Search results

Since this was posted, the grammar has been corrected. . .

He's correct. It's all digital at the AGP or PCI interface - all that matters (mostly) is bandwidth from the `puter to the card.

LMAO! I wasn't laughing until this loser showed up - but this is too funny!

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A bomb exploded in an empty classroom at the Yale University law school Wednesday, sending debris flying and students scrambling for safety. No injuries were reported. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030521/ap_on_re_us/yale_explosion

looks good. . . from the Senate website on floor action yesterday. 26. S.AMDT.680 to S.1054 To provide an amendment. Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Charles E. [IA] (introduced 5/15/2003) Cosponsors: 1 Latest Major Action: 5/20/2003 Amendment SA 680, previously agreed to, was modified by...

I bought six of them (191Ts) after hearing praise from Nitro and the gang - they are awesome.

Now that I know the Chicago crew are mostly Dems (thanks Tea), I wouldn't be surprised if the Repubs put this in solely to take it out later in a trade to the Dems. I hope, anyway.

You have to do a search. Go to www.senate.gov Select Legislation & records Select Recent Floor Activity for 5/15 Find S. AMDT. 680 and click on the link Click on the link by TEXT OF AMMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED (note it's pages S6564-S6565) Click on Page: S6566 Do a find from the IE menu (if...

LOL - do you really believe that politicians have the best interests of the country at heart?

That's correct. Uncle Sam taxes the corporation on dividends then just can't stop from taxing that again when the stockholder gets it. Eventually, our tax & spend mobocracy will have to start taxing wealth in addition to income, so soon it will be taxed again if you deposit it in your bank...

Well, here's an easy fix. Rich guys who run really big funds get to pay 100% in taxes :D.

Hopefully. But, all of us should contact our congressthieves anyway. It's easy, doesn't take long, and could a very big difference come 4/15/2004. Thousands and thousands of dollars to each and every one of us futures traders.

I barely know how to spell 1040, but yeah, that's my assumption. Section 1256 provides special treatment, including reduced taxes. If that reduced taxes thing is taken out, seems to me that the "normal" tax code would then apply.

I emailed one Senator (Dole) - no sense emailing freakin Edwards who'd probably want to triple the cap gains tax. He's probably too busy flying around and running for President to do anything like the Senate job he just got. Anyways, just got off the phone with one of my Rep's aides. It's...

Yes, S. 1054 as approved by the Senate on the 15th does indeed strike out paragraph 3 of section 1256 of the US Tax Code. That paragraph is the one that says 60% long term cap tax rate, 40% short term. That revision is not in the House version (HR 2 I think). From what I understand about...

I found it! Finally, sheesh. Anyway, I was wrong, and FI is correct, the S.A. 680 to S.1054 (the Senate version of that tax cut thing) does indeed strike out paragraph 3 of section 1256, which is the very paragraph that says 60/40. Link to a whole bunch of text, including the Screw The...

I cannot get any text on this Grassley amendent 680 to S. 1054. It was approved unanimously by the senate, however. I'm gonna email my senator.

Crap - I just found this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01054:@@@L&summ2=m& (dunno if it works), but it does show a S.A. 680 by Grassley. I can't get any text from it yet :(.

Further, S. 1054 was discussed on the 15th (the only day it was in action on the floor so far this month), and there is no S.A. 680 listed. The author listed at the FI site is Sen. Grassley, who does have an amendment that is part of the bill (by a 86-12 vote). However, S.A. 594 has a purpose...

The amendment shown at the FuturesIndustry site would indeed strikes the paragraph (3) that lays out the 60/40. However, a search at http://thomas.loc.gov/ does not list this amendment. The senate version of the bill is S. 1054 and it does not seem to have an admentment S.A. 680. I dunno if...