DrDNA

""Charity Auctions

Donors who purchase items at a charity auction may claim a charitable contribution deduction for the excess of the purchase price paid for an item over its fair market value. The donor must be able to show, however, that he or she knew that the value of the item was less than the amount paid. For example, a charity may publish a catalog, given to each person who attends an auction, providing a good faith estimate of items that will be available for bidding. Assuming the donor has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the published estimate, if he or she pays more than the published value, the difference between the amount paid and the published value may constitute a charitable contribution deduction.

In addition, donors who provide goods for charities to sell at an auction often ask the charity if the donor is entitled to claim a fair market value charitable deduction for a contribution of appreciated property to the charity that will later be sold. Under these circumstances, the law limits a donor's charitable deduction to the donor's tax basis in the contributed property and does not permit the donor to claim a fair market value charitable deduction for the contribution. Specifically, the Treasury Regulations under section 170 provide that if a donor contributes tangible personal property to a charity that is put to an "unrelated use", the donor's contribution is limited to the donor's tax basis in the contributed property. The term "unrelated use" means a use that is unrelated to the charity's exempt purposes or function, or, in the case of a governmental unit, a use of the contributed property for other than exclusively public purposes. The sale of an item is considered unrelated, even if the sale raises money for the charity to use in its programs.""

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123204,00.html

Drop that bar of soap and I'll show you..................

I continue to be shocked and awed as the self proclaimed historical champions of "workers rights" and "social justice" advocate and even promote such an evil injustice.

What the heck ever happened to?

* Compliance to Legal Hiring and Firing practices

* Disability

* Equal Employment Opportunities

* Compliance to Health Plans & Other Benefits

* Fair Labor Practices

* Leave Benefits (eg, FMLA)

* Unemployment Insurance

* Fair Wages

* Work Hours

* Workers' Compensation

* Workplace Safety & Health (eg, OHSA)

* Compliance to other labors standards and regulations

What do you think happens to the poor schmuck that falls off a ladder on a construction site?

Illegal immigrants were, are and will continue to be treated as a subservient 'subclass' of society and they will NOT be treated with the basic human dignities and rights that you and I (citizens, legal visitors and green card holders) take for granted as long as the current situation is permitted.

Not since slavery have we seen social injustices of such magnitude perpetrated against an ethnic group.

These people are basically indentured servants.

Learn more about workers rights at http://www.dol.gov/

Merged post follows:

There's not one non-white person I talk to that doesn't think they're going to get their immigration status questioned by AZ police.

 

They know it's racial profiling.

Who is "they"?

Being a social libertarian and strong supporter of the second amendment, my inital instinct is to unholster my weapon, brandishly wave it about and shout ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Then I ran across this, which caused me to pause and ponder.......

SPLAIN IT!! Dating Profile

Name: Vinny P. Solo

Age: 34

Occupation: Marksman by day, level 60 Paladin by night.

Sex: Not yet, but soon I hope.

Self Description: Orgasmic to the eyes. Beastly. Deceptive good looks.

Attributes: Ninja like stealth. Flowing locks reminiscent of a Norwegian waterfall. Deadly accuracy with a multitude of weaponry. Uncanny knowledge of medieval torture. The strength of 18 midgets spinning a marry-go-round. I am the Hercules of virility. I have the burning loins of more than 300 pubescent teenagers and am loaded with sexual ferociousness.

Interests: I enjoy writing books, like ‘Trench coats are a way of life’, ‘Hun’s and Ammo’ (a story of my ancestors), ‘Why one eyebrow is better than two’ and ‘If you were me, you’d be awesome’. I enjoy roller blading in my Blue Blockers on the weekends. I also enjoy reading and knowing the Kama Sutra in hopes of putting my knowledge into practice.

Favorite Book: Hair: It’s a garden, let it grow.

