text:
Designer and developer of bitcoin
(1975-04-05) 5 April 1975 (age 45) (claimed)
Japan (claimed)
Japanese (claimed)
Inventing bitcoin, implementing the first blockchain, deploying the first decentralized digital currency
Digital currencies, computer science, cryptography
Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the presumed pseudonymous[1][2][3][4] person or persons who developed bitcoin, authored the bitcoin white paper, and created and deployed bitcoin's original reference implementation.[5] As part of the implementation, Nakamoto also devised the first blockchain database.[6] In the process, Nakamoto was the first to solve the double-spending problem for digital currency using a peer-to-peer network. Nakamoto was active in the development of bitcoin up until December 2010.[7] Many people have claimed, or have been claimed, to be Nakamoto.
1 Development of bitcoin
2 Characteristics and identity
3 Possible identities
3.1 Hal Finney
3.2 Nick Szabo
3.3 Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto
3.4 Craig Wright
3.5 Other claimed candidates
Development of bitcoin
Nakamoto has stated that work on the writing of the code for bitcoin began in 2007.[8] On 18 August 2008, he or a colleague registered the domain name bitcoin.org,[9] and created a web site at that address. On 31 October 2008, Nakamoto published a paper on the cryptography mailing list at metzdowd.com describing a digital cryptocurrency, titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".[10][11][12]
Satoshi Nakamoto message embedded in the coinbase of the first block
On 9 January 2009, Nakamoto released version 0.1 of the bitcoin software on SourceForge, and launched the network by mining the genesis block of bitcoin (block number 0), which had a reward of 50 bitcoins.[13][14][15][16] Embedded in the coinbase transaction of this block was the text: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks",[17] referring to a headline in the UK newspaper The Times published on that date.[18] This note has been interpreted as both a timestamp of the genesis date and a derisive comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking.[19]:18
Nakamoto continued to collaborate with other developers on the bitcoin software until mid-2010, making all modifications to the source code himself. He then handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen,[20] transferred several related domains to various prominent members of the bitcoin community, and stopped his recognized involvement in the project. Except for test transactions, as of January 2021[update], Nakamoto's coins have not been spent since mid-January 2009.[21] At bitcoin's January 2021 value, these were worth over US$39 billion, making Nakamoto possibly the 17th richest person in the world at the time.[22]
Characteristics and identity
Nakamoto has never revealed any personal information when discussing technical matters,[23] though has at times provided commentary on banking and fractional-reserve banking. On his P2P Foundation profile As of 2012[update], Nakamoto claimed to be a 37 year-old male who lived in Japan;[24] however, some speculated he was unlikely to be Japanese due to his native-level use of English[23] and his bitcoin software not being documented or labelled in Japanese.
Some have considered that Nakamoto might be a team of people: Dan Kaminsky, a security researcher who read the bitcoin code,[25] said that Nakamoto could either be a "team of people" or a "genius";[26] Laszlo Hanyecz, a developer who had emailed Nakamoto, had the feeling the code was too well designed for one person;[23] John McAfee claimed Nakamoto was "a team of eleven people".[27] Gavin Andresen has said of Nakamoto's code: "He was a brilliant coder, but it was quirky."[28]
The use of British English in both source code comments and forum postings – such as the expression "bloody hard", terms such as "flat" and "maths", and the spellings "grey" and "colour"[17] – led to speculation that Nakamoto, or at least one individual in the consortium claiming to be him, was of Commonwealth origin.[23][10][26] The reference to London's The Times newspaper in the first bitcoin block mined by Nakamoto suggested to some a particular interest in the British government.[17][29]:18
Stefan Thomas, a Swiss coder and active community member, graphed the time stamps for each of Nakamoto's bitcoin forum posts (more than 500); the resulting chart showed a steep decline to almost no posts between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time. This was between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Japanese time, suggesting an unusual sleep pattern for someone presumably living in Japan. As this pattern held true even on Saturdays and Sundays, it suggested that Nakamoto was asleep at this time.[23]
Possible identities
There is still doubt about the real identity of Nakamoto,[30] with speculation about his true identity focusing on a number of cryptography and computer science experts, mostly of non-Japanese descent.[23]
Hal Finney
Hal Finney (4 May 1956 – 28 August 2014) was a pre-bitcoin cryptographic pioneer and the first person (other than Nakamoto himself) to use the software, file bug reports, and make improvements.[31] He also lived a few blocks from a man named 'Dorian Nakamoto', according to Forbes journalist Andy Greenberg.[32] Greenberg asked the writing analysis consultancy Juola & Associates to compare a sample of Finney's writing to Nakamoto's, and found it to be the closest resemblance they had yet come across, including when compared to candidates suggested by Newsweek, Fast Company, The New Yorker, Ted Nelson and Skye Grey.[32] Greenberg theorized that Finney may have been a ghostwriter on behalf of Nakamoto, or that he simply used his neighbor Dorian's identity as a "drop" or "patsy whose personal information is used to hide online exploits". However, after meeting Finney, seeing the emails between him and Nakamoto and his bitcoin wallet's history (including the very first bitcoin transaction from Nakamoto to him, which he forgot to pay back) and hearing his denial, Greenberg concluded that Finney was telling the truth. Juola & Associates also found that Nakamoto's emails to Finney more closely resemble Nakamoto's other writings than Finney's do. Finney's fellow extropian and sometimes co-blogger Robin Hanson assigned a subjective probability of "at least" 15% that "Hal was more involved than he's said", before further evidence suggested that was not the case.[33]
Nick Szabo
In December 2013, a blogger named Skye Grey linked Nick Szabo to the bitcoin white paper using an approach he described as stylometric analysis.[34][35][36] Szabo is a decentralized currency enthusiast, and had published a paper on "bit gold", one of the precursors of bitcoin. He is known to have been interested in using pseudonyms in the 1990s.[37] In a May 2011 article, Szabo stated about the bitcoin creator: "Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai)."[38]
Financial author Dominic Frisby provides much circumstantial evidence but, as he admits, no proof that Nakamoto is Szabo.[39] However, Szabo has denied being Nakamoto. In a July 2014 email to Frisby, he said: "Thanks for letting me know. I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it."[40] Nathaniel Popper wrote in the New York Times that "the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo."[41]
Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto
In a high-profile 6 March 2014 article in the magazine Newsweek,[42] journalist Leah McGrath Goodman identified Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto, a Japanese American man living in California, whose birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto,[42][43][44] as the Nakamoto in question. Besides his name, Goodman pointed to a number of facts that circumstantially suggested he was the bitcoin inventor.[42] Trained as a physicist at Cal Poly University in Pomona, Nakamoto worked as a systems engineer on classified defense projects and computer engineer for technology and financial information services companies. Nakamoto was laid off twice in the early 1990s and turned libertarian, according to his daughter, and encouraged her to start her own business "not under the government's thumb." In the article's seemingly biggest piece of evidence, Goodman wrote that when she asked him about bitcoin during a brief in-person interview, Nakamoto seemed to confirm his identity as the bitcoin founder by stating: "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it. It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."[42][45]
The article's publication led to a flurry of media interest, including reporters camping out near Dorian Nakamoto's house and subtly chasing him by car when he drove to do an interview.[46] However, during the subsequent full-length interview, Dorian Nakamoto denied all connection to bitcoin, saying he had never heard of the currency before, and that he had misinterpreted Goodman's question as being about his previous work for military contractors, much of which was classified.[47] In a Reddit "ask-me-anything" interview, he claimed he had misinterpreted Goodman's question as being related to his work for Citibank.[48] Later that day, the pseudonymous Nakamoto's P2P Foundation account posted its first message in five years, stating: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."[49][50] In September, the account posted another message saying it had been hacked, raising questions over the earlier message's authenticity.[51][52]
See also: Craig Steven Wright § Bitcoin
On 8 December 2015, Wired wrote that Craig Steven Wright, an Australian academic, "either invented bitcoin or is a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did".[53] Craig Wright took down his Twitter account and neither he nor his ex-wife responded to press inquiries. The same day, Gizmodo published a story with evidence supposedly obtained by a hacker who broke into Wright's email accounts, claiming that Satoshi Nakamoto was a joint pseudonym for Craig Steven Wright and computer forensics analyst David Kleiman, who died in 2013.[54] Wright's claim was supported by Jon Matonis (former director of the Bitcoin Foundation) and bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen as well as cryptographer Ian Grigg.[55][56]
A number of prominent bitcoin promoters remained unconvinced by the reports.[57] Subsequent reports also raised the possibility that the evidence provided was an elaborate hoax,[58][59] which Wired acknowledged "cast doubt" on their suggestion that Wright was Nakamoto.[60] Bitcoin developer Peter Todd said that Wright's blog post, which appeared to contain cryptographic proof, actually contained nothing of the sort.[61] Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence publicly provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky concluded Wright's claim was "intentional scammery".[62]
In May 2019, Wright started using UK libel law to sue people who denied he was the inventor of bitcoin, and who called him a fraud.[63]
In 2019 Wright registered US copyright for the bitcoin white paper and the code for Bitcoin 0.1.[64] Wright's team claimed this was "government agency recognition of Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto";[65] the United States Copyright Office issued a press release clarifying that this was not the case.[66]
Other claimed candidates
In a 2011 article in The New Yorker, Joshua Davis claimed to have narrowed down the identity of Nakamoto to a number of possible individuals, including the Finnish economic sociologist Dr. Vili Lehdonvirta and Irish student Michael Clear, who was in 2008 an undergraduate student in cryptography at Trinity College Dublin.[67] Clear strongly denied he was Nakamoto,[68] as did Lehdonvirta.[67]
In October 2011, writing for Fast Company, investigative journalist Adam Penenberg cited circumstantial evidence suggesting Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry could be Nakamoto.[69] They jointly filed a patent application that contained the phrase "computationally impractical to reverse" in 2008, which was also used in the bitcoin white paper by Nakamoto.[70] The domain name bitcoin.org was registered three days after the patent was filed. All three men denied being Nakamoto when contacted by Penenberg.[69]
In May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Nakamoto was Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.[71] Later, an article was published in The Age newspaper that claimed that Mochizuki denied these speculations, but without attributing a source for the denial.[72]
A 2013 article[73] in Vice listed Gavin Andresen, Jed McCaleb, or a government agency as possible candidates to be Nakamoto.
In 2013, two Israeli mathematicians, Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, published a paper claiming a link between Nakamoto and Ross Ulbricht. The two based their suspicion on an analysis of the network of bitcoin transactions,[74] but later retracted their claim.[75]
In 2016, Financial Times said that Nakamoto might have been a group of people mentioning Hal Finney, Nick Szabo and Adam Back as potential members.[76] In 2020, the YouTube channel Barely Sociable claimed that Adam Back, inventor of bitcoin predecessor Hashcash, is Nakamoto.[77] Back subsequently denied this.[78]
Sahil Gupta, former SpaceX employee, published a blog that Nakamoto may be Elon Musk.[79] In a tweet dated 28 November 2017, Elon Musk denied he was Nakamoto.[80]
In 2019 journalist Evan Ratliff claimed drug dealer Paul Le Roux could be Nakamoto.[81]
^ "The misidentification of Satoshi Nakamoto". theweek.com. 30 June 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
^ Kharif, Olga (23 April 2019). "John McAfee Vows to Unmask Crypto's Satoshi Nakamoto, Then Backs Off". Bloomberg.
