Being all doom and gloom about it doesn't help. IMHO Branson has the right idea when he offered $3 million for airconditioning that's 5x as energy efficient.
i.e. the solution is a million little improvements not one magic one. Air-conditioning being a huge energy waster that could easily be improved. If you can make a fridge to turn a heat difference into cold, you can make an air conditioner that can, so you can make a solar (heat) driven air conditioning. It just needs the initial funding.
What really gets me is that Florida is importing coal and natural gas to fire power plants of whom several are dedicated to producing energy for air conditioning systems much of the year. You'd think that the idea of powering their air conditioning using solar panels would catch on down there. The same is basically true for Puerto Rico, it's sunny there or partially sunny something like 70% of the year and when it isn't sunny the wind is blowing and yet, the latest and greatest idea out of Washington is turning Puerto Rico into a imported natural gas powered fossil fuel energy hub for the region... abundant local energy sources... anybody?
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.
Nah, this is straight out of the N-Korean playbook, take hostages and use them as bargaining chips to extract concessions. Kind of a new low for the US though.
Conservatives and Republicans, this is why the environment and our ecosystem is important.
Could also be why a Republican signed the EPA into existence waaay back in 1970. Yeah, I know, prehistory for some of you, but shit did happen back then, but people cared, unlike now
Yes, but that was Republicanus Repulbicanus an ancient species of sane conservative. Unfortunately Republicanus Repulbicanus was driven to extinction by his more primitive, aggressive, dull minded, ignorant and hysterical (some would say insane) cousin Republicanus Trumpicus.
Oh, you poor idiot. The post didn't mention Obama, didn't blame any party, but just laid out the facts.
What idiots voted up your incoherent rant? You aren't familiar with the US or US laws, and even when I linked to detailed arguments by a pro-Net Neutrality you couldn't be bothered to read them or address their points.
Try learning a little something about US laws, and what the FCC tried to do. Try the EFF - it's a great source. Of course, it requires reading, learning, and understanding, which you may be short on in your corner of the world. But good luck! Maybe next time you won't embarrass yourself with an ignorant rant about something you don't understand.
Oh, you poor idiot, the OP (which I quoted and you did not read) mentioned Obama, Also, NN has shit-all to do with censorship, it is all about ensuring an euqal playing field when it comes to bandwidth access. And I know all about the US telco marker and what a corrupt and screwed up unholy mess of monopolies it is. None of that changes NN into some kind of censorship mechanism that is ‘Bwaaaaah!!! UNFAIR!!’ to right-wing blow hards.
Sure, that must be it. After all this talk about the "blue wave" what we got was a blue trickle and then a whole lot of accusations of voter fraud to even get that far.
I suppose when the Republicans gain even more seats in 2020 you'll still blame that on "math."
So if gaining two seats in the senate is such a stunning 'landslide', 'red wave' victory, how come the GOP lost 40 seats in the house despite all their gerrymandering, voter suppression and intimidation?
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of... a free market
More regulation is a freer market??
HAHAH AH HHA AHA AHA HAHH A HHA. AHHA A HA !
Remember the story is about restoring the FCC rules they lost. Liberals crave power, just as the original social democrat Hitler did. More brownshirts, more power, more violence! It all goes to 11!!
You do you. Or Hitler. Whatever you feel works best for you! Embrace your inner spirit Schutzstaffel and lock down all the internets!
You are either drunk, an idiot or both. Either way you lost me at Reductio ad Hitlerum.
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Regulation of pricing, enforced contracts, and government enforced censorship is "free market". Right.
The original rules they tried to use were so bad, the EFF came out against them - they were neither "free" nor "market". The later revision was slightly better, but still allowed several types of priority content (while banning some of the worst), and ALSO allowed censorship of content - along with all the other shitty things that companies can do under the Title II provisions.
If you want Net Neutrality, you need to get Congress to actually pass a Net Neutrality law. Trying to force pre-internet laws written for phone and cable networks onto the internet is a bad idea. Do it right.
