#Fractional Ownership UK

[warrior-cats-rewritten]

Hey. Semi-Serious post here. I'm gonna be quite frank, this is about the death of a real animal. My animal.

The one I made the dedication of WCR!Into The Wild for. Because the wounds are still so raw that I can barely get through typing this very sentence without feeling choked up. So... If this post isn't for you, enjoy the first cat picture, the rest will be under the cut.

Meet Cleo.

She was my best friend. I moved into her home when I was a child, and her being there got me through the ensuing abusive situation I'd found myself in. I quickly became her favorite person. She was always there for me, and I was always there for her. I read Warriors books to her.

I met someone online that I fell in love with, and planned to have them move here. I worried about Cleo, who was now getting on in her years, but still healthy and strong.

I was granted full, effective ownership of her, since she was never really registered with a breeder. An oopsie, runt of the litter kitten of a genuine bred Maine Coon, unknown father.

Plan fell through, immigrating to Canada is difficult and the economy was about to fall apart. So I made the choice to move to the UK.

I was then informed that I could not take Cleo with me, they said she was too old, and that the plane ride would be too much for her. She was roughly 14/15 years old and, again, healthy. This next part is hard to write.

I spent every day after that, for a year, spending as much time as she wanted with me. She got every cuddle and snuggle she wanted.

I still remember that last time I ever saw her, the night I left the country. I held her like a baby, because she liked that. I remember what the back of her neck smelled like (warm chocolate). I rubbed her belly, and whispered to her that I loved her, and promised to come back again and see her. Then I placed her on her favorite spot on the back of the chair, and left.

I got regular updates from my mom about her, but something was clear. When I was on the phone, I was not to call out to her, because when I did, it made her search the whole house, meowing and calling out for me, looking for me. The dogs never did that, just Cleo.

4 months away from home, she started peeing in... Odd places. Visible places. Like... Middle of the living room and on bathroom rug.

Mind you, she used to do that in front of her litter box as a protest when it wasn't clean enough for her liking. But... Not like that.

Other than that, normal behavior.

Then, about 6 months in, she started being weird with food. Still demanded it, of course, but... Wouldn't eat it. Mind you, there were times when she really was just happy to have the wet food there... And then go off and eat her kibble as if she hadn't just acted like she would die without her wet food. Typical, right?

After a week straight, and not much kibble eaten, it... Was concerning. I offered my mom to cover the cost of any medical bills she would need, but was told to not be 'ridiculous', that she was too old. That she didn't need a vet, that nothing would help.

7 months in. July 7th, 2023. Ordinary day, kinda fun, sunny out, a relaxing day where I wasn't looking at my phone much. My partner gets a text from my mom asking if I am around. I get a call from my mom.

She hadn't eaten in days. She wasn't in her box anymore. She was barely drinking. All her chub was gone, leaving my poor girl at only 5 pounds. A fraction of her weight.

My mom was not calling me to say goodbye. Goodbye had already been said. And I wasn't there.

I asked if my mom could bury her, so at the very least I could have something to visit when I got home.

To get Cleo's body back, it would have cost 200 dollars. She would be cremated, and her ashes not given back either. Gone.

The older woman next to me later said she had never, in all her years, heard a person wail and scream the way I had. I barely remember it, or anything after that. The grief is so bad that I feel chest pains, and my throat will close, I could cry myself hoarse still, just from thinking about her.

On one hand I don't want to feel this way anymore. On the other I feel horrific guilt about that, about wanting to "move on". I hate that term, it needs something new. Moving on isn't forgetting about them, it just means it doesn't hurt as badly anymore, but... What does THAT mean?

Below is the very last picture I have of her.

I'm sorry, Cleo. I'm sorry I couldn't help you. I sorry I wasn't there for you. I'm sorry I broke my promise. And I'm sorry I wasn't there to say goodbye.

I'll never forget you. I'll never love you any less.

It'll be hard to visit home without you in it.

If you read this post, thanks for listening. I'm really struggling with grief processing, even though it's been almost a year. 208 days as of today. She isn't the first I've lost, she won't be the last, but WCR is partially dedicated to her.

I hope you like the pictures of her, knowing how vain she was I'm sure she would enjoy me showing them off.

Bye guys.

