text:
You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Bills and legislation > Bills before Parliament > Commons Bill
House of Commons Session 2007 - 08
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament
Public Bill Committee Proceedings: 19th June 2008
Finance Bill, continued
Jane Kennedy
Agreed to 414
Schedule 7, page 190, line 25, at end insert—
'(5)
The section 2(2) amount for a settlement for a tax year for which this
section does not apply to the settlement is nil.
For the purposes of this section a settlement arising under a will or
intestacy is treated as made by the testator or intestate at the time of
death.'.
Schedule 7, page 191, line 21, leave out from second 'year' to end of line 25 and
insert '—
which is before the last tax year for which Steps 1 to 4 have
been undertaken, and
for which the section 2(2) amount is not nil.'.
Schedule 7, page 191, line 31, leave out 'to which section 87 applies to the
settlement'.
Schedule 7, page 191, line 33, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 36 and insert 'is to
be taken into account in any subsequent application of this section.'.
Schedule 7, page 191, line 38, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 39 and insert
'if—
chargeable gains are treated under section 87 as accruing to an
individual in a tax year,
section 809B, 809C or 809D (remittance basis) applies to the
individual for that year, and
the individual is not domiciled in the United Kingdom in that
year.'.
Schedule 7, page 192, leave out lines 41 to 44.
Schedule 7, page 193, line 15, leave out from 'transfer)' to 'as' in line 16.
Schedule 7, page 193, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
When calculating the market value of property for the purposes of this
section or section 90A in a case where the property is subject to a debt,
reduce the market value by the amount of the debt.'.
Schedule 7, page 194, line 2, at end insert—
'90A
Section 90: transfers made for consideration in money or money's
Section 90 does not apply to a transfer of settled property made for
consideration in money or money's worth if the amount (or value) of
that consideration is equal to or exceeds the market value of the
property transferred.
The following provisions apply if—
section 90 applies to a transfer of settled property made for
consideration in money or money's worth, and
the amount (or value) of that consideration is less than the
market value of the property transferred.
If the transfer is of all of the settled property, for the purposes of
section 90 treat the transfer as being of part only of the settled
Deduct the amount (or value) of the consideration from the amount of
the market value referred to in section 90(4)(a).'.
Schedule 7, page 194, line 23, after '1998,' insert 'section 130(1) and (4), and'.
Schedule 7, page 194, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
'106A (1)
This paragraph applies if—
section 87 of TCGA 1992 applies to a settlement for the tax year 2008-
09 or any subsequent tax year ("the tax year"),
the settlement was made before 17 March 1998,
none of the settlors fulfilled the residence requirements when the
settlement was made, and
none of the settlors fulfils the residence requirements in the tax year.
For the purposes of that section as it applies to the settlement for the tax year,
no account is to be taken of—
any gains or losses accruing to the trustees of the settlement before 17
March 1998, or
any capital payments received before that date.
A settlor "fulfils the residence requirements" when the settlor is—
resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and
domiciled in any part of the United Kingdom.'.
Schedule 7, page 195, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert 'section 87 or 89(2) of TCGA
1992 applied to it for the tax year 2007-08 or any earlier tax year.'.
Schedule 7, page 195, line 8, leave out 'or any earlier tax year' and insert 'and
earlier tax years'.
Schedule 7, page 195, line 11, leave out from 'for' to end of line 12 and insert 'the
settlement for the tax year 2007-08 and earlier tax years.'.
'For this purpose, references in section 87(4) and (5) of TCGA 1992 (as
substituted) to section 87 of that Act applying to a settlement for a tax year are
to be read as references to section 87 of that Act (as it had effect before that
substitution) applying to a settlement for a tax year.'.
'Find the earliest tax year for which the section 2(2) amount is not nil.
If the section 2(2) amount for that year is less than or equal to the total deemed
gains, reduce that section 2(2) amount to nil.'.
'For this purpose, read references to the earliest tax year for which the section
2(2) amount is not nil as references to the earliest tax year—
which is after the last tax year for which Steps 3 and 4 have been
undertaken, and
If, before 6 April 2008, the trustees of the settlement made a transfer of value
to which Schedule 4B to TCGA 1992 applied, sub-paragraph (2) has effect
subject to such modifications as are just and reasonable on account of Schedule
4C to that Act having applied in relation to the settlement.
This paragraph does not apply if section 90 of TCGA 1992 applied to a transfer
of settled property by or to the trustees of the settlement that was made before
6 April 2008 (see paragraph 108A).
If section 90 of TCGA 1992 (as originally enacted) applied to a transfer of
settled property made before 6 April 2008, this paragraph applies in relation to
the transferor settlement and the transferee settlement.
In this paragraph "the year of transfer" means the tax year in which the transfer
occurred.
The following steps are to be taken for the purpose of calculating the section
2(2) amount for the transferor and transferee settlements for the tax year 2007-
08 and earlier tax years.
Take the steps in paragraph 108(2) for the purpose of calculating the section
2(2) amount (at the end of the year of transfer) for the transferor settlement for
the year of transfer and earlier tax years.
For this purpose, read references there to the tax year 2007-08 as references to
the year of transfer.
2(2) amount (before the year of transfer) for the transferee settlement for the
tax year before the year of transfer and earlier tax years.
the tax year before the year of transfer.
Calculate the section 2(2) amount for the transferee settlement for the year of
Treat the section 2(2) amount for the transferee settlement for the year of
transfer or any earlier tax year (as calculated under Step 2 or 3) as increased
the section 2(2) amount for the transferor settlement for that year (as
calculated under Step 1), or
if part only of the settled property was transferred, the relevant
proportion of the amount mentioned in paragraph (a).
"The relevant proportion" here has the same meaning as in section 90(4) of
TCGA 1992 (as substituted by this Schedule).
Treat the section 2(2) amount for the transferor settlement for any tax year as
reduced by the amount by which the section 2(2) amount for the transferee
settlement for that year is increased under Step 4.
2(2) amount for the transferor settlement for the tax year 2007-08 and earlier
tax years.
For this purpose—
treat the section 2(2) amount for the year of transfer or any earlier tax
year as the amount calculated by taking Steps 1 and 5 above, and
reduce the total deemed gains by the amount of the total deemed gains
calculated by taking Step 1 above.
2(2) amount for the transferee settlement for the tax year 2007-08 and earlier
year as the amount calculated by taking Steps 2 to 4 above, and
This paragraph applies with any necessary modifications in relation to a
settlement as respects which more than one relevant transfer was made.
In sub-paragraph (4) "relevant transfer" means a transfer—
made before 6 April 2008, and
to which section 90 of TCGA 1992 applied.
If, before 6 April 2008, the trustees of the transferor or transferee settlement
made a transfer of value to which Schedule 4B to TCGA 1992 applied, this
paragraph has effect subject to such modifications as are just and reasonable
on account of Schedule 4C to that Act having applied in relation to the
settlement.'.
Schedule 7, page 195, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
Schedule 7, page 195, line 41, after 'of' insert ', or paragraph 8 of Schedule 4C to,'.
References in this paragraph to section 87(6) of TCGA 1992 include that
provision as it would (but for the amendments made by this Schedule) have
applied by virtue of section 762(3) of ICTA (offshore income gains).
References in this paragraph to chargeable gains include offshore income
gains.
Section 89(2) of TCGA 1992 as substituted applies to a settlement for the tax
year 2008-09 (and subsequent tax years) if section 89(2) of that Act as
originally enacted would (but for the amendments made by this Schedule) have
applied to the settlement for the tax year 2008-09.
In section 90(1)(a) of TCGA 1992, the reference to section 87 of TCGA 1992
includes that section as originally enacted.'.
Mr Philip Hammond
Mr Mark Hoban
Mr David Gauke
Justine Greening
Not called 392
Schedule 7, page 196, line 28, leave out 'made an election under this sub-
paragraph' and insert 'have not opted out from the provisions within this paragraph'.
Schedule 7, page 196, line 30, leave out 'An election under sub-paragraph (1)' and
insert 'An election to opt out from the provisions within this paragraph'.
Schedule 7, page 196, line 30, after 'the', insert 'anniversary of the'.
Schedule 7, page 196, line 37, leave out 'part (but not all)' and insert 'all or part'.
'(2A)
For a tax year as respects which the settlement has a Schedule 4C pool, the
reference in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above to a capital payment received (or
treated as received) by a beneficiary of the settlement is to be read as a capital
payment received (or treated as received) by a beneficiary of a relevant
settlement from the trustees of a relevant settlement.
(2B)
Paragraph 8A of that Schedule (relevant settlements) applies for the purposes
of sub-paragraph (2A) above.'.
Schedule 7, page 196, line 40, leave out '(1)' and insert '(2)'.
The only information that need be provided in the course of making the
election is the name of the trust and the name of the trustee making the
election.'.
Schedule 7, page 197, line 1, after 'of' insert ', or paragraph 8 of Schedule 4C to,'.
Schedule 7, page 197, line 24, at end insert 'and'.
Schedule 7, page 197, line 27, leave out from 'gains' to end of line 34.
Schedule 7, page 197, line 29, leave out 'the same part (or a larger part)' and insert
'part'.
'(11)
by reason of an asset which would not otherwise be a relevant asset
("the new asset"), chargeable gains or allowable losses accrue, or are
treated under section 13 as accruing, to the trustees in the relevant tax
the value of the new asset derives wholly or in part from another asset
("the original asset"), and
section 43 of TCGA 1992 applies in relation to the calculation of the
chargeable gains or allowable losses,
the new asset (or part of that asset) is a "relevant asset" if the condition in sub-
paragraph (8)(b) or the conditions in sub-paragraph (9)(b) and (c) would be
met were the references there to the asset to be read as references to the new
asset or the original asset.
on or after 6 April 2008, a company ("company A") disposes of an
asset to another company ("company B"), and
section 171 of TCGA (transfers within groups) (as applied by section
14(2) of that Act) applies in relation to the disposal,
for the purposes of sub-paragraph (9) (and this sub-paragraph) treat company
B as having owned the asset throughout the period when company A owned it.
If an asset is a relevant asset by virtue of sub-paragraph (12), for the purposes
of sub-paragraph (7)—
treat the chargeable gains as having accrued to the company which
owned the asset at the beginning of 6 April 2008, and
treat the proportion of those chargeable gains attributable under
section 13 of TCGA 1992 to the trustees as being the proportion of the
chargeable gains actually accruing that are so attributable.
an asset would otherwise be a "relevant asset" within sub-paragraph
(9), and
the proportion of chargeable gains treated under section 13 of TCGA
1992 as accruing to the trustees by reason of the asset ("the relevant
proportion") is greater than the minimum proportion,
for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) treat the appropriate proportion of the
asset as a relevant asset and the rest of the asset as if it were not a relevant asset.
"The minimum proportion" is the smallest proportion of chargeable gains (if
any) that would have been attributable to the trustees on a disposal of the asset
at any time in the relevant period (as defined by sub-paragraph (10)).
Revised 20 June 2008


Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) weighs the benefits of regulatory proposals against the burdens they impose. Even regulatory policies that are ultimately decided on political, legal, ethical, or other grounds will benefit from the structured evaluation of tradeoffs and alternatives that a good RIA provides.
Although RIAs are a core feature of regulatory practice in the United States and other countries (OECD, 2016) there is increasing concern that they are "used to justify decisions already made, rather than to inform those decisions" (Carrigan & Shapiro, 2016). RIAs often serve as legal documents, running hundreds or even thousands of pages, prepared by agencies in a defensive posture in anticipation of litigation. Observers argue that RIAs "often omit consideration of meaningful alternatives and are so detailed that they are practically indecipherable" (Carrigan & Shapiro, 2016).
U.S. regulatory agencies develop RIAs before issuing significant new regulations, and non-governmental interests may also present their own analyses of how different policies will affect outcomes. Dense or complex RIAs can be challenging for policy officials and interested parties to comprehend and interpret, making it difficult to distinguish facts from conjecture and to understand the likely consequences of alternative policy choices (Ellig & Abdukadirov, 2015).
While numerous technical guidelines exist to aid development of RIAs (OMB, 2003; OMB 2010; OECD, 2008), none is geared toward non-specialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers. This guide attempts to fill that gap. It first reviews the purpose of RIA, and then offers policy makers and other consumers of RIAs 10 tips for asking informed questions when reviewing and interpreting them.


text:
Because We All Shit on Golden Toilet Seats in Detroit, Right? - Sauce1977 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Because We All Shit on Golden Toilet Seats in Detroit, Right? [Dec. 12th, 2008|08:02 pm]
[ Tags | factcheck, nonsense, southern hospitality, uaw, wages ]
[ Current Location | Detroit, MI, USA ]
Here's a reality check from factcheck.org about the 70-dollar-an-hour button-pusher working the Detroit lines for the UAW.
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
How much does a UAW member make at a domestic auto plant? Various sites have cited the figure at an average of seventy-three dollars an hour (The Heritage Foundation). Keith Olbermann says that the figure is actually at twenty-eight before benefits, which only add ten dollars to the amount. Other sources indicate that Toyota workers (who are not unionized) made more last year after profit sharing was calculated. So clear it up for us. What's the real bottom line?
A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees.
A report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, opposing the auto industry bailout, said that members of the United Auto Workers union "earn $75 an hour in wages and benefits – almost triple the earnings of the average private sector worker." Later in the report, it's phrased this way: "The vast majority of UAW workers in Detroit today still earn $75 an hour."
That figure has caught hold with some conservatives, and it seeps into media coverage from time to time as well. A few examples: At a Nov. 19 House Financial Services Committee hearing on a possible bailout for the auto industry, Alabama Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus said, "Even with recent changes, the average hourly wage at General Motors is still $75 an hour. ..." Two of his GOP colleagues on the panel made similar statements. And in a Nov. 18 column in the New York Times, business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote, "At GM, as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
The problem is, that's just not true. The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour. So how does that climb to more than $70? Add in benefits: life insurance, health care, pension and so on. But not just the benefits that the current workers actually receive – after all, it's pretty rare for the value of a benefits package to add up to more than wages paid, even with a really, really good health plan in place. What's causing the number to balloon is the cost of providing benefits to tens of thousands of retired auto workers and their surviving spouses.
The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.
Labor Costs Aren't the Same as Wages Earned
The result is the per-hour labor cost to the automakers, which is very different from "pay" or "wages" or even "wages and benefits" earned by their workers. As David Leonhardt pointed out in the New York Times (countering, in a sense, the earlier piece by Sorkin), the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour. Add in benefits such as health insurance and pensions and you get to about $55. Another $15 or so in benefits to retirees (known as "legacy costs") brings the number to roughly $70.
That last figure accounts for the biggest difference between labor costs of the Big Two and a Half and those of the "transplants," as foreign carmakers with manufacturing facilities on U.S. soil are called. Ford, in material it submitted to Congress for hearings this month (see "Congressional Submission Appendix (PPT)"), estimated the transplants' legacy costs at about $3 per hour, a number that has less to do with the level of benefits paid than it does with the fact that the transplants don't have many retirees yet, according to economist Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automotive Research.
The Ford chart also estimates that, as a result of a historic 2007 labor agreement with the UAW, the legacy costs of the U.S. automakers are expected to fall – to about $3 per hour. That's because the deal calls for a new voluntary employee beneficiary association (or VEBA), a seldom-used 100-year-old tax loophole. A VEBA is a tax-exempt trust that can be used to fund almost any sort of employee benefit, but they are most commonly used to pay for health care expenses.
In an innovative twist, the UAW and Detroit negotiated a VEBA to cover the health care expenses of retired autoworkers. Under the terms of the agreement, GM, Ford and Chrysler were to contribute $30 billion, $13 billion and $9 billion, respectively, to a trust fund to be managed by the union. The UAW would then use the income from the VEBA to cover retiree medical expenses. The agreement would protect retirees' health care benefits in the event of company bankruptcy, while allowing the automakers to shed the bulk of their legacy costs.
When the new agreement is fully implemented, which should happen in 2010, the U.S. automakers would still bear labor costs of about $9 per hour more than Toyota, but that's far better than the current gap. The 2007 agreement also calls for a new two-tier wage structure and other concessions from workers.
As for whether Toyota workers earn more than employees of U.S. domestic automakers: In 2006, at Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., plant, workers averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members at Ford, General Motors and Daimler Chrylser, according to the Detroit Free Press. The difference was due to profit-sharing bonuses; Detroit's workers aren't getting many of those these days because, well, there's really nothing to share. The transplants don't give out much data, however, so it's hard to tell if this pattern is continuing or even if it applied to all Toyota plants in 2006.
A final note on all this: Labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle. And it's not the cost of American cars that people complain about; they're already often thousands of dollars less than their Japanese counterparts. Whatever changes may be made in the carmakers' labor agreements, we're convinced, and the recent hearings show, that there are much bigger problems in Detroit.
– Viveca Novak and Joe Miller
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. "A Bridge Loan? U.S. Should Guide G.M. in a Chapter 11." The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2008.
Leonhardt, David. "$73 an Hour: Adding It Up." The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2008.
Roberson, Jason. "UAW Losing Pay Edge." Detroit Free Press, 31 Jan. 2007.
Sherk, James. "Auto Bailout Ignores Excessive Labor Costs." WebMemo #2135, 19 Nov. 2008.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. "Wages and Labor Costs." www.uaw.org, Web site accessed 11 Dec. 2008.
"Stabilizing the Financial Condition of the American Automobile Industry." Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, 19 Nov. 2008.
The unions are not the problem, despite what Republicans like Corker would hiss into your ears. I don't like unions, but they're necessary. The same can be said for public schools and law enforcement. Speaking of state budgets, I suppose that when the auto industry implodes, and there's 35 percent less taxable income in Michigan and Ohio come next budget, I guess those states will have to just cut government services to pay the bills. So much for schools and cops.
I know the Southern Solution for that problem ... who needs those things, just pray to Jesus!
Re: Bailout from outside the box.
I don't want to give any money to the US auto industry, as well. What I've been writing since this crisis began is that we don't have a choice.
Due to Bush's efforts to implicitly suspend democracy by pushing 700 billion dollars toward Wall Street in order to play with private sector business, at this juncture, we don't have a choice on which businesses the US Government purchases, let alone gives credit. I feel the end result may be catastrophic, no matter what money is shoveled to whom. It's an exhorbitant sum of money, in comparison to smaller amounts needed in previous situations.
There is no definite timetable to when the US Government divests of ownership stake in AIG, for example. If there is a plan, I haven't heard of it.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Below is a chart of the SPX index. This time I projected the uptrend channel until the end of this year (2014). I rarely ever do something like this as my trading is independent from my ability to forecast future market moves. This was more out of curiosity than anything, seeing how not even August (one of the historically weakest months of the year) can't seem to take this market down. It occurred to me, "hey, where could the market end this year if the uptrend channel is not broken to the downside?"
There is the projection: lower end of the channel at 2030, upper end at 2130. The 2030 level would represent a +9.8% return for the year for the index, whereas 2130 would mean a +15.3% return for the year. That would be a nice return on top of the spectacular 2013.
But this is not "LT's market predictions?". This is not the site of a Guru pretending to know where the market is headed. That's not why you come here! So, let's get back to business.
If you are in pain shorting this market, getting burned on some options close to the money, I hate to say there's more upside room. I don't know if this thing will keep going up. Nobody knows. But I do know that two crucial indicators are not showing extreme readings yet. So, this thing still has room to go before a pull back takes place. At this point I wouldn't sell Calls, nor Puts either. Reason why, in all likelihood, I will do nothing in the next few days.
RUT 980/990 Bull Put Spread. "Oh the Lazy Trader is lying! He's full of crap! How come he always has this super easy to ride positions taking no heat at all ??!! wa-wah-waah".
SPX 1815/1820/2065/2070 Iron Condor. "No seriously. This can't be possible. Look at those strike prices". Ok, I better stop being cocky. 88% probability of success on this Iron Condor and no heat in the horizon.
RUT 1020/1030/1230/1240 Iron Condor This is the position entered on Tuesday. RUT moved sideways this week so there's nothing interesting to say about this position.
Current positions are looking great and won't need my attention.
I'll be waiting like a sniper for the perfect opportunity. I would like to sell an October Bear Call spread on SPX above 2080, with 90% probability of success and at least 0.50 credit. For that to happen, I would need the index to move about 20 - 25 points up. That's not impossible. That's barely a 1% - 1.2% move up, less than what took place this week.
Now, on the way down, I will be hesitant to sell Puts. I need a 3 percent fall or something like that.
If none of the two scenarios described above take place, I'll be happy doing nothing. That would mean the market hasn't made significant moves and therefore I'd be making money on theta decay with the existing positions. No need to rush trades that are less than ideal at this moment.
The LT Trend Sniper System it's still killing it. Still riding the short EUR/USD position initiated on July 17. This is the kind of monster moves for which I designed this robot. I want to start using it with real money in 2015.
If you're interested in the progress of this trade, you can follow it live at http://www.myfxbook.com/members/thelazytrader/lt-trend-sniper/929036. Scroll down to the Open Trades tab.
Tuesday: Durable Goods Orders, CB Consumer Confidence.
"Current positions are looking great and won't need my attention."
I really like your positions. They are as safe as mine. We trade in a similar fashion. This is a testament to our conservative trading style that our positions are safe even with SPX trading at record highs. We exercise patience and discipline. We follow our rules and have strict risk management. Our goal is to make consistent profits month after month.
"At this point I wouldn't sell Calls, nor Puts either. Reason why, in all likelihood, I will do nothing in the next few days."
I think we are pretty close to an overbought condition. I project 2020 as the point where we are overbought on SPX. The big question is if SPX can get pass 2000 next week.
Nic has already sold an October SPX credit call spread position. I was very tempted to take the same position as I feel it would be a high probability trade. I think I am going to sell the Oct 2075/2080 credit call spread next week to iron condor with my Oct SPX 1725/1720 credit put spread if we can get to 1995. Otherwise, I will wait for 2020 in the first week of September. If that does not happen, I will probably sit on my hands. I got burned a few times trying to sell bear call spreads too soon.
"I need a 3 percent fall or something like that."
That sounds exactly what I would do too. My strategy is to wait for SPX to fall at least 3% from its 10-day high to sell credit put spreads assuming VIX is still under 20. That is what I did earlier this month. I waited for a 3% drop from an intra-day high of 1991 to 1930 before I sold the Oct 1725/1720 credit put spread.
"No need to rush trades that are less than ideal at this moment."
"Although the cheetah is the fastest animal in the world and can catch any animal on the plains, it will wait until it is absolutely sure it can catch its prey. It may hide in the bush for a week, waiting for just the right moment. It will wait for a baby antelope, and not just any baby antelope, but preferably one that is also sick or lame; only then, when there is no chance it can lose its prey, does it attack. That, to me, is the epitome of professional trading."
Thanks for your comments Jonathan. You've been on a roll lately with your trades and I hope you have a good return come year end. You current positions look great in my opinion.
I would like to sell a Bear caLl spread on SPX but seriously I have no intentions to rush it.
Of course we're getting close to a short term overbought extreme. I just meant that there is still a little upside room in the oscillators.
Great quote by Mark Weinstein! I had already read it a few years ago. Thanks for sharing.
Hey aren't your tweets private any more?
"You've been on a roll lately with your trades and I hope you have a good return come year end. You current positions look great in my opinion."
My goal is to make 1% to 3% per month when I have a good month. I should have 10 out of 12 good months each year.
"I would like to sell a Bear call spread on SPX but seriously I have no intentions to rush it.
Of course we're getting close to a short term overbought extreme. I just meant that there is still a little upside room in the oscillators."
Based on my rules, SPX needs to go up 6% or more from its recent low assuming VIX is under 20 for me to sell a bear call spread. SPX fell down to 1905 on August 7th. SPX needs to climb to 2023 (which is 6%) for me to sell a bear call spread. The big question is if 2000 is acting as a wall of resistance or would it slice through it next week or next month.
That is why I am willing to sell a bear call spread earlier than my rules dictate because of this 2000 wall. My position will be small relative to my account size so it will not be a big deal if it continues to blast pass 2000.
"Hey aren't your tweets private any more?"
I recently made my tweets public again so that I can share my thoughts and trades on the market.


