If the Supreme Court rules against the patent-holder, they will still be allowed to use contract law to get what they want.
So, instead of selling ink cartridges at a 20% discount to customers who agree to "no reuse" terms, they will rent the cartridges and sell the ink, essentially offering a "cartridge and ink supply only" service contract.
If you treat Bitcoins as currency, you spend them. Thus, you're not holding on to them long enough for them to accrue value. If you treat them as an investment, you're not spending them, and there's no Bitcoin economy to make them worth anything.
That's why Bitcoin trading is pure speculation.
There are two good reasons to "invest" in a currency:
1) Utility: It's a "safe, convenient, and easy to use" currency. For most people in countries with relatively stable currencies, their country's fiat currency fits this bill. I for one keep at least a month's worth of expenses "in cash" in a bank account, knowing I will lose very little to inflation, that I have a very low risk of the money suddenly becoming temporarily inaccessible, and knowing that I can pay any domestic debt with it without having to pay a middleman to convert it.
2) Hedge: If I know I'm going to need a certain amount of Euros, Yen, or BTC six months from now but I'm not willing to accept the risk of currency flucutations, I can "lock in" the price now, either by buying a futures contract or by buying the actual Euros, Yen, or BTC.
But I agree with you, buying BCT, or for that matter, any currency that isn't known to be very stable (low inflation now and for the forseeable future) as an "investment" is pretty speculative.
Your question boils down to, "How do I avoid capital gains taxes on my Bitcoin earnings?" That's problematic, as you can imagine
Not probematic at all. There are easy, legal ways to avoid capital gains taxes that don't require learning the intricacies of the tax code or hiring an accountant:
* If you were going to give money to charity anyways, give them the appreciated asset. * If you won't need the money for the rest of your life, leave the asset to your heirs. * If you paid more for the asset than it's worth today, sell and declare a capital loss.
He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today
He had X BC 5 years ago. His basis was either what he paid for them, the money invested in mining them, or in certain cases (such as a if he received them as an inheritance), the fair market value at the time he came to possess them.
His capital gain or loss is the dollar value of any proceeds from any sale or trade minus his basis, subject to "wash sale" and other rules that would make hte sale a "non-taxable" event.
In any case, as long as he continues to hold the BC, he doesn't owe any taxes. If he holds them until they are worth no more than his basis then sells them, then he won't owe any taxes. If he holds them until he dies, the tax basis is "reset" to the fair market value at the time of his death, likely saving his heirs a boatload of capital-gains taxes.
The topic is correct, comment about buying drugs is bad advice and was presumably not meant to be taken seriously.
Spend your BC on something that's legal and whose transactions aren't of interest to any government, then sell what you bought.
For people with less than a few thousand dollars (US) that they need to convert, this should be easy.
From the sound of things, the original submitter has much more than that. His best bet is to not try to hide his money. He won't owe taxes on it until he sells it. If he doesn't need the money now and he's willing to carry the value-fluctuation risk until he dies, he can just leave the BC to his heirs in his will. When they sell it, the tax basis will be the value on the day he dies.
Another option is that he can give the BC to charity. This works best if the person would have given USD to a charity anyway. He will get a tax write-off of the value of the donation on the day he makes it AND he will escape capital-gains taxes. While most charities won't accept BC as a donation, someone out there has probably started a 503(c) charity whose "reason for existence" is to take donations in any form - cars, stocks/bonds, artwork, BC, etc. - then convert them into USD then pass the proceeds - less a processing fee to cover costs - to the designated charity. You won't be able to maintain anonymity, but you'll still get your tax break and avoid capital-gains taxes.
I once worked for a Fortune-500 company that had a public shopping mall compete with a food court in bottom floors of its office complex. I brown-bagged since I was too cheap to pay mall-food prices.
Later, in another city, I worked for a different Fortune-500 company that had a several cafeterias around its sprawing campus. The food was about what you would get at a family restaurant with prices slightly below retail. I ate in the cafeteria almost every day.
Some of those are very ornate and very classy, on par with a classy stage-play theater or concert hall, except the acoustics generally aren't as good as a concert hall. Many of them are now used for stage plays or other events instead of film.
From a movie-watcher's point of view, there is very little difference between a digital theater and a brand-new 70mm print on its first trip through the projector.
From a theater-owner's perspective and from the distribution-channel's perspective, there are huge differences.
So, I guess it's a difference in distribution but not one most consumers will notice, except that they may notice the lack of streaks on the screen.
I'm pretty sure 3D has been around longer than 30 years.
I think he meant 3D using today's polarized-glasses tech, not ancient red-and-blue 3D.
Unless you are into cheese, red-and-blue, or nostalgia, or you are watching an art film intentionally made to use "old tech," today's 3D is far better than the old way.
Theater innovations since the late 1980s: * More IMAX/OMNI screens * More stadium seating * Buy tickets online or at a kiosk * More special screenings for people with autism or other special needs * More regular screenings of foreign or art films in "regular" movie-houses * More (or maybe better advertised) "events" like the Doctor Who events and MST3K events in the last few years * Movie-theater gift cards
If a poorly-salted password database is compromised today but the breach isn't discovered until this time next year, a 1-year-expiration would mean everyone's password would have expired or been changed already by the time the breach is announced.
Personally, I would tie expiration to complexity: I would allow trivial passwords like "password" with a 1-hour expiration, slightly-less-trivial passwords with an expiration between an hour and a week, moderately-strong passwords with longer expiration times, strong passwords with expiration times around a year or two, and super-strong passwords with an expiration time of maybe 5 years (on the assumption that in 5 years bad things will probably happen to at least a few of my customer's passwords without their knowledge). There will of course be special cases where a password will need to be "longer than 5 years up to forever" but those will only be allowed for certain situations, and then special rules will apply.
2 and 3 are among the possible random prime 512-bit prime numbers, but any good "random 512-bit prime number" rule for crypto should reject these outright. Likewise, a random password generator that purports to create "reasonably secure" passwords should filter out anything known to be in password-cracking dictionaries or anything that is easy to derive from them (p@ssword1, passw0rd2, etc.).
Like any access-control system, a password should be "hard to compromise, but easy for you to use when you need it" - whatever that means in your particular case.
"Easy to for you to use" doesn't necessarily mean "easy to remember" - if you are using a password-keeper system, you only have to remember the master password, not all of the individual passwords in your "vault."
But is it legal for a city to restrict public roads like that?
I assume you are talking about cities in the USA restricting public roads. In some states, neighborhoods may own and maintain the local streets, and they can usually limit access if they want to.
Unless state laws say otherwise, it's generally legal as long as everyone is treated the same.
I've lived in cities where one-lane alleyways had signs saying "no through traffic" but since hardly anyone used them as shortcuts, enforcement wasn't an issue.
It gets tricky if residents are exempt from the restrictions. Ditto if there is an obvious discriminatory effect against a protected class (e.g. de facto racial discrimination) but that's not going to happen in most cases.
Now, as to whether state laws limit a city's ability to do this, well, that will vary by state.
If you are reading and writing to a RAID 1, I believe it has to be online unless I missed some neat technology in the past 10 years
Use software RAID with Network block device for the underlying remote disk. Performance will suffer greatly but it should function as long as nothing times out.
but Veloso is worried the changes may simply reroute commuters into other neighborhoods.
Rerouting traffic to the best available route is a feature, not a bug. Seriously, it's a feature. Don't mess with it.
If you really don't want people cutting through neighborhoods during rush hour, then put up temporary traffic-flow restrictions in ALL neighborhoods during those hours and make sure Waze, Google, etc. know about them.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents are also why we can own^H^H^H use nice things.
There, fixed that for you.
Dear slashdot: Please add "strike" and "underline" HTML for insert-delete mark-up. Thank you.
If the Supreme Court rules against the patent-holder, they will still be allowed to use contract law to get what they want.
So, instead of selling ink cartridges at a 20% discount to customers who agree to "no reuse" terms, they will rent the cartridges and sell the ink, essentially offering a "cartridge and ink supply only" service contract.
If you treat Bitcoins as currency, you spend them. Thus, you're not holding on to them long enough for them to accrue value. If you treat them as an investment, you're not spending them, and there's no Bitcoin economy to make them worth anything.
That's why Bitcoin trading is pure speculation.