CALL ME!!! OR COME FIND ME ON WORLD OF WARCRAFT - - SCREENNAME IS ‘HARRY HOTTER’

So, after much pondering and consideration, I agree that guns should be completely outlawed for this guy.

Small world isn't it?

I'm black too.

If I recall correctly, the Goa'uld pass their memories and those of their ancestors on genetically from one generation to the next.

Depet reshwet herew: 'And now I awaken only to die again'

AFM is an atomic force microscope. It is not necessarily the best but usually gives the most details regarding surface properties. The advantage compared to an STM is that it does not require tunneling to visualize matter, which makes it easier for mostly non-conductive biological samples.

Plus, with AFM, you can image cells under physiological conditions often without fixation, even in their favorite growth media.

So, unlike EM, if the cells of interest adhere nicely to bare glass, plastic or gelatin-, collagen- or fibronectin-coated glass (for example) they can be imaged alive and fully functional.

Like this AFM image of a live human lung cancer cell I took a while back...

Texas

I admit that Texas is unique in its interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.

In some states you can kill to defend property, no fear of death or injury is required, you can actually kill someone simply because you caught them stealing.

But you canNOT shoot someone simply because you caught them stealing.

Even in Texas.

Plus, I said besides the Castle Law (Doctrine) exceptions.

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code describes deadly force as justified to prevent arson, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent a suspect from fleeing if the property owner "reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

‘Texas Castle Doctrine’

 

Texas Senate Bill 378

Effective: 9-1-07

................

 

Under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal’s family.

 

In addition, the Texas Penal Code contains no presumption of reasonableness in defending a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment against unlawful intruders. Instead, Texas juries must decide after the fact whether a victim’s actions to protect the victim and his or her family were reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.

 

S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim’s actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the bill expands the existing affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an injured criminal attacker or his family to apply to any force or deadly force conduct authorized by Subchapter C (Protection of Persons), Chapter 9, Penal Code.

...............

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

 

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [it is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

http://loneranger2008.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/texas-castle-doctrine-the-law-word-for-word/

Why isn't inflammable the opposite of flammable?

 

Did they forget how English works?

This looks like an interesting explanation:

Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.

 

Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.

 

"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.

 

The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.

 

That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."

 

The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

http://www.write101.com/W.Tips215.htm

I agree with what Kaeroll said about any intro Org Chem text.

http://www.chem.uic.edu/web1/OCOL-II/WIN/RXN.HTM is another interesting site.

 

I was being sarcastic, don't you have a sense of humor?

 

No.

I have NONE when it comes to firearms.

And, quite frankly, I don't understand anyone that does.

However, under most other circumstances, a greater sense of humor than most.

Again BS

In some states you can kill to defend property, no fear of death or injury is required, you can actually kill someone simply because you caught them stealing.

That is very interesting.

Aside from the 'Castle Exceptions' that I mentioned above, I would certainly be interested in reading your list of states and the respective laws that permit you to 'kill to defend property' and 'kill someone simply because you caught them stealing' without having a justifiable 'fear of death or injury'.

I honestly have never seen anyone go to court much less jail if they follow the rules.

How many people in total have you personally 'seen go to court' or jail AND not 'seen go to court' or jail involving shootings whether they followed the rules or not?

But I don't agree with the detail here. An ass whipping from a dude 5 times my size, with a bat, is quite sufficient for me to end his life. Not without all due warnings, but certainly sufficient. A guy with a bat, even smaller than me, can kill me fairly quickly. Not sure I'd even get in a mess like that, though, since I believe in picking and choosing your battles.

I agree and stand corrected.

You are correct about the detail regarding the baseball bat wielded by the 5x bigger guy....under certain circumstances unless there is any other alternative, such as an escape route.

And, no matter the circumstances, one must be prepared for their future to be ruined, even if it was done to save their own life.

If you injure or kill someone, no matter what the circumstances, it is highly probable that you will be arrested and charged with a crime.

The police will not make the assumption that you acted in self-defense or make judgments of right or wrong; the courts will decide that.

There is a high probability that you will sued in civil court by the deceased's family.

To clarify:

Statutes that define the legitimate use of force in self defense vary from state to state, but the general rule makes a clear and important distinction between the use of physical force and deadly physical force.

For example, in many jurisdictions, a person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury.

However, a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

Furthermore, many statutes regarding self defense law also include a 'duty to retreat' clause.

So, in those jurisdictions, deadly physical force may only be used if the person acting in self defense is unable to safely retreat except for the "castle exception" ("a man's home is his castle" and he does not have to retreat in it).

Also, an important limit is that the level of response must not exceed the threat. This is fuzzy, but it is the way that most self defense laws are written.

If a 'victim' uses excessive force, they become the aggressor and force becomes excessive when it exceeds that which is necessary to assure one's own safety.

Some jurisdictions state that it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack.

Also, "no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy."

So, if it can be shown that you could have called the cops and avoided the whole situation, you will be perceived as taking the law into your own hands, and you can expect to spend a long time in jail.

A few states have enacted "no duty to retreat" (like the "castle exception" without the house) statutes.

In these jurisdictions, a person has the right to stand ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Um... why is my name red?

Because you are on Fire!

Be sure to stay away from flammable materials.

My point is that this statement(s)......

Where I live you can conceal carry a pistol to deal with a personal attack.

 

 

>>I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, lots of paper work involved, but if faced with the prospect of taking an ass whipping or pulling my gun i would pull my gun. Anyone who doesn't back down from a pistol probably needs to be shot.

...is outside the boundary of proper firearm use.

A human life vs filling out "paperwork"????

Besides being just plain wrong, you'll spend your life in prison and/or get sued into oblivion for shooting someone simply because they gave you an "ass whipping".

A good old fashioned "ass whipping" is far from sufficient, even if the whipper is 5 times your size and has a bat.

I know the law, evidently better than you,...

That is highly unlikely.

Merged post follows:

If you keep up this argument style I'll have to pull out my moderator pistol and threaten both of you. There's no need to get angry, guys.

"Angry"?

In no way shape or form.

maybe something that will spread to millions of people and only affects them after like 15 years, then?

 

but then if you're in a war that would not be very useful, would it now?

I believe that would depend on exactly what type of "war" one were engaged in and the primary objectives of said "war".

For example, the objective of the "war" against Native Americans was genocide.

And it took decades to achieve that objective because it took that long to nearly exterminate many tribes' primary protein source- the American buffalo.

Hi guys and gals:-)

 

So I recently started dating a very nice Chemist. I'm 26 and he's 42. Very smart and successful.

I've never dated this type of guy before. I usually end up with the egotistical, controlling, manipulative "salesman" type.

I'm excited but apprehensive.

I know he would do anything to make me happy but will I be happy? I'm used to a very fast paced lifestyle. I can't say it's served me, but I'm goin 100mph most of the time.

It's so new to me I'm not quite sure what to do:confused:

 

Does that make any sense?

 

Anyway I was hoping to get some ideas and some stories from other professional scientists regarding relationships. How did you meet your significant other and is she/he your total opposite? How is it working out?

Congratulations.

Other than the fact that you're soon to be reaching your sexual peak and he's soon to be reaching his sexual low....it sounds like a perfect match.

http://www.google.com: "Viagra"

Merged post follows:

...you guys know this is a dude pretending to be a girl right?

He might as well have a picture of an Adams Apple as an avatar.

1. why do you say that?

and

2. what difference does it make?

I never suggested pulling a gun for shits and giggles, that's a very good way to loose your permit, but if threatened severely I would pull mine, I don't see a reason to wait until I'm bleeding on the ground.

Kids throwing rocks does in no way, shape or manner equate to "an overwhelming preponderance of force".

So, bleed away and rot in hell.

And then prepare yourself and your family for you to spend the remainder of your life behind bars.

If you actually do have a CCW permit and, after taking the CCW course still believe differently, you just plain didn't get the point of 95% of that course and/or whoever passed you in that course was neglect in their instructional duties.

Unless you are successful in convincing differently, you appear to be the poster child that gives the anti-second amendment crowd fuel to their flame.

Why is everyone, except Mooeypoo, shouting and not citing facts and references...

You are no better than those who you detest.....

Effectiveness of latex condoms as a barrier to human immunodeficiency virus-sized particles under conditions of simulated use.

Carey RF, Herman WA, Retta SM, Rinaldi JE, Herman BA, Athey TW.

 

Division of Physical Sciences, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.

 

Condoms were tested in an in vitro system simulating key physical conditions that can influence viral particle leakage through condoms during actual coitus. The system quantitatively addresses pressure, pH, temperature, surfactant properties, and anatomical geometry. A suspension of fluorescence-labeled, 110-nm polystyrene microspheres models free human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in semen, and condom leakage is detected spectrofluorometrically. Leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable (P less than 0.03) for as many as 29 of the 89 condoms tested. Worst-case condom barrier effectiveness (fluid transfer prevention), however, is shown to be at least 10(4) times better than not using a condom at all, suggesting that condom use substantially reduces but does not eliminate the risk of HIV transmission.

 

PIP: Physical science researchers tested the ability of 89 undamaged latex condoms manufactured in the US to prevent passage of HIV=size particles under simulated physiologic conditions at their Food and Drug Administration laboratory in Rockville, Maryland. The design of the test system considered particle size, pH, surface tension, and time. A suspension of polystyrene 110 nm microspheres labeled with fluorescent dye served as the HIV-sized particle model in semen. They challenged each condom with this suspension for 30 minutes. The test did not include motion since stretching over the penis accounts for most pore stretching. Leakage of fluorescent dye occurred in 29 condoms (p .03). 21 condoms leaked at minimum leak rates 1 nl/s, 7 at 1-6 nl/s, and 1 at around 10 nl/s. Assuming the leakage occurred through the only pore in each condom, the pore diameters ranged from 2 to 7 mcm. Also assuming an even more conservative criterion, the qualitative results were the same: 11 condoms with leak rates were nl/s vs. 6 condoms with leak rates 1-9 nl/s (p .002). The widely used 300 ml water test did not indicate any pores in any of the condoms. In the extreme and highly unlikely scenario of all the fluid being pumped out of the condom, the transfer rate would be about 0.1 mcl after 10 minutes of thrusting after ejaculation filled the condom with semen (i.e., 0.01% of a typical 3 ml ejaculate). Thus proper use of latex condoms would result in exposure reduction from HIV of at least 4 orders of magnitude. These findings demonstrated that use of latex condoms can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but it does not eliminate that risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1411838

This was almost prophetic.

Prophetic to you maybe.

I see no correlation what so ever.

Merged post follows:

You still have not addressed each of the AIG business units in your slide and how they are critical to keeping the sky from falling...could it be Asian and European business interests or leasing airplanes???

I was hoping that you would be kind enough to go through them one by one to substantiate your claims about AIG needing to suck us dry without the sky falling.

If not, I don't see where you have much of a case.

Actually, it was saltier. See here. I got the full text of the article, and there is indeed a general decline in ocean salinity since the Cambrian. At the time of the origin of tetrapods, seawater was at roughly 4.5%, now it's at 3.5%.

I stand corrected. But to be honest I'm lying down.

Anyway, VERY interesting article.

THANKS for the info.

In fact, now that we own ~80% of AIG due to the bailouts, imposing such a restructuring should actually be much easier to accomplish, and I'm all for it. As I've tried to make clear, my actual position is that I see more harm than good coming from a declaration of Chapter 11 right now, and I'm basically arguing for the lesser of two evils.

 

OK.

Since iNow is gone, anyone else in the pro bail out camp care to comment on how "imposing such a restructuring should actually be much easier to accomplish" when we can't even control how they dish out multi million bonuses??

There are almost a billion people in Africa and about 135 million Catholics.

The Catholics are the only ones that will possibly listen to the pope 'at all'.

How many of those 135 million Catholics are infected with AIDS virus?

I would guess that the percentage is smaller than the general population, but would certainly entertain numbers if someone has them handy.

I'm fairly certain that the ocean(s) was not nearly as salty hundreds of millions of years ago as it is today.

iNow,

If you ever come back.

I'll rephrase my question using your information.

1. This slide (below) is from your link in #99....

Please list which of these foreign and domestic AIG business sectors that we (the USofA) can not let fail or be absorbed by a competitor and why it is not in our best interests that we do not simply let them fail or be taken over by a competitor.

2. From the information in your slide (below), it should be obvious to even the casual observer that AIG is a monopoly, thus violating the spirit of antitrust laws. One could argue that it should be broken up into smaller pieces to allow, encourage and promote competition anyway. Why shouldn't AIG be restructured and broken up into smaller pieces?

3. If I were an employee of an AIG competitor. I'd have at least one additional reason to be REALLY ticked off right about now.

I'd be looking for my piece of the bail out pie. Wouldn't you?

Well, I wish to state that you still haven't addressed any of my questions, but moving beyond that...

 

Let me ask...

 

Do you think that making an investment is the same as purchasing an insurance policy? It sure seems like you're conflating the two, and focusing entirely on the investment decisions made by AIG, and ignoring their clientele who hold policies with them (hence, my comments about you posting in a vacuum or in isolation).

 

 

BTW - The graphic you added while I was posting does not seem to account for income from other sources coming into the company from non-government sources. I just thought I'd mention that.

I thought that I did.

As in...here's your real "vacuum":

Pension funds (which are based on investments), 401k investments, Health Care and Social Security.

Do you not believe that these are all at least as important as, or even more important than AIG?

The bailout of which, you seem to be able to justify primarily by the repeated and over use of the term "vacuum"?

I have asked this before and I'll ask it again.

Please show evidence that Chapter 11 means that the little old ladies that bought insurance with AIG will not be covered?

Company Description

70 Pine Street

New York, NY 10270

Phone: 212-770-3099

Fax: 212-425-3499

http://www.aig.com

 

American International Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and financial services in the United States and internationally. It operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life Insurance and Retirement Services, Financial Services, and Asset Management. The General Insurance segment underwrites various business insurance products, including large commercial or industrial property insurance, excess liability, inland marine, environmental, workers’ compensation, and excess and umbrella coverages. It also offers various specialized forms of insurance, such as aviation, accident and health, equipment breakdown, directors and officers liability, difference-in-conditions, kidnap-ransom, export credit and political risk, and professional errors and omissions coverages. In addition, this segment provides property and casualty reinsurance products to insurers; automobile insurance products; residential mortgage guaranty insurance products; and commercial and consumer lines of insurance products. The Life Insurance and Retirement Services segment offers individual and group life, payout annuities, endowment, and accident and health policies, as well as retirement savings products consisting of fixed and variable annuities. The Financial Services segment provides commercial aircraft and equipment leasing, capital market operations, consumer finance, and insurance premium financing. The Asset Management segment offers investment-related services and investment products to individuals, pension funds, and institutions. The company was founded in 1967 and is based in New York, New York.[/Quote]

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot_article.asp?symbol=AIG

 

Other than life insurance and pension/retirement related services, which of AIG's business interests are going to make the sky fall when they disappear??

 

Here's the scenario.....

Chapter 11.

Then we pick up the critical sectors of the company, kill the parts that are not related to the sky falling and simply let the competitors fill the "vacuum".

Why you got a problem with that.....ehy?

 

Or is refinancing and having to find a new carrier for the insurance on my twin prop airplane and my Hummer too much of a burden to bear??