This is just extending HDR/etc to the focal plane. You'd need software to manage it, but I think I've actually seen articles about people doing stuff like this and just using layers in photoshop with masks around individual objects. I'm sure you could create something like the output of this camera with some software - it just wouldn't be as continually focusable (even the lytro doesn't have an infinite number of focusing layers due to sampling).
I would think the same limitations would apply. This would work fine for landscapes or light boxes, and not so well for anything with subjects that can move, or even blow in the wind. A tripod would of course be a must.
I imagine that many lenses have a slightly different field of view at each focus setting. That could probably be corrected with software like any other distortion, but it is another thing that needs to be accounted for. I don't know that most cameras record the focus setting either (and you'd need precision here), so corrections probably need to be based on matching features across images (as with panoramas). That means that your focus layers need to be close enough that an algorithm can still match them.
For the cost of capturing the light field, I wonder if it would be cheaper and more effective to make the viewfinder in a standard DSLR smarter.
I'd still like prisims to give me a real TTL view, but there is no reason that you couldn't superimpose on that additional information. Maybe visual cues that indicate exactly what areas are in the focal plane, and so on. Right now typically a viewfinder has a few LEDs in it that flash whether a given focus point is good, and of course a one-line display at the bottom. Imagine instead that this is just extended to a high-resolution display superimposed on top of a regular viewfinder.
We've already had cameras that use a high-resolution "viewfinder" display INSTEAD of an optical viewfinder - so this is just combining two existing technologies smartly. I'd envision that less is more, and that the photographer could turn on or off cues as makes sense. The idea would be that at any time most of the pixels on the superimposed display would be dark.
I tend to agree with the previous post in general - for the cost of adding this stuff to a camera there is a lot of other stuff that I'd probably want first.
Oh, and anybody thinking about spending $400 on this focus-free camera should strongly just consider getting an older low-end DSLR. When I bought mine I thought that I'd be the main one using it since I can appreciate the technical side of photography. What I found is that my wife who doesn't really care to learn about anything other than setting it to "P" or full-auto with the built-in flash can take MUCH better shots than with any point and shoot for several reasons:
1. Much better optics means a LOT less flash in the picture. That just gives any picture a lot more depth. 2. Fast and accurate autofocus means a lot less time fussing with the camera and missing shots. 3. Instant shutter response means fewer missed shots.
On the other hand, I still own a $100 point-and-shoot. It has the following purposes:
1. It is its own insurance plan. If I break the thing on an amusement ride, or lose it, or drop it in the toilet, I won't lose any sleep. 2. It fits in my pockets, let alone a pocketbook. That means we always have it with us. 3. For outdoors vacation photos, it isn't too shabby. Once you get inside the need for heavy flash is pretty noticeable.
I think the main thing keeping DSLRs from taking off is that people like to buy stuff that is brand new, and that DSLRs are bulky. I don't think you can do much about the bulk - size is a major optical tradeoff and if you want to shrink the camera it just won't be a DSLR any longer (the mid-sized noninterchangable lens cameras accomplish this to some degree). The fact that people would rather spend their $300 on a brand new point-and-shoot rather than an older DSLR that still outperforms it in just about every regard is more a matter of psychology, and one that smart buyers would do well to get over.
The thing I wonder about is that there is more to a light field than vectors with only direction and intensity and color.
First, color itself in the real world is how your brain interprets the result of a distribution of photons of many different wavelengths hitting your retina. Your typical monitor just uses combinations of three wavelengths. That might still be good enough, but clearly this is a simplification.
Next, a photon of light has more information in it than just these. It has phase, and it has polarization (which might be related - I am not strong enough on the physics here).
Now, perhaps in everyday life these don't matter as much, but if you want to perfectly re-create a light field you'd need all of this information. A perfect reproduction of the light field to the individual particle level would be impossible due to the uncertainty principle. You could create better and better approximations of it in the aggregate, however.