There are two good reasons to "invest" in a currency:
1) Utility: It's a "safe, convenient, and easy to use" currency. For most people in countries with relatively stable currencies, their country's fiat currency fits this bill. I for one keep at least a month's worth of expenses "in cash" in a bank account, knowing I will lose very little to inflation, that I have a very low risk of the money suddenly becoming temporarily inaccessible, and knowing that I can pay any domestic debt with it without having to pay a middleman to convert it.
2) Hedge: If I know I'm going to need a certain amount of Euros, Yen, or BTC six months from now but I'm not willing to accept the risk of currency flucutations, I can "lock in" the price now, either by buying a futures contract or by buying the actual Euros, Yen, or BTC.
But I agree with you, buying BCT, or for that matter, any currency that isn't known to be very stable (low inflation now and for the forseeable future) as an "investment" is pretty speculative.
Your question boils down to, "How do I avoid capital gains taxes on my Bitcoin earnings?" That's problematic, as you can imagine
Not probematic at all. There are easy, legal ways to avoid capital gains taxes that don't require learning the intricacies of the tax code or hiring an accountant:
* If you were going to give money to charity anyways, give them the appreciated asset.
* If you won't need the money for the rest of your life, leave the asset to your heirs.
* If you paid more for the asset than it's worth today, sell and declare a capital loss.
He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today
He had X BC 5 years ago. His basis was either what he paid for them, the money invested in mining them, or in certain cases (such as a if he received them as an inheritance), the fair market value at the time he came to possess them.
His capital gain or loss is the dollar value of any proceeds from any sale or trade minus his basis, subject to "wash sale" and other rules that would make hte sale a "non-taxable" event.
In any case, as long as he continues to hold the BC, he doesn't owe any taxes. If he holds them until they are worth no more than his basis then sells them, then he won't owe any taxes. If he holds them until he dies, the tax basis is "reset" to the fair market value at the time of his death, likely saving his heirs a boatload of capital-gains taxes.
Where we're going, there are no governments.
I call "where I'm going" the afterlife.
I don't expect to be able to vote once I get there.
Then again, I don't expect to need any money either.
The topic is correct, comment about buying drugs is bad advice and was presumably not meant to be taken seriously.
Spend your BC on something that's legal and whose transactions aren't of interest to any government, then sell what you bought.
For people with less than a few thousand dollars (US) that they need to convert, this should be easy.
From the sound of things, the original submitter has much more than that. His best bet is to not try to hide his money. He won't owe taxes on it until he sells it. If he doesn't need the money now and he's willing to carry the value-fluctuation risk until he dies, he can just leave the BC to his heirs in his will. When they sell it, the tax basis will be the value on the day he dies.
Another option is that he can give the BC to charity. This works best if the person would have given USD to a charity anyway. He will get a tax write-off of the value of the donation on the day he makes it AND he will escape capital-gains taxes. While most charities won't accept BC as a donation, someone out there has probably started a 503(c) charity whose "reason for existence" is to take donations in any form - cars, stocks/bonds, artwork, BC, etc. - then convert them into USD then pass the proceeds - less a processing fee to cover costs - to the designated charity. You won't be able to maintain anonymity, but you'll still get your tax break and avoid capital-gains taxes.
The Chinese already have human overlords, they don't need robotic ones.
I once worked for a Fortune-500 company that had a public shopping mall compete with a food court in bottom floors of its office complex. I brown-bagged since I was too cheap to pay mall-food prices.
Later, in another city, I worked for a different Fortune-500 company that had a several cafeterias around its sprawing campus. The food was about what you would get at a family restaurant with prices slightly below retail. I ate in the cafeteria almost every day.
If not, then no.
They darn well innovated the 'plush' theaters.
More like re-invented them.
Ever been to a classic theater from before WWII?
Some of those are very ornate and very classy, on par with a classy stage-play theater or concert hall, except the acoustics generally aren't as good as a concert hall. Many of them are now used for stage plays or other events instead of film.
For me, it's that they aren't as cost-effective as entertainment as they used to be.
If movies were $1 each I'd see dozens a year. As it is, I see only a few a year in the theater.
From a movie-watcher's point of view, there is very little difference between a digital theater and a brand-new 70mm print on its first trip through the projector.
From a theater-owner's perspective and from the distribution-channel's perspective, there are huge differences.
So, I guess it's a difference in distribution but not one most consumers will notice, except that they may notice the lack of streaks on the screen.
Avitar would've been great in 3D if 3D didn't give me a headache.
I would up watching it in 3D with a group, with one eye closed most of the time.
But for the headache, I would gladly pay a *small* premium for 3D for films where 3D really adds "value."
I'm pretty sure 3D has been around longer than 30 years.
I think he meant 3D using today's polarized-glasses tech, not ancient red-and-blue 3D.
Unless you are into cheese, red-and-blue, or nostalgia, or you are watching an art film intentionally made to use "old tech," today's 3D is far better than the old way.
Theater innovations since the late 1980s:
* More IMAX/OMNI screens
* More stadium seating
* Buy tickets online or at a kiosk
* More special screenings for people with autism or other special needs
* More regular screenings of foreign or art films in "regular" movie-houses
* More (or maybe better advertised) "events" like the Doctor Who events and MST3K events in the last few years
* Movie-theater gift cards
If a poorly-salted password database is compromised today but the breach isn't discovered until this time next year, a 1-year-expiration would mean everyone's password would have expired or been changed already by the time the breach is announced.
Personally, I would tie expiration to complexity: I would allow trivial passwords like "password" with a 1-hour expiration, slightly-less-trivial passwords with an expiration between an hour and a week, moderately-strong passwords with longer expiration times, strong passwords with expiration times around a year or two, and super-strong passwords with an expiration time of maybe 5 years (on the assumption that in 5 years bad things will probably happen to at least a few of my customer's passwords without their knowledge). There will of course be special cases where a password will need to be "longer than 5 years up to forever" but those will only be allowed for certain situations, and then special rules will apply.
2 and 3 are among the possible random prime 512-bit prime numbers, but any good "random 512-bit prime number" rule for crypto should reject these outright. Likewise, a random password generator that purports to create "reasonably secure" passwords should filter out anything known to be in password-cracking dictionaries or anything that is easy to derive from them (p@ssword1, passw0rd2, etc.).
Like any access-control system, a password should be "hard to compromise, but easy for you to use when you need it" - whatever that means in your particular case.
"Easy to for you to use" doesn't necessarily mean "easy to remember" - if you are using a password-keeper system, you only have to remember the master password, not all of the individual passwords in your "vault."
But is it legal for a city to restrict public roads like that?
I assume you are talking about cities in the USA restricting public roads. In some states, neighborhoods may own and maintain the local streets, and they can usually limit access if they want to.
Unless state laws say otherwise, it's generally legal as long as everyone is treated the same.
I've lived in cities where one-lane alleyways had signs saying "no through traffic" but since hardly anyone used them as shortcuts, enforcement wasn't an issue.
It gets tricky if residents are exempt from the restrictions. Ditto if there is an obvious discriminatory effect against a protected class (e.g. de facto racial discrimination) but that's not going to happen in most cases.
Now, as to whether state laws limit a city's ability to do this, well, that will vary by state.
Back in the day i had a 4.3gb hard drive in my computer
Ah, kids these days. Back in my day 4.3mb was huge.
"Nine megs for the secretaries fair,
Seven megs for the hackers scarce,
Five megs for the grads in smoky lairs,
Three megs for system source;
One disk to rule them all,
One disk to bind them,
One disk to hold the files
And in the darkness grind 'em."
I knew someone in college with over 9,000 1.2M 5.25" floppies worth of
If he was smart, a least half of them were used for backup.
If you are reading and writing to a RAID 1, I believe it has to be online unless I missed some neat technology in the past 10 years
Use software RAID with Network block device for the underlying remote disk. Performance will suffer greatly but it should function as long as nothing times out.
It looks like there are (at least) two with CRC: zfs and btrfs. Here's info for btrfs CRCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You'd still need a backup or RAID solution to replace a bad black.
If only Slashdot posts had CRC or something like that, the posts wauld say what the poster intended.
Tell me about a usable linux distribution that has a fully working zfs implementation.
I should have an answer for you shortly. Say, in half a decade or so, give or take.
but Veloso is worried the changes may simply reroute commuters into other neighborhoods.
Rerouting traffic to the best available route is a feature, not a bug. Seriously, it's a feature. Don't mess with it.
If you really don't want people cutting through neighborhoods during rush hour, then put up temporary traffic-flow restrictions in ALL neighborhoods during those hours and make sure Waze, Google, etc. know about them.