Nov 2, 2019
23 Central Banks Divulge Their Digital Currency Requirements
Pasistorojo Vėlinėms:))
2019-11-02
23 Central Banks
Nov 2, 2019
23 Central Banks Divulge Their Digital Currency Requirements
Pasistorojo Vėlinėms:))
Kuklūs Švedai
H. Wallmarkas: Šiaurės ir Baltijos šalys patiria tas pačias grėsmes iš Rusijos ir Kinijos
Šiaurės ir Baltijos šalys turi galimybių plėsti bendradarbiavimą saugumo ir gynybos srityje, bet iniciatyva turėtų kilti iš Lietuvos, Latvijos ir Estijos, teigia Švedijos parlamentaras, vadovaujantis Šiaurės tarybai.
Jis taip pat kalbėjo apie klimato aktyvistės Gretos Thunberg
Nepamirškim, kad per švedbankius penim Švediją.
Kas Rašo Lietuviškąją Vikipediją?
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 was adopted on December 11, 1948, near the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The Resolution defined principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes. It resolved that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” (Article 11)[1]
The resolution also called for the establishment of the United Nations Conciliation Commission to facilitate peace between Israel and Arab states, continuing the efforts of UN Mediator Folke Bernadotte, following his assassination.[2]
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. Significantly, all six Arab League countries then represented at the UN – Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, all of which were parties to the conflict in question – voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries: Byelorrusian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia,[3] all of which had already recognised Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. The Palestinians were not directly consulted.
The resolution, especially Article 11, has been cited in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 302 establishing the UNRWA and other UN resolutions. It has also been invoked in support of claims of Palestinian right of return, claims which have been rejected by Israeli governments.
Article 11—Refugees
Since the late 1960s, Article 11 has increasingly[by whom?] been quoted as a basis for the right of return of Palestine refugees. The UN General Assembly has reaffirmed Resolution 194 every year since 1949.[2] Multiple subsequent resolutions from the United Nations have reaffirmed the right of return, including General Assembly Resolution 169 (1980),[2] and Security Council Resolution 237 (1967).[6]
Joshua Muravchik has contested this reading, pointing out that the text states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors"[7].
Israel has not offered to readmit any refugees. The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949 in which Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab states and for annexation of all territories it had captured up until the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The number would have included 50,000 refugees who had already found their way back to their homes in Israel. The offer was quickly withdrawn by David Ben-Gurion.
See also: Palestinian right of return
The Palestinian right of return (Arabic: حق العودة, Ḥaqq al-ʿawda; Hebrew: זכות השיבה, zkhut hashivah) is the political position or principle that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees (c. 30,000 to 50,000 people still alive as of 2012)[3][4] and their descendants (c. 5 million people as of 2012),[3] have a right to return, and a right to the property they themselves or their forebears left behind or were forced to leave in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories (both formerly part of the British Mandate of Palestine), as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus*, a result of the 1948 Palestine war, and due to the 1967 Six-Day War.
Formulated for the first time on 27 June 1948 by United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte**,[5] proponents of the right of return hold that it is a sacred right,[6] as well as a human right, whose applicability both generally and specifically to the Palestinians is protected under international law.[7] This view holds that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu. Proponents argue that Israel's position stands in contrast with its Law of Return that grants all Jews the right to settle permanently, while withholding any comparable right from Palestinians.[8]
Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.[9] The government of Israel does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political issue to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement.[10][11]
* The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, al-Nakbah, literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs — about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population — fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war.[2] Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.[3] The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949.
Palestinian refugees leaving the Galilee in October–November 1948
** Folke Bernadotte,
Count of Wisborg (2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and King Oscar II's grandson with a comital title from Luxembourg. During World War II, he negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps, including 450 Danish Jews from the Theresienstadt camp. They were released on 14 April 1945.[1][2][3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, though the offer was ultimately rejected.
After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the paramilitary Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. Upon his death, Ralph Bunche took up his work at the UN, successfully mediating the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt.
1946 m. pabaigoje, britų bei amerikiečių sudarytos komisijos duomenimis, Palestinoje gyveno 1 269 000 arabų (67,6 %), 608 000 žydų (32,4 %).[6] Dėl imigracijos žydų procentas nuolat augo, į Izraelio (kuris buvo įkurtas 1948 metais) teritoriją palestiniečių pabėgėliai sugrįžti neturi teisės.
O KUR GI JT GENERALINĖS ASAMBLĖJOS REZOLIUCIJA NR. 194?
Žyduva, Ne Lietuva?
Kodėl klausiu?
Skaitykit:
Tėvologija Ir Motinologija
Sužinosit, kad Lietuvoj tradicinės TIK abraominės religijos.