Thats why a 1960s phone worked great and lasted forever, and you can only buy garbage now. The days of a mobile phone lasting more than a couple months are going to go away if cell phone subsidies go away... why shouldn't they?
Well, I don't routinely use my wired phone for practice throwing hoops, so maybe that is why I've never had one break on me. The worst I've seen is wireless ones having their batteries die out, and they all used battery packs that were reasonable to replace. If my next cell phone lasts as long as the $20 phone sitting next to my bed has, I'll have to list it in my will.
Yup, I'd go with that and go a step further. It would be legal to offer phone service plans, and it would be legal to offer phone device payment plans, but it would not be legal to bundle them or set limits on quantities. So, you could buy a phone without a plan, or a plan without a phone. If AT&T offers a phone for 1 cent per month, they'd have to honor anybody who walks in and asks for 1000 of them with no plans/etc to go with them.
It would be better still if the phones were interoperable across services. I'm not sure I'd require that upfront, but I'd seriously consider transitioning to a regulatory framework where only specific protocols/bands were allowed, and all phones would have to support all of them (with no vendor locking) to be FCC licensed. Suddenly phones have to complete against phones, and service against service, and I'm sure the competition would easily save consumers far more than the extra $1 for the phone's modem chip.
I think selection bias may also have something to do with it. Who is more likely to spend $5 on a game? Somebody who just spent $300 for a phone with a contract, or somebody who spent $50 for something comparable, assuming they didn't hold out for a $0 sale? Your android phone owner is also more likely to be on a network that costs less per month in the first place. From what I've seen iPhone/Pod owners are also much more likely to buy $30 cables, $30 protectors, and the $1000 Bose clock radio with a dock on it.
So, if the people who buy your phone are also the people who are loose with their money, then it stands to reason that you're going to make more money on app sales, even if there are more Android phones out there.
Now, if you were talking about accessories for BMWs vs Fords I could see how the latter could make money through volume (though the diamond-studded steering wheel cover will probably sell better on the BMW 7-series than on the Focus). However, when you look at iOS vs Android while Android has more volume it isn't such a huge difference that the sheer volume will make up for the fact that nobody wants to buy $5 apps.
Yup, all those businesses bought typewriters back in the early 20th century because things were so much better when options for writing included the pen and fingerpaint.
Yeah, but think of the upside - billionaires with incentive to actually fight dumb traffic laws to the US Supreme Court means less dumb traffic laws for the rest of us to worry about.
Well, I2P is the most obvious option, considering that they actually encourage P2P and it works pretty well. The only problem with I2P is that nobody uses it, so good luck finding seeds/peers. It even supports magnet links, but again only for peers in I2P.
The other option is tor, which has the advantage of working with regular internet-based bittorrent clients which means there are tons of peers. The downside of tor is that most clients are not well-designed, so you need to make sure that your client does not know your internet IP address, and that it cannot get past the proxy, otherwise chances are your client software is going to broadcast your IP via side-channels. The other downside of tor is that it is NATed, so it is limited to outgoing connections only - it can still upload to other peers that are connected to a tracker and which are not NATed themselves. DHT does not work with bittorrent over tor, as it is UDP-only, but there is no reason that somebody couldn't make DHT work via TCP which would solve that problem (again with the limitation that only non-NATed peers could be reached). Oh, and anytime a tor developer thinks you're using bittorrent a kitten dies (not that they can be too sure).
I'm not sure if Freenet counts as P2P or not. It doesn't support connections over the network, but everything on Freenet is distributed anyway, based on popularity. It shares many of the advantages and disadvantages of I2P.
If you want to end bullying and other Lord-of-the-Flies-like behavior, cut down on the amount of child-child interaction. I'm not saying to get rid of it, but kids should spend a lot more time around adults - and not just with a 30:1 ratio in a classroom. If kids spent a lot more time around adults, they'd tend to act like them, and when they became adults most likely they'd act a lot better than most adults do now.
Kids try to fit in to whatever is around them. If that is mostly kids, then they'll do whatever their peers thinks is a good idea. If they are around adults more often than not, then they'll care more about what adults think about them. Just look at homeschooling, or the days when kids apprenticed from an early age.
Well, maybe. But it's well known in the software industry that a large percentage of users of most software will handle "fill in the form" situations by copying the examples in the manual.
Yeah, well, in any regulated industry EVERYBODY knows this is unacceptable, a violation of company policy, and illegal. People caught doing things like this in roles like aircraft mechanics, doctors, clinical lab techs, evidence handling, or food/drug testing are almost always immediately terminated and turned over to the relevant regulatory agency. Usually regulations allow people doing such things to be punished personally for them, and of course the company ends up in hot water as well.
In fact, in such industries companies are usually required to prove that they train their employees to be aware of such things. There is no allowance for incompetence where things of this importance are at stake.
Oh, they're quite aware it was necessary. That's why they filled out all those forms - it would have been conspicuous if they hadn't documented that they had performed the calibration.
They just felt that goofing off at work was even more important.
I don't want to pay to put someone in jail when they aren't actual a dangerous threat to society.
I too tend to favor restitution/etc and fines when it makes sense. However, I'm not convinced they work unless you use a European means-based system (where Bill Gates might get a $70M speeding ticket), at least for serious crimes like this one. If there isn't real deterrance it isn't effective.
Make no mistake - this is a serious crime. In most regulated industries falsifying paperwork to show that some test was performed when it was not is a criminal act, and it subjects the person signing the form to personal criminal liability beyond just that which applies to the company for failing to prevent it. If an engineer signs off on a bridge without reviewing it, they can be held personally responsible for what happens. If a doctor signs off that somebody is fit to fly a commercial airliner without evaluating them they can be held personally responsible, even if they're on a corporate payroll.
This wasn't some trash collector accidentally skipping somebody's house. The legal system depends on those in positions of trust upholding that trust.
Excellent - now point me to a client that lets me use magnet links without publicizing my IP address and using it to upload data to anybody who asks for it. Right now that exists for torrent files, but not for DHT (largely because DHT is UDP-only).
If all p2p switched to a similar method, the only targets for authorities would be IP addresses in the swarm. Right now that rarely happens, but it could very easily become commonplace if there are no big targets left.
If all p2p switched to a similar method, then authorities would simply have to wait until there was nobody left in the swarm. I don't believe any existing clients provide any mechanism to connect to a DHT swarm without having a tracker to point you to at least one client, and the approach TPB is moving to doesn't point you to a tracker/torrent.
In any case, I'd never use a p2p that required uploading data to the swarm using my own IP. Right now alternative options exist (even for bittorrent), though none of those options support the bittorrent DHT.
Whether fair or not, the incident violated the trust people had in the administrators of the nuclear tech, and it's going to take something to earn that trust back.
This sounds a bit like having a doctor botch a surgery, and therefore refusing to go to the doctor the next time you're having chest pains.
By all means fix the regulations and reign in corruption and industry coziness/etc. However, refusing to use nuclear power does nothing to punish those who messed up (bureaucrats who will still be paid the same to watch over unused reactors) - instead it harms society as a whole.
This isn't exactly true. Most people who have jobs didn't qualify for tons of scholarships.
Many people who currently have corporate jobs didn't go to college at all, granted that generation is almost completely retired. The next generation or two could get by with average college performance. However, I don't think that future generations will be this fortunate. My employer probably has hired almost nobody new out of college in the last 5 years (fortune 500). When we have interviewed for temp positions/etc we've been able to be VERY selective.
Talent is overrated. Sabu was talented. You have to be talented, educated, and socially connected. If you aren't all 3 then you were probably just lucky (right applicant at the right time).
I will tend to agree with this. With the huge drops in employment patronage probably matters more than skills in many situations. I'd flag that as another big problem in our economy - in general most managers of established companies are motivated far more by personal interest than shareholder performance, so hiring your cousin's friend makes a lot more sense than hiring somebody who could achieve good results, as long as they aren't such a disaster that it could come back at you.
The current US free market approach has some serious problems:
1. Education is WAY too expensive. I wouldn't recommend that anybody pay (via cash or loans) for a college education, period. If you're good enough at what you're doing to get a nearly-free ride then it probably is a good investment of time. If you don't qualify for tons of scholarships, you'll never get a job in the field anyway.
2. Education is VERY time-consuming. The 4-year degree is a one-size-fits-all solution for just about any corporate job. For those who need to change careers in response to the changing market, it is very difficult to take a multi-year jobless hit even if the education is free.
3. There is almost no safety net. If you lose your job, then you lose health insurance (bills go from paying 10% of a negotiated rate to paying 100% of 10x the negotiated rate), and you have to beg for a small percentage of your previous salary for a relatively short period of time. If you try a new career path and it doesn't work, then the subsequent safety net is even weaker.
Basically the US model puts all the risk on the individual. That works out well for those who are talented/etc, and poorly for those who are not. The European model tends to socialize the risks/benefits.
If you want something more maintainable I'd suggest Gentoo. It gives you most of the flexibility of LFS, and exposure to enough of what is going on that you're likely to keep learning. It is also a lot easier to keep up-to-date.
I'm not suggesting the previous situation was acceptable - only that there might be a better end-state than the guy being in prison for the rest of his life, or mowing lawns.
Any kind of rehabilitation would obviously need to address whether he is suitable for a return to the workforce. If somehow this could be achieved, then the only way this could happen is if records were stricken (both public and private), and employers were forbidden from inquiring about expunged criminal records. This is already routinely done for juvenile offenses - I'd consider this to be just a natural extension.
My understanding is that other countries manage to achieve much lower recidivism rates compared to the US. Perhaps they're doing something right - hopefully beyond having a placement service for landscapers.
I didn't say that, which you know, because you at least pretended to respond to what I actually wrote. What I said was that he can't complain if he's not trusted in the very area where he's shown himself to be an untrustworthy fool.
Can I complain about the fact that I as a productive member of society am going to end up paying a larger share of taxes because this guy is going to end up consuming more in social services than he contributes in taxes, because nobody will actually employ him to his full potential?
Sure, I don't want criminals hacking into banks and robbing people. However, I'm not convinced that having people who clearly have a strong understanding in computer software and networking mow lawns or sit in prison is the optimal solution either. I'm still the one paying for their crimes, when I could be benefiting from their skills as they contribute to the marketplace.
IF he has friends and family to keep him going, and can find a willing employer, he will come out okay. Social injustice won't come in to play here, I'm fairly certain of that.
And suppose he doesn't find these things? Then he either goes back to being a criminal, or ends up on the dole somehow, or he ends up starving to death, or maybe mowing lawns for a living as somebody else suggested.
In any of these cases society has lost the potential contributions of somebody who obviously has a great deal of technical skill, which is something that society needs.
Is it society's job to productively employ everybody? Perhaps not, but society certainly isn't better off for it...
Slashdot Mirror
This is just extending HDR/etc to the focal plane. You'd need software to manage it, but I think I've actually seen articles about people doing stuff like this and just using layers in photoshop with masks around individual objects. I'm sure you could create something like the output of this camera with some software - it just wouldn't be as continually focusable (even the lytro doesn't have an infinite number of focusing layers due to sampling).
I would think the same limitations would apply. This would work fine for landscapes or light boxes, and not so well for anything with subjects that can move, or even blow in the wind. A tripod would of course be a must.
I imagine that many lenses have a slightly different field of view at each focus setting. That could probably be corrected with software like any other distortion, but it is another thing that needs to be accounted for. I don't know that most cameras record the focus setting either (and you'd need precision here), so corrections probably need to be based on matching features across images (as with panoramas). That means that your focus layers need to be close enough that an algorithm can still match them.
For the cost of capturing the light field, I wonder if it would be cheaper and more effective to make the viewfinