Windows shops, but using XP for a device where security and reliability is paramount seems like a bad choice, at least in hindsight. I suppose in the depths of the XP heyday, when the base design decisions where being made, Linux was a decidedly hit and miss affair (mostly miss). X support was spotty and other devices had limited support. I remember the heady days of installing slackware and configuring video card and monitor by editing that text file. XP must have looked pretty good.
Now, ATM venders are faced with having to port everything to newer versions of Windows, which forces them into more expensive hardware (faster CPU's, more memory, greater drive space, modern video hardware etc.). This in the face of being able to keep using the old proven hardware, put Linux on it and get another decade or two, not to mention control of your own destiny because the source code is available and free. You are going to pay to retool to Linux, but you get to step away from Microsoft license fees. It's a long term gain, short term loss.
Maybe they will make the right choice this time? Who are we kidding... You KNOW that Microsoft has pulled out all the stops on the Redmond FUD machine and would gladly cut some "deals" to keep these guys on the hook and make Linux look less desirable in terms of ROI.
It was an illusion to Toy Story's closing credits.
Is it the release name?
Yes, it is a release name for the Debian Linux distribution. http://www.debian.org/releases...
I feel a song coming on!
Injured on the job? Are you talking paper cuts or what? Have you actually seen a programmer injured on the job?
Yes. I knew a lady that slipped on the stairs and broke her hip on the way down and a guy who tumbled off his office char and broke some bones too. Slips and falls are more likely to lead to serious injuries as you get older and loose strength, coordination, eyesight and hearing. Bone density goes down, breaks are more likely etc. The joys of getting older... Then there is the carpal tunnel issue that affects older people more often too....
Programming is generally a "safe" profession, but normal office type injuries can still occur.
Oh for crying out loud, he wants to be a programmer ... do you know of a single job related injury of a programmer that didn't involve something involving a nomination in a non-fatal Darwin-award category (like chair races)?
I knew an older lady programmer who fell down the stairs at work, so Yes! I have stories to illustrate my point. She slipped on a pen that somebody dropped and didn't have the strength or coordination to keep from going down 3/4'ths of a flight of stairs. Paramedics had to be called. She was out for months for a broken hip. I know of an older guy who was rolling across the floor in his office chair and hit a bump. He got dumped onto the floor and because he tried to catch himself messed up his arm and hand. He wasn't out of work for months, but he was reduced to one hand. (Yea, that's Darwin-esk, but hey, it was IN his cube.)
Then there is the fact that older folks do get sick more often...