You can take your us-vs-them Obama is the anti-christ rhetoric and deposit it where the sun does not shine. Net neutrality, by definition provides a free market environment on the internet because big players, such as Amazon, would not be able to choke competitors at birth because they, unlike the competitor, get more and better bandwidth. Net neutrality is the natural consequence of an environment where there is true competition between all telecommunications providers. In such an environment of true competition there is always somebody who offers fairer treatment to undercut his rival who does not, so the end result is basically net neutrality. I know this because in my corner of the world we have several telecommunications companies who compete fiercely with eachother nation-wide and the result has been net neutrality by default. In the absence of true competition, and the US is after all patchwork of regional telecommunications monopolies, the only way to provide net neutrality is to impose it if you are not willing to break up the monopolies and create a free market. You can be against the imposition of net neutrality in a landscape of regional monopolies but all that will get you is being screwed over even more thoroughly by those monopolies than you are currently. Judging from your: 'net neutrality is government censorship' rhetoric you thoroughly enjoy being screwed over.
The subject line should include "in the UK/Europe".....
Their regulations may not impact other countries....
Sure they will. The EU is collectively the world's largest economy and it is the world's largest single market. If you want to export your stuff there you have to meet their standards and abide by their laws and regulations and in that case companies are in many cases best off applying these to their entire production California has a similar effect within the US, if they set emissions standards, most car companies in the US have to abide by them however much they may loathe having to do it. The alternative is deciding not to market their cars in the world's 5th largest economy which may be ideologically satisfying from a ultra-conservative point of view but which would be pretty stupid from a strictly capitalist point of view. So if you are a US, Canadian, Brazilian, Chinese software company and you want to market your stuff in the EU and draw revenue from there you'd better bone up on EU regulations or you may find yourself nursing a rather large headache. I suppose software companies are in the unique position that they can geo-locate customers and selectively screw them over or not based on whether they are rest-of-world or European, in which case I'm pretty happy to be in the latter category.
CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up and down over the years with a natural cycle; we should be at a peak now. Looking at the climate on the scales of 10,000's of years, you would predict that it would be getting colder and this is, indeed, what was predicted back in the 70's. However, instead of peaking, CO2 has gone up and up. Hence the predictions have changed. The change caused by human production of CO2 has massively outweighed any natural cycle.
Predictions change as either knowledge or the world changes. Since the 70s, both of these have happened.
Not holding my breath, you can try to convince us all day long that creating IP is a cost free exercise but it isn't.
I never said it wasn't. I said the work done can fit the available budget. The idea that someone needs to spend more money than they have to make a work of art is ridiculous. For things like medical / basic scientific research that's something that taxes pay for. Doing anything has a cost. That is also a fundamental rule of the universe. (It's called Thermodynamics, and Conservation of Energy and Mass.)
So instead of pontificating about how IP rights are the work of Satan
I never said anything about religion. You're the one bringing God into this.
Also, demanding that others pay artists for the ability to even *think* about something in perpetuity, despite them never needing to contribute anything again, isn't what I would call a "stable economy." Especially when they expect that they can have their imaginary property "generate" royalties for just as long out of thin air. I would consider that to be a very "self-important" and "overbearing" demand to place on others. The cost doesn't justify the result, and the further we get away from the street date, the more constrained society's overall source material gets. Eventually artists lock up everything and people can't create anything without an army of lawyers and the funds to pay them. Since so few people have that kind of money, many people will simply avoid creating anything for fear of going bankrupt and society as a whole is worse off as a result of the creative chilling effect.
can you come up with any concrete proposals for a mechanism by which people can recoup the money they sank into IP creation?
You didn't read a damn thing did you?
Number one: No, an artist's magnum opus is not worth making themselves bankrupt. If they can't afford to create something without bankrupting themselves in the process, and yes I'm including their profits after taking into account the piracy that will inevitably happen because universe fundamentals, then they shouldn't make it. Period. Full stop. The rest of society is expected to live within their means, artists can too.
Number two: Creating a system that only serves to bankrupt society so artists can make that latest work of "art" is not only ill-advised, but much like the artificial copy restrictions, such a system goes against the laws of the universe. Under such a system, eventually it won't matter how much money artists have. The reason being that eventually artists will use up all of the available supplies and won't be able to create anything else afterwards. Of course I'd imagine we'd see an uprising or two from society long before their resource consumption got to that point.
Number three: The things we have to make we will assuming the resources are there to do it. If there isn't enough available resources, then we'll "recycle" stuff until there is or we realize we can't do it with what we have. Remember the financial incentive was just that an incentive. Before the financial incentive was put in place it was often the case artists didn't make money off of their work, and in some cases "their" work was made in exchange for being fed / allowed to live. Normally they could only work with the materials given to them, had to "adjust" the work to please the contractor, and lost ownership of the work as it was always considered to be "a work for hire." Would artists prefer we bring back those terms considering they apparently need help with resource management?
Something besides donations and collecting the imaginary goodwill dollars they get from all the people pirating their work
If you can't do basic financials, and account for that piracy in the overall investment vs. potential profit, then you deserve to go bankrupt. No other industry in
Here's hoping the IP non-sense will end soon. We're all just wasting time and resources fighting a losing battle otherwise.
Not holding my breath, you can try to convince us all day long that creating IP is a cost free exercise but it isn't. So instead of pontificating about how IP rights are the work of Satan and information yearns to be free, can you come up with any concrete proposals for a mechanism by which people can recoup the money they sank into IP creation? Something besides donations and collecting the imaginary goodwill dollars they get from all the people pirating their work?... because at some point in some way, in a world where you are completely free to profit off of anybody else's IP without compensating them for it, the IP creator still has to pay the bills for it to be worthwhile for him/her to bother.
China Announces Punishments For Intellectual-Property Theft
Yawn... call me when they are enforcing this regardless of the nationality of the owner of the stolen IP. The way things are at the moment China benefits from rigorous patent enforcement in the west but Chinese companies enjoy considerable priority and get massive preferential treatment over foreign ones when it comes to patent enforcement on Chinese soil. There is no reason to believe IP enforcement will be any different.
Just like internet basically replaced broadcast TV, the reason why satellite TV will decline is in part because of the rise of wireless internet options (including satellite internet, like the satellites SpaceX plans to put up).
My mother lives fairly far out of a major city, to the point where cable is not offered - in the past few years she has gotten all internet and video options from a cellular wireless hotspot.
So why would she want to get an expensive satellite TV option when she can do anything over a fairly decent wireless internet connection?
Why indeed? Traditional TV is an overpriced pile of crap that cannot die quickly enough and I will not be crying any rivers when it does.
You missed at least half the story. Less than half of spending goes towards teaching. It is a huge pot of money without accountability and is getting "stolen" by administration. "Free" education just makes this problem worse.
Many degrees are not getting students jobs anywhere near what the degree costs. Again "Free" education doesn't solve this, it makes it worse.
Its almost as if you fixed these issues, the problem of if its "free" or not becomes moot. Price goes down by half, and you get something worthwhile. If you can get a STEM degree that pays $100k a year for $30k, are you going to throw a fit because you had to pay for it and it wasn't provided by the government?
That does not mean that all degrees everywhere are getting students no jobs. The US looks at students as as business opportunity, a wellspring of easy money, a group of suckers that can be bled for crappy degrees in crappy private universities at hugely overpriced rates and who then can be bled after they leave the university through extortionate student loan payments. Other countries regard universities as an investment in their future and their workforce, institutions that must be of the highest quality to maximise the quality of the education students get and who must be as inexpensive as possible. I'm sure there are universities in the US who will provide you with a proper education but they are being outcompeted by degree factories that will not. Also, looking at the tuition fees in most US universities, they are quite simply extortionate. I got a Comp. Sci. degree at a crappy European university that cost me about the same amount of tuition over four years as you mention one year costing at a US university. So far that European university degree, crappy as it may be, has done me no harm during job interviews.
Federal regulators have proposed loosening real-estate appraisal requirements to enable a majority of U.S. homes to be bought and sold without being evaluated by a licensed human appraiser [the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. That potentially opens the door for cheaper, faster, but largely untested property valuations based on computer algorithms.
Federal regulators have proposed loosening real-estate appraisal requirements to enable a majority of U.S. homes to be bought and sold without being evaluated by a licensed human appraiser [the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. This opens the door to realtors being able to defraud the consumer on a scale hitherto unseen in the continental US.
On the Internet there is no such thing as "local".
The hell there isn't, there is lots of 'local' on the internet. If I need a major repair for my car I'm not hitting the internet looking for the most price-worthy repair service regardless of where on the planet it is located, I'll hit the internet looking for the most price-worthy local repair service with a lot of positive reviews. The same goes for all sorts of other goods and services.
Slashdot Mirror
Being all doom and gloom about it doesn't help. IMHO Branson has the right idea when he offered $3 million for airconditioning that's 5x as energy efficient.
https://globalcoolingprize.org/prize-details/criteria/
i.e. the solution is a million little improvements not one magic one. Air-conditioning being a huge energy waster that could easily be improved. If you can make a fridge to turn a heat difference into cold, you can make an air conditioner that can, so you can make a solar (heat) driven air conditioning. It just needs the initial funding.