^ "Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto, Inventor of Bitcoin? It Doesn't Matter". Fortune. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
^ Bearman, Sophie (27 October 2017). "Bitcoin's creator may be worth $6 billion — but people still don't know who it is". CNBC. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
^ S., L. (2 November 2015). "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?". The Economist explains. The Economist. Archived from the original on 21 August 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
^ Economist Staff (31 October 2015). "Blockchains: The great chain of being sure about things". The Economist. Archived from the original on 3 July 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2016.
^ Wallace, Benjamin (23 November 2011). "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin". Wired. 19 (12). ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 9 June 2019.
^ Satoshi Nakamoto (17 November 2008). "Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-17 16:33:04 UTC". Satoshi Nakamoto Institute. Archived from the original on 7 December 2016. Retrieved 4 December 2016.
^ "Whois bitcoin.org". www.whois.com. Retrieved 6 March 2020.
^ a b Nakamoto, Satoshi (24 May 2009). "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
^ Nakamoto, Satoshi (31 October 2008). "Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper". Archived from the original on 28 December 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
^ "Satoshi's posts to Cryptography mailing list". Mail-archive.com. Archived from the original on 3 January 2013. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
^ Davis, Joshua. "The Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 23 August 2013.
^ Penenberg, Adam. "The Bitcoin Crypto-Currency Mystery Reopened". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013. A New Yorker writer implies he found Bitcoin's mysterious creator. We think he got the wrong man, and offer far more compelling evidence that points to someone else entirely.
^ Wallace, Benjamin (23 November 2011). "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin". Wired. Archived from the original on 31 October 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
^ "Block 0 – Bitcoin Block Explorer". Archived from the original on 15 October 2013.
^ a b c Davis, Joshua (10 October 2011). "The Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 1 November 2014. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
^ Elliott, Francis; Duncan, Gary (3 January 2009). "Chancellor Alistair Darling on brink of second bailout for banks". The Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
^ Pagliery, Jose (2014). Bitcoin: And the Future of Money. Triumph Books. ISBN 9781629370361. Archived from the original on 21 January 2018. Retrieved 20 January 2018.
^ Bosker, Bianca. "Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Architect: Meet The Man Bringing You Bitcoin (And Getting Paid In It)". HuffPostTech. Archived from the original on 3 August 2016.
^ "How many Bitcoin does its inventor Satoshi Nakamoto still own?". Decrypt. decrypt.co. Archived from the original on 10 January 2021. Retrieved 18 January 2021.
^ "The World's Billionaires". Forbes. forbes.com. Archived from the original on 16 January 2021. Retrieved 18 January 2021.
^ a b c d e f Wallace, Benjamin (23 November 2011). "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin". Wired. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2016. It seemed doubtful that Nakamoto was even Japanese. His English had the flawless, idiomatic ring of a native speaker.
^ "Satoshi Nakamoto's Page". P2P Foundation. Archived from the original on 29 May 2012. Retrieved 2 May 2016. CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ Naughton, John (7 April 2013). "Why Bitcoin scares banks and governments". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2 March 2014. Retrieved 11 March 2014.
^ a b Jeffries, Adrianne (4 October 2011). "The New Yorker's Joshua Davis Attempts to Identify Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto". Betabeat. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
^ Bambrough, Billy. "John McAfee Thinks He's Solved Bitcoin's Greatest Mystery—Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto?" Forbes, May 5, 2020. Archived from the original.
^ Simonite, Tom (15 August 2014). "The Man Who Really Built Bitcoin". MIT Technology Review. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
^ Feins, William. "Satoshi Nakamoto". www.eurocheddar.com. Archived from the original on 20 August 2017. Retrieved 20 August 2017.
^ "Hal Finney received the first Bitcoin transaction. Here's how he describes it". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 27 February 2015. Retrieved 24 February 2015.
^ a b Andy Greenberg (25 March 2014). "Nakamoto's Neighbor: My Hunt For Bitcoin's Creator Led To A Paralyzed Crypto Genius". Forbes. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
^ "Conspiracy Theory, Up Close & Personal". 25 March 2014. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
^ John Biggs. "Who is the real Satoshi Nakamoto? One researcher may have found the answer". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 13 March 2014. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
^ Grey, Skye (1 December 2013). "Satoshi Nakamoto is (probably) Nick Szabo". Archived from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
^ Grey, Skye (11 March 2014). "Occam's Razor: who is most likely to be Satoshi Nakamoto?". Archived from the original on 14 March 2014. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
^ "Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing". 18 October 1993. Archived from the original on 16 March 2014. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
^ Nick Szabo (28 May 2011). "Bitcoin, what took ye so long?". Archived from the original on 17 February 2014. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
^ Frisby, Dominic (2014) "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?" In Bitcoin: the Future of Money?, pp. 85–149. Unbound. ISBN 1783520779
^ Frisby p 147
^ Popper, Nathaniel (15 May 2015). "Decoding the Enigma". New York Times. the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo.
^ a b c d Leah McGrath Goodman (6 March 2014). "The Face Behind Bitcoin". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 7 March 2014. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
^ Andy Greenberg. "Bitcoin Community Responds To Satoshi Nakamoto's Outing With Disbelief, Anger, Fascination". Forbes. Archived from the original on 6 March 2014. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
^ Oremus, Will (26 November 2013). "The real Satoshi Nakamoto: Newsweek finds mysterious bitcoin creator in Los Angeles". Slate.com. Archived from the original on 29 April 2014. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
^ Winton, Richard (7 March 2014). "Deputies: Newsweek Bitcoin story quoted Satoshi Nakamoto accurately". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 8 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
^ Rodriguez, Salvador (6 March 2014). "Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto chased by reporters, denies founding Bitcoin". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 6 March 2014. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
^ Hedman Rahm, Victor. "The Unbelievable story of Bitcoin". Coinworld. Archived from the original on 27 August 2017. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
^ "Hi r/bitcoin I am Dorian Nakamoto. AMA". Reddit. 8 October 2016. Archived from the original on 7 June 2017. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
^ "Bitcoin open source implementation of P2P currency". 7 March 2014. Archived from the original on 7 March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
^ "'Real' bitcoin creator: 'I am not Dorian Nakamoto'". CNBC. Archived from the original on 13 May 2015.
^ "Satoshi Nakamoto's Discussions". 8 October 2017. Archived from the original on 8 October 2017. Retrieved 8 October 2017.
^ "The Satoshi Nakamoto Email Hacker Says He's Negotiating with the Bitcoin Founder". VICE. Archived from the original on 8 October 2017.
^ Greenberg, Andy; Branwen, Gwern (8 December 2015). "Bitcoin's Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius". Wired. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
^ Biddle, Sam; Cush, Andy (8 December 2015). "This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
^ Shin, Laura. "Bitcoin Creator Reveals Himself (Again); Cryptographers Say Evidence Is 'Clever' But Not Proof". Forbes.
^ Nakamoto, Andrew O'Hagan on the many lives of Satoshi (30 June 2016). "The Satoshi Affair". London Review of Books. pp. 7–28. ISSN 0260-9592. Retrieved 28 June 2016.
^ Kaminska, Izabella (9 December 2015). "So, Satoshi is an Aussie?". FT Alphaville. Archived from the original on 12 December 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
^ Jeong, Sarah (9 December 2015). "Satoshi's PGP Keys Are Probably Backdated and Point to a Hoax". Motherboard. Archived from the original on 10 December 2015. Retrieved 10 December 2015.
^ Ryall, Jenni (10 December 2015). "New chase for Bitcoin founder leaves everyone exhausted and no wiser". Mashable. Mashable. Archived from the original on 11 December 2015. Retrieved 10 December 2015.
^ Greenberg A (11 December 2015). "New Clues Suggest Craig Wright, Suspected Bitcoin Creator, May Be a Hoaxer". Wired. Archived from the original on 12 December 2015. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Thomas Fox-Brewster (2 May 2016). "Craig Wright Claims He's Bitcoin Creator Satoshi – Experts Fear An Epic Scam". Forbes. Archived from the original on 19 July 2017.
^ "Craig Wright's New Evidence That He Is Satoshi Nakamoto Is Worthless". Motherboard. Archived from the original on 2 May 2016.
^ Media Correspondent, Matthew Moore (7 May 2019). "Bitcoin 'creator' uses UK libel law to silence critics" – via www.thetimes.co.uk.
^ Kharif, Olga; Yasiejko, Christopher. "Man Who Claims To Be Bitcoin's Inventor Registers Copyright for Its Code". BloombergQuint. Retrieved 22 May 2019.
^ Kelly, Jemima (22 May 2019). "Craig Wright has in no way been officially "recognised" as Satoshi Nakamoto". Financial Times. Retrieved 23 May 2019.
^ "Copyright.gov: May 22, 2019: Questions about Certain Bitcoin Registrations". USPTO. 22 May 2019.
^ a b Davis, Joshua (10 October 2011). "The Crypto-Currency". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 17 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
^ Clear, Michael (4 April 2013). "Clarifications on Bitcoin Article". Archived from the original on 31 October 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
^ a b Penenberg, Adam (11 October 2011). "The Bitcoin Crypto-currency Mystery Reopened". The Fast Company. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
^ Updating and Distributing Encryption Keys US 20100042841 A1
^ "I Think I Know Who Satoshi Is". YouTube TheTedNelson Channel. 18 May 2013. Archived from the original on 14 April 2014.
^ Ormsby, Eileen (10 July 2013). "The outlaw cult". Theage.com.au. Archived from the original on 22 November 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
^ Liu, Alec. "Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Creator of Bitcoin?". vice.com. Archived from the original on 5 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
^ Markoff, John (23 November 2013). "Study Suggests Link Between Dread Pirate Roberts and Satoshi Nakamoto". New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 November 2013.
^ Wile, Rob. "Researchers Retract Claim of Link Between Alleged Silk Road Mastermind And Founder of Bitcoin". Business Week. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
^ Kaminska, Izabella (7 May 2016). "Bitcoin: Identity crisis". Financial Times. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
^ Barely Sociable. "Bitcoin - Unmasking Satoshi Nakamoto". YouTube, May 11, 2020.
^ Kharif, Olga (2 June 2020). "Latest Satoshi Nakamoto Candidate Buying Bitcoin No Matter What". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2 June 2020.
^ Kharpal, Arjun (28 November 2017). "Elon Musk denies he is bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". CNBC. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
^ "Musk: I Am Not Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto". Bloomberg.com. 28 November 2017. Archived from the original on 29 November 2017. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
^ "Was Bitcoin Created by This International Drug Dealer? Maybe!". WIRED.
The Satoshi Affair. Andrew O'Hagan on the many lives of Satoshi Nakamoto
Gavin Andresen
Patrick M. Byrne
Wences Casares
Mark Karpelès
Amir Taaki
Money portal
List of bitcoin companies
List of bitcoin forks
List of bitcoin organizations
List of people in blockchain technology
Bitcoin Unlimited
Bitcoin scalability problem
History of bitcoin
2018 cryptocurrency crash
2018 Bitcoin bomb threats
2020 Twitter bitcoin scam
The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin (2014 film)
Deep Web (2015 film)
(not exchanges)
Bitcoin Magazine
Ghash.io
GND: 121911801X
NKC: vse2015890534
WorldCat Identities: lccn-nb2018014025
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satoshi_Nakamoto&oldid=1001826383"
People associated with Bitcoin
People associated with cryptocurrency
Cypherpunks
CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown
Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2021
Articles containing Chinese-language text
Wikipedia articles with BIBSYS identifiers
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Wikipedia articles with NKC identifiers
Possibly living people


text:
Perspective > Medscape Business of Medicine > Medscape Close-Up with Art Caplan
To Vaccinate or Not: Calming Worried Parents
Arthur L. Caplan, PhD; Paul A. Offit, MD
This feature requires the newest version of Flash. You can download it here.
Close Up With Paul Offit
Arthur L. Caplan, PhD: Welcome to Close-Up With Art Caplan. I am very excited today to have as my guest Dr. Paul Offit, Head of Infectious Diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Thank you so much for coming.
Paul A. Offit, MD: Thank you, Art.
Dr. Caplan: It's fair to say that, in my view, Paul is the leading advocate and has done more for promoting vaccination than anybody else I know in the world. He has been a staunch advocate of helping kids receive necessary vaccines and has been a pioneer himself in vaccine research.
Calming a Parent's Vaccine Fears
Dr. Caplan: In your experience, what can be done to calm parents who are worried and hear such things as, "My child got sick after a vaccination"? Putting aside the lack of merit behind some of those fears, how do you calm a parent down?
Dr. Offit: A fear was raised originally in the late 1990s and early 2000s that vaccines caused autism. Fair enough. From the parent standpoint, my child was fine, he or she got a vaccine, and now my child is showing signs and symptoms consistent with autism. Could vaccines have done it?
The good news is that this is an answerable question. It has been answered in a scientific venue. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent by public health and academic professionals to try and answer this question: If you receive a vaccine, are you at greater risk for autism than if you don't receive a vaccine? Now we can comfortably say to parents that those 2 things are not causally associated. Vaccines don't cause autism.
Dr. Caplan: So we have a mountain of evidence?
Dr. Offit: Yes. The problem isn't that parents have the questions. It's fair that they have the questions. Nor is the problem that people haven't responded with millions of dollars to answer the question. They have answered the question. So, what now? Why, with all that information on hand, can't we convince people?
I don't think it's a lot of people, but some people simply have the fear, and it's hard to make the fear go away. In part, it is because we haven't identified a clear cause or causes for autism. We don't have a definitive cure for autism, so that keeps the fear running.
Consider diabetes in the 1800s, when people didn't know what caused it. There were many thoughts about what caused it, and many thoughts about what could cure it. When Banting and Best discovered insulin and we knew the cause of diabetes, and how to cure it, all of the myths disappeared. For something like autism, that may be what it's going to take.
Dr. Caplan: Do you think that it would help to say to a parent that there are suggestions that older parents are more likely to have a child with autism, or that environmental toxins might be associated with autism? I have seen these things explored as causes of autism. Would it calm their fears to say that there may be other factors that we are chasing besides vaccines as causes of autism?
Dr. Offit: You can certainly say that, with respect to environmental factors, vaccines are clearly the best studied, and many factors have been looked at in autism research that make sense and are confluent. Clearly, there is a genetic predisposition for autism. If you look at the proteins that those genes make -- the so-called developmental proteins -- they are often expressed in the first or early second trimester. Environmental factors, such as valproic acid, thalidomide, or rubella virus, increase the risk for autism because they affect the child in utero.
Eric Courchesne and colleagues[1] at the University of California, San Diego, showed that there are folding abnormalities in the brain. You can actually see the foldings in utero by looking at the child's brain, so it's all consistent.
When you have autism, you are born with autism. There is no changing that, and to some people, that is helpful to know.
Responding to "That's Too Many Vaccines"
Dr. Caplan: What about parents who are worried about their child receiving too many vaccines at once? How do we handle that concern?
Dr. Offit: I don't care how sophisticated you are about virology or microbiology or immunology -- when you watch your child lie down on that white paper and receive as many as 5 injections at once, it looks like it's too much.
When you are in the womb, you are in a sterile environment. When you enter the birth canal and the world, you are not, and very quickly there are trillions of bacteria on the surface of your body. I'm not trying to sound like Carl Sagan, but you have about 100,000 trillion (1014) bacteria on the surface of your body. You actually have more bacteria on the surface of your body than the number of cells in your body.
We have a way of carrying bacteria from one place to the next, and to which you make an immune response. Adults typically make as much as 5 g of secretory immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin G daily to make sure that those bacteria stay at the mucosal surface.
One single bacterium out of the trillions of bacteria on your mucosal surfaces has between 2000 and 6000 immunologic components. If you add up all of the immunologic components in vaccines that are given in the first few years of life, it comes to about 160. It's literally a drop in the ocean of what you encounter and manage everyday, but you don't see that.
Dr. Caplan: When the parent comes in and says, "I'm worried about too many vaccines," and then goes home and lets the child crawl on the floor or lets the dog lick the child, is that worth pointing out to them? They are not exposed only to what is there naturally, but they are exposed to lots of agents in the ordinary course of wandering around the house.
Dr. Offit: And that is good, because it educates the immune system away from this Th2 response toward the so-called Th1 response. It makes you less likely to be allergic as you get older. That actually helps, but if people really want to scare themselves, they should take a cotton swab and swab the inside of the child's nose, put it on a wet-mount microscope slide, and look at it. If it's teeming with bacteria to which your child makes an immune response, that's a greater challenge than what you ever receive in a vaccine.
Dr. Caplan: So those metaphors could help.
Dr. Offit: I think so, yes.
A Lose/Lose Situation for Clinicians
Dr. Caplan: Here is another issue. Many doctors and nurses have had people come in and say, "I don't want to vaccinate." What can we do with them? Should we say, "Stop coming here," or should we try to work with them? Should we say, "We will stretch out the vaccine schedule"? What's your view about that?
Dr. Offit: I feel sorry for the private practicing clinician, my wife being one of them. It's a lose/lose situation. On the one hand, the doctor can say, "I'm going to do the best I can to give this child whatever vaccines I can," knowing that you are sending the child away less than fully vaccinated, and knowing that this is going to be a progressively more dangerous world where there is a greater incidence of measles, whooping cough, and bacterial meningitis.
Dr. Caplan: We have had outbreaks of all those diseases in the past year.
Dr. Offit: Now, you know you are practicing substandard care. You know you are putting the child at risk, and so it's hard for doctors. But on the other hand, they can say, "If I don't at least try and play it the parent's way, where does the person go then? Do they just go to a chiropractor who is perfectly willing to not vaccinate their children, or to another doctor who is willing to give them no vaccines?"
I have seen my wife progress through this, and she has gone 180° toward the opposite view. She is far more passionate. She says, "Let me love your child. Don't put me in a position where I have to practice substandard care. Don't put me in a position where I'm sending your child out into this world that is becoming progressively more dangerous, where they can get pneumococcal disease or varicella and suffer that. Don't put me in that position. It's like coming to me and saying, 'I love my child, but I don't trust car seats.'"
Dr. Caplan: I like that "let me love your child" angle. It makes an alliance with the parents. What about when a child who hasn't been vaccinated comes to the clinic? Do you say, "Don't mix with the other patients in the waiting room"?
Do Parents Have a Responsibility to Others?
Dr. Offit: That's a good question: Do you have a responsibility to the waiting room?
In the measles outbreak in San Diego that occurred a few years ago, that is exactly what happened. The mother didn't vaccinate her children, and she took her children to Switzerland. The 7-year-old got measles, came back, and was sitting in the waiting room. The mother didn't know what it was. She had never seen measles before.
The child had fever and a rash, and was exposing everybody else in the waiting room. Three of the children in the waiting room were less than 1 year of age and hadn't yet been vaccinated. All were severely infected with measles, were admitted to the hospital, and one almost died. The mother of the child who almost died said, "She made a decision for me." Did she have a right to make that decision?
Dr. Caplan: Ethically, it may be important to let people know you vaccinate not only to protect your own child, but also to protect your neighbor, and I don't think people understand that clearly. Sometimes it seems that it is all self-interest.
Dr. Offit: Do we have a responsibility to our neighbor? Is it our inalienable right to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? I would like to think that the answer is no.
Dr. Caplan: Pushing that a little further, there have been movements in several states -- Rhode Island, for example -- mandating flu vaccines for pre-kindergarten and daycare, saying that children can't go to these places unless they are vaccinated. I think it includes the teachers now as well. Is this a good idea? Should we push harder for that kind of requirement?
Dr. Offit: You are seeing what has happened. Before the 1970s, there were medical exemptions to vaccination, but no philosophical or religious exemptions. Those were established in the 1970s and 1980s, so now 41 states have religious exemptions, and 20 states have philosophical exemptions to vaccines.
Dr. Caplan: "Philosophical" just means "I don't like it."
Dr. Offit: I'm not sure. It never made much sense to me.
Dr. Caplan: As a philosopher, it seems to me it is a deep philosophical objection.
Dr. Offit: Philo means love, and sophia means wisdom. Where is the wisdom that says not getting a vaccine is better than getting one?
We are seeing the consequences of those exemptions. When we see such outbreaks as measles or whooping cough, invariably they are centered on groups of people who have chosen to not vaccinate their children. Not only do they serve as a reservoir for the children to become infected, but they infect members of the surrounding community, so now we are starting to see pushback. There was an article in JAMA Pediatrics[2] on this topic, and we are seeing legislation not for expanding those exemptions, but for contracting them.
Dr. Caplan: It seems to me that it still can be respectful of somebody's right to choose if you say you have to watch a video program about vaccines or certify that your doctor discussed the risks and benefits with you. I don't think those requirements are too intrusive into somebody's liberty.
Dr. Offit: My problem is this: Is it your right to choose to put your child at risk and those who are going to come in contact with your child? On the one hand, we are trained as physicians to be open to all attitudes and beliefs. On the other hand, we watch children come into our hospitals. Every year, at least 1 will die of an infectious disease, and when you watch that happen -- when you watch a child get flu, for example, and come into the hospital initially on face-mask oxygen, and go onto a ventilator, and then an oscillator, and then a heart/lung machine, and then die -- you see those parents slowly watch their child fall off a cliff. When another parent comes to you a week later and says, "I don't want to give my child a flu vaccine," it's very hard to be passionate and say, "It's your right to choose." I just don't feel that way.
Expand Vaccines for Pregnant Women
Dr. Caplan: We have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to manage resistance, fears, and doubts. Where are we going? What is coming down the line? Are we going to continue to give vaccines through needles? Are we going to have the same array of vaccines, or are new ones imminent? What does the future hold with respect to vaccination?
Dr. Offit: I predict that the next great platform will be the pregnancy platform. You are already seeing it to some extent. We now give the whooping cough vaccine in the third trimester of pregnancy to try and prevent the deaths of 20-30 children every year from whooping cough, all of whom are less than 2 months of age. That is the only way to prevent that.
Dr. Caplan: And they die because they don't have any immunity to it?
Dr. Offit: That's right. They are too young to have developed an active immune response, and too young to be vaccinated. The first vaccine is given at 2 months of age, so that is why we give pregnant women a pertussis vaccine. We give the flu vaccine primarily to protect the mother who is pregnant and who has a 7-fold increased risk of developing pneumonia and dying of it than if she was not pregnant. We could have a meningococcal vaccine in pregnancy to avoid the need for the meningococcal vaccine that is given in the first year of life. I would like to think that down the line, we will have a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine that is given during pregnancy.
Dr. Caplan: Those are disorders that people often mistake for the flu.
Dr. Offit: Another disease is group B streptococcus. All of those would be reasonable vaccines to give to pregnant women, and they would benefit the newborns.
Dr. Caplan: There is more to be said here, but hopefully we have provided some useful information, solid tips, and maybe even some management strategies to those in the field who are trying to engage vaccination.
Thank you for all of the work you have done to promote vaccination and grapple with these questions in public. You have been a great example to physicians who say to me often, how do I engage? What do I do? You write, you speak, you go toe-to-toe with critics on national television or at a local high school assembly. You have shown a clear-cut path as to how that should be done.
Thank you for watching Close-Up With Art Caplan.
Medscape Business of Medicine © 2014 WebMD, LLC
Cite this: To Vaccinate or Not: Calming Worried Parents - Medscape - Apr 10, 2014.
Arthur Caplan, PhD
Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York
Disclosure: Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships
Paul A. Offit, MD
Professor of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; Chief, Division of Infectious Disease, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Disclosure: Paul A. Offit, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships
Leading Oncologist 'Lost Confidence of Staff'
AMA Takes On Vaccine Misinformation, Physician Vaccines, and Racism
Smart Contact Lens Targets Vision Improvement for Those With Impairments
2010/recap/937247
Prevention of High-Frequency Episodic Migraine
Asthma Guidelines Update FeNO, Intermittent ICS Use
News Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Reverses Biological Signs of Aging
Diseases & Conditions CBRNE - Biological Warfare Agents
CBRNE - Biological Warfare Agents
CBRNE - Evaluation of a Biological Warfare Victim
Skin Grafts and Biologic Skin Substitutes
Cell Biology of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Congenital Synostoses
Ionizing Radiation and Medical Imaging
Psoriasis: Manifestations, Management Options, and Mimics
Data Call for Biologics Trials in Undertreated Juvenile Arthritis Subtype
Estrogen in Women's Health: Biology, Pharmacology, Clinical Application
Childhood Insulin Levels Tied to Later Psychosis
According to FAMILY MEDICINE PHYSICIANS
6 Big Changes Coming for Office-Visit Coding
Family Doctor's License Suspended After Refusal to Wear Mask
Clinicians Incensed by Trump's Claim They're Inflating COVID Numbers
12 End-of-Year Tax Tips
Doctors: Lonely and Burned Out in COVID-19. How Are They Coping?
Your Kid Has No Right to Make My Kid Sick!
Pertussis Cases Concentrated Near Vaccine Refusal Clusters
Vaccines Refusers Are at Increased Risk for Contracting Pertussis
b:curatedcuratedHasData : true

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Seismic performance of a 9-storey pre-1970's reinforced concrete wall building in Wellington (2020)
POSTER - Chandramohan_Seismic performance of a 9-story pre-1970s reinforced concrete wall building in Wellingon.pdf (2.284Mb)
Chandramohan, Reagan, Dashti, Farhad, Dhakal, Rajesh, Elwood, Kenshow all
Reconnaissance reports have highlighted the poor performance of non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings during the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes. These buildings are widely expected to result in significant losses under future earthquakes due to their seismic vulnerability and prevalence in densely populated urban areas. Wellington, for example, contains more than 70 pre-1970s multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, ranging in height from 5 to 18 storeys. This study seeks to characterise the seismic performance and evaluate the likely failure modes of a typical pre-1970s reinforced concrete building in Wellington, by conducting advanced numerical simulations to evaluate its 3D nonlinear dynamic response. A representative 9-storey office building constructed in 1951 is chosen for this study and modelled in the finite element analysis programme DIANA, using a previously developed and validated approach to predict the failure modes of doubly reinforced walls with confined boundary regions. The structure consists of long walls and robust framing elements resulting in a stiff lateral load resisting system. Barbell-shaped walls are flanked by stiff columns with sufficient transverse reinforcement to serve as boundary regions. Curved shell elements are used to model the walls and their boundary columns, for which the steel reinforcement is explicitly modelled. Line elements are used to model the frame elements. The steel reinforcement in each member is explicitly modelled. The floor slabs are modelled using elastic shell elements. The model is analysed under short and long duration ground motions selected to match site specific targets in Wellington at the DBE and MCE intensity levels. The observed response of the building including drift profiles at each intesity level, strain localization effects around wall openings, and the influence of bidirectional loading are discussed.


text:
35.3.7 Motions in TEFRA Cases
35.3.7.1 Review Required
35.3.7.2 Jurisdictional Motions
Part 35. Tax Court Litigation
Chapter 3. Motions
Section 7. Motions in TEFRA Cases
35.3.7.1 (08-11-2004)
Review Required
All TEFRA partnership and S corporation motions must be reviewed by APJP, Branch 3 except as noted below. Certain TEFRA motions may be directly filed with the court, if they follow the format set forth in Exhibits 35.11.1–61 through 35.11.1–65 for the respective motions. Any deviation from the format of the appropriate exhibit will require review of the motion by APJP, Branch 3. Those motions which may be directly filed are:
T.C. Rule 248(a) –– Stipulated Decisions. See Exhibit 35.11.1–187 for the proper format for stipulated decision documents;
T.C. Rule 248(b) –– Motion for Entry of Decision and Decision. See Exhibits 35.11.1–188 through 35.11.1–191 for the proper format for Rule 248 motions for entry of decision and accompanying documents;
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to I.R.C. § 6226(b)(1) (Duplicate petition filed by notice partner when Tax Matters Partner has filed a petition). Exhibit 35.11.1–61. If there is any question as to the validity of the petition filed by the TMP, the motion to dismiss must be reviewed by APJP, Branch 3;
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to I.R.C. § 6226(b)(2) and (b)(4) (Duplicate petitions filed by notice partners). Exhibit 35.11.1–62. If there is any question as to the validity of the prior petition, the motion to dismiss must be submitted to APJP, Branch 3 for review;
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction –– TEFRA Items in Deficiency Notice. See Exhibit 35.11.1–63 for the proper format of this motion;
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike –– TEFRA and Non–TEFRA Items. If a deficiency notice contains TEFRA and non–TEFRA items, only the TEFRA items should be dismissed. See Exhibit 35.11.1–64 for the proper format of this motion.
In addition to the sample motions referenced above, CCDM 35.3.7.2 discusses TEFRA jurisdictional motions in more detail and provides guidance on what facts need to be alleged in the motions. All other TEFRA motions not referenced above must still be reviewed by APJP, Branch 3; (e.g., any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the notice partner filed within the 90-day period, the petition was untimely filed, or affected items are in FPAA). if there is any question as to the validity of petition filed by TMP, or the validity of a prior filed petition, motions to dismiss must be submitted to APJP, Branch 3 for review. Exhibit 35.11.1–1 (Tax Court Documents Requiring Associate Office Review).
Jurisdictional Motions
The procedure contained in sections 6221 through 6233 governs audit procedures relating to partnership and affected items. Section 6225 precludes normal deficiency proceedings with reference to TEFRA partnership adjustments. Any statutory notice of deficiency which contains only partnership items is invalid in its entirety because it attempts to determine a deficiency for partnership items other than through procedures prescribed by sections 6221through 6233. Exhibit 35.11.1–63.
Where an invalid statutory notice of deficiency is issued, i.e., a notice containing only partnership item adjustments, respondent should file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion should state that no valid statutory notice of deficiency under section 6212 was issued and that the notice is invalid and prohibited by section 6225. The motion should further indicate that: (a) the items on the statutory notice are partnership items; (b) the statutory notice is invalid in its entirety insofar as it attempts to determine a deficiency for partnership items other than through the procedures prescribed by sections 6221 through 6233; and (c) the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice to the right of the respondent to proceed under sections 6221 through 6233 to deal with the (name of TEFRA partnership), as appropriate, including the issuance of a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment under section 6223(a)(2) should such action be appropriate and timely. The motion should also allege sufficient facts and provide sufficient documentation for the court to make an independent determination that the items in question arise from a TEFRA partnership. The motion should also state why the partnership does not fall within the small partnership exception to TEFRA: i.e., it had more than ten partners at any point during the taxable year, it had a nonnatural person or nonresident alien as a partner, or it violated the same share requirement. Section 6231(a)(1)(B)(i). If a notice of beginning of administrative proceeding or final partnership administrative adjustment has been issued to the partnership, these facts and the respective dates of issuance should be stated and a copy of the notice attached as an exhibit. If a petition has been filed with respect to a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment, this should also be noted. Exhibit 35.11.1–63.
If a statutory notice of deficiency is issued which contains adjustments to both partnership and nonpartnership items, the entire statutory notice would not be invalid. In such a situation, to preserve the validity of the statutory notice with respect to the nonpartnership item adjustments, the respondent should file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike. The motion to dismiss and to strike should reference the portion of the adjustments and pleadings pertaining to (and only to) the partnership. The motion should state that the statutory notice is valid, as nonpartnership items were adjusted and a deficiency was determined with respect to such nonpartnership items, but insofar as adjustments to partnership items were determined, the notice is invalid and prohibited by section 6225. The motion should also indicate that: the statutory notice of deficiency is invalid only insofar as it attempts to determine a deficiency for partnership items other than through the procedures prescribed by sections 6221 through 6233, and the notice is otherwise valid. Additional facts should be alleged and exhibits attached as outlined in the preceding paragraph. Exhibit 35.11.1–64.
In a TEFRA proceeding, the court only has jurisdiction over partnership items pursuant to section 6226(f). Partnership items are items required to be taken into account for the partnership's taxable year under any provision of subtitle A to the extent regulations provide that such item is more appropriately determined at the partnership level than at the partner level. Section 6231(a)(3). If nonpartnership items, such as penalties or additions to tax, are raised in a petition with respect to a notice of Final Partnership Administrative Audit, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike must be filed. Exhibit 35.11.1–65.
Commencement of Action — Section 6226(a) and (b). Upon receipt of a petition or complaint in a partnership action, the Field attorney must determine if other actions have been filed and, if more than one petition or complaint has been filed, which one must be dismissed. A list of petitions filed with respect to a partnership taxable year is available through TLCATS. The Tax Court's website also should be checked. The attorney with responsibility over the duplicate petition must contact the attorney with the lead case to ensure that the lead case was correctly determined and that there are no jurisdictional defects with respect to the lead case. The Field attorney with responsibility over a case to be dismissed shall prepare a motion to dismiss which must be reviewed by APJP, Branch 3. This includes motions to dismiss duplicate petitions if there is any question as to the validity of the first petition.
Filing by tax matters partner pursuant to section 6226(a). The Tax Matters Partner, within 90 days after the mailing of the notice of Final Partner Administrative Adjustment, may file a petition for readjustment of partnership items in the Tax Court, the district court in which the partnership's principal place of business is located, or the Court of Federal Claims. Note that the filing period may actually be longer than 90 days if the 90th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Section 7503. During such 90-day period, no other partner may file a petition for judicial review. If any person other than the TMP files a petition in this 90-day period, the Field attorney should first determine if the petition was filed on behalf of the TMP and whether the TMP is willing to ratify the petition, i.e., file an amended petition in the name of the proper party, or file a motion to amend caption to reflect the correct TMP. If the petitioner is unwilling to have the TMP ratify the improper petition or ratification is otherwise unavailable, the Field attorney should prepare a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction under section 6226(a). The motion should state that only the tax matters partner may file a petition in the first 90 days after a notice of FPAA is issued to the tax matters partner and that the petitioner is not the tax matters partner. The motion should set forth why the filing party is not the TMP, i.e., not properly designated as such, not the largest profits interest general partner in the absence of a designation by the partnership, or not selected by the Service as TMP under Rev. Proc. 88–16, 1988–1 C.B. 691. If the Service identifies the petitioner as an indirect partner of the partnership, Forms K-1 of both the source partnership in question as well as the tier partnership will need to be attached so that the court may independently determine the petitioner's status with respect to the source partnership. The motion should set forth the Field attorney's attempt to determine the availability of the defense of ratification. The motion should identify the actual TMP, and plead sufficient facts and attach sufficient documentation so that the court may independently determine who the TMP is, e.g., it may be necessary to include copies of the Form K-1s to show the general partner with the largest profits interest who would be TMP in the absence of a designation by the partnership. The motion should also inform the court of all other petitions filed with respect to the partnership taxable year, including invalid petitions, as well as any jurisdictional motions filed with respect to these cases.
Filing by notice partner or representative of five-percent group pursuant to section 6226(b). Section 6226(b)(1) provides that, if the TMP does not file a petition during the period provided by section 6226(a), any notice partner or five-percent group (see section 6223(a) and (b)(2)) with an interest in the outcome (section 6226(d)) may, within 60 days following the close of such 90-day period, file a petition with any of the courts in which the TMP could have filed a petition. A partner does not have an interest in the outcome after the partnership items of the partner become nonpartnership items under section 6231(b), or the period for assessment with respect to the partnership items of such partner has expired. Such a partner does not have standing, pursuant to section 6226(d)(2), to file a petition pursuant to section 6226(b). Note, however, that the interest requirement does not apply to a TMP who files a petition pursuant to section 6226(a) in the 90-day period, although it will apply to a TMP who files as a notice partner pursuant to section 6226(b). If a partner's partnership items convert to nonpartnership items by reason of settlement after he has filed a petition, T.C. Rule 248, which governs stipulated decision documents and notices of settlement, applies. CCDM 35.8.6.1.1. If a TMP files a petition for readjustment of partnership items within the period provided by section 6226(b), the petition is proper and timely under section 6226(b) so long as the TMP has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding. By filing a petition during the 60-day period, however, the TMP loses the right to control the litigation, and the petition will be treated just like any other petition filed by a notice partner.
Priority of Actions. If the TMP files a petition during the period provided for under section 6226(a), then all petitions filed during the period provided for under section 6226(b) must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss should state (a) the date of issuance of the notice of final partnership administrative adjustment and that a petition was filed by the TMP within 90 days of the issuance of the notice of FPAA, giving the date and docket number of the petition filed by the TMP; (b) that a petition may be filed by a notice partner pursuant to section 6226(b)(1) only if the tax matters partner has not filed a petition pursuant to section 6226(a); (c) that the court lacks jurisdiction over the notice partner petition pursuant to section 6226(b)(1). See Exhibit 35.11.1–61. The attorney with responsibility over the case to be dismissed must contact the attorney with responsibility over the TMP case to ensure that there are no jurisdictional defects with respect to the TMP petition. If there is any question as to the validity of the petition by the TMP, the motion to dismiss must be submitted for prereview to APJP, Branch 3.
Priority of Actions When More Than One Petition is Filed by Partner with Standing Pursuant to Section 6226(b)(1) –– Section 6226(b)(2)–(4). A petition may be filed pursuant to section 6226(b)(1) by a notice partner or five-percent group, only if the TMP does not file a petition pursuant to section 6226(a) in the first 90 days after a notice of FPAA is issued to the TMP. If the TMP does not file a petition during this initial period, then the first action filed in the Tax Court during the 60-day period provided by section 6226(b) will establish jurisdiction, or if no petition is filed with the Tax Court, the first action filed in either the district court or Court of Federal Claims will go forward. All other actions shall be dismissed. The Field attorney assigned to a case which must be dismissed shall file a motion to dismiss his case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to sections 6226(b)(2) and 6226(b)(4). The motion must inform the court of the case which will go forward stating that it was the first case to be filed in the Tax Court pursuant to section 6226(b)(1). The motion should further state that the first case brought in the Tax Court shall go forward pursuant to section 6226(b)(2) and all subsequent petitions filed during the period provided by section 6226(b) must be dismissed pursuant to section 6226(b)(4). See Exhibit 35.11.1–62. The attorney with responsibility over the case to be dismissed must coordinate with the attorney with responsibility over the lead case. Motions to dismiss duplicate petitions, if there is any question as to the validity of the case to go forward, must be reviewed by APJP, Branch 3.
Untimely petitions. Upon receipt of a petition in a partnership action, the Field attorney must first determine if the petition was timely filed during the periods provided for under sections 6226(a) or 6226(b). If the petition has been untimely filed, then a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be filed. See CCDM 35.3.7.2. Once this determination is made, the Field attorney must promptly notify the Examination Support Unit in the key case Service Center in writing that the petition was untimely filed and that a prompt assessment of deficiencies due to adjustments of partnership items must be made unless some other timely petition was filed. This is because the suspension provision of section 6229(d) will toll the period of limitations until the court decision becomes final only where a petition has been timely filed by the Tax Matters Partner, a notice partner, or a 5% group. In this respect the statute suspension provisions under TEFRA do not parallel section 6503(a)(1). Section 6229(d) provides that if a notice of a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment is mailed to the TMP, the running of the period of limitations is suspended (1) for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if an action with respect to such administrative adjustment is brought during such period, until the decision of the court in such action becomes final), and (2) for one year thereafter. Therefore, where a petition is untimely filed and there are no other timely filed petitions with regard to that administrative adjustment, the one year period of section 6229(d)(2) begins to run upon the default of the FPAA. Similarly, section 6225(a) bars assessment of tax attributable to partnership items for 150 days after mailing the FPAA to the TMP and, if a proceeding is begun in the Tax Court during such 150-day period, until the decision of the court becomes final. This means that if an untimely petition is filed, the prohibition on assessment under section 6225 is lifted after the 150 day period and the one year suspension period of section 6229(d)(2) will expire one year after expiration of the period for petitioning cases, or one year after the decision becomes final in timely petitioned cases. Therefore, the written notification to the appropriate Examination Support Unit must identify when the one year suspension period under section 6229(d) begins or ends. The adjustments reflected on the FPAA/FSAA should be used as a basis for assessing all investors.
Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 10-Sep-2017