[duchessofostergotlands]

Hi, I have some hypothetical questions… I have a fictional royal family that I made up and like to write for, I also like to base things as close to reality as possible, so in regards to this questions I would like someone’s opinion (and just to mention here, Iovee the podcast, is my favorite thing to listen to when I’m at my lunch break, I’m excited for the nexts episodes!!!)

1) Do you think is possible for a foreign monarch (just for exemple: Denmark, Sweden or any other monarchy) to inherit a propriety in the UK?

(for context: my monarch great-grandmother was a British aristocrat and she married into my royal family, but she was the only surviving daughter, so she inherited the property and all, but not the title, that became extinct after her fathers death (still trying to figure it out if it’s possible for a woman to inherit the propriety in the 1920s). But let’s say she inherited Chatsworth house, do you think it’s possible for a foreign royal to keep the estate and use as a form of income?

And 2) some monarchies, like the Swedish Royals keep their jewelry in a foundation, if hypothetically, the monarchy was abolished who would keep the jewelry?

Hello :) Thank you for your lovely feedback on the podcast. So nice to hear that people are enjoying it!

So to answer the first question, I can't see why not. Carl Gustaf inherited Bertil and Lilian's home in France which isn't exactly the same but it's a monarch inheriting overseas property. Some countries might require you to tell the government but that would be the case any time anyone inherits something or generates income from something. As for the situation in the 20s, women were inheriting property long before the 1920s. I'm reading a book about women in the 17th century and there are references to them inheriting property in that! It was legally more complex and less likely for all sorts of reasons I won't get into, but it happened.

In terms of the second question, theoretically you can dissolve a Foundation. You'd have to check the governance documents and the laws in different countries but I'd guess the pieces go back into private ownership by the royals. However, I don't think the royals could dissolve the Foundation themselves, it would have to be the board of directors. But to be honest I don't think it really matters whether it's a Foundation or not. Let's look at Greece for a moment. The Greeks were somehow able to get their jewels out of Greece when they were deposed but I'm actually going to side step over to property. Constantine had personal ownership of a place called Tatoi Palace. The Greeks fled in 1967 and then in 1973 the government officially confiscated Tatoi and other properties (and all moveable properties so that would have included any jewels left behind). A lot of other stuff happened and the status of the properties changed but in the 90s they confirmed their stance that the property no longer belonged to Constantine. He eventually took the Greek government to the European Court of Human Rights to contest this. They ruled the property had belonged to the royal family privately but that the government's decision to seize it had been within Greek law - in most countries governments can seize property under certain circumstances - and that actually with one exception every new Republic had confiscated the private property of their deposed monarchs because it was seen to be in the public interest to do so. In the end the Greeks got a financial settlement but it was a fraction of what they wanted. I know it's not exactly related to your question but what I'm trying to show is that if a royal family has reached a point where they are losing their throne, the country is upending their entire system of governance, all bets are off. There's every possibility that their privately owned assets would be seized and legal grounds would be found to make that possible. So it would really be a case of negotiation and whether they can get direct access to the jewels quickly enough.

[eaglesnick]

101 Things You Should Know About the UK Tory Government

Thing 79

Publicly at least, Conservatives often extol the virtues of a free market economy. But if we delve a little deeper, they do not always practice what they preach. Let us take Jeremy Hunt's latest utterances claiming how he is going to bring down inflation, especially the massive price rise in energy costs. This is what he claims:

“We are investing a lot of money in renewable and nuclear power so our energy prices are not at the whim of international gas markets.”

On the face of it this statement   promises that if we expand our energy production sector via renewables the price of energy to the consumer will come down. The statement also suggests we are free to bypass the international gas market.  These implied assumptions are wrong on several fronts.

First, half of renewable energy firms in the UK are foreign owned, profits going abroad and not into the UK exchequer.

“Nearly half of all the UK's offshore wind capacity is owned by state-owned or majority state-owned foreign entities, according to new analysis exclusively shared with Sky News."  (Sky news: 26/09/22)

So, when Hunt says he is investing in wind-generated renewable energy he means he is giving UK taxpayers money to foreign own firms who will funnel the profits back to their shareholders.

Second, the ownership of Britain's nuclear power stations, both present, and those yet to be built, are also dependent upon foreign ownership. An example being:

“Sizewell C: UK taxpayers to pay Chinese state-owned nuclear group to quit nuclear power station. A Chinese state nuclear group initially had a 20 per cent stake in Sizewell C, but control will now be shared 50-50 between the Government and the French energy giant EDF.”