Washington, D.C. – Common Sense Kids Action and the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) announced today their collaboration to help finish the job of connecting every school and library in America to high-speed Internet by helping states and school districts access billions of dollars in the newly modernized federal E-rate program.
In 2014, the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) modernized the E-Rate program, a nearly 20-year old program that subsidizes communications projects for schools and libraries with small fees from telephone bills. The reforms resulted in $9 billion being available for high-speed fiber and Wifi projects at schools and libraries across the country over the next five years. While nearly all schools and libraries are connected to the Internet, more than 60 percent of schools do not have adequate capacity or speed to perform most functions required in today's highly digitized learning and administrative environments.


text:
Basketball / NCAA / News
July 11, 2022 - Emma Hruby
NCAA basketball: 2022 transfer portal tracker
Shaylee Gonzales (2). (Photo by Aaron J. Thornton/Getty Images)
The transfer portal is shaking up the NCAA women's basketball landscape.
With the new transfer rules in place, players can opt to switch teams without sitting out a year, which raises the stakes for the 2022-23 season.
Just Women's Sports will be keeping track of all of the players who have entered the portal and those who have chosen their new teams.
Monday, July 11 — Shaylee Gonzales to transfer to Texas
BYU guard and two-time WCC Player of the Year Shaylee Gonzales announced that she'll transfer to the University of Texas. Gonzales has two years of eligibility remaining.
"I am so thankful for all the relationships and memories that were made," Gonzales said in a statement at that time. "BYU will always have a place in my heart."
She was the Cougars' best player last season, averaging a team-high 18.3 points per game alongside 5.9 rebounds and 4.5 assists.
Former BYU guard and 2x WCC Player of the Year, Shaylee Gonzales, has announced that she is transferring to Texas.
She'll join the Longhorns with two years of eligibility remaining. pic.twitter.com/QViMWW65xY
— Just Women's Sports (@justwsports) July 11, 2022
Thursday, May 19 — Saniya Rivers commits to NC State
Saniya Rivers is headed back to North Carolina, with the former South Carolina guard announcing her commitment to NC State.
Wolfpack nation, wassup?!👀🐺 #Committed pic.twitter.com/VsAlX6SUz2
— Saniya rivers🥵 (@Ihoop___22) May 19, 2022
It's a big pickup for the Wolfpack, who are replacing four starters from last season's Elite Eight team. Rivers is originally from Wilmington, N.C., and is the third addition this offseason for NC State. The team has also added center River Baldwin (Florida State) and forward Mimi Collins (Maryland).
Coming out of high school, Rivers was a three-time North Carolina Player of the Year, a two-time USA Today Player of the Year for North Carolina, the USA Today National Player of the Year (2021), Gatorade National Player of the Year (2021) and a McDonald's All-American (2021).
As a freshman, she played in 27 games for the national champions, averaging 2.3 points per game.
Monday, May 16 — Georgia picks up Audrey Warren from Texas
Georgia announced that it has signed Audrey Warren, who will be a fifth-year senior in the upcoming season.
Warren was a key player in Texas' back-to-back NCAA Elite Eight runs, averaging 10.3 points per game in 2020-21 and 8.2 ppg during 2021-22. She also helped Texas to the Big 12 Championship in 2022.
"Audrey has a tremendous skill set on offense as a three-tier scorer," coach Katie Abrahamson-Henderson said in a statement. "Her basketball IQ is unmatched. She is a relentless defender who takes pride in getting stops, and inspires her teammates to have that same mentality. Audrey is a winner and knows what it takes to compete at a high level after reaching back-to-back Elite Eights in her college career. She will make an immediate impact on our program here at Georgia."
Friday, May 6 — LSU lands marquee transfer Angel Reese from Maryland
Former Maryland star Angel Reese is transferring to LSU, the Tigers announced.
The 6-foot-3 forward led the Terps with 17.8 points per game and 10.6 rebounds per game as a sophomore during the 2021-22 season. She was named to the All-Big Ten first team.
She joins storied coach Kim Mulkey, who is entering her second year in Baton Rouge. She won three national titles in 21 years at Baylor before moving to LSU last offseason.
"Angel is coming to Baton Rouge as one of the most dynamic players in the country," Mulkey said in a statement. "She's an outstanding scorer with a knack for rebounding that will make an immediate impact in our frontcourt."
TIGER NATION WHAT'S GOOD???💛💜🐅 @LSUwbkb pic.twitter.com/CDJoq61gfa
— Angel Reese (@Reese10Angel) May 6, 2022
Wednesday, May 4 — Esmery Martinez makes surprise switch to Arizona
Esmery Martinez, a first-team All-Big 12 selection for West Virginia in 2020-21, is joining Arizona, she announced via social media.
The move comes after LSU announced on April 24 that it had signed Martinez, which makes her commitment to Arizona a surprise.
"Esmery is a tenacious rebounder and defender and will fit right into our system in Baton Rouge," LSU coach Kim Mulkey said at the time.
The Wildcats have lost seven players to the transfer portal, but they have added Martinez and former Oklahoma State guard Lauren Fields to their roster.
Monday, May 2 – Maryland adds Vanderbilt top scorer Brinae Alexander
Maryland is adding Brinae Alexander as a graduate transfer, the school announced Sunday. The forward was the top scorer for Vanderbilt last season, averaging 15.2 points per game behind 36 percent shooting from beyond the arc.
Aijha Blackwell of Missouri is also on the move, transferring to Baylor. The 6-foot guard averaged 15.4 points and 13 rebounds per game during her junior season, earning Blackwell a second-team All-SEC selection.
Iowa State's Aubrey Joens is transferring to Oklahoma, she announced Friday on social media. Joens notched 63 three-pointers last season, shooting 42.5 percent from deep.
The Arizona Wildcats have added Lauren Fields of Oklahoma State to their roster. The guard averaged 15.4 points per game in her junior year to lead the team.
Sunday, May 1 – Ashley Owusu transfers to Virginia Tech
Maryland's Ashley Owusu announced Saturday that she is transferring to Virginia Tech.
The star guard averaged 14.3 points and 3.7 assists per game during her junior season at Maryland, helping her team to a Sweet 16 appearance in the NCAA tournament.
Virginia Tech finished with a 23-10 record last season, exiting the NCAA tournament in the first round.
Thursday, April 28 – Dre'una Edwards commits to Baylor
Dre'una Edwards is heading to Texas, as the redshirt junior leaves Kentucky for Baylor.
In her 2021-2022 season with the Wildcats, Edwards led the team in rebounds with 8.2 per game while notching 16.9 points per game. Edwards ended her tenure at Kentucky on a high, sinking the game-winner to clinch the SEC tournament championship for the Wildcats.
The 6-foot-2 forward started her collegiate career at Utah before transferring to Kentucky in 2019.
New destination 📍💛💚💛💚 #committed @BaylorWBB pic.twitter.com/bb3hS6jTcQ
— Dre'una Edwards (@IhoopDrea44) April 28, 2022
Friday, April 22 – Haley, Hanna Cavinder transfer to Miami
Haley and Hanna Cavinder are transferring to Miami, the identical twins announced Thursday night.
The Cavinder sisters join the Hurricanes after three seasons at Fresno State, in which they averaged a combined 34.2 points per game.
Haley recorded 19.8 points and 9.4 rebounds in the 2021-2022 season, notching three triple-doubles and 12 double-doubles. Hanna led Fresno State in steals, posting 51 during the regular season, scoring 14.6 points per game and registering 107 assists.
"Coming into the offseason losing four impactful players, we felt like we had specific needs and Haley and Hanna absolutely helped us meet several of them," Miami coach Katie Meier said in a statement. "They are huge pieces for our program."
The twin guards also boast an impressive social media following, including more than 4 million TikTok followers, which has translated to lucrative NIL deals that some estimate have exceeded $1 million.
Haley and Hanna join a Miami team that finished last season with a 21-13 record and went on a postseason run that included an Atlantic Coast Conference championship game appearance, concluding their season with a second-round loss in the NCAA tournament.
A post shared by Hanna Cavinder (@hanna.cavinder)
Thursday, April 21 – Chrislyn Carr to join Louisville
Guard Chrislyn Carr, who spent last season at Syracuse and averaged 14.2 points per game, is transferring to Louisville.
The Cardinals also announced last Friday that they are adding Morgan Jones out of Florida State in addition to four freshmen.
After advancing to the Final Four last season, the Cardinals lost three starters, including two to the WNBA draft: Emily Engstler, another Syracuse transfer, and Kianna Smith.
Carr spent two and a half seasons at Texas Tech, where she was Big 12 freshman of the year in 2019, before transferring to Baylor for a semester. She then left for Syracuse.
"She fills a big need at our point guard spot, and is a talented distributor, scorer and defender," Louisville coach Jeff Walz said. "We believe she is a great fit for our team and are excited to have her join us."
Friday, April 15 – Abby Meyers headed to Maryland
Princeton standout and AP All-American Honorable Mention Abby Meyers is headed to College Park.
Maryland announced Friday that it would be adding the Ivy League player of the year to its roster. Last season. she averaged 18.2 points and 5.9 rebounds en route to the Ivy League title and the NCAA round of 32.
"I chose to play my final year of college basketball at Maryland because not only am I from Maryland, but I grew up going to the women's basketball games at the amazing Xfinity Center!" said Meyers. "I have tremendous respect for the program and all it has accomplished under Coach Frese's leadership, and I want to help continue to build the winning legacy for the one and only Terp Nation."
Thrilled to officially welcome AP Honorable Mention All-America honoree Abby Meyers to our Maryland family‼🐢👏
➡ https://t.co/PkOuOBizEC#TerpFamily x #FTT pic.twitter.com/ldM2Ul91rh
— Maryland Women's Basketball (@TerpsWBB) April 15, 2022
Thursday, April 14 – South Carolina's Saniya Rivers enters portal, Duke adds Mia Heide
One day after participating in the championship parade for South Carolina's national title win, guard Saniya Rivers announced via her social media accounts that she would enter the transfer portal.
Rivers was the Gatorade national high school player of the year in 2021. She averaged 2.3 points in 27 games for the Gamecocks this season.
"Thanks to coach Staley and the rest of the coaching staff and program for affording me with the opportunity to win a national championship in my freshman year with this team," Rivers wrote. "It has truly been an experience of a lifetime."
A post shared by Saniya Rivers🥵 JW🙏🏾 (@niyaa.rivers44)
Also on Thursday, Tulane graduate Mia Heide announced that she would be taking her fifth year at Duke to pursue a business degree.
"I am so grateful for my time and experiences at Tulane University," she wrote. "I will always be a proud Tulane alum.
"I am very excited to join coach Kara Lawson and the Duke women's basketball program."
Heide is one of the more decorated shot blockers in Tulane history, having averaged 1.4 blocks per game. She also averaged 4.9 points, 5.1 rebounds and 1.0 assists during her career.
Tuesday, April 12 – Number of Division I players in portal is nearly double last year
As of Tuesday, 1,143 Division I players are in the women's basketball transfer portal, according to The Athletic's Chantel Jennings. Last year, 1,197 players entered the portal.
Those numbers are nearly double that the two previous seasons. In 2019-20, 609 players entered in the portal, and in 2018-19, 641 players entered the portal.
The NCAA changed the portal rule in April 2021, allowing athletes to transfer to a different school once and play immediately. Some of the increase also could be attributed to the extra year of eligibility granted to athletes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Also on Tuesday, University of South Florida point guard Elisa Pinzan announced that she would be transferring to Maryland for her fifth year of eligibility.
The addition of Pinzan is big for Maryland, which has lost players to both the portal and graduation. Through four seasons with the Bulls, Pinzan scored 917 points and dished out 544 assists. Last season, she knocked down 31.9 percent from 3-point range and helped the Bulls to a 24-9 record and a NCAA Tournament berth.
"While I am excited to finish my career at Maryland, I will always remember where it started," she wrote.
🤘🏻 #4 out pic.twitter.com/T6C2wXmV4d
— Elisa pinzan (@PinzanElisa) April 12, 2022
Monday, April 11 – Indiana announces additions of Alyssa Geary, Sara Scalia
The Indiana Hoosiers announced Monday the additions of Alyssa Geary and Sara Scalia to its 2022-23 roster, as well as Sydney Parish, which had been reported Saturday.
Geary is a graduate transfer from Providence, having played in 118 games there. As a senior, she averaged 9.6 points, 4.2 rebounds, 2.2 assists and 1.1 blocks per game.
"We are really looking forward to getting Alyssa to Bloomington. When we called, we could tell immediately that this was going to be a good fit," coach Teri Moren said. "She is going to give us some versatility inside. She has great length, is very skilled and can knock down the perimeter shot, along with being a phenomenal passer. She also has the ability to guard multiple positions."
Scalia will join the Hoosiers after three seasons at Minnesota, where she recorded 1,158 total points and set a program-record in free throw percentage at 88.8 percent. A 2021-22 All-Big Ten second team selection, she led the Gophers with 17.9 points, 4.3 rebounds and 2.0 assists per game en route to a second-round WNIT appearance. She also shot 41.3 percent from 3-point range.
"Sara is a phenomenal pickup for us. She is one of the very best 3-point shooters in the country," Moren said. "It is important for us that we find players that fit our culture and mesh with our team. I think we found a perfect fit with Sara. Along with her shooting, Sara can play both on and off the ball. We have had to game plan against Sara, and she was one of the toughest players to prepare for. She has unbelievable shooting range and the ability to get to the rim."
Saturday, April 9 – Sam Brunelle commits to Virginia, Sydney Parrish heads home to Indiana
Former Notre Dame forward Sam Brunelle, a Virginia native, announced her commitment to the University of Virginia on Saturday.
"The magic thing about home is that it feels good to leave, and feels even better to come back," she wrote. "I'm coming HOME."
The magic thing about home is that it feels good to leave, and feels even better to come back… I'm coming HOME 🧡⚔💙 #GoHoos #wahoowa pic.twitter.com/l7M3dq8WNj
— Samantha Brunelle (@SamBrunelle_33) April 9, 2022
Brunelle played 32 games for the Fighting Irish last season, averaging 6.8 points per game on 45 percent shooting from the field.
Also returning home is Indiana native Sydney Parrish. The former Oregon standout, with three years of eligibility remaining, announced her commitment to Indiana on Saturday.
"What up Hoosier nation, decided it was time to come home," the guard wrote on social media.
Parrish started all 32 games for the Ducks last season, averaging 8.5 points, 3.3 rebounds and one assist per game. She was also second on the team in 3-point shooting, averaging 35 percent from deep.
Parrish's addition helps lessen the blow for Indiana, who lose Ali Patberg, Aleksa Gulbe and Nicole Cardaño-Hillary to graduation. Parrish will join returners Grace Berger Mackenzie Holmes and Chloe Moore-McNeil as the Hoosiers look to improve upon their Elite Eight berth in 2021 and Sweet 16 run in 2022.
Friday, April 8 – Oregon State's Taya Corosdale joins teammates in portal
Oregon State forward Taya Corosdale became the fourth Beavers player to enter the transfer portal in less than a week.
The three-year starter was Oregon State's leading rebounder last season, averaging 7.4 rebounds and 7.3 points per game.
In addition to Corosdale, sophomores Kennedy Brown and Taylor Jones entered the portal this week. Brown started in 21 games, averaging 7.9 points and 6.3 rebounds, while Jones played just nine games due to injury. Freshman guard Greta Kampschroeder entered the portal last week after starting 25 games last season.
The Beavers join Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and Oregon in having at least three players enter the portal.
Wednesday, April 6 – Maryland forward Mimi Collins to enter transfer portal; Kierra Fletcher is headed to South Carolina
The exodus from the Maryland program continued, with graduate forward Mimi Collins expected to enter the portal. According to Kareem Copeland of the Washington Post, the decision is based on education, as Collins is looking for a graduate program in communications.
Also on Wednesday, former Georgia Tech guard Kierra Fletcher announced her commitment to South Carolina. A four-year starter with the Yellow Jackets, she missed last season with an injury. During the season before that, she averaged 13 points, 3.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds per game.
Tuesday, April 5 – Maryland loses Angel Reese, Ashley Owusu, two more players to transfer portal
Four players announced their plans to depart from the Terrapins and enter their names into the transfer portal. The first domino to fall was junior guard Ashley Owusu, a former AP All-American and Big Ten freshman of the year.
"I have never started anything that I haven't finished, and finishing was the plan when I decided to come to College Park," she wrote in a post on social media. "Unfortunately, events that have transpired on and off the court this year have led me to make the very difficult but necessary decision to continue my education and basketball career elsewhere."
A post shared by Ashley Owusu (@ashleyyowusu)
Hours after Owusu's decision was announced, sophomore starter Angel Reese also entered the transfer portal. The top player for the Terrapins this season, she became the first Maryland player to average a double-double since 1975, with a team-best 17.8 points and 10.6 rebounds per game.
Additionally, sophomore guard Taisiya Kozlova and graduate student guard Channise Lewis both entered the portal.
Friday, March 25 – Dre'Una Edwards, Treasure Hunt and Jazmine Massengill to leave Kentucky, enter transfer portal
Three of Kentucky's starters, who all helped lift the Wildcats to their first SEC tournament title in 40 years, entered the transfer portal.
Dre'Una Edwards, who joined Kentucky from Utah, was the tournament hero for the Wildcats after hitting the game-winner against South Carolina. But after just two years with the program, she has entered her name into the portal.
Massengill will be a fifth-year senior while Hunt will be a junior next season.
Additionally, Aijha Blackwell – the leading scorer and rebounder for the University of Missouri and a three-year starter – entered the transfer portal.
Blackwell marks the fourth Tigers player this offseason to announce her intent to leave the program. Senior forward LaDazhia Williams, freshman guard Izzy Higginbottom and freshman forward Kiya Dorroh are also in the portal.
Thursday March 24 – Rickea Jackson announces transfer to Tennessee
After entering the transfer portal in January, former Mississippi State leading scorer Rickea Jackson announced that she would be transferring to Tennessee.
I'm hereee🍊 pic.twitter.com/A7LEDTaPxL
— RJ👑 (@iamthathooper) March 24, 2022
A 2019 McDonald's All-American, Jackson led the Bulldogs in scoring her freshman and sophomore years before deciding to transfer. According to her mother, Caryn Jackson, the decision was made "for mental health reasons."
What does the addition of Candace Parker mean for the Aces' lineup?
The Aces played a limited rotation last season.
Candace Parker cites 'family' in decision to sign with Las Vegas Aces
Parker is making her way back west.
Oklahoma guard Taylor Robertson breaks career 3-point record
Robertson now has 498 3-pointers.
Which CBB teams fly 'under the radar'? Ask Haley Jones and Aliyah Boston
Jones had Boston as her first podcast guest.


text:
Q: Format: Center 2 lines I would like to center two centered lines between them.
Namely, I would like to center two bullet points and write to their right and to their left. Hope following image helps:

Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks!

A: You could use the tabular environment:
\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}

\begin{tabular}{r@{\enspace\textbullet\enspace}l}
Address      & City, State \\
Phone number & Email address
\end{tabular}

\end{document}

The \enspace defines the horizontal spacing on either side of the bullet (thanks to Bernard for this suggestion).

A: this approach defines a one-line command that treats everything but the
bullet as without width.  it ignores accidental spaces in the input.
\documentclass{article}
\newcommand{\cbline}[2]{%
  \centering
  \leavevmode \llap{#1\unskip}%
  \ $\bullet$\ \rlap{\ignorespaces#2}\par
 }
\begin{document}
\cbline{Address}{ City, State}
\cbline{Phone number }{Email address}
\end{document}

A: Or you can try it the plain TeX way:
\documentclass{article}
\def\doubleline#1#2{%
    \hbox to0.5\linewidth{%
        \hbox to 0.22\linewidth{%
            \hfil%
            #1%
        }\hbox to0.06\linewidth{\hfil\textbullet\hfil}%
        \hbox to0.22\linewidth{%
            #2%
            \hfil%
        }%
    }%
}%
\begin{document}
\doubleline{Address}{City, State}
\doubleline{Phone number}{Email address}
\end{document}

The tabular method is much clearer, and you could wrap it in a macro pretty easily, too.  This way is chiefly useful as (a) a short study in TeX box-twiddling, which is something I love to do, and (b) potentially more easily customizable, as you can govern total width and the like without having to resort to external packages like tabularx. (It's not, since the widths of the boxes hard-coded; but it could be.)
This yields:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Bebe Bumbletree is hosting a Christmas party for all her friends and is determined for everything to be perfect. The eggnog has snowman-shaped ice cubes floating in it, she's borrowed Christmas music from her parents' CD collection, and she has even hung mistletoe in hopes of catching her secret crush, Barry Broadbarn, underneath. She rented a Christmas movie for them all to watch and has bought and wrapped a gift for each of her guests, which she carefully placed under the tree. Everything is perfectly planned - that is, until strange things start happening, things Bebe is not expecting, and certainly won't stand for. Before the night is through, the Christmas Crimes will be solved!
"The Christmas Crimes" is a Christmas-themed kid's mystery party. There are three mini-mysteries: The mystery of the headless snowman, the case of the toppled tree, and the mystery of the missing presents. Optional adult player and even the family pet can join in the fun!


This ribbed blue ceramic candlestick will help transform your living room or dinner table with glowing romantic light. These stoneware candle holders were carefully hand-crafted on the pottery wheel and skillfully glazed in a beautiful celadon blue glaze. The rings around the base are decorative and functional- catching any drips of wax and adding effortless modern style.


text:
Curtain Call: Between Consciousness
Our Community Tour of Between Consciousness ended last Saturday after touring the South East District. We would like to thank everyone who came down and for your support!
We caught up with some members of the audience after our shows, who shared with us their thoughts and feelings. We also got a chance to hear some insights and discussions during the post-show talks. Between Consciousness was about a father who struggles with his son who has autism, and other people's ignorance. Many audience members shared how they really liked the play and the acting, and how they connected with the characters and the show in one way or another.
"At the end of the day, somehow all of us do experience one form of mental issues in some part of our life journey. Perhaps only difference is, we are able to control it and some can't". – Suhani Sujari, 27 Feb
"The performance was very touching. I felt the frustration of the father and the kid, and how they want to connect with each other". – Rachel Lim, 4 March
"The play resonated with me in a very emotional and personal way. The struggle felt so real that it made me want to escape the Avery's imaginary world". – Sanny Paiman, 5 March
"The portrayal of the autistic child and the father's frustration were so genuinely authentic. I am glad that the play promotes awareness for autism so society can be more understanding about the pain and difficulty of our fellow men". – Doreen Tay, Allied Educator, 17 March
"It was very touching and made me look at people with autism in a different light. They are not that different from us". – Sabarna, 18 March
It's extremely heartwarming for us to know that this through this performance, some members of the audience gained a better understanding of mental health and of people living with autism.
"As a someone who has not been exposed to anyone with autism, the performance allowed an insight into it". – Constance Cher, 4 March
"The play helped me understand people living with autism's sensory experience better". – Lim Jia Ying, 25 Feb
"I grew up with close contact with people of autism as well, and this play really gave me an interesting perspective into the mind inside a child with disabilities". – Myron Ng, 4 March
"Autism is a theme often neglected in the protrayal of mental health and this performance was fresh and realistic". – Eileen Wee, 4 March
"The show allowed me to think about the stigma as well as lack of understanding (of mental health issues) in society. It was also striking to see the father's helplessness and frustration". – Toh Xin Rui, 19 March
Dr Maliki Osman, our Guest of Honour also shared with us his thoughts about the performance, and about TheatreWorks' on-going partnership with South East CDC.
In South East CDC, we believe in using arts as a medium of connecting people together. It's very difficult to get people to the theatre, so we decided to bring theatre to the people. In the last eight years, as we bring theatre to the community, we also bring issues to the community. The key is not just about any show, but a show that allows us to ponder on very challenging issues.
Thank you Dr Maliki Osman, for sharing your thoughts with us!
TheatreWorks' Engagement programmes are developed to encourage audiences to appreciate theatre and use theatre as a forum to raise and discuss taboo yet critical issues facing the community today. Mental health is a broad topic, we hope that everyone left the show with more than when they came in – regardless of if its knowledge, questions, or thoughts about the issues of mental health.
Thank you everyone for your support! We hope to see you at our other events!
TheatreWorks will continue its to spot talent from the community and continue to develop and nurture playwrights. Keep a look out for information on our next Writing & Community programme – the 24-Hour Playwriting Competition! (Info soon to be released!). In the meantime, check out our main blog for updates on our next productions!
Posted in: Between Consciousness, Uncategorized | Tagged: Between Consciousness, Performance Tour, TheatreWorks, TheatreWorkssg, Writing and Community
Thoughts on 'Between Consciousness'


text:
Principals focus on their new schools
ERIN BRYCE
EAST MANATEE -- Three principals are adjusting to their new jobs and gearing up for the fall opening of two elementary schools.
New Braden River Elementary Principal Chuck Fradley said he expects half of his 1,050 students and 92 faculty members to transfer to Gilbert McNeal Elementary School, which is being built off Lorraine Road. Fradley said he hesitates to begin new programs until after Braden River's population decreases.
"This school is going to go through enough changes as it is at the end of the year," Fradley said.
But as soon as students get adjusted, Fradley said, he'll make his plans.
"I'd like to take a look at what we have, tighten it up and then look to see where the teachers want to go," he said. "I can't wait."
New principals Ronna Moore and Gary Holbrook are planning programs, selecting furniture and hiring teams of faculty members to help open their new schools. The two share an office in the Manatee County School Board's Matzke Complex, 2800 block 27th Street East, where they bounce ideas off each other. Holbrook, principal of Freedom Elementary School, expects about 400 students. He doesn't know if the school will have pre-kindergarten classes.
"Ronna and I come in every day and we have this huge smile," he said. "It is just so exciting to see it all come together."
Holbrook said he's been the host of several tours for community and School Board leaders interested in his new school, which is being built off State Road 64 next to Haile Middle School. Holbrook said he would like to place lap-top computers in each of the fifth-grade classrooms.
"They're going to be living with technology every day, and we're getting them ready for it," he said. "Everyone we talk to seems excited with it."
Moore, principal of the new Gilbert McNeal Elementary, said she was told to expect about 650 students, many from her former school, Braden River Elementary.
"The whole idea of building a school culture from the ground up is absolutely exciting," she said. "It's just going to be the experience of a lifetime."
Moore said she wants to implement a five-year plan of testing to determine students' learning styles, such as auditory and visual. She then hopes the teachers will focus on styles in the classroom. Her school would be the first in Florida to start such a program.
"It's where education is heading anyway," she said. "Our true mission is to develop lifelong learners. In order to be a lifelong learner, you have to know what kind of learner you are. Everybody walking this earth is a different kind of learner."


Ablazeon currently offers two DC plasma torches: model PTA 60, with a maximum input power of 60kW, and model PTA150A, with a maximum input power of 150kW. A controller (model PTC) is also available.
The DC plasma torches are designed to operate with standard power supplies, gas supply equipment and powder feeders.


LOS GATOS, Calif., March 24th, 2016 - Tigo®, the Smart Module market leader, today announced that the newly released TS4-R platform for the retrofit/Add-on received the North American standards ANSI/UL1741, CSA 22.2 Recognition by UL (Underwriters Laboratories), a leading global safety science organization.
The TS4-R is a universal base that can be applied to Retrofit or Add-on Solar system.
The TS4-R addresses the need for a retrofit solution that can be mounted on any existing installed PV system, connected into the existing PV module J-Box, improving energy harvesting, greater flexibility, and increased control over project to the existing PV system. The offering for the retrofit project is composed of a two-piece solution: the TS4-R base, which is assembled on the solar PV module framing or to the racking, and its covers having plug-and-play interchangeable MLPE. It supports any of the wide offering of the existing TS4 Platform functional covers. It can also be designed into a new system.
TS4-R: Retrofit/add-on unit that can accommodate any TS4 Cover.
"Achieving UL Recognition indicates to end product manufacturers that Tigo's smart module technology meets the foundational safety requirements for electric shock and fire. The UL Recognized component mark demonstrates our joint commitment towards safe, clean energy," said Jeff Smidt, vice president & general manager of UL's energy and power technologies division.


text:
LifeStyleArts
The dot obsession by Yayoi Kusama
Yayoi Kusama is a Japanese artist that was an influential figure in the postwar New York art scene, staging provocative happenings and exhibitions with hallucinatory paintings of loops and dots (and physical representations of the idea of infinity).
She makes works on paper featuring intense semi-abstract imagery, to soft sculpture known as 'Accumulations', to her 'Infinity Net' paintings, made up of carefully repeated arcs of paint built up into large patterns.
She has traded on her identity as an 'outsider' in many contexts – as a female artist in a male-dominated society, as a Japanese person in the Western art world, and as a victim of her own neurotic and obsessional symptoms. After achieving fame she returned to her country of birth and is now Japan's most prominent contemporary artist.
New super yacht Mystere from OTAM shipyard
Azimut Yachts launched the updated high-tech motor boat 77S
Sophia has a diverse international background in the field of media and technology. I am the go-to reporter for smart and stylish coverage-from red carpet events to one on one exclusive. As a writer I utilize a skill set developed over years of training through bachelor's degrees in business administration and Biblical studies and experience as a blog publisher, editor, and editorialist. Through the 5 years of dedicated work as a writer I have acquired a vast knowledge and expertise working on writing projects that will enable me to fulfill assignments requested.
Snake through the prism of art
Surreal Optical Illusions by Erik Johansson


text:
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Hayseed on 17/10/2019 21:49:47
Title: What motion will weights released from a spinning spacecraft describe?
Post by: Hayseed on 17/10/2019 21:49:47
As we tether out weights to slow the spin of a spacecraft, and then release the weights, does the path of the weights have the spacecraft's axial velocity component? Or only the radial component?
If we had one hundreds weights spinning and cut them, Would they spread out in a plane or would they spread out in a cone?
Title: Re: What motion will weights released from a spinning spacecraft describe?
Post by: Janus on 17/10/2019 22:37:25
Quote from: Hayseed on 17/10/2019 21:49:47
A plane relative to the ship and a cone relative to someone with an axial motion relative to the ship (It doesn't matter if we consider this person or the ship as being the one moving.)
Will the ratio of the axial velocity to the rotational velocity vary the angle of the cone?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2019 00:09:52
Alrighty, what is the velocity of the craft? let's say 15,000 MPH(22,000FT/sec). Lets say the diameter of craft is 3 ft. And rotating 150 RPM(2.5 rps). That's about 25 ft. per second on surface of craft.
That is a ratio of 22,000 to 25. That's quite a ratio. As we tether out, the RPM will drop, making to ratio even higher.
What would the cone angle be? It would be super sharp, wouldn't it? Does this sharp cone concept actually occur? It should be noticeable.
Would it take a ratio of 1 to 1 give a cone angle of 45 degrees from craft, 90 degrees total?
What ratio would be needed for a 50/50 direction?
Has this been confirmed? This doesn't seem right. Does the craft velocity change upon release?
I would love to see this dynamic.
Let's say the final spin RPM is 5 RPM, with a 100 ft tether. That's about 53 ft/sec. It did increase a little.
22000/53.
No need to go into space to do this. When you cut the string, the weight will fly off in a straight line at 25 ft/sec away from the axis of the spacecraft and 22000 ft/sec in the forward direction. This is standard ballistics for moving vehicles if you ignore air resistance and gravity (which you can in space, of course!) . Gunners and bomb aimers spend a lot of time drawing such triangles in their studies.
So, are you saying that dropping a bomb from a moving plane, has the same dynamic and trajectory effect as the cut of rotating weights in space?
Shouldn't there be a difference?
If we replace gravity for the rotational diameter tension, The bomb's cross velocity starts at zero.
With rotation, the cross velocity has already been established.
Should not this change the dynamic?
No big deal except the bomb accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal speed, so one side of the "triangle" is curved. Glide bombs and parachute mines have different trajectories but the principle is always the same - vector addition.
The only reason it curves, is because of the gradual effect of gravity. There is no gradual application of velocity with a spin.
Consider this. Let's say that one has a special pistol and a special rifle. A .22 LR in the pistol, produces the same velocity as a .22 short in the rifle.
The only difference between them, is the acceleration duration to reach velocity.
We fire both from moving trolley, same time,same targets, will they have the same trajectories?
It does not matter if the bullets leave barrel at same time, it does not matter if bullets hit same spot.
What matters is, can one lay one path on top of the other? If they vary, does not this imply, that the trolley velocity, was added during the acceleration?
lf the muzzle velocities are the same, and the muzzles are level with each other, the trajectories will be the same.
It is oddly counterintuitive that if you fire a bullet horizontally and drop a bullet from the same height at the same time, they will hit the ground at the same time. This is particularly important for long-range sniping where the bullet may fly for around 2 seconds, during which it will fall 64 feet. "Aim high" is more than just encouragement.
If you do this experiment with a trolley at rest, the bullets obviously follow the same trajectory if their velocities are the same.
Having the trolley moving doesn't change this. It is just as valid to consider the trolley at rest and you are moving. If the bullets follow the same trajectory according to the trolley, they can't follow different trajectories as viewed by someone with a relative velocity with respect to the trolley
ok, there is a lot of diversion here, from what I am talking about. The reason I used a spacecraft and a trolley, was to exclude gravity. Gravity causes a velocity, but it is an acceleration. A trolley has constant velocity. A constant velocity can not be had with gravity. No need to divert with a comment about terminal velocity....save it for tea.
No gravity in discussion. Gravity will not allow a constant velocity.
There is ONE acceleration in this setup(bullet), and it is of short duration. And you did not catch my question about the duration of it. So forget that aspect.
If we trade out the gun set-up for the rotation set-up..........then there is no velocity acceleration at all in the setup. If the acceleration is removed, will it change the trajectory, and will it change the impact velocity?
Can you follow along with what I am asking?
Post by: Halc on 20/10/2019 13:43:19
Your question is not hard and simply requires vector addition.
You ask about impact velocity of a bullet, but you've described neither what is impacting (or in particular, its velocity relative to the ship), nor the speed of the bullet as it leaves its gun, so that cannot be answered.
Velocity is frame dependent, so the answer to your original question (the shape of the path of the weights) is also frame dependent.
You've chosen a frame where the ship is moving at that speed and presumably in the direction of its axis of rotation. Then yes, while the computation of the speed of the surface of the craft is wrong (it's about 9.5 ft/sec), a series of objects released from that surface would spread out in a narrow pointy cone. In the frame of the ship (regardless of orientation of spin), the objects will spread out in a flat plane. In that frame, the ship has zero velocity.
A diameter of 3 ft matches a perimeter of 9.42 ft. !50 RPM on 9.42 ft is 1413.7ft. per min.........and that divided by 60 is 23.56 ft. per sec. Is that correct?
At a 100 ft radius, the perimeter would be 628.31 ft. The final RPM is 5 RPM. That's 3141.59 ft. per min. Divide by 60 sec.......52.35 ft/sec.....cut cross velocity.
Are these figures correct?
Let's say I have a gun with 1000 ft/sec. Let's say I have a ball in rotation at 1000 ft/sec.
I cut and fire gun........which one hits target first?
As long as the the gun is pointed along the tangent of the rotation so that at the moment it is fired and the moment the ball is released, both ball and gun projectile are headed in the same direction, they will travel side by side and hit the target at the same time.
So if the ball is moving along the red circle at 1000 ft.sec, and is released at the top, it will follow the red arrow at 1000ft/sec. As long as the gun is pointed in the same direction ( to the right here), is anywhere on the green line, and is fired at 1000 ft/sec, at the same time as the ball is released, it will follow the blue line and remain constantly abreast of the ball.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Sorry, yes. I seemed to be using 1 rotation per sec.
At a 100 ft radius, ... 52.35 ft/sec.....cut cross velocity.
A suggestion:
As Halc noted in his post, he was assuming rotations/sec, not RPM. Generally, in physics, the second in used as the base time unit. So there is a tendency to automatically think in these terms. Rotations per sec (or even radian/sec) are more "Natural" to work with.(Radians per sec has the advantage of being directly converted to tangential speed. n radians per sec with a radius of x meters gives a tangential speed of n*x meters/s)
You should also learn to start using the MKS( Meters-kilograms-sec) system of units rather then units like feet. Physical constants tend to be given in these units, and it is easier to work directly in them rather then having to convert between unit systems.
Ok, I will try to use metric. Evidently, no one is concerned with period of acceleration.
That diagram shows when the cut release is at the same time as muzzle exit, not firing time.
Let's try something different. Imagine an American football field. On the close side of the field we have a trolley, and on the other side a wall with the field yard lines extended. The field lays east-west. Trolley at south, wall at north. With trolley stationary at 50 yard line, we shoot wall along the line....hit wall. No gravity, no air. The bullet will strike wall 50 yard line at muzzle velocity.
Are we all together?
Now, the trolley is moving from right to left, and we fire incident at 50 yard line point. OOPS....I shouldn't say fire.....the bullet leaves muzzle at 50 line incidence.
Does the bullet hit the line?....or veer to the left?....or veer to right?
If we keep the muzzle v constant, and vary the trolley v, will the bullet always land on the same side of the 50 wall line. Even if trolley v, exceeds bullet v?
bullet.png (25.1 kB . 480x418 - viewed 1417 times)
If the bullet leaves the gun perpendicular to the path of the trolley ( as measured from the trolley), it will follow the path indicated in the diagram, and strike the wall/target at a point exactly opposite of where the trolley is when the bullet hits ( as shown by the cyan line). The relative speed difference between trolley and bullet makes no difference.
ok, what happened to the bullet's velocity?
Bullet velocity is the vector sum of trolley velocity and muzzle velocity relative to the trolley. This is true in any frame.
Janus must be an Aussie because he drew the North wall at the bottom. :)
Quote from: Halc on 21/10/2019 17:57:34
Actually, I didn't pay any attention to the cardinal directions (they really don't matter in the final analysis). I originally started drawing the diagram with the trolley going from bottom to top, changed my mind, and rotated it. I had already added some of the labels, and quite frankly, was too lazy to start over.
Ok, so my target moves parallel to the trolley, the further I move away from trolley(staying parallel), the faster the bullet travels?
Let me ask you this. And thanks to all for participating.
Does the flight time change?
Bullet velocity( along black arrow) would be equal to sqrt((trolley velocity)^2+(muzzle velocity)^2)*
* to a good approximation when trolley velocity and bullet velocity are low compared to c.
If they were significant fractions of c, you'd need to use
sqrt(u^2+v^2- (uv)^2)
where u is the speed of the bullet as measured from the trolley, and v is the velocity of the Trolley, expressed in units of c.
(Actually, this is the correct equation for all cases, it is just that for low values of v and u the answer comes out to being almost exactly what you get using the first equation above)
The bullet still remains abreast of the trolley during its entire flight.
The distance between target and trolley path has no effect on the bullet speed. It still travels at the same speed, it just travels a longer distance and take more time to hit the target. It is no different than if the trolley and target were not moving with respect to each other. if the bullet leaves the gun at 100 m/s and the target is 100 m away, it takes 1 sec for the bullet to hit the target, if the target is 200 m away, it takes 2 sec. Having either the target or trolley moving at some velocity perpendicular to the direction the gun is aimed has no effect on this time.
The flight time does not change due to the motion of the trolley (which moves parallel to the wall and thus has no effect on its distance from it). But you're talking about you moving yourself away from the trolley? That makes no difference if you're not involved in the gun being shot from the trolley.
If you're firing the gun and the gun is distancing itself from the target, then of course the time to get there is going to go up, which is what Janus answered. What the trolley does in that case is of no concern since it isn't involved in the gun (not on the trolley) firing at the wall.
I start a clock when the bullet clears muzzle. I stop that clock when bullet hits wall. Is there ever a time difference?
No, not as long as the muzzle is some fixed distance from the wall. In post 22 you use wording that suggests the shooting goes on in a place that is moving away from the trolley, and is thus somewhere else.
So in the diagram in post 18, the speed of the trolley has no effect on the bullet travel time.
Sorry about that, I meant the target moving away.
Are you sure that the flight times don't change?
Does the trolley v........impart speed on bullet, or direction on bullet?
Most take one v as side a and the other v as side b, with the hypotenuse as resultant v.
After leaving the muzzle, we can not increase the speed of the bullet.
And because of the cross displacement, a longer flight path and time.
If we use the magnitude trolley v for side b, and the magnitude of bullet v for the hypotenuse.......the resulting side a........will be the resulting magnitude of velocity of incident impact.
The side a, will always be shorter than the hypotenuse(muzzle v)........less velocity.
Does the impact hole in wall, go straight in? Does that hole go deeper with trolley velocity? The bullet's mass remains constant.
If the trolley is moving parallel to the wall, then the wall (target) does not get further away, and the time is unaffected by trolley speed. So I'm unclear what you mean by the target moving away. If the trolley is moving (parallel) relative to the wall, then the bullet hits directly across from where the trolley is at impact time (see pic in post 18), and if you consider that impact point to be the target, then the impact point actually is closest to the trolley at that moment, so it can be argued that the target is approaching, not moving away.
Not if the motions involved are parallel like you describe.
Both. Again, see pic in post 18. The direction is diagonal given trolley motion, and the speed needs to be greater to get there in the same time as the stopped case. The velocity of the bullet is the vector sum of the trolley velocity and the muzzle velocity, so if the trolley is moving, that sum will be greater than the case where the trolley is stationary and adds nothing to the vector sum of the bullet.
That's how vector addition works yes, at least at low speeds. We're not talking relativistic speeds here, right?
a is the muzzle velocity of the gun (relative to the gun). Hypotenuse is the bullet velocity relative to the frame you've chosen, the one in which the trolley has velocity b.
Not for all triangles, but for the right triangle you're describing, yes, this is true. If I fire the bullet somewhat behind the train, the bullet might be going slower than the muzzle velocity since the vector sum of the two will be less magnitude than velocity a by itself.
Not straight in if the trolley and wall are not stationary relative to each other. You see the angle in the picture in 18. It goes in at that angle, and presumably makes a deeper hole due to it going faster
If the gun is fired while pointing in the A direction, then the A side is the muzzle velocity and the the resultant velocity( along the hypotenuse) is the vector addition of the trolley velocity and muzzle velocity. It will be greatwer than either trolley or muzzle velocity. If muzzle velocity is 100 m/sec and trolley velocity is 15 m/sec, then the velocity along the hypotenuse will be ~101.119 m/sec. The bullet will strike the target at this speed and at an angle of ~8.627 degrees from straight in.
What makes you think that the hypotenuse velocity would be equal to the muzzle velocity?
Ok, I am following what you are saying. So if the trolley v is equal to the muzzle v, then the departure angle would be 45 degrees from the trolley.
How would one calculate the bullet v, if we aim gun at 45 degrees?