It was free to read when I first clicked on it. But in any case, you can copy paste the article title in Google and get plenty of other news sources saying the same thing.
The whole thing would be easily solved by not requiring companies to pay taxes on top of sales and income taxes. Right now, a lot of money is wasted by businesses on finding complicated tax loopholes, and by governments to uncover them.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
Simple. Look at how much fossil fuels we've burned in the last century, and calculate how much CO2 that would have produced. Then measure the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Notice how the first number is 2 times bigger than the second.
I'm a guy. Sometimes I walk through the park at night. Sometimes there happens to be a woman walking in front of me. She gets nervous, because there's a guy walking behind her. It's not fair, but I can't blame her.
When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart
Not really. There's still a correlation between race and crime, and that's all you need to know when you decide who can rent your house. If it were easy to find out someone's income or socioeconomic status, I'm sure people would take that into consideration as well.
When is the last time you saw an actual free market? You know, the one with an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry?
I can hear the scraping sound of goalposts being dragged.
Problem with useful work is that it's hard to adjust the difficulty to arbitrary values. Someone could come up with a really clever way to do protein folding that cuts the CPU time by a factor of 100, and all of a sudden disrupt the currency.
Slashdot Mirror
Long term, yes. But short term they've been acting as a sink.
Source: http://www.earth-syst-sci-data...
page 1152 has an easy to read graphic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Thank you for linking to a paywall.
It was free to read when I first clicked on it. But in any case, you can copy paste the article title in Google and get plenty of other news sources saying the same thing.
Slim as you think the chances may be, they're still talking. https://www.dailysabah.com/eu-...
The ocean and plants. Both take up about 25% of the extra CO2, and the rest stays in the atmosphere.
Get rid of property tax as well.
US citizens are not blocked from reading the same information on other sites.
The whole thing would be easily solved by not requiring companies to pay taxes on top of sales and income taxes. Right now, a lot of money is wasted by businesses on finding complicated tax loopholes, and by governments to uncover them.
https://www.ft.com/content/9b6...
And yet, the EU is still in talks to have them join. Unbelievable.
or a white person who doesn't speak up against racism
Or a black person, for that matter. Racism isn't limited to white people.
I have a problem with you hiring illegals. It hurts non-illegals
Actually, it brings cheap fruit to the store for non-illegals to buy.
Let other businesses that are willing to pay taxes fill the void.
If they are required to pay taxes, someone just needs to collect them. What businesses are willing isn't relevant.
6 year olds know a lot of obvious things that aren't true.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
Simple. Look at how much fossil fuels we've burned in the last century, and calculate how much CO2 that would have produced. Then measure the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Notice how the first number is 2 times bigger than the second.
Would you accept that as fair
Depends. Statistically speaking, it's a fair response. Individually speaking, it's not.
I'm a guy. Sometimes I walk through the park at night. Sometimes there happens to be a woman walking in front of me. She gets nervous, because there's a guy walking behind her. It's not fair, but I can't blame her.
Doesn't it make more sense to go by site reputation?
If they have been renting enough times to build a good reputation, sure.
When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart
Not really. There's still a correlation between race and crime, and that's all you need to know when you decide who can rent your house. If it were easy to find out someone's income or socioeconomic status, I'm sure people would take that into consideration as well.
When is the last time you saw an actual free market? You know, the one with an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry?
I can hear the scraping sound of goalposts being dragged.
So, how many times have your rented out your house to black people, and how was your overall experience ?
Want to keep your rules? Don't use a listing service.
Or create a special listing service only for black people, or only white people.
The answer is better city planning.
Keep in mind that the city is already there.
It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.
As usual, the article doesn't provide enough details to make an informed decision on the matter.
Problem with useful work is that it's hard to adjust the difficulty to arbitrary values. Someone could come up with a really clever way to do protein folding that cuts the CPU time by a factor of 100, and all of a sudden disrupt the currency.
I guess you can move the server to Hawaii.