( I: 29/11/22)

Third, even if the British government owned all energy production and renewables accounted for 99% of production,  the cost of energy would not come down. This is because we belong to an international energy market that is rigged. Free-market principles are not followed in this market. Instead, the price of ALL electricity sold, regardless of the production costs, is set by the most expensive source, even if that source only accounts for a small fraction of overall production.

It is time this Conservative government told us the full truth about energy prices and the ALL of the reasons behind the exorbitant costs of heating our homes.

[used-car-what-you-need-to-know]

Top 10 Benefits of Buying a Used Car Instead of a New One

Buying a car is one of the most important financial decisions you’ll make. While the allure of a brand-new car might be tempting, purchasing a used car often proves to be the smarter choice. Not only does it save you money, but it also offers practical advantages that many buyers overlook. If you're considering buying a car, here are the top 10 reasons why choosing a used car from a trusted used car dealer is a better option.

1. Lower Purchase Price

One of the most obvious benefits of buying a used car is its significantly lower price compared to a new one. New cars come with a hefty price tag that includes dealer fees and the costs of being the first owner. With a used car, you avoid this extra expense, allowing you to save thousands of pounds upfront.

2. Avoiding Depreciation Loss

New cars depreciate rapidly, losing up to 20% of their value within the first year. By the third year, the depreciation can be as high as 50%. Buying a used car means you avoid this steep decline in value, as the previous owner has already absorbed most of the depreciation. This ensures you get better value for your money.

3. Reduced Insurance Costs

Insurance premiums are influenced by a car's value, and since used cars are cheaper than new ones, the insurance costs are typically lower. This is especially beneficial if you’re a first-time buyer or on a budget. A reputable used car dealer can also guide you on cars with lower insurance brackets.

4. Access to Premium Models at a Lower Cost

Opting for a used car can open the door to premium models or vehicles with added features that might be out of reach when buying new. Whether it’s advanced technology, leather interiors, or a luxury brand, you can afford more for less in the used car market.

5. Lower Registration Fees

In many parts of the UK, registration fees are based on a vehicle’s age and value. Used cars, being older and less expensive, attract lower registration costs, saving you money year after year.

6. More Financing Options

Used car dealers often offer flexible financing packages tailored to suit a range of budgets. With lower prices and better terms, financing a used car becomes a stress-free experience. This means you can drive away in a reliable vehicle without stretching your finances too thin.

7. Reliable Vehicle History Reports

Gone are the days of uncertainty when buying a used car. Thanks to vehicle history reports, you can now access details about the car’s previous ownership, service records, and accident history. This transparency provides peace of mind and ensures you're making an informed purchase.

8. Better for the Environment

Purchasing a used car helps reduce the demand for new car production, which is resource-intensive. By buying used, you’re contributing to a more sustainable future by lowering your carbon footprint. If you’re environmentally conscious, this is an added bonus.

9. Affordable Customisation and Upgrades

The money saved by buying a used car can be redirected towards personalising your vehicle. Whether it’s upgrading the sound system, adding a fresh coat of paint, or installing custom accessories, you can make the car truly yours without overspending.

10. Slower Depreciation Over Time

Used cars depreciate at a much slower rate than new ones. This means that when it’s time to sell or trade in your vehicle, you’re likely to recover a larger portion of your initial investment. It’s a financially savvy move for long-term car ownership.

Conclusion:

Buying a used car from a reputable used car dealer is not just a budget-friendly option—it’s a decision packed with practical benefits. From lower upfront costs to reduced insurance premiums and access to premium features, a used car offers unmatched value for money. So, before you decide to splurge on a new car, consider exploring the extensive options available in the used car market. You might just find the perfect vehicle at a fraction of the cost.

If you're ready to take the plunge, visit a trusted used car dealer near you and discover the advantages for yourself.

[mybiggreenfleetltd]

Get Behind the Wheel: The Advantages of Leasing a Car Over Purchasing One

Are you exhausted by the constraints imposed by car ownership? Are you on the fence about purchasing a new set of wheels due to exorbitant up-front costs and long-term obligations? Now is the time to depart from the conventional path and investigate the world of car leasing in the UK. In this article, we will discuss the numerous benefits of leasing over ownership, including greater freedom, flexibility, and cost reductions. So fasten your seatbelt and prepare to learn why car leasing may be the best option for your future transportation requirements!

The advantages of leasing versus owning

Reduced Monthly Payments One of the most attractive aspects of car lease deals in the United Kingdom is the substantially lower monthly payments compared to vehicle ownership. When you lease a vehicle, you are essentially paying for the depreciation value of the vehicle over a predetermined time period, as opposed to the total price. This means you can drive a luxury car for a fraction of the cost!

No Down Payment Hassles: Unlike purchasing a vehicle, which often requires substantial down payments, leasing eliminates this financial burden. You can instead allocate these funds to other essential priorities or even to some well-deserved indulgences.

Tax Advantages Leasing provides business owners and self-employed individuals with tax advantages that ownership cannot match. Depending on your situation and location, you may be able to deduct from your taxable income certain expenses related to your leased vehicle, such as lease payments and maintenance costs.

Always Drive Newer Models: Leasing allows you to drive brand-new vehicles every few years without having to concern about selling or trading in your current vehicle. Keeping up-to-date with newer models ensures that you have access to the most recent innovations on the road, given the constant improvement of technology and safety features

Minimal Maintenance Costs: As part of leasing agreements, manufacturers typically cover routine maintenance and repairs under warranty during the lease term, reducing unanticipated costs and providing peace of mind that significant repairs won't bankrupt you.

Flexibility at Lease Termination: You have options at the conclusion of your lease! You have the option to return the vehicle hassle-free (as long as it meets guidelines for normal wear and tear) or negotiate a purchase if falling in love with it was inevitable.

Less expensive monthly payments, the absence of a down payment, tax benefits, and the ability to drive the newest models without fretting about reselling them later are just a few of the advantages of leasing a car in the United Kingdom. In addition to low maintenance costs and the ability to choose at the lease's conclusion, leasing provides greater freedom.

Negative aspects of leasing

Before making a choice, it is essential to consider the potential disadvantages of car leasing. Here are a few disadvantages you should consider:

When leasing a vehicle, there is typically a limit on the number of miles you can drive annually without incurring additional fees. This can be limiting for those with lengthy commutes or who appreciate road trips.

Contrary to purchasing a vehicle, leasing does not result in ownership at the conclusion of the lease term. This dearth of ownership and equity accumulation may not be appealing to some individuals.

When your lease expires, you may incur penalties if you exceed the allowed mileage or return the leased vehicle with excessive wear and tear. These fees can rapidly add up and have a significant impact on your total cost.

Less Flexibility: Leasing contracts frequently include restrictions on modifications or customizations that can be made to your vehicle to suit your preferences or changing requirements.

Conclusion

In today's fast-paced society, car leasing has become a popular option for individuals who want to drive their ideal vehicle without the commitment and financial burden of ownership. Several benefits, including reduced monthly payments and access to the newest models, make car leasing an attractive option for many.

[webmarketingservice]

How to invest in property London

Real estate is a distinct asset class that's simple to understand and can enhance the risk-and-return profile of an investor's portfolio. On its own, real estate offers cash flow, tax breaks, equity building, competitive risk-adjusted returns, and a hedge against inflation. Real estate can also enhance a portfolio by lowering volatility through diversification.

With well-chosen assets, the benefits of investing in real estate are numerous —and it's possible to leverage real estate to build wealth. If, like so many people these days, you find it increasingly difficult to get onto the property ladder the Fortune Property Solutions is the way forward for you. Whether it is due to lack of sufficient funding, not enough time to deal with the workload of property investment or the lack of knowledge to make the right decisions, our form of Indirect Real Estate Investing is the solution. 

How to invest in property London

Property investment UK

fractional investment uk

It involves no direct ownership of a property or properties. Instead, you invest in a pool along with others, whereby a management company owns and operates properties, or else owns a portfolio of mortgages. With Fortune Real Estate Investments, you are a share holder of that management company, thereby creating and increasing your personal wealth. Together with others, you can own properties that would otherwise be out of your reach. Even better, you have none of the headache of buying, owning, managing or selling a property, because the Fortune expert team will handle all of the difficult bits for you.

[compareprivateplanes]

Top Private Jets for Fractional Ownership

Owning a private jet is a luxury that many people dream of, but the high cost of purchase and maintenance can be a deterrent. Fortunately, fractional ownership of a private jet offers a practical solution that allows individuals to enjoy the benefits of owning a private jet without the high price tag. In this article, we will explore the benefits of fractional ownership and discuss two popular aircraft models, the Pilatus PC-12 NGX and the Gulfstream G150, which are available for fractional ownership in the UK and the US.

[butterflyrry]

The problem is that everything always has to be a competition when it comes to Harry! And US harries are the WORST!! They are so possessive of him and most of them don’t respect him at all and just want to use him for clout or to brag about! They always feel superior to fans in Europe/UK or the rest of the world! They talk about him as if he’s American and most seem to really believe that! And then they also get all the special shows (Harryween twice, his birthday now (and he was supposed to play the Miami Pepsi show in 2020 on his bday as well!), then they also get so so many tour dates: there we’re probably around 100 shows in the US alone in 2021 and 2022, not even the rest of the world COMBINED got so many! He wrote a song with the line „leave America“ and yet shows if not all, US harries decided to stay mute during this part out of pettiness! And now they get rewarded over and over and over again with even more shows, special shows at that! And it’s not even the end! So they don’t even gonna change their behavior because why would they? They behave like shit and feel all smug and still get handed everything on a silver platter while we get the crumbs that are left over! I‘m sure US stadium shows are just waiting to be announced and it can’t be that long anymore. I‘m just tired and I wish European/UK fans would at least get a fraction of what US harries get, ESPECIALLY since he’s literally EUROPEAN!!

I’m going to preface this by saying I am an American fan.

Like I said in an earlier ask, I get the frustration and I can’t explain why his team does what they do. I think any Harry fan who wants to see him live should get the opportunity. But I also don’t care for the generalization of American fans because we are not all like that. There are shitty fans in every corner of the fandom.

This is not directed at you specifically and is more of a general statement but…quite frankly, I find these constant fandom wars and competitions to be absolutely ridiculous. Nobody has ownership of Harry nor should we make everything into a competition over who gets what, who Harry likes best, etc, etc etc. That is not why I’m here. I’m here because he brings me a lot of joy. It’s not about clout or anything of the sort.

The fans, regardless of where they live, do not have control over when and where shows are booked. I have no expectations and I don’t feel entitled to anything where Harry is concerned. But if he’s playing a show and I can go, I’m gonna go and I’m gonna enjoy it. For the record, though, I’m not near any of the residency cities. He wasn’t in my backyard but I’m not complaining because I made the choice to travel. It just is what it is. As far as the special shows, I haven’t been to Harryween, ONO, etc. I would’ve loved to see him sing Songbird live like he did in LATAM but I’m not mad at the fans who got to experience that just because I didn’t.

I think the argument could be made that the “Leave America” screaming was born out of pettiness. I get it, do your thing, but why would Americans scream that at him? (FYI, I sang along and danced just like I did for every other song. I have no strong feelings about that line either way.)

I’m sorry that you’re upset but I just don’t think there’s anything to be gained by blaming people who have no control over the situation. His team needs to hear from you regarding his tour dates because they’re the ones who control that.

[techitoolz]

Compound Semiconductor Market - Growth, Trends, COVID-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2022 - 2027) - Yahoo Finance UK

Compound Semiconductor Market – Growth, Trends, COVID-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2022 – 2027) – Yahoo Finance UK

What is fractional ownership and how can you use it to buy propertyThe Compound Semiconductor Market is expected to register at a CAGR of 11% over the forecast period. The COVID-19 pandemic halted the manufacturing of several products in the compound semiconductor production industry owing to continued lockdown in critical global regions.New York, Dec. 06, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Reportlinker.com…

[fandom-geek]

it's actually quite mysterious IRL how smithson was so wealthy, so i'll go through it a bit so we can guesstimate what his situation might be in tmagp's universe.

he was the illegitimate son of a very wealthy duke (sir hugh), whose marriage to the heiress of the last duke of northumberland raised him from the landed gentry to aristocracy, and said duke's wife was also a distant relative of his mother who raised her to prominence (she had her own affairs and seemed happy enough to let her husband do the same, mind you). his mother probably had an income in gifts from sir hugh, so that would've helped too.

speaking of his mother, she seems to be a major part of his wealth too. she had no other children and was, according to this biography of smithson (p. 14), very active in suing ppl and pursuing her ownership of ancestral estates, to the point that her second husband was a fortune hunter. although her estate in 1801 was less than a tenth of smithson's eventual fortune in the 1830s, she left it entirely to smithson at her death with a request to support his brother (henry dickinson) and it was still nearly £10,000, which was 182 years of a skilled tradesman's wages in 1800.

now, by the time of smithson's death, he had £104k (in gold sovereigns, specifically), which would be equivalent to £6 million or 1.4k years of a tradesman's wages in 1840. it's actually very mysterious IRL how he gained all that money, but the general theory is that it was mostly through investments, according to the smithsonian. it's an insane amount of money, so he probably doesn't have that level in tmagp, but even a fraction of that would be enough to found a substantial educational institute in the uk at the time.

the bit about artists rubbing shoulders with the elite seems more reflective of the writings about smithson. smithson never actually visited the usa nor was known to have any interest in it in his life, despite leaving his entire fortune to the us government for an educational institute.

it's been suggested that his donation was the result of the stigma around his illegitimacy, and i think that might be what his comment is alluding to in tmagp. and arguably supports the theory that it's meant to be smithson, in that light, which i had completely missed.

btw, the violinist in tmp 4? he's probably james smithson, of "founder of the smithsonian institute" fame

so what do we know about our violinist? he grew up in alnwick abbey, he was illegitimate and had legitimate full siblings, a father "certain of his celestial significance", and he has a nephew to whom he leaves his violin

and smithson? well, his father restored alnwick abbey in the 1750s, which was in ruins up until then. smithson was the only illegitimate child of any of the dukes there in the 1700s, which is when the statement is set

smithson also left his estate to his nephew after his death, with the condition that his fortune would establish the smithsonian institute if his nephew died without any children.

here's a point of divergence, however. in our timeline, smithson was a chemist and mineralogist. in tmagp's timeline, he was a violinist. however, as u/New_Helicopter836 pointed out to me on reddit, when smithson's body was disinterred by andrew graham bell, his right little finger was such that it suggests he played "the harpsichord, the piano, or a stringed instrument such as a violin"

looking at smithson's life, he left for university in 1782, so it's likely that tmagp 4 is set around the same time. it might be a bit earlier since the royal court orchestra moved from mannheim to munich in 1778 (putting smithson at about 13), it might be another point of divergence, or smithson is describing it this way to call back to its earlier significance. i'm not sure, but it's weird either way.

all that said, i'm not terribly sure why smithson describes his father (sir hugh smithson/percy, duke of northumberland) as "certain of his celestial significance", especially when the only other time he says celestial is to describe the violin's music. the user i mentioned before found that sir hugh, a major patron of architectural projects, had an observatory built, but i find smithson's language too specific. is his father an avatar too? mannheim is only a bit north of schwartzwald, after all, and this is about thirty years before tmag 23 where albrecht writes to jonah magnus.

let's look a little at smithson's bequest to found the smithsonian institute in the first place. smithson asked for it to be "an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men". the magnus institute, notably, is described in the arg as a place of education, and it was founded in 1818. although smithson died in 1829 and his nephew in 1835, the original smithsonian (the columbian institute) was granted a charter by the us government in 1818.

the letter is strangely absent of any names for the violinist or his family, and i can't help but wonder if this is why. and if it is because this is smithson - is this related to why the magnus institute exists instead of the magnus archives? the smithsonian, before it was renamed, was originally granted a charter by the us govt in 1818 - the same year that the magnus institute was founded in tmagp.

this is set 30 years before we know anything of jonah magnus, at least in tmag, so is it possible that he persuaded smithson to fund his educational institute focusing on the supernatural? the changed course of smithson's life from scientist to supernatural violinist would certainly be conducive for that, not least to mention the strange absence of his fortune from his letter to his nephew.

[whatimconsuming]

Last month, Ditto Music’s blockchain-powered Bluebox platform pulled off a pioneering feat: what the company describes as “the first ever split music copyright NFT sale”.

In the end, two artists – UK rapper Big Zuu and US act Taylor Bennett – each sold large stakes (50% and 75% respectively) in the recorded music rights to a yet-to-be-released track. These stakes were themselves divided up into 1% portions as NFTs, selling for $100 apiece. Following overwhelming demand, this means 125 individual buyers now own 1% stakes in one or other of these recordings.

In other words, each buyer should now share in 1% of all digital royalty streams generated by the tracks for good (although they won’t have the right to approve or deny a usage). “This was the first ever time a fractional copyright music NFT had been sold in this way,” says Parsons. “Within three minutes, all of them had gone. We had over 10,000 users queuing up trying to buy them.” “Big Zuu and Taylor’s Bluebox sale gave non-music-industry people direct ownership of an artist’s rights, including monthly royalties. That is groundbreaking in itself.

The Bluebox platform, he explains, enables a full back-end accounting and royalty tracking system on the blockchain, allowing royalties to be split, recorded and managed by multiple users at once. Ditto is this week merging Bluebox into sister company Opulous, a decentralized finance (DeFi) and asset exchange platform. Opulous has completed a seed investment and private funding round to the tune of $5 million so far, and will enable music rights-holders (including NFT buyers) to secure loans against their past streaming revenues, with the copyrights they own held as collateral.

Combined with Bluebox, Opulous will also enable artists to launch NFT sales – including split copyright sales – to raise funding for their careers via fans and investors.

To illustrate how these two systems could combine, let’s look at the aftermath of the Big Zuu and Taylor Bennett NFT sales:

Once these artists release their affected tracks on streaming services, the monthly royalties generated by them should start, via the Bluebox tech, being paid out in 1% increments to each of the people who purchased NFTs. Explains Parsons: “Then, as these payments build in each of the recipients’ accounts on Opulous, they will consequently be able to apply for loans based on their NFTs’ history of royalty income. Alternatively, they can leave their NFT on the Opulous platform and ‘stake’ it to earn extra interest.

But Parsons points to the bigger picture: “As the demand for more music assets grows and people get used to [trading] on a blockchain exchange, we’ll start to see people holding large portfolios, even hundreds of music assets, which will pull in meaningful and consistent monthly revenue.”

[maswartz]

“There are many dubious arguments in regards to gun control and blatant red herrings. I thought I would capture the most common and write appropriate responses (read through)…. #guncontrolnow #neveragain #nra #gunsense #Guncontrol #2A

“The government wants to take my guns.”

No.. no.. no they don’t. Besides, have you even thought about the logistics of such an operation? Who’s coming? Police? Military? No, they wouldn’t give up their guns. Maybe Obama will come knock on your door and ask nicely.

“I don’t want to register my guns because the government will know what I have.”

You are paranoid. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe and they register. Registering will create greater accountability and provide better tracking to solve crimes.

“Gun control doesn’t work, just look at Chicago.”

Chicago doesn’t have gun control. It has gun annoyance. No real gun control exists anywhere in the United States. You might be prohibited from buying in Chicago, but you can drive 20 minutes away and buy whatever you want.

“Gun Control doesn’t work, Chicago has the highest gun rates.”

Actually Memphis, New Orleans, Detroit, and St. Louis all have higher gun homicide rates. Also, the highest homicide rates are in the South, where the highest ownership levels are as well.

“We don’t need background check laws, you are already required to pass a background check.”

Great, what’s your issue with making it a law if we already do them? Also private sellers to a private party don’t require a background check. That’s where the Columbine guns came from.

“Gun control doesn’t work, we are safer with more guns.”

You are more likely to be killed by a gun in the USA than Turkey, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Kuwait, Somalia, Jordan, Vietnam, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Albania. Our gun homicide rates are 10x more than Europe.

“We can’t worry about guns right now since we have to focus on stopping terrorists.”

Over there past 10 years there have been 92 people killed in the US by terrorists. There has been 120,000 killed by a gun (double that if you include suicides).

“Our country has a mental health problem.”

Our mental health issues are no better or worse than most industrialized nations who don’t have mass shootings and high rates of gun homicides

.

“We need better mental health to keep guns out of the hands of killers.”

The majority of crimes are not committed by known mental cases. Most weapons used in crimes are bought legally. Are you suggesting a mental health exam before purchasing a weapon? See if NRA supports that!

“Bad people will always get guns if they really want them.”

So why worry about mental health cases if they can just get guns anyway? And also “no” to this claim. Again, look at just about every other industrialized nation. Bad people do not get guns.

“If everyone had a gun we would stop mass shootings.”

Possibly true. But domestic homicides would increase, teenage suicides would increase, more accidental shootings would increase, and more people with mental health problems would have access to guns.

“We should arm our teachers.”

You better check with them. Polling shows they have a vastly different opinion.

“I need to have a gun to protect my family.”

Odds are the gun you own will be used for your teenager’s suicide, shooting a neighbor or family member, and if your husband/boyfriend is abusive, on you.

“Let me share a story when a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.”

Let me share 32,000 stories each year where Americans lost their lives because of a gun.

“More people are saved by guns than killed by guns.”

What are you possibly reading to make you believe such a ridiculous claim? The only data to justify this response is the dishonest Kleck and Gertz study that says 2M defensive uses of a firearm for which has been debunked.

“We have gun laws. We should enforce those first.”

The NRA has been active in crippling the ATF. We have the same number of resources as 15 years ago including agents, funding, and rules for engagement.

ATF agents can’t compile computerized records, are prohibited from using crime gun trace data, don’t have the resources to validate gun inventories, and are largely undercut when it comes to any real authority. We might have gun laws, but we have no enforcement mechanism.

“Gun crimes mainly happen because of gun free zones.”

No, gun crimes mainly happen because the United States has a firearm for every man, woman, and child. The US has 5% of the world’s population and 45% of the world’s guns.

Japan’s entire country is a gun-free zone. You are more likely to be accidentally shot by a toddler in the US than by any other method in Japan.

“95% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.”

95% of places where citizens go are gun-free zones. Churches, restaurants, government buildings, schools, bars, concert halls, stadium events, workplace environments, and even the NRA headquarters are all gun-free zones.

“There are as many car deaths as gun deaths, should we ban cars?”

This might be the most idiotic response known to mankind. A car’s primary purpose is different than a gun’s primary purpose. Plus, you use a car a kajillion times more than a gun so let’s compare deaths per use.

We could take the same steps to prevent gun crimes as we do auto accidents including tests, licenses, safety instruction, and registration. Let’s also tax ammo (like gas) so we can pay for all the overtime police are working due to mass shootings.

“I left my gun on my porch and nobody died, therefore guns don’t kill people.”

Seriously? How old are you?! Sounds like an argument my eight year old would make. How about I surround my house with mines. If you step on a mine that’s on you because mines don’t kill people.

“I like to go hunting or shoot trap.”

Great, long rifles and shotguns are rarely used in homicides. I fully support firearms that are used for hunting most Americans would agree. In fact, Swiss firearms are almost all long rifles and their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

“The 2nd Amendment protects my right to bear arms.”

No. The 2nd Amendment protects the right for your state militia to bear arms. The were deeply skeptical of federal armies and the states were organized to unify for protection. We have come a long way since then.

“I have a bunch of quotes from our Founding Fathers that prove my right to own guns.”

Most of those quotes are fake or taken out of context. George Washington only had one real quote about gun ownership and it was specifically in the context of military procurement.

“The Supreme Court has affirmed my right to own firearms for personal protection and sport.”

This is actually true. But it took over 200 (2007) years for the SCOTUS to come to this interpretation behind activist conservative judges that controlled 7 of 9 of the court’s seats.

“The Supreme Court has always backed my right to bear arms.”

Not even close. It wasn’t until the NRA started gaining national attention and large donations in the late 1970’s and 1980’s that the context and meaning of the 2nd Amendment was perverted.

Conservative Chief Justice Burger wrote: “If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn’t be the 2nd Amendment…This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups...”

“Our kids are playing too many video games and watching violent movies.”

Currently there are a dozen or so nations including South Korea, Japan, Netherlands, France, UK, Canada, Germany, and Australia that spend more per capita on video games than the United States.

Each market equally buys violent and military type games. Gun homicides and mass shootings are substantially lower than the US. You are over 100 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US than Japan or South Korea.

“Obama had armed protection so clearly you are a hypocrite.” If you want to own a gun and go through the same training and background checks as the Secret Service, police, or military, I would probably be OK with that.

They also have strict guidelines how to store, track, manage and register their firearms. The majority of individuals do not have a problem with law enforcement using firearms to protect the public. With that being said the police in England don’t even carry a firearm.”

[techitoolz]

Statement 2.0 – new outdoor smartphone from Gigaset! For adventure in the wild and at work: the Gigaset GX4 “Made in Germany” (news with additional features) - Yahoo Finance UK

Statement 2.0 – new outdoor smartphone from Gigaset! For adventure in the wild and at work: the Gigaset GX4 “Made in Germany” (news with additional features) – Yahoo Finance UK

What is fractional ownership and how can you use it to buy propertyEQS-News: Gigaset AG / Key word(s): Product LaunchStatement 2.0 – new outdoor smartphone from Gigaset! For adventure in the wild and at work: the Gigaset GX4 “Made in Germany” (news with additional features)06.12.2022 / 14:52 CET/CESTThe issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement. Press releaseMunich,…