It seems to me that long term, their can only be a one way migration from fossil fuel based energy to non-fossil fuel energy. Are we there yet? We haven't even gotten started. But I've been reading, and SRS Rocco Report has been publishing information that makes it sound like the US energy industry is in financial trouble (much like the financial problems in Russia, Venezuela, and certain others. https://srsroccoreport.com/u-s...
What that will lead to will be a shutdown of US production and/or a significant increase in the cost of fossil fuels, which will probably lead to a cost advantage for non-fossil fuel sources, which will begin a real migration in the US to solar, wind and other energy sources, and hopefully an increase in production of the equipment, which will hopefully provide increased economies of scale and help drive down costs. Since wind and solar don't increase in cost to produce, there is a ceiling there that will eventually force most places to switch (some may not as the cost of the cause the cost of remaining oil to go down significantly). The hardest (most costly) to extract will be turned off, and the oil and gas market should be much smaller than now.
Well, scheme means scam, that is an intent to defraud.
This a bubble/mania possibly approaching the euphoria stage caused by the excitement of once in an eternity price activity and fear of missing out causing people who don't know better to rush in hoping that there is still money to be made. Of course, even if the price goes to 100k, you'll only get about 6x your money at current prices, with a potential drop of 50 or a thousand depending on just how bad the shakeout is.
It's not capitalism. I'm pretty sure the communists had the same sort of thing. In fact, here is an article on communism and stay at home motherhood. Note the quote from Marx's friend Engels. I completely disagree. I think the stay at home mother is the glue, and it is a good role for women that naturally capitalizes on their greater social gifts, and I know my wife despite her education as a Registered Nurse provides more value for our family as the stay at home homeschooling mom than she would be paid in money professionally. Of course, it depends on the value you place on the relationships within the house, and the way she spends her time, but we value those more than they could pay her.
Unfortunately, many women/families have decided it is financially beneficial for the mother to work, and thus valued the work in the home below what a mother's wage is in the workplace. But if somebody decides to make things work based on one income, and have a realistic budget, especially with regards to the size and cost of their home, there is no reason many people couldn't decide to make ends meet on one income, meaning people are choosing to chase money and lifestyle over family centered lifestyle.
Or '...will incur a $100 handling fee payable before delivery.' Or whatever price you would consider an acceptable compensation for your inconvenience. If somebody complains, tell them 'policy is policy'.
But over the course of a year, 2.5 million jobs can really move the needle. Of course, you have to reduce the destroyed (layoffs, company shutdown , etc) from those created, so the net jobs is the main concern.
Kind of crazy to think people would seriously think the human body couldn't go above 20 when men can run over 30. A search of the internet brought back a claim that people were concerned that women shouldn't travel on trains going more than 50mph due to their perceived fragility, specifically of their woman specific organs (since I imagine there is no difference between the brain matter or stomach of a woman or man).
When I did my taxes a couple of years ago (making 54k), I received a refund (after no withholding) of around 3500-4000 due to child tax credits. Just found a calculator, and put in the same income and other numbers and found one says I would be due a refund of about 4500 on one calculator, and another that says I may be due 6800. Either way, indications are that we'll be better off.
The majority of Americans don't make the sort of money that will result in itemizing taxes, and so deductions don't matter to most, they have to take the standard. Realize that not everybody's taxes will go down under the plan that passes. When you eliminate deductions in favor of lower rates and larger standard deductions, some people who were using a lot of deductions are going to end up with a larger tax bill, but those who don't itemize are going to come out ahead. For my situation, I'll be giving up a 3,000 deduction for each child, which at my tax rate is about 450 in taxes, in order to receive an increase in tax credits of $600 or $1000 dollars, so I'm going to be getting an improvement in my end position. Multiply this by the number of kids I have, and we will have a lot of new money to help secure our financial future.
Also, balance the old plan against the new for a lifetime. For somebody who still has young kids at home, they are going to reap thousands of dollars in tax credits (much better than deductions, of which you only get a small percentage back in tax reduction, credits are dollar for dollar decreases), for more than a decade, then when their kids go to school, hopefully they will have done well enough preparation for the previous decades to pay the taxes on money that they will end up paying for education, which will probably be partially offset by their greater standard deduction that they will now be more inclined to take. For me, in the 15% bracket (assuming it is still here when my kids are in college), if I could deduct tuition, I'd get back about 6000 for deducting tuition. Comparing that to the amount of money I'd get back in additional tax credits (18,000 at 1000x18years), I'd absolutely prefer the new tax code.
You are an individual where you've already missed the main benefits of this new tax code, but also losing out on what something that you've already started to use. But most probably don't take advantage of the same tax benefit you are enjoying, and those that soon will reach the place you are, and may not even be aware of what they no longer might have had, but hopefully reaping a replacement reward in lower overall taxes.
Consider a couple who is at 30 a year combined income (a low income couple with no dependents). Their taxable income will go down 2700, increasing their refund by $270.
Consider a family at 30k with 2 kids. Under the new plan without tax deductions, their taxable income goes up, but with tax credits, their tax refund would go from 1960 to 3400.
Understand, the press and Democrats are demonizing this bill. But when people start doing taxes under this plan, the poor are going to be pleased, and the tax code will be more progressive shifting tax burdens from the lower class to the middle and upper, and is the media going to complain about the poor paying less taxes?
Your loans are going to cost you interest which will reduce your cash in your policy, unless the loan is small enough that the interest growth on your remaining cash is strong enough to counter the interest on the loan. If you outlive your policy because the cash value evaporates, you will have to pay the taxes, and there will be no death benefit.
You can however take out the initial principal, as a return of premium which is money you already paid taxes on, without having to pay any taxes.
I check out my video entertainment from my library. I'm already paying for it, so there is no cost other than the three mile round trip to the bookmobile every Thursday evening. The library's movie catalog is far larger than what I can afford to buy, and better than what you can find on TV. I admit, there are disks that have scratches, but we leave them a note in the case, and get another copy later.
Meaning that you get back a fraction of what you spend. If you're in the 15% tax bracket, and your phone is $30 a month, you'll get back $54 of the $360 in reduced taxes. Of course if you would use the same plan with the employer requirement or not, then you come out ahead.
So what does it mean that there was no sign that it was out for delivery? He couldn't see the car between the store and his place? Perhaps the delivery driver had another pizza or two that came in earlier and they were going to deliver his last on the return trip.
Consider most pilots probably fly multiple times per day, and have to run pre-flight checklists and other prep (and post flight?) responsibilities that wouldn't count as flight time. If you make a two hour flight, you probably also have two hours on other responsibilities. Do that twice a day, and you'd fly 4 hours and be doing other work for 4.
Some pilots may be on a schedule where they fly something that's in the air less than an hour, even more often, and some pilots probably are on four hour flights from NY to LA then working a short flight from their to fill their a couple of other hours.
Do providers still sell unlimited plans any more? Here is Comcast page for getting internet. Notice it says "An XFINITY Internet Data Usage Plan may apply," and nowhere mentions unlimited.
The GGPP says "That entire arguments hings on the idea that it is somehow fair to oversell bandwidth. Since selling things you can't deliver is fraudulent to begin with it doesn't hold." But they are delivering it. How many people are being sold unlimited internet and are being charged more for going over an imaginary limit, or are having speeds well below expected because too many other customers are using too much? If the answer is none, then it sounds like they are providing all customers with what they are paying for.
The real issue is capacity, which would be the second scenario I just covered. To compare, let's say everybody in your region plugs in or turns on every outlet, light, and starts charging their electric cars at the same time. You're going to have a brownout, because the electric companies estimate capacities and demand, and try to provide the amount demanded. But if everybody tried to use max capacity 100% simultaneously, would we complain because the company encountered an unprecedented event, and was selling something they couldn't deliver? Let's add on top that all of a sudden that people wanted to use 3 times as much electricity as they currently do for entire months? A small portion of the customers could, but overall, it would be a problem if everybody tried it.
First, you have to understand what are called the platoon splits. In general, more than 90% of batters are better against pitchers that pitch from the opposite side. So right handed batters hit better against lefty pitchers, and lefties bat better against right handed pitchers.
I remember playing baseball as a kid, and one game in particular, we we hitting well against a team from a smaller town 5 miles away, and somehow, there was a large number of left handed kids from the town giving us a huge advantage because they had no choice but to give us the advantage by pitching left handed pitchers against right handed batters. It was years later before I found out that it's a natural advantage to hit opposite because the hitter can see the ball approach the plate better.
Since this is the case, imagine if all pitchers were only right handed, there would be an extreme incentive to recruit as many left handed batters as possible, to the near extreme of having all left handed batters (difficult since 2B, SS and 3B are three positions that are exclusively maned by right handed throwers (only a few hundred games on record of lefties playing any of these positions in over a hundred years), although there are players that bat opposite from where they throw, for instance Mike Moustakas of the Royals is one I'm aware of). It would probably be a situation where 50-80% of players would bat left handed. In such a league, it would become a significant advantage to develop left handed pitching to overcome left handed hitting, which is why there is such an emphasis on left handed pitchers, to maintain balance and prevent other teams from being able to go for a platoon advantage.
It's probably difficult for left handed pitchers to develop at the lowest levels because most teams probably have a 90-100% right handed lineup meaning a pitcher will have to be truly special very early to get through most lineups. Then at high school, college, minor leagues when other teams are going to have a higher concentration in lefty hitters, teams need to develop left handed pitchers that have probably been weeded out because of ineffectiveness at lower levels.
Because of the smaller pool of left handed pitchers to draw from is smaller, the pitching speeds and talent for left handed pitchers is much harder to come by, and this results in it being valued disproportionately.
Halloween is All Hallows (Saints) Eve (All Saints is November 1st). This is one more case of the Catholic Tradition of celebrations on the Eve's of the Holy Day, Easter Vigil is the eve of Easter, Christmas Eve, and Mardi Gras on the eve of Ash Wednesday.
Santa Claus comes from the Tradition of St. Nicholas whose feast is on December 6, and one story about him is that he attempted to anonymously give a father money, by throwing it through a window at night, for his daughters' dowries so they wouldn't have to end up as prostitutes. Some stories may have the money ending up in a shoe, which then developed into a tradition of leaving money in shoes on the morning of his feast, which then was tied in with Christmas and the shoes changed for socks/stockings.
Specifically, there is information in the Gospel of Luke that explains the timing of Jesus' birth that does indicate late December as one of the strongest possibilities. John the Baptists's father, Zechariah, was on duty in the temple on two separate times around August/September 15 months before Jesus would have been born, as reported in Luke's Gospel, once for his regular assignment (known because he was of the division of Abi'jah, v 1:5; an the dead sea scrolls tell us when they were on duty), and once for the Feast of Atonement when all priests were on duty. Luke reports that while Zechariah was on duty, he had a vision, and went home and his wife got pregnant at a very advanced age which would put John's due date in June. Luke further says that Mary was visited by the Archangel Gabriel 6 months after Zechariah, and she went and spent the last few months of Elizabeth's pregnancy with her, but her due date would have been in December. Sept (+6 months between the two visions = March +9 months for Jesus' gestation = Dec.
Since all of this dates back to the first century, there should be no speculation about a conspiracy to subvert pagan solstice celebrations unless you are going to accuse God for timing all of this.
Since Catholics don't follow sola scriptura, it is perfectly fine for Catholic Christians to celebrate this and all of the other celebrations that the Church chooses since Jesus gave the Church the authority to teach everybody about him.
Catholicism is the source of Mardi Gras (the eve of Ash Wednesday), St. Patrick's day, Easter, Halloween (The eve of the feast of All Souls day) and Christmas, plus dozens of other Holy Days (holi-days) that secular people aren't aware of (but only really mean anything if you are invested in Christianity). Of course, Christianity has far fewer rules to follow than Judaism, which seems more fun to me.
Esc to cancel loading a page F5 to reload F6 highlight the address bar (then type the destination you want) (F6 actually cycles between address, bookmarks? then back to the page) Control T open a new tab Control W to close tab Control Shift T reopen the last closed tab Control Tab go to the next tab Control shift tab go to the previous tab
I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Actually, shorting will actually drive up the price of an asset in an increasing market. Consider this:
Investor one owns the stock, and intends to hold it for a long term, but would like to make some additional money, and loans it to the short seller, who pays him a usage fee (think rent) for the stock, when he then sells but is contractually obligated to return to the buyer after he has reacquired it at the market price when he buys it.
The shorter, then sells the stock creating negligible downward pressure on the price (if there are only a few, if many, then the pressure can obviously increase depending on the volume levels involved), creating a debt for himself that will have to be paid back at the future at the unknown price, and he gets the cash. If he does this and the price goes up, at some point, he will decide to cut his losses, and buy the stock to return to the investor. The purchase will do the opposite of the purchase, and provide additional upward price momentum, signaling the market that the rally is not done and encouraging other investors to buy this price increasing asset.
How many other countries had significant baseball leagues in 1903 when the first World Series was played? Or even really the 50? The MLB established a major brand around the name long before any other countries were close to developing leagues. You think they are going to change the name over a little matter such as accuracy?
I checked the streaming channels that could be added to my Roku last week, and there was a new channel called "The Roku Channel". I wonder if this is part of the plan, or just something else. The channel in question is like most of the other free movie channel options (TubiTV, Crackle, Vudu free, etc.) even having many of the same movies I've seen on the others in recent months.
Investments don't only pay off when you sell. If you invest in something and it pays income over time it's an investment. Although it is possible that anything you could invest in could completely evaporate, you've still invested and started to realize the gains from the investment.
By the principle of 'a penny saved is a penny earned', if he's already saved money compared to where he would be by renting, then his purchase of a house is paying financial dividends, and he's better of having made the purchase of a home compared to renting, and for his finances, it may be an investment, because even if the house is destroyed an uninsured, he's still ahead of where he would have been renting, and until he would lose the house, he would continue to have a financial benefit from it. For him, the prospect of selling is an unrealized bonus.
That said, I wouldn't go borrowing against the value of the house since there is no guarantee that some market correction isn't coming down the pipe.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that long term, their can only be a one way migration from fossil fuel based energy to non-fossil fuel energy. Are we there yet? We haven't even gotten started. But I've been reading, and SRS Rocco Report has been publishing information that makes it sound like the US energy industry is in financial trouble (much like the financial problems in Russia, Venezuela, and certain others. https://srsroccoreport.com/u-s...
What that will lead to will be a shutdown of US production and/or a significant increase in the cost of fossil fuels, which will probably lead to a cost advantage for non-fossil fuel sources, which will begin a real migration in the US to solar, wind and other energy sources, and hopefully an increase in production of the equipment, which will hopefully provide increased economies of scale and help drive down costs. Since wind and solar don't increase in cost to produce, there is a ceiling there that will eventually force most places to switch (some may not as the cost of the cause the cost of remaining oil to go down significantly). The hardest (most costly) to extract will be turned off, and the oil and gas market should be much smaller than now.
Maybe he not only doesn't read the summary or article, but now not even the comments. He didn't reply to a comment.
Well, scheme means scam, that is an intent to defraud.
This a bubble/mania possibly approaching the euphoria stage caused by the excitement of once in an eternity price activity and fear of missing out causing people who don't know better to rush in hoping that there is still money to be made. Of course, even if the price goes to 100k, you'll only get about 6x your money at current prices, with a potential drop of 50 or a thousand depending on just how bad the shakeout is.
It's not capitalism. I'm pretty sure the communists had the same sort of thing. In fact, here is an article on communism and stay at home motherhood. Note the quote from Marx's friend Engels. I completely disagree. I think the stay at home mother is the glue, and it is a good role for women that naturally capitalizes on their greater social gifts, and I know my wife despite her education as a Registered Nurse provides more value for our family as the stay at home homeschooling mom than she would be paid in money professionally. Of course, it depends on the value you place on the relationships within the house, and the way she spends her time, but we value those more than they could pay her.
Unfortunately, many women/families have decided it is financially beneficial for the mother to work, and thus valued the work in the home below what a mother's wage is in the workplace. But if somebody decides to make things work based on one income, and have a realistic budget, especially with regards to the size and cost of their home, there is no reason many people couldn't decide to make ends meet on one income, meaning people are choosing to chase money and lifestyle over family centered lifestyle.
Or '...will incur a $100 handling fee payable before delivery.' Or whatever price you would consider an acceptable compensation for your inconvenience. If somebody complains, tell them 'policy is policy'.
But over the course of a year, 2.5 million jobs can really move the needle. Of course, you have to reduce the destroyed (layoffs, company shutdown , etc) from those created, so the net jobs is the main concern.
Kind of crazy to think people would seriously think the human body couldn't go above 20 when men can run over 30. A search of the internet brought back a claim that people were concerned that women shouldn't travel on trains going more than 50mph due to their perceived fragility, specifically of their woman specific organs (since I imagine there is no difference between the brain matter or stomach of a woman or man).
It depends on your situation.
When I did my taxes a couple of years ago (making 54k), I received a refund (after no withholding) of around 3500-4000 due to child tax credits. Just found a calculator, and put in the same income and other numbers and found one says I would be due a refund of about 4500 on one calculator, and another that says I may be due 6800. Either way, indications are that we'll be better off.
The majority of Americans don't make the sort of money that will result in itemizing taxes, and so deductions don't matter to most, they have to take the standard. Realize that not everybody's taxes will go down under the plan that passes. When you eliminate deductions in favor of lower rates and larger standard deductions, some people who were using a lot of deductions are going to end up with a larger tax bill, but those who don't itemize are going to come out ahead. For my situation, I'll be giving up a 3,000 deduction for each child, which at my tax rate is about 450 in taxes, in order to receive an increase in tax credits of $600 or $1000 dollars, so I'm going to be getting an improvement in my end position. Multiply this by the number of kids I have, and we will have a lot of new money to help secure our financial future.
Also, balance the old plan against the new for a lifetime. For somebody who still has young kids at home, they are going to reap thousands of dollars in tax credits (much better than deductions, of which you only get a small percentage back in tax reduction, credits are dollar for dollar decreases), for more than a decade, then when their kids go to school, hopefully they will have done well enough preparation for the previous decades to pay the taxes on money that they will end up paying for education, which will probably be partially offset by their greater standard deduction that they will now be more inclined to take. For me, in the 15% bracket (assuming it is still here when my kids are in college), if I could deduct tuition, I'd get back about 6000 for deducting tuition. Comparing that to the amount of money I'd get back in additional tax credits (18,000 at 1000x18years), I'd absolutely prefer the new tax code.
You are an individual where you've already missed the main benefits of this new tax code, but also losing out on what something that you've already started to use. But most probably don't take advantage of the same tax benefit you are enjoying, and those that soon will reach the place you are, and may not even be aware of what they no longer might have had, but hopefully reaping a replacement reward in lower overall taxes.
Consider a couple who is at 30 a year combined income (a low income couple with no dependents). Their taxable income will go down 2700, increasing their refund by $270.
Consider a family at 30k with 2 kids. Under the new plan without tax deductions, their taxable income goes up, but with tax credits, their tax refund would go from 1960 to 3400.
Understand, the press and Democrats are demonizing this bill. But when people start doing taxes under this plan, the poor are going to be pleased, and the tax code will be more progressive shifting tax burdens from the lower class to the middle and upper, and is the media going to complain about the poor paying less taxes?
That must be why I hear explosions in space when I what Star Wars and Star Trek!
Your loans are going to cost you interest which will reduce your cash in your policy, unless the loan is small enough that the interest growth on your remaining cash is strong enough to counter the interest on the loan. If you outlive your policy because the cash value evaporates, you will have to pay the taxes, and there will be no death benefit.
You can however take out the initial principal, as a return of premium which is money you already paid taxes on, without having to pay any taxes.
I check out my video entertainment from my library. I'm already paying for it, so there is no cost other than the three mile round trip to the bookmobile every Thursday evening. The library's movie catalog is far larger than what I can afford to buy, and better than what you can find on TV. I admit, there are disks that have scratches, but we leave them a note in the case, and get another copy later.
Meaning that you get back a fraction of what you spend. If you're in the 15% tax bracket, and your phone is $30 a month, you'll get back $54 of the $360 in reduced taxes. Of course if you would use the same plan with the employer requirement or not, then you come out ahead.
So what does it mean that there was no sign that it was out for delivery? He couldn't see the car between the store and his place? Perhaps the delivery driver had another pizza or two that came in earlier and they were going to deliver his last on the return trip.
Link.
Consider most pilots probably fly multiple times per day, and have to run pre-flight checklists and other prep (and post flight?) responsibilities that wouldn't count as flight time. If you make a two hour flight, you probably also have two hours on other responsibilities. Do that twice a day, and you'd fly 4 hours and be doing other work for 4.
Some pilots may be on a schedule where they fly something that's in the air less than an hour, even more often, and some pilots probably are on four hour flights from NY to LA then working a short flight from their to fill their a couple of other hours.
Do providers still sell unlimited plans any more? Here is Comcast page for getting internet. Notice it says "An XFINITY Internet Data Usage Plan may apply," and nowhere mentions unlimited.
The GGPP says "That entire arguments hings on the idea that it is somehow fair to oversell bandwidth. Since selling things you can't deliver is fraudulent to begin with it doesn't hold." But they are delivering it. How many people are being sold unlimited internet and are being charged more for going over an imaginary limit, or are having speeds well below expected because too many other customers are using too much? If the answer is none, then it sounds like they are providing all customers with what they are paying for.
The real issue is capacity, which would be the second scenario I just covered. To compare, let's say everybody in your region plugs in or turns on every outlet, light, and starts charging their electric cars at the same time. You're going to have a brownout, because the electric companies estimate capacities and demand, and try to provide the amount demanded. But if everybody tried to use max capacity 100% simultaneously, would we complain because the company encountered an unprecedented event, and was selling something they couldn't deliver? Let's add on top that all of a sudden that people wanted to use 3 times as much electricity as they currently do for entire months? A small portion of the customers could, but overall, it would be a problem if everybody tried it.
Completely wrong.
First, you have to understand what are called the platoon splits. In general, more than 90% of batters are better against pitchers that pitch from the opposite side. So right handed batters hit better against lefty pitchers, and lefties bat better against right handed pitchers.
I remember playing baseball as a kid, and one game in particular, we we hitting well against a team from a smaller town 5 miles away, and somehow, there was a large number of left handed kids from the town giving us a huge advantage because they had no choice but to give us the advantage by pitching left handed pitchers against right handed batters. It was years later before I found out that it's a natural advantage to hit opposite because the hitter can see the ball approach the plate better.
Since this is the case, imagine if all pitchers were only right handed, there would be an extreme incentive to recruit as many left handed batters as possible, to the near extreme of having all left handed batters (difficult since 2B, SS and 3B are three positions that are exclusively maned by right handed throwers (only a few hundred games on record of lefties playing any of these positions in over a hundred years), although there are players that bat opposite from where they throw, for instance Mike Moustakas of the Royals is one I'm aware of). It would probably be a situation where 50-80% of players would bat left handed. In such a league, it would become a significant advantage to develop left handed pitching to overcome left handed hitting, which is why there is such an emphasis on left handed pitchers, to maintain balance and prevent other teams from being able to go for a platoon advantage.
It's probably difficult for left handed pitchers to develop at the lowest levels because most teams probably have a 90-100% right handed lineup meaning a pitcher will have to be truly special very early to get through most lineups. Then at high school, college, minor leagues when other teams are going to have a higher concentration in lefty hitters, teams need to develop left handed pitchers that have probably been weeded out because of ineffectiveness at lower levels.
Because of the smaller pool of left handed pitchers to draw from is smaller, the pitching speeds and talent for left handed pitchers is much harder to come by, and this results in it being valued disproportionately.
Halloween is All Hallows (Saints) Eve (All Saints is November 1st). This is one more case of the Catholic Tradition of celebrations on the Eve's of the Holy Day, Easter Vigil is the eve of Easter, Christmas Eve, and Mardi Gras on the eve of Ash Wednesday.
Santa Claus comes from the Tradition of St. Nicholas whose feast is on December 6, and one story about him is that he attempted to anonymously give a father money, by throwing it through a window at night, for his daughters' dowries so they wouldn't have to end up as prostitutes. Some stories may have the money ending up in a shoe, which then developed into a tradition of leaving money in shoes on the morning of his feast, which then was tied in with Christmas and the shoes changed for socks/stockings.
You can read this to get an idea of the issues around Jesus' birthday: http://jimmyakin.com/2014/11/t...
Specifically, there is information in the Gospel of Luke that explains the timing of Jesus' birth that does indicate late December as one of the strongest possibilities. John the Baptists's father, Zechariah, was on duty in the temple on two separate times around August/September 15 months before Jesus would have been born, as reported in Luke's Gospel, once for his regular assignment (known because he was of the division of Abi'jah, v 1:5; an the dead sea scrolls tell us when they were on duty), and once for the Feast of Atonement when all priests were on duty. Luke reports that while Zechariah was on duty, he had a vision, and went home and his wife got pregnant at a very advanced age which would put John's due date in June. Luke further says that Mary was visited by the Archangel Gabriel 6 months after Zechariah, and she went and spent the last few months of Elizabeth's pregnancy with her, but her due date would have been in December. Sept (+6 months between the two visions = March +9 months for Jesus' gestation = Dec.
Since all of this dates back to the first century, there should be no speculation about a conspiracy to subvert pagan solstice celebrations unless you are going to accuse God for timing all of this.
Since Catholics don't follow sola scriptura, it is perfectly fine for Catholic Christians to celebrate this and all of the other celebrations that the Church chooses since Jesus gave the Church the authority to teach everybody about him.
Catholicism is the source of Mardi Gras (the eve of Ash Wednesday), St. Patrick's day, Easter, Halloween (The eve of the feast of All Souls day) and Christmas, plus dozens of other Holy Days (holi-days) that secular people aren't aware of (but only really mean anything if you are invested in Christianity). Of course, Christianity has far fewer rules to follow than Judaism, which seems more fun to me.
Esc to cancel loading a page
F5 to reload
F6 highlight the address bar (then type the destination you want) (F6 actually cycles between address, bookmarks? then back to the page)
Control T open a new tab
Control W to close tab
Control Shift T reopen the last closed tab
Control Tab go to the next tab
Control shift tab go to the previous tab
I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of at the moment.
This was an or condition. That is 'at least one of these is true,' not 'exactly one of these is true.'
Actually, shorting will actually drive up the price of an asset in an increasing market. Consider this:
Investor one owns the stock, and intends to hold it for a long term, but would like to make some additional money, and loans it to the short seller, who pays him a usage fee (think rent) for the stock, when he then sells but is contractually obligated to return to the buyer after he has reacquired it at the market price when he buys it.
The shorter, then sells the stock creating negligible downward pressure on the price (if there are only a few, if many, then the pressure can obviously increase depending on the volume levels involved), creating a debt for himself that will have to be paid back at the future at the unknown price, and he gets the cash. If he does this and the price goes up, at some point, he will decide to cut his losses, and buy the stock to return to the investor. The purchase will do the opposite of the purchase, and provide additional upward price momentum, signaling the market that the rally is not done and encouraging other investors to buy this price increasing asset.
How many other countries had significant baseball leagues in 1903 when the first World Series was played? Or even really the 50? The MLB established a major brand around the name long before any other countries were close to developing leagues. You think they are going to change the name over a little matter such as accuracy?
I've added and removed my credit card from my Roku account multiple times in the last few years.
I checked the streaming channels that could be added to my Roku last week, and there was a new channel called "The Roku Channel". I wonder if this is part of the plan, or just something else. The channel in question is like most of the other free movie channel options (TubiTV, Crackle, Vudu free, etc.) even having many of the same movies I've seen on the others in recent months.
Investments don't only pay off when you sell. If you invest in something and it pays income over time it's an investment. Although it is possible that anything you could invest in could completely evaporate, you've still invested and started to realize the gains from the investment.
By the principle of 'a penny saved is a penny earned', if he's already saved money compared to where he would be by renting, then his purchase of a house is paying financial dividends, and he's better of having made the purchase of a home compared to renting, and for his finances, it may be an investment, because even if the house is destroyed an uninsured, he's still ahead of where he would have been renting, and until he would lose the house, he would continue to have a financial benefit from it. For him, the prospect of selling is an unrealized bonus.
That said, I wouldn't go borrowing against the value of the house since there is no guarantee that some market correction isn't coming down the pipe.