b*z
2 楼
这个如何？
需要一个 home theater with blu ray player
需要一个 home theater with blu ray player
t*r
3 楼
由国内的亲戚想买易瑞沙，上网查了下有些网站很便宜
http://www.shopeastwest.com/med/health-wellness/Iressa/531.html
有人买过吗？ 是不是假药
http://www.shopeastwest.com/med/health-wellness/Iressa/531.html
有人买过吗？ 是不是假药
b*d
4 楼
我跟老公都OPT,我之前填了8233，生成了1042S, 老公没有，补填8833要5k treaty, 杯
具了。也就是我的5k treaty要回
来了，他没要回来。
现在让老公补填今年的8233还来的及吗？55555555
具了。也就是我的5k treaty要回
来了，他没要回来。
现在让老公补填今年的8233还来的及吗？55555555
h*w
5 楼
任何规格68，69或原封。
在版上卖了好多，发现自己没有了。
在版上卖了好多，发现自己没有了。
v*r
6 楼
组里请的一个 consultant, 非要给大家做 how to use debugger 的 presentation，
不禁想起了 Linux 的 I am a bastard 的宣言.
http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/1177.html
Subject: Re: Availability of kdb
From: Linus Torvalds (t******[email protected])
Date: Sep 06 2000
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> very nice monologue, thanks. It would be great to know Linus' opinion.
> I mean, I knew Linus' opinion of some years' ago but perhaps it
> changed? He is a living being and not some set of rules written in
> stone so perhaps current stability/highquality of kdb suggests to
> Linus that it may be (just maybe) acceptable into official tree?
I don't like debuggers. Never have, probably never will. I use gdb all the
time, but I tend to use it not as a debugger, but as a disassembler on
steroids that you can program.
None of the arguments for a kernel debugger has touched me in the least. And
trust me, over the years I've heard quite a lot of them. In the end, they
tend to boil down to basically:
It would be so much easier to do development, and we'd be able to add
new things faster.
And quite frankly, I don't care. I don't think kernel development should be
"easy". I do not condone single-stepping through code to find the bug. I do
not think that extra visibility into the system is
necessarily a good thing.
Apparently, if you follow the arguments, not having a kernel debugger leads
to various maladies:
* you crash when something goes wrong, and you fsck, and it takes
forever, and you get frustrated.
* people have given up on Linux kernel programming, because it's too
hard and too time-consuming.
* it takes longer to create new features.
And nobody has explained to me why these are bad things.
To me, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Not only is it documented, but it's
good, so it obviously cannot be a bug.
"Takes longer to create new features" - this one in particular is not a very
strong argument for having a debugger. It's not as if lack of features or
new code would be a problem for Linux, or, in fact, for the software
industry as a whole. Quite the reverse. My biggest job is to say "no" to new
features, not trying to find them.
Oh. And sure, when things crash and you fsck, and you didn't even get a clue
about what went wrong, you get frustrated. Tough. There are two kinds of
reactions to that: you start being careful, or you start whining about a
kernel debugger.
Quite frankly, I'd rather weed out the people who don't start being careful
early, rather than late. That sounds callous, and by God, it is callous. But
it's not the kind of "if you can't stand the heat, get out the the kitchen"
kind of remark that some people take it for. No, it's something much more
deeper: I'd rather not work with people who aren't careful. It's Darwinism
in software development.
It's a cold, callous argument that says that there are two kinds of people,
and I'd rather not work with the second kind. Live with it.
I'm a bastard. I have absolutely no clue why people can ever think otherwise
. Yet they do. People think I'm a nice guy, and the fact is that I'm a
scheming, conniving bastard who doesn't care for any hurt feelings or lost
hours of work, if it just results in what I consider to be a better system.
And I'm not just saying that. I'm really not a very nice person. I can say "
I don't care" with a straight face, and really mean it.
I happen to believe that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think
about their problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that
without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know how it
behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger, you tend to
think about problems another way. You want to understand things on a
different level.
It's partly "source vs binary", but it's more than that. It's not that you
have to look at the sources (of course you have to - and any good debugger
will make that easy). It's that you have to look at the level above sources.
At the meaning of things. Without a debugger, you basically have to go the
next step: understand what the program does. Not just that particular line.
And quite frankly, for most of the real problems (as opposed to the stupid
bugs - of which there are many, as the latest crap with "truncate()" has
shown us) a debugger doesn't much help. And the real problems are what I
worry about. The rest is just details. It will get fixed eventually.
I do realize that others disagree. And I'm not your Mom. You can use a
kernel debugger if you want to, and I won't give you the cold shoulder
because you have "sullied" yourself. But I'm not going to help you use one,
and I would frankly prefer people not to use kernel debuggers that much. So
I don't make it part of the standard distribution, and if the existing
debuggers aren't very well known, I won't shed a tear over it.
Because I'm a bastard, and proud of it!
Linus
不禁想起了 Linux 的 I am a bastard 的宣言.
http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/1177.html
Subject: Re: Availability of kdb
From: Linus Torvalds (t******[email protected])
Date: Sep 06 2000
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> very nice monologue, thanks. It would be great to know Linus' opinion.
> I mean, I knew Linus' opinion of some years' ago but perhaps it
> changed? He is a living being and not some set of rules written in
> stone so perhaps current stability/highquality of kdb suggests to
> Linus that it may be (just maybe) acceptable into official tree?
I don't like debuggers. Never have, probably never will. I use gdb all the
time, but I tend to use it not as a debugger, but as a disassembler on
steroids that you can program.
None of the arguments for a kernel debugger has touched me in the least. And
trust me, over the years I've heard quite a lot of them. In the end, they
tend to boil down to basically:
It would be so much easier to do development, and we'd be able to add
new things faster.
And quite frankly, I don't care. I don't think kernel development should be
"easy". I do not condone single-stepping through code to find the bug. I do
not think that extra visibility into the system is
necessarily a good thing.
Apparently, if you follow the arguments, not having a kernel debugger leads
to various maladies:
* you crash when something goes wrong, and you fsck, and it takes
forever, and you get frustrated.
* people have given up on Linux kernel programming, because it's too
hard and too time-consuming.
* it takes longer to create new features.
And nobody has explained to me why these are bad things.
To me, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Not only is it documented, but it's
good, so it obviously cannot be a bug.
"Takes longer to create new features" - this one in particular is not a very
strong argument for having a debugger. It's not as if lack of features or
new code would be a problem for Linux, or, in fact, for the software
industry as a whole. Quite the reverse. My biggest job is to say "no" to new
features, not trying to find them.
Oh. And sure, when things crash and you fsck, and you didn't even get a clue
about what went wrong, you get frustrated. Tough. There are two kinds of
reactions to that: you start being careful, or you start whining about a
kernel debugger.
Quite frankly, I'd rather weed out the people who don't start being careful
early, rather than late. That sounds callous, and by God, it is callous. But
it's not the kind of "if you can't stand the heat, get out the the kitchen"
kind of remark that some people take it for. No, it's something much more
deeper: I'd rather not work with people who aren't careful. It's Darwinism
in software development.
It's a cold, callous argument that says that there are two kinds of people,
and I'd rather not work with the second kind. Live with it.
I'm a bastard. I have absolutely no clue why people can ever think otherwise
. Yet they do. People think I'm a nice guy, and the fact is that I'm a
scheming, conniving bastard who doesn't care for any hurt feelings or lost
hours of work, if it just results in what I consider to be a better system.
And I'm not just saying that. I'm really not a very nice person. I can say "
I don't care" with a straight face, and really mean it.
I happen to believe that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think
about their problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that
without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know how it
behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger, you tend to
think about problems another way. You want to understand things on a
different level.
It's partly "source vs binary", but it's more than that. It's not that you
have to look at the sources (of course you have to - and any good debugger
will make that easy). It's that you have to look at the level above sources.
At the meaning of things. Without a debugger, you basically have to go the
next step: understand what the program does. Not just that particular line.
And quite frankly, for most of the real problems (as opposed to the stupid
bugs - of which there are many, as the latest crap with "truncate()" has
shown us) a debugger doesn't much help. And the real problems are what I
worry about. The rest is just details. It will get fixed eventually.
I do realize that others disagree. And I'm not your Mom. You can use a
kernel debugger if you want to, and I won't give you the cold shoulder
because you have "sullied" yourself. But I'm not going to help you use one,
and I would frankly prefer people not to use kernel debuggers that much. So
I don't make it part of the standard distribution, and if the existing
debuggers aren't very well known, I won't shed a tear over it.
Because I'm a bastard, and proud of it!
Linus
l*h
7 楼
公司A 拥有公司B 70%的股票,一个个人拥有B 25%的股票.
如果公司A 把拥有的B的全部70%股票以便宜的价格卖给这个个人. 那么这个是不是
related party transaction which is subject to code section 267? Can the
capital loss be recognized?
如果公司A 把拥有的B的全部70%股票以便宜的价格卖给这个个人. 那么这个是不是
related party transaction which is subject to code section 267? Can the
capital loss be recognized?
t*t
8 楼
自己顶下，斑竹莫怪...
t*r
9 楼
由国内的亲戚想买易瑞沙，上网查了下有些网站很便宜
http://www.shopeastwest.com/med/health-wellness/Iressa/531.html
有人买过吗？ 是不是假药
http://www.shopeastwest.com/med/health-wellness/Iressa/531.html
有人买过吗？ 是不是假药
G*a
10 楼
可以打电话给irs, 说明自己的情况，应该会给treaty的
a*u
11 楼
現在多少了？
G*h
12 楼
Using debugger helps a lot to understand the problem.
A call stack saves lots of time reading code.
do not do too many single step though.
A call stack saves lots of time reading code.
do not do too many single step though.
t*f
13 楼
如果这个个人没有A公司的任何股票，哪来的related party啊？不过A怎么会亏本以低
于市场价格买其所拥有B的股票给这个人呢？一般来说如果没有关系也不会卖得这么便
宜吧？
于市场价格买其所拥有B的股票给这个人呢？一般来说如果没有关系也不会卖得这么便
宜吧？
t*t
14 楼
补充点信息：1月1日婚礼所以只能12月17~20出发，1月8~10返回。
s*s
15 楼
帮顶，lz买了吗？
这个网站是不是不用看处方的？
【在 t***r 的大作中提到】
: 由国内的亲戚想买易瑞沙，上网查了下有些网站很便宜
: http://www.shopeastwest.com/med/health-wellness/Iressa/531.html
: 有人买过吗？ 是不是假药
这个网站是不是不用看处方的？
【在 t***r 的大作中提到】
: 由国内的亲戚想买易瑞沙，上网查了下有些网站很便宜
: http://www.shopeastwest.com/med/health-wellness/Iressa/531.html
: 有人买过吗？ 是不是假药
b*d
16 楼
谢谢。可能会试一下，但是IRS既然都改掉我们的表了，说明他们很清楚的decline了我
LD的8833吧。8833上我们就是照精华区的理由抄的。
【在 G***a 的大作中提到】
: 可以打电话给irs, 说明自己的情况，应该会给treaty的
LD的8833吧。8833上我们就是照精华区的理由抄的。
【在 G***a 的大作中提到】
: 可以打电话给irs, 说明自己的情况，应该会给treaty的
j*2
17 楼
老大，你还会搞出这种事来？
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 任何规格68，69或原封。
: 在版上卖了好多，发现自己没有了。
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 任何规格68，69或原封。
: 在版上卖了好多，发现自己没有了。
l*z
18 楼
这个,也有可能是related party吧,双方可能是合资建立B公司嘛.当然楼主没有讲到这
个问题,也可能不是.
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: 如果这个个人没有A公司的任何股票，哪来的related party啊？不过A怎么会亏本以低
: 于市场价格买其所拥有B的股票给这个人呢？一般来说如果没有关系也不会卖得这么便
: 宜吧？
个问题,也可能不是.
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: 如果这个个人没有A公司的任何股票，哪来的related party啊？不过A怎么会亏本以低
: 于市场价格买其所拥有B的股票给这个人呢？一般来说如果没有关系也不会卖得这么便
: 宜吧？
D*e
19 楼
co-ask.
x*z
20 楼
请问楼主说的是今年的tax document被audit之后拒了？还是前几年的？
w*l
21 楼
过一个月看，多关注就可以。
b*d
22 楼
没有被audit呀。就是今年抱老公的5k, 没有通过，直接在税表上进行了修改，那5k还
是交税了。之前我们是NR, 每年都
claim 5k, 没有1042S, 每年都通过。
请参看tiangeng的帖子来看今年可能没有1042S的人会拿不到5k treaty.
【在 x*z 的大作中提到】
: 请问楼主说的是今年的tax document被audit之后拒了？还是前几年的？
是交税了。之前我们是NR, 每年都
claim 5k, 没有1042S, 每年都通过。
请参看tiangeng的帖子来看今年可能没有1042S的人会拿不到5k treaty.
【在 x*z 的大作中提到】
: 请问楼主说的是今年的tax document被audit之后拒了？还是前几年的？
g*4
23 楼
7月就买好了，往返970一个人，美中到LA再到上海
x*z
24 楼
再请问一下，你的退税表格是寄到哪个IRS地址的？谢谢。
【在 b*********d 的大作中提到】
: 没有被audit呀。就是今年抱老公的5k, 没有通过，直接在税表上进行了修改，那5k还
: 是交税了。之前我们是NR, 每年都
: claim 5k, 没有1042S, 每年都通过。
: 请参看tiangeng的帖子来看今年可能没有1042S的人会拿不到5k treaty.
【在 b*********d 的大作中提到】
: 没有被audit呀。就是今年抱老公的5k, 没有通过，直接在税表上进行了修改，那5k还
: 是交税了。之前我们是NR, 每年都
: claim 5k, 没有1042S, 每年都通过。
: 请参看tiangeng的帖子来看今年可能没有1042S的人会拿不到5k treaty.
b*t
25 楼
my experience is before mid-Sep
u*o
26 楼
how to get 1042S?
y*0
27 楼
coask, how to get 1042S if I didn't get any scholarship last year?
相关阅读
anyone knows about KPMG's inside look?Liberty Mutual在线等，这封信如何发谢谢各位前辈 关于加州报考CPA前的评估问题请教大家BEC CHAPTER 3的一道计算题 BECKER B3CPA考试报名（急问，有经验的进来看一下）讲两个内审案例吧 ZTBEC 归来小结 顺便卖材料考完四门，给大家分享一些经验Liberty tax class有H4本科毕业找到工作的吗？求Deloitte 二面面经KPMG二面结束 貌似进了waiting listAUD--对Audit risk的理解申请AICPA member关于补学分BEC PASS急问！拿到春季offer，请求大家建议小公司做tax，是否有可能转Audit？请问关于accounting/finance专用计算器