What really gets me is that Florida is importing coal and natural gas to fire power plants of whom several are dedicated to producing energy for air conditioning systems much of the year. You'd think that the idea of powering their air conditioning using solar panels would catch on down there. The same is basically true for Puerto Rico, it's sunny there or partially sunny something like 70% of the year and when it isn't sunny the wind is blowing and yet, the latest and greatest idea out of Washington is turning Puerto Rico into a imported natural gas powered fossil fuel energy hub for the region ... abundant local energy sources ... anybody?
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.
Nah, this is straight out of the N-Korean playbook, take hostages and use them as bargaining chips to extract concessions. Kind of a new low for the US though.
It has been known for decades. I read about it long ago, with the estimates of biomass in much the same ballpark as these.
Well then, pony up Bill, let's see you wheel out the decades old citations that closely match the discoveries of these scientists.
Yeah, but they still win elections over the so-called "sane" democrats. Maybe everybody should be looking into the mirror to see why that happens.
Yeah, I know negative 40 seats in the last house election, it was a truly stunning landslide victor for Trumpicus.
Conservatives and Republicans, this is why the environment and our ecosystem is important.
Could also be why a Republican signed the EPA into existence waaay back in 1970. Yeah, I know, prehistory for some of you, but shit did happen back then, but people cared, unlike now
Yes, but that was Republicanus Repulbicanus an ancient species of sane conservative. Unfortunately Republicanus Repulbicanus was driven to extinction by his more primitive, aggressive, dull minded, ignorant and hysterical (some would say insane) cousin Republicanus Trumpicus.
Oh, you poor idiot. The post didn't mention Obama, didn't blame any party, but just laid out the facts.
What idiots voted up your incoherent rant? You aren't familiar with the US or US laws, and even when I linked to detailed arguments by a pro-Net Neutrality you couldn't be bothered to read them or address their points.
Try learning a little something about US laws, and what the FCC tried to do. Try the EFF - it's a great source. Of course, it requires reading, learning, and understanding, which you may be short on in your corner of the world. But good luck! Maybe next time you won't embarrass yourself with an ignorant rant about something you don't understand.
Oh, you poor idiot, the OP (which I quoted and you did not read) mentioned Obama, Also, NN has shit-all to do with censorship, it is all about ensuring an euqal playing field when it comes to bandwidth access. And I know all about the US telco marker and what a corrupt and screwed up unholy mess of monopolies it is. None of that changes NN into some kind of censorship mechanism that is ‘Bwaaaaah!!! UNFAIR!!’ to right-wing blow hards.
Sure, that must be it. After all this talk about the "blue wave" what we got was a blue trickle and then a whole lot of accusations of voter fraud to even get that far.
I suppose when the Republicans gain even more seats in 2020 you'll still blame that on "math."
So if gaining two seats in the senate is such a stunning 'landslide', 'red wave' victory, how come the GOP lost 40 seats in the house despite all their gerrymandering, voter suppression and intimidation?
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of ... a free market
More regulation is a freer market??
HAHAH AH HHA AHA AHA HAHH A HHA. AHHA A HA !
Remember the story is about restoring the FCC rules they lost. Liberals crave power, just as the original social democrat Hitler did. More brownshirts, more power, more violence! It all goes to 11!!
You do you. Or Hitler. Whatever you feel works best for you! Embrace your inner spirit Schutzstaffel and lock down all the internets!
You are either drunk, an idiot or both. Either way you lost me at Reductio ad Hitlerum.
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Regulation of pricing, enforced contracts, and government enforced censorship is "free market". Right.
The original rules they tried to use were so bad, the EFF came out against them - they were neither "free" nor "market". The later revision was slightly better, but still allowed several types of priority content (while banning some of the worst), and ALSO allowed censorship of content - along with all the other shitty things that companies can do under the Title II provisions.
If you want Net Neutrality, you need to get Congress to actually pass a Net Neutrality law. Trying to force pre-internet laws written for phone and cable networks onto the internet is a bad idea. Do it right.
You can take your us-vs-them Obama is the anti-christ rhetoric and deposit it where the sun does not shine. Net neutrality, by definition provides a free market environment on the internet because big players, such as Amazon, would not be able to choke competitors at birth because they, unlike the competitor, get more and better bandwidth. Net neutrality is the natural consequence of an environment where there is true competition between all telecommunications providers. In such an environment of true competition there is always somebody who offers fairer treatment to undercut his rival who does not, so the end result is basically net neutrality. I know this because in my corner of the world we have several telecommunications companies who compete fiercely with eachother nation-wide and the result has been net neutrality by default. In the absence of true competition, and the US is after all patchwork of regional telecommunications monopolies, the only way to provide net neutrality is to impose it if you are not willing to break up the monopolies and create a free market. You can be against the imposition of net neutrality in a landscape of regional monopolies but all that will get you is being screwed over even more thoroughly by those monopolies than you are currently. Judging from your: 'net neutrality is government censorship' rhetoric you thoroughly enjoy being screwed over.
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of something you right wing-nuts like to harp on about: a free market
He forgot to take his meds again.
... or watching Fox News.
What are you going to do next? Put nuclear power in a model A?
Been done and abandoned as impractical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What kind of car Iâ(TM)m gonna write about next!! Thanks slashdot!
Oh, stop being such a Grinch. This is actually kind of cool.
The subject line should include "in the UK/Europe"..... Their regulations may not impact other countries....
Sure they will. The EU is collectively the world's largest economy and it is the world's largest single market. If you want to export your stuff there you have to meet their standards and abide by their laws and regulations and in that case companies are in many cases best off applying these to their entire production California has a similar effect within the US, if they set emissions standards, most car companies in the US have to abide by them however much they may loathe having to do it. The alternative is deciding not to market their cars in the world's 5th largest economy which may be ideologically satisfying from a ultra-conservative point of view but which would be pretty stupid from a strictly capitalist point of view. So if you are a US, Canadian, Brazilian, Chinese software company and you want to market your stuff in the EU and draw revenue from there you'd better bone up on EU regulations or you may find yourself nursing a rather large headache. I suppose software companies are in the unique position that they can geo-locate customers and selectively screw them over or not based on whether they are rest-of-world or European, in which case I'm pretty happy to be in the latter category.
CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up and down over the years with a natural cycle; we should be at a peak now. Looking at the climate on the scales of 10,000's of years, you would predict that it would be getting colder and this is, indeed, what was predicted back in the 70's. However, instead of peaking, CO2 has gone up and up. Hence the predictions have changed. The change caused by human production of CO2 has massively outweighed any natural cycle.
Predictions change as either knowledge or the world changes. Since the 70s, both of these have happened.
CO2 levels over the last 10.000 years according to ice core data: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qtL...
I never said it wasn't. I said the work done can fit the available budget. The idea that someone needs to spend more money than they have to make a work of art is ridiculous. For things like medical / basic scientific research that's something that taxes pay for. Doing anything has a cost. That is also a fundamental rule of the universe. (It's called Thermodynamics, and Conservation of Energy and Mass.)
I never said anything about religion. You're the one bringing God into this.
Also, demanding that others pay artists for the ability to even *think* about something in perpetuity, despite them never needing to contribute anything again, isn't what I would call a "stable economy." Especially when they expect that they can have their imaginary property "generate" royalties for just as long out of thin air. I would consider that to be a very "self-important" and "overbearing" demand to place on others. The cost doesn't justify the result, and the further we get away from the street date, the more constrained society's overall source material gets. Eventually artists lock up everything and people can't create anything without an army of lawyers and the funds to pay them. Since so few people have that kind of money, many people will simply avoid creating anything for fear of going bankrupt and society as a whole is worse off as a result of the creative chilling effect.
You didn't read a damn thing did you?
Number one: No, an artist's magnum opus is not worth making themselves bankrupt. If they can't afford to create something without bankrupting themselves in the process, and yes I'm including their profits after taking into account the piracy that will inevitably happen because universe fundamentals, then they shouldn't make it. Period. Full stop. The rest of society is expected to live within their means, artists can too.
Number two: Creating a system that only serves to bankrupt society so artists can make that latest work of "art" is not only ill-advised, but much like the artificial copy restrictions, such a system goes against the laws of the universe. Under such a system, eventually it won't matter how much money artists have. The reason being that eventually artists will use up all of the available supplies and won't be able to create anything else afterwards. Of course I'd imagine we'd see an uprising or two from society long before their resource consumption got to that point.
Number three: The things we have to make we will assuming the resources are there to do it. If there isn't enough available resources, then we'll "recycle" stuff until there is or we realize we can't do it with what we have. Remember the financial incentive was just that an incentive. Before the financial incentive was put in place it was often the case artists didn't make money off of their work, and in some cases "their" work was made in exchange for being fed / allowed to live. Normally they could only work with the materials given to them, had to "adjust" the work to please the contractor, and lost ownership of the work as it was always considered to be "a work for hire." Would artists prefer we bring back those terms considering they apparently need help with resource management?