Dar čia pasiskaitykit:
Biblija* (gr. βιβλία – „knygos“) – krikščionių šventasis raštas, jų taip pat vadinamas Dievo Žodžiu arba Šventuoju Raštu, įvairių autorių raštų rinkinys, religinės dogmatikos ir pamaldų pagrindas, sudarantis žydų tikėjimo pagrindą.
* Žinoma, kad keista, jog šitokios tradicinės Lietuvoje religijos Bibel'į
Kalba mūsų, matai, seniausia, o Senąjį net 800 metų senumo Testamentą
Galų gale dar čia paskaitykim ir visi savęs paklauskim:
LIETUVA MES AR ŽYDUVA?
SuperTraukiniai
L0 Series
The L0 Series (Japanese: L0系 Hepburn: Eru-zero-kei, "L zero series")[4] is a high-speed maglev train that the Central Japan Railway Company (JR Central) is developing and testing. JR Central plans to use the L0 series on the Chūō Shinkansen railway line between Tokyo and Osaka, which is under construction.
The L0 series uses the Japanese-designed SCMaglev system. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Nippon Sharyo, a subsidiary of JR Central, are building fourteen pre-production vehicles.[5]
A seven-car train set a land speed record for rail vehicles of 603 km/h (375 mph) on 21 April 2015.[6] The trains are planned to run at a maximum speed of 505 km/h (314 mph),[7] offering journey times of 40 minutes between Tokyo (Shinagawa Station) and Nagoya, and 1 hour 7 minutes between Tokyo and Osaka.[8]
High-speed rail
Many countries have developed high-speed rail to connect major cities, including Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Morocco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States (according to their own definition of high speed, which doesn't meet common international standards), and Uzbekistan. Only in Europe does HSR cross international borders. China had 29,000 kilometres (18,000 mi) of HSR as of December 2018, accounting for two-thirds of the world's total.[2]
Super...Ir viskas Azijoj.
Mūsų proletariatas pigiais skrydžiais, o jųjų - supertraukiniais darban vežiojamas:))
Kas laimi?
Vokietijos Bankai Meta Eurą (ECB)
Šiaip jau oficialus (ne)mūsų
O ko neengt, jei mes leidžiamės engiami?
Betgi, prie
Vienžo - bankininkai...
Maištas!
Bankeliai maištauja:)
Ir kieno bankeliai - ogi Vokietijos!
Ne šiaip sau ECB (jis gi būtent Vokietijoj) Blondinė
Jei dar nepamiršot - FED iki 2018 metų vadovavo moteriškė, kas tokioms įstaigoms visiškai nebūdinga.
Ir apskritai - jų, "blondinių" - bankuose pastaraisiais metais padaugėjo (vyrai "nusiplovė").
O su jomis...
O ką su jomis:)))
* Google: currency with finite supply
:)
Panašumai Ir Skirtumai
Veiksmas vyksta Karaliaučiaus krašte ir Gazos ruože, padieniui.
Gynybai.
O tada ir paieškokim panašumų ir skirtumų.
2019-11-01
Bank Of Lithuania And STO
Bank of Lithuania Issues Guidelines on Security Token Offerings
Guidelines Aiming to Avoid More Regulations
The central bank of the small Baltic nation of Lithuania has recently noted that the focus in the crypto space is shifting from initial coin offerings (ICOs) to security token offerings (STOs). Explaining the differences between the two, the Bank of Lithuania issued recommendations on capital raising through STOs.
Adopting a regulatory approach that treats tokens as a financial instrument, the Bank of Lithuania has concentrated on classifying tokens, some of which have features of securities or other financial instruments. It also plans to assess specific cases separately, provide recommendations related to the issue of security tokens, and clarify applicable legal regulations.
Companies Alerted About the Rules to Comply With
Lithuania is one of the three Baltic nations that have adopted a generally positive approach to the industry dealing with cryptocurrencies. Earlier this year, the country’s central bank updated its position on decentralized digital currencies and tokens issued in coin offerings, opening the way for crypto payments in the country.
At the same time, the government in Vilnius is preparing to transpose the latest EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive into national law. In its recent press release, Lietuvos Bankas stressed that companies planning to use the STO method to issue tokens categorized as transferable securities or other financial instruments will have to comply with applicable EU and Lithuanian legislation regulating capital raising activities.
Crypto In India
Nov 1, 2019
Cashaa Launches Banking Solution for Indian Crypto Owners
Also read: Indian Finance Minister Answers Crypto Questions at IMF Meeting
ECB Prezidentė - AtVirai
Nov 1, 2019
ECB President: ’We Should Be Happier to Have a Job Than to Have Our Savings Protected’
Newly installed European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde made controversial remarks in a recent statement prior to assuming her new role. The former IMF Managing Director implored: “isn’t it true that ultimately we have done the right thing to act in favour of jobs and of growth rather than the protection of savers?” Regarding former president Mario Draghi and the ECB’s negative interest rate policy, she went on to imply that people should be grateful for the job policies, savings protected or not.