text:
Грама Ніладхарі Західний Дадаянталава (№ W/93B/1) — Грама Ніладхарі підрозділу ОС Ухана, округ Ампара, Східна провінція, Шрі-Ланка.

Демографія

Примітки

Грама Ніладхарі підрозділу ОС Ухана

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The UK's economic growth will be the worst of any European Union country over the next two years, according to the European Commission's annual growth forecast.
Growth this year is expected to be 1.3 per cent – ahead of only Italy and Denmark - and it is expected to slow to 1.2 per cent next year, making the British economy the joint-slowest growing of any EU state alongside Italy.
In 2020, Italian growth is predicted to surpass the UK's - which is forecast to remain at 1.2% - leaving the British economy as the slowest growing among all 28 EU states. These growth predictions are down from 1.7 per cent in 2017.
Releasing the report on Thursday, the Commission described Brexit as a "lose-lose situation economically", further warning that a no deal Brexit that sees the UK crash out of the EU on World Trade Organisation terms could have even worse consequences for the British economy than predicted.
"The uncertainty around the future status of the UK outside the EU is expected to weigh on UK growth," the report states. "There are large downside risks to the forecast, particularly in the case of a no deal scenario. The results of relevant studies generally show that Brexit is a lose-lose situation economically."
Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commission vice president for the Euro and social dialogue, said: "All EU economies are set to grow this year and next, which will bring more jobs. However, uncertainty and risks, both external and internal, are on the rise and start to take a toll on the pace of economic activity. We need to stay vigilant and work harder to reinforce the resilience of our economies."
The forecast differs from the Office for Budget Responsibility's predictions of 1.6 and 1.4 per cent growth for the UK in 2019 and 2020 respectively.
Previous research has found that all possible eventualities of leaving the European Union will result in young people losing money and that a majority of Brits now believe the decision to exit the EU was wrong in hindsight.


GCF - General Credit Forms, Inc.
South Seas Data, located in Englewood Colorado, has been serving Fortune 500 companies for over a decade providing efficient and highly qualified service solutions to the technology equipment market. Point of sale equipment maintenance such as payment terminals and PC Hardware are our focus. South Seas handles equipment deployment, retrieval, and provides reporting solutions to better manage assets. Our focus on this area has made us an industry leader by utilizing our skill-sets to fine tune the business model for our clients.
Located in Springboro, Ohio, the mission of Paper Systems Incorporated, the management and the employees is to be a company known as a valued supplier, client, customer and employer. We are committed to creating and maintaining a company-wide culture that willingly accepts change. Our culture is focused on "zero defects" and the continuous improvement process that leads us to excellence in all our efforts for our customers, employees, and community. The Company's motto is "Legendary Service", giving the customer the best possible service and quality at a competitive price.


Nappanee, Indiana is the 3,956th largest city in the United States as of 2017.
Nappanee, Indiana is a city.
Nappanee, Indiana is as large as it has ever been. In 2017 Nappanee had its largest population ever.
Nappanee, Indiana's growth is about average. 58% of similarly sized cities are growing faster since 2000.


text:
Tiriaspes (en llatí Tyriaspes, en grec antic Τυριάσπης) va ser un persa a qui Alexandre el Gran va nomenar sàtrapa de la regió de Paropamisades (modern Hindu Kush a l'Afganistan i Pakistan) a l'oest del riu Cophen, l'any 327 aC.

L'any següent Alexandre li va encarregar, junt amb Filip, sàtrapa de l'Índia, de sotmetre als assacenis que s'havien revoltat, segons diu Flavi Arrià. El seu govern sembla que va ser corrupte i Alexandre, l'any 325 aC el va destituir i al seu lloc hi va posar Oxiartes, que ja governava Gandhara. Tiriaspes va ser condemnat a mort i executat, segons Quint Curci Ruf.

Referències

Sàtrapes de les satrapies índies
Sàtrapes de l'imperi d'Alexandre el Gran
Executats per Alexandre el Gran


China's ghost cities: local problem or harbingers of apocalypse?
Vast expanses of unoccupied housing on the edges of China's cities are testimony to the country's spectacular economic growth and urbanisation. However, they also reveal the fundamental problems that China faces as its economy slows. These 'ghost cities,' as they have become known, represent a monumental challenge to policy makers, writes GIS guest expert Brendan O'Reilly.


text:
Three charged with felony murder in town of Dane beating death
FELONY MURDER CASE | 'ONCE I START (HITTING), I CAN'T STOP'
From the 2018 year in review: Highs and lows of the past 12 months in the Madison area series
Ed Treleven | Wisconsin State Journal
McKayla Tracy, left, appears in court Monday with state Assistant Public Defender Jon Helland. She is charged with being a party to felony murder for the Oct. 30 death of her boyfriend, Dalton Ziegler.
Before police told him the man he had beaten was dead, 24-year-old Jacob A. Johnson said he felt bad he may have hurt the man, but that "Once I start, I can't stop," according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
The complaint charged Johnson, of Sun Prairie, with being a party to felony murder for the Oct. 30 death of Dalton D. Ziegler, 24, who was beaten because Ziegler's girlfriend, McKayla R. Tracy, 20, of Lodi, believed Ziegler was cheating on her and she wanted to catch him in the act, the complaint states. She was also charged Monday with being a party to felony murder, along with Drew D. Luber, 21, of DeForest, who told police he held Ziegler while Johnson punched him, the complaint states.
DANE COUNTY JAIL
Luber
According to an autopsy, Ziegler, of the town of Dane, appeared to have died from multiple blunt force trauma injuries, which included a facial fracture, the complaint states.
After the beating, Luber told police, Johnson took money and bank cards from Ziegler's wallet, the complaint states. They all then went to Luber's apartment, according to the complaint, but Luber later made Tracy and Johnson leave because they were trying to find someone to sell them cocaine. Luber told police that Tracy seemed more upset at not being able to get cocaine than she was about what happened to Ziegler.
Tracy and Luber both appeared in court on Monday, when bail was set at $50,000 for each. Johnson was released last week after posting $35,000 bail and will appear in court on Nov. 15.
According to the complaint:
A woman told police she went to the home where Ziegler and Tracy lived at 7934 Highway 113 around 4 p.m. on Oct. 29 to talk about renting a room. They drank, she told police, and at around 8:30 p.m. a friend of hers arrived, then left with Ziegler to drop off a trailer. The woman said she stayed with Tracy, who continued to drink.
Ziegler and the woman's friend returned about 10 p.m. She said she and Ziegler didn't drink, but Tracy continued to drink and get more "high-strung." Around midnight Ziegler went to his bedroom to sleep and the woman said she decided to sleep on the sofa; both had to work in the morning. She said, though, that Tracy continued to be loud.
After about 10 minutes, the woman said, Ziegler came out and offered to share his bed with the woman so they both could sleep, and said that with pillows between them, nothing sexual was going to happen. They went into the bedroom.
The woman said they went to sleep and she woke up around 3:30 a.m. when she heard a car pull into the driveway. She heard some male voices and then heard Tracy say, "She's in my (expletive) bed," and after about two minutes of silence there was a heavy thud against the bedroom door as if someone was trying to break it down.
The woman said Ziegler got up and opened the door and said "Get the (expletive) out," then was attacked. Ziegler was taken to the floor and tried to fight back, and at one point someone threw the woman's car keys at her and told her to leave. She said Tracy only glared at her.
The woman said she called her friend and told him what was happening. They met at Kwik Trip in Lodi, then went to Ziegler's house. The friend went inside, then told the woman to call 911, which she did at 4:17 a.m. Checking on Ziegler, who appeared to be badly injured, the woman realized he wasn't breathing so she performed chest compressions on him until police arrived, but lifesaving efforts failed.
Johnson, meanwhile, called 911 four times using the name "Pete" to ask about the incident. Dane County sheriff's detectives met him at a bowling alley in Sun Prairie, where he claimed to be a "neutral party" trying to get information. He later agreed to sit in the detectives' car to talk, and during the conversation never referred to Ziegler by his name, only as "Dude."
He told the detectives that Tracy had called him and his friends to say that Ziegler had hit her and was in a room with another woman. He said she later claimed it was no more than a push to her face and she wasn't injured. Johnson described Ziegler's house after the beating as looking "like a murder scene." He said he wasn't a violent person and made sure that Ziegler was still breathing when he left by kicking him.
He described hitting Ziegler and said "he was getting fed lunch." He admitted hitting Ziegler, saying, "What does it matter? At the end of the day I'm the one who was hitting him."
He later said he felt bad that he may have hurt Ziegler, but said, "Once I start, I can't stop."
Police arrested Johnson, then later told him Ziegler had died.
Tracy gave a similar account of the beating but refused at first to identify her friends. Later she said "Jake beat the (expletive) out of him." When Johnson and Luber first arrived at the home, she said, she thought they were all going to leave, but the two asked where the bedroom was and went inside. Tracy admitted to detectives that Ziegler had not been physically abusive to her that night and said Luber held Ziegler down while Johnson struck him, and that she saw at least six "good punches" land.
She began to cry after she was told that Ziegler had died.
Luber told detectives that neither he nor another man called by Tracy wanted to go to Ziegler's house, but that Johnson "wanted to kick his (expletive)." He said Johnson was "pretty drunk."
After the beating, Luber said, Johnson and Tracy went into the bedroom looking for money and Johnson took $25 from Ziegler's wallet and some bank or credit cards.
Felony murder is charged when the commission of a crime leads to a person's death. In this case, the underlying crime was felony battery that caused Ziegler's death. Johnson, Tracy and Luber each face up to 18½ years of combined prison and extended supervision if convicted.
Drew Luber
Mckayla Tracy
Town Of Dane
Ed Treleven is the courts reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal.
Follow Ed Treleven | Wisconsin State Journal
More in 2018 year in review: Highs and lows of the past 12 months in the Madison area (41 of 47)
Tony Evers beats Scott Walker to win Wisconsin governor's race in nail-biter
Prosecutor: Fatal beating happened after girlfriend suspected cheating
Three people appeared in court Thursday, tentatively charged with felony murder for the death early Tuesday of Dalton Ziegler, including Ziegler's girlfriend, McKayla Tracy.
Man authorities say died after altercation in town of Dane identified
The Dane County Medical Examiner's Office identified the victim as Dalton D. Ziegler, but said a cause and manner of death requires further testing.
Three arrested in town of Dane homicide, Dane County Sheriff's Office says
McKayla R. Tracy, 20, of Lodi; Jacob A. Johnson, 24, of Sun Prairie; and Drew D. Luber, 21, of Deforest are tentatively charged with being party to the crime of felony murder.
Sheriff's office investigates after homicide victim's medical records breached
The medical records of Dalton Ziegler, who died last year after being beaten in his home, were accessed by an unauthorized UW Health employee on the day that Ziegler died, an investigation found.
Two men plead guilty to felony murder for October beating death
Jacob Johnson and Drew Luber, two of the three people charged with the beating death in October of Dalton Ziegler, pleaded guilty to felony murder Friday.
Man sentenced to 7 years in prison for fatal beating last year
Jacob Johnson, who beat another man and caused his death last year, was sentenced Tuesday to seven years in prison for felony murder.
Woman convicted for role in beating death of her boyfriend
McKayla R. Tracy will be sentenced in January after pleading no contest to being a party to felony murder in the Oct. 30, 2018, death.


text:
package com.highsens.game;

import java.awt.BorderLayout;
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.EventQueue;

import javax.swing.JFrame;
import javax.swing.JPanel;
import javax.swing.border.EmptyBorder;
import java.awt.*;

public class Splash extends JFrame {

	private JProgressBar progressBar;
	private JPanel contentPane;

private int duration = 3000;

	public Splash()
	{
		getContentPane().setBackground(new Color(100, 149, 237));
		setBackground(new Color(65, 105, 225));
		getContentPane().setMinimumSize(new Dimension(500, 375));
		setUndecorated(true);
		setPreferredSize(new Dimension(500, 400));
		setMinimumSize(new Dimension(500, 400));
		getContentPane().setLayout(null);
		this.setLocationRelativeTo(null);
		String imagePath = System.getProperty("user.dir");
        String separator = System.getProperty("file.separator");

		JLabel lblNewLabel = new JLabel("");
		lblNewLabel.setIcon(new ImageIcon(imagePath + separator + "images" + separator
                + "Team Logo.png"));
		lblNewLabel.setBounds(0, 0, 500, 375);
		getContentPane().add(lblNewLabel);

		JProgressBar progressBar = new JProgressBar(0, duration);
		progressBar.setVisible(false);
		progressBar.setForeground(new Color(255, 255, 0));
		progressBar.setBounds(177, 377, 146, 14);
		progressBar.setStringPainted(true);
		getContentPane().add(progressBar);
		this.setLocationRelativeTo(null);
	}

	public void showSplash()
	{
		setVisible(true);
		try
		{

			Thread.sleep(duration);

		}

		catch (Exception e){}
		setVisible(false);

	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Cayman Island Businesses Urged to Maintain Beneficial Ownership Information
Cayman companies are urged to maintain beneficial ownership information in accordance with international standards to fight money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) announced in February 2021 that the Cayman Islands had complied with 60 of its 63 recommendations. The Cayman Islands are currently being monitored more closely by the FATF for a few compliance high-risk areas and have been added to its "grey list".
The Cayman Islands were subsequently added to the European Commission's (EC) "AML blacklist" as a result. The EC cited the need for ongoing work in the area of beneficial ownership data, specifically the imposition of appropriate and efficient sanctions in the event that relevant parties (such as legal persons) fail to submit accurate, sufficient, and up-to-date information.
The Cayman Islands responded to this criticism by issuing revised regulations for its BOR legislation and enforcing harsh penalties against individuals who did not comply. Such initiatives show the jurisdiction's adaptability and dedication to the global movement for high standards in the fight against financial crime.
The Cayman Islands completed two more FATF-recommended measures in October 2022, particularly those on effective monitoring sanctions and beneficial ownership, which brought the total number of completed recommendations to 62 out of 63.
The Cayman Islands will be removed from the "grey list" as soon as the final FATF-suggested action on money laundering probes and prosecutions is satisfied. It is anticipated that the Cayman Islands will be removed from EC's blacklist after their removal from the FATF grey list.
The Cayman Islands are still committed to maintaining their standing as a hub for worldwide financial services, and they are moving forward with major reforms and improvements in the direction of a universal standard of compliance, particularly with regard to establishing effective anti-money laundering, countering terrorism financing, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The competent authority is still working on BOR despite the fact that the Cayman Islands has successfully complied with the FATF's recommended action regarding beneficial ownership. Industry organisations and the general public are currently being consulted on new legislation, and soon an all-inclusive and improved law will be introduced integrating the questions raised thus far, such as expanding the scope of BOR to cover exempted limited partnerships. This will enhance the current BOR even more and keep the Cayman Islands' status as a top jurisdiction for financial services.
FinCEN Releases Final Rule to Implement Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements
Swiss Government Gears Up to Establish a Central Registry for Beneficial Ownership
The UK Introduces Beneficial Ownership Register for Overseas Entities


text:
UNDERSTANDING CO-OPS
CO-OPS IN NEW ZEALAND
TYPES OF CO-OPERATIVES
STARTING A CO-OP
CO-OP AMONGST CO-OPS
AGM & AWARDS
CORPORATE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Cooperative Business NZ goes in to bat for Fonterra
Cooperative Business NZ is speaking up for Fonterra and the co-operative business model, with CEO Craig Presland going in to bat for our largest co-op through the media and beyond.
Craig has been asked by several journalists and commentators what impact the co-operative business model has on Fonterra's recent performance following its 2017/18 pay-out and operating losses announced yesterday (September 13).
Despite these results, Cooperative Business NZ remains firmly resolved that Fonterra, as a strong co-op, is the only model that serves to deliver a strong future for its shareholders and farming families in New Zealand, Craig said.
"Despite being able to raise capital via investors (non-suppliers of milk) since being publicly listed, Fonterra has maintained its strong co-op status by being 100% owned and controlled by its 10,000 milk-supplying shareholders.
"In addition, the New Zealand public needs to recognise that out of Fonterra's $20.4 billion revenue generated in 2017/18, a good portion remains within the New Zealand economy and this is a real positive. Look at our four major banks right now with over $5 billion in annual profits and all now owned by Australian parent companies, along with all those publicly listed companies in NZ that are either 100% foreign-owned, otherwise substantially foreign-owned, with profits also heading off-shore."
Craig points out that many families have owned the same dairy farms across several generations.
"By being owned by its Members, Fonterra has remained in control of its destiny while being able to endure through good times and bad going back to 1871 when the first dairy co-op was formed on the Otago peninsula," he said.
At present co-ops, mutuals and societies generate over $45 billion pa (almost one-fifth of NZ's GDP), while employing around 50,000 New Zealanders and serving almost one-in-three New Zealanders as members.
"While providing scale and diversity, these businesses and organisations also offer endurance and sustainability. Of Cooperative Business NZ's current 63 Full Members, over two-thirds are now more than 20 years old while five – including Fonterra – are now over 100 years old.
"Co-operatives, mutuals and societies have provided trusted products and services to New Zealanders for decades and even centuries. Brands include Fonterra, Anchor, New World, PakNSave, Four Square, Alliance, Silver Fern Farms, Farmlands, Southern Cross Health Society, Mitre10, Farmers Mutual Group, SBS Bank and The Co-operative Bank.
"Together, they help to provide us all with a strong and sustainable economy, stability and secure employment. Why would we want to change that?" Craig told journalists.
As we know, the co-op business model is about being member-owned rather than investor-owned, members with "skin in the game" that are here for the long term, while investors could be here today and gone tomorrow with foreign investment leading to profits not being retained locally.
Fonterra's financial performance in 2017/18 has not been impacted by its co-op status, Craig said.
"In fact this is a key strength and founding pillar of the organization with financial benefits for milk supplied provided to its shareholders (members) only, profits retained locally and, most importantly, 100% local shareholder ownership and control of the organisation.
"Fonterra remains solely within the control and hands of its dairy farmers and long may that continue!" Craig said.
What is a Co-op?
Not sure? It is a user owned and controlled business where benefits are derived and distributed equitably on the basis of use. There is a lot more involved, and Cooperative Business NZ can give you insight into what a Co-op entails for you and your ideas.
Looking to build an enterprise that's freely established by a group that provides mutual benefits? Here, Cooperative Business NZ can show you how to start a Co-op and how to benefit from the activities of the enterprise, not just from primarily investments.
Join the successful co-operative community and
become a member of Cooperative Business NZ.
With a host of benefits available to you,
It's better to be a member.
Visual Identity Guidelines
If you would like to use the Cooperative Business New Zealand logo or any other aspects of our visual identity we ask that you look through our visual identity guidelines, below. Download high resolution images of our visual identity and a copy of the guidelines here.
NZ Co-op
"The Authority on Cooperative Business"
Our mission is to bring together the country's co-operative and mutual businesses to promote, encourage and support the co-operative and mutual business model.
As this successful business sector's champion, we act as their advocate on co-op related issues and opportunities.
Cooperative News
The Institute of Directors
BCCM
Rural News Group
Email us via our contact page.
Postal:
PO Box 9582 Newmarket Auckland 1149 New Zealand
Physical:
Level 3 25 Teed Street Newmarket Auckland New Zealand
© 2018 Cooperative Business New Zealand | Graphic Design by pixeldust


This week I've read more questionable causes for Alzheimer's than any other week, I think.
Here are just a few. Some are misses in the case of my mom's Alzheimer's.
But, I came across a few hits, too.
Lack of Vitamin D: Mom got enough sunlight. Her bout with melanoma is proof.
Toxins in seafood: Meh. Mom didn't over indulge in seafood.
Herpes: There are various kinds of herpes virus. I never knew mom to ever have a cold sore. And I'm just guessing here, but my inclination is to say, since my parents are basically Puritans, this is a no way.
Women are more apt to get Alzheimer's: Okay. She's a woman. Now we're on to something.
Women who've had hysterectomies and their ovaries removed are more apt to get Alzheimer's: BINGO!! We've hit on a second thing true for my mom.
People with AB blood type are more prone to getting Alzheimer's: Really! That's three for three.
Today's unscientific poem prompt blends this theory poetically.
banishing you from the female race.
Previous postAre you Guilty of this?


text:
Watch intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance confront 'Breitbart' editor on Bill Maher panel
ByMathew Rodriguez
During a segment on Friday night's Overtime With Bill Maher, the aftershow to Real Time, the host asked Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow to define fake news. As Marlow began to define it, he found himself having to defend himself against accusations of running fake news.
As Marlow began to speak, intelligence commentator and author Malcolm Nance spoke up and said he had a "bone to pick" with him.
"You're at Breitbart, right?" Nance asked. "And you don't do fake news, right? That's what you're asserting here? Yeah, you know there was this article about a 35-year counterterrorism expert who claimed that they wanted Trump Tower attacked that was written in Breitbart? I got 31 death threats from that — and that came from your website.
"Are you going to apologize to me? I'm sorry to say, I spent decades hunting terrorists. Yes, so that's fake as hell."
Marlow tells Nance that he respects him and his service, but Nance pushes Marlow on the subject of death threats again.
Marlow then discussed his own experiences with threats.
"Are you really suggesting that Breitbart doesn't get death threats?" Marlow said. "That our lives aren't put in danger?"
Real Time With Bill Maher/YouTube
Unfazed, Nance said, "You can apologize to me now. Alright? I'm not threatening you."
Marlow offered to apologize if Nance would show him the story.
"I will come to your office to see that retraction," Nance said. After the two sparred, Marlow called Nance "hysterical," which is when comedian Eddie Izzard pointed out that Marlow was using a rhetorical strategy to try to take some heat off him.
"That isn't hysterical, that's just him being angry at 31 death threats," Izzard said. "That's not hysterical."


Has anyone had fingerprinting done in south jersey for a VA position? Where did you go? Thanks.
1 user thanked GSBS for this useful post.
I was thinking of going to Identogo. The way the email I got was worded, they said I could get the fingerprints done at any VA hospital but it didn't say I had to get it done there. I'll ask for clarification.
2 users thanked cyberfx1024 for this useful post.
You should go to a federal location. If you are anew hire and didnt want to go to Philadelphia VA to get fingerprinted you should be able to go to another federal agency location and get finger printed there or when you call HR and ask them places you can go.
thanks. do you know if the Philly va medical center has walk-in fingerprinting or did you make an appointment. I'm having trouble getting thru by phone.
Couldn't you just go to nearest VA place to have courtesy prints? Pretty much what I did for a position that was away from hired VA facility.
I'm not sure what you mean by nearest VA place, like an outpatient facility? I ended up going to the VA Hospital in Philly which worked out well.
Talking about VA Hospital not CBOC. CBOCs are extensions of VAHCS (Hospitals). New York (Manhattan has VA hospital along w Long island), New Jersey got VA Hospital - VA New Jersey Health Care System in Lyons don't have security manager who does courtesy fingerprints? Find that hard to believe.
Just some advice, I would get a hold of Hospital security office and ask questions. Or get a hold of HR office, they can point you in right direction.
I'm all set, went to phllly va hospital. Lyons probably does fingerprints too but I'm in south jersey about 15 Miles from philly va hospital and 20 Miles from Delaware va hospital. Lyons is about two hours away. For anyone in south jersey I recommend Philly va hospital for fingerprints. Easy access free parking staff was very courteous and friendly.
1 user thanked debmc1958 for this useful post.
Yeah that's why I was asking about Lyons. I wouldn't assume them being that bad. But drive two hours for fingerprints. Let me tell you I went from Japan to phillipines after taking VA job in DC. I was told they had fingerprint machine...waste of one day trip. Ended up flying back early to Louisiana to get fingerprints done.
It can be a lot worse!
I'm not sure how Lyons would be different? They are both VAMCs.
This page was generated in 1.007 seconds.