If you can't do basic financials, and account for that piracy in the overall investment vs. potential profit, then you deserve to go bankrupt. No other industry in
Here's hoping the IP non-sense will end soon. We're all just wasting time and resources fighting a losing battle otherwise.
Not holding my breath, you can try to convince us all day long that creating IP is a cost free exercise but it isn't. So instead of pontificating about how IP rights are the work of Satan and information yearns to be free, can you come up with any concrete proposals for a mechanism by which people can recoup the money they sank into IP creation? Something besides donations and collecting the imaginary goodwill dollars they get from all the people pirating their work? ... because at some point in some way, in a world where you are completely free to profit off of anybody else's IP without compensating them for it, the IP creator still has to pay the bills for it to be worthwhile for him/her to bother.
China Announces Punishments For Intellectual-Property Theft
Yawn ... call me when they are enforcing this regardless of the nationality of the owner of the stolen IP. The way things are at the moment China benefits from rigorous patent enforcement in the west but Chinese companies enjoy considerable priority and get massive preferential treatment over foreign ones when it comes to patent enforcement on Chinese soil. There is no reason to believe IP enforcement will be any different.
They're planning on growing the same plant they were smoking when they came up with this idea.
Well, at least they'll be smoking 100% genuine space weed.
... people have a titty fit at the sight of a tenth part of an areola.
Ah yes, nipple-gate, that horrible cataclysm that left behind it a wasteland of thousands of American children psychologically scarred for life.
Just like internet basically replaced broadcast TV, the reason why satellite TV will decline is in part because of the rise of wireless internet options (including satellite internet, like the satellites SpaceX plans to put up).
My mother lives fairly far out of a major city, to the point where cable is not offered - in the past few years she has gotten all internet and video options from a cellular wireless hotspot.
So why would she want to get an expensive satellite TV option when she can do anything over a fairly decent wireless internet connection?
Why indeed? Traditional TV is an overpriced pile of crap that cannot die quickly enough and I will not be crying any rivers when it does.
You missed at least half the story. Less than half of spending goes towards teaching. It is a huge pot of money without accountability and is getting "stolen" by administration. "Free" education just makes this problem worse.
Many degrees are not getting students jobs anywhere near what the degree costs. Again "Free" education doesn't solve this, it makes it worse.
Its almost as if you fixed these issues, the problem of if its "free" or not becomes moot. Price goes down by half, and you get something worthwhile. If you can get a STEM degree that pays $100k a year for $30k, are you going to throw a fit because you had to pay for it and it wasn't provided by the government?
That does not mean that all degrees everywhere are getting students no jobs. The US looks at students as as business opportunity, a wellspring of easy money, a group of suckers that can be bled for crappy degrees in crappy private universities at hugely overpriced rates and who then can be bled after they leave the university through extortionate student loan payments. Other countries regard universities as an investment in their future and their workforce, institutions that must be of the highest quality to maximise the quality of the education students get and who must be as inexpensive as possible. I'm sure there are universities in the US who will provide you with a proper education but they are being outcompeted by degree factories that will not. Also, looking at the tuition fees in most US universities, they are quite simply extortionate. I got a Comp. Sci. degree at a crappy European university that cost me about the same amount of tuition over four years as you mention one year costing at a US university. So far that European university degree, crappy as it may be, has done me no harm during job interviews.
Federal regulators have proposed loosening real-estate appraisal requirements to enable a majority of U.S. homes to be bought and sold without being evaluated by a licensed human appraiser [the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. That potentially opens the door for cheaper, faster, but largely untested property valuations based on computer algorithms.
Federal regulators have proposed loosening real-estate appraisal requirements to enable a majority of U.S. homes to be bought and sold without being evaluated by a licensed human appraiser [the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. This opens the door to realtors being able to defraud the consumer on a scale hitherto unseen in the continental US.
There, I fixed that for you.
How are all the ORANGE MAN BAD!!!! idjits going to respond to this?
I'm grabbing popcorn!
I don't think the ORANGE MAN is bad, I do, however, think he is dumber than a bag of hammers.
On the Internet there is no such thing as "local".
The hell there isn't, there is lots of 'local' on the internet. If I need a major repair for my car I'm not hitting the internet looking for the most price-worthy repair service regardless of where on the planet it is located, I'll hit the internet looking for the most price-worthy local repair service with a lot of positive reviews. The same goes for all sorts of other goods and services.