Easy for You to Say, Lagarde
Some commentators were taken aback by the bold remarks reported
Who Is ‘We’? – Poverty In the EU
When Lagarde says “we” one is inclined to wonder who exactly she is talking about. According to statistics, 16.9% of EU residents are living at risk of poverty even after welfare and social transfer factors are accounted for as of 2017. Many Europeans may be currently “employed,” but the nice sounding stats are often bolstered by extremely lax measures of what constitutes said employment. Spotty and unreliable jobs such as someone working only one hour a week still officially serve to make Draghi and Lagarde’s rhetoric appear sound. According to the August, 2018 study “Measuring employment and unemployment” by Bank of Italy researchers Andrea Brandolini and Eliana Viviano:
As American economist Murray Rothbard once wrote, “Savings and investment are indissolubly linked. It is impossible to encourage one and discourage the other.” Without the ability to save, there is no ability to invest. No chance to build for a future, or to create space by leveraging finance for personal time for innovation, exploration and rest.
Lagarde’s proclamation that those nations with surplus should invest, while calling for everyday individuals to essentially quiet down about retaining value, betrays an important disconnect and telling, underlying worldview: money and savings are for us, working is for you.
Ironic that the socialist lawyer from France would take such a position. Looping back around to Bitcoin, the statements also betray something else. The very reason most governments stand opposed to permissionless, decentralized finance and cryptocurrencies may be that Bitcoin enables saving and spending freely, regardless of what any disconnected third party might think about what should be done with your money.
42% of World’s Best Universities Offer Crypto Courses
Nov 1, 2019
Coinbase: 42% of World’s Best Universities Offer Crypto Courses
Coinbase and Qriously Team to Survey University Attitudes Toward Crypto
US crypto bank and exchange Coinbase has an interest in taking temperatures regarding cryptocurrency, especially in an extended bear market. That in mind, the bank teamed with Qriously to take the pulse of the top 50 universities in the world, as determined by US News & World Report rankings. They also asked students about their interest in subjects such as crypto and blockchain.
Takeaways of the study include finding nearly half, 42%, of the globe’s best universities offer at least one course on either the subject of blockchain or crypto. And, as Coinbase explains, “Students from a range of majors are interested in crypto and blockchain courses — and universities are adding courses across a variety of departments.”
Researchers at Qriously sampled 675 students, 50 international universities, along with interviewing students and professors personally. One business school professor in the United States noted, in a matter of just four years, the amount of students enrolling for his offering on blockchain boomed from an initial 35 to 230, a 6X increase.
Qriously, the company, hit its stride last year by reliably predicting the rise of certain political parties thought long dead in British politics. The London-based ad-tech company helps develop advertisements for mobile applications, using pointed questions to users while cataloguing their answers. Those answers are then repackaged as curated ads. The company has been around in one form or another since 2010.
Crypto Job Market Demanding Skilled Workers
New York University’s Stern School of Business finance department chair noted, “A process is well underway that will lead to the migration of most financial data to blockchain-based organizations. Students will benefit greatly by studying this area.” He believes the rise in student interest has been pushed along not only by interest in a new technology but also because more and more companies are searching for crypto-related skills.
Another finding had to do with interest among students not normally known for their tech acumen, namely the Humanities or Social Science areas. Dawn Song, University of California at Berkeley professor of computer sciences stressed, “Blockchain combines theory and practice and can lead to fundamental breakthroughs in many research areas. It can have really profound and broad-scale impacts on society in many different industries. The techniques used in blockchain aren’t necessarily new,” but rather are areas “where research and even education has been around for a really long time.”
“In fact,” the survey asserts, “the rise in offerings across disciplines maps to student interest: Students with a diverse set of majors say they’d like to take cryptocurrency classes, […] Nearly half of all social science majors expressed interest in taking a crypto class.”
70% of All Universities Offer a Crypto-Related Class
Though their “analysis found that 42 percent of the top 50 universities offer at least one class on blockchain or cryptocurrency, and 22 percent offer more than one,” if their findings included already existing courses in crypto, a whopping “70 percent of universities offer at least one crypto-related class.”
The United States appears to be leading the pack, as only “five of the 18 international universities on the list, or 27 percent, offer at least one class on blockchain or cryptocurrency. And only two — Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and National University of Singapore — offer more than one.”
Stanford University is top among non-traditional crypto class offerings, and “its Center for Blockchain Research this summer to bring together students and faculty from across the school’s departments to work on various aspects of cryptocurrencies and blockchain,” the study revealed. Stanford professor of computer science, Dan Boneh, mentioned, “every time he talks with a new team in the group he finds himself walking away with three new research ideas. ‘There are new technical questions being raised by blockchain projects that we would not work on otherwise,’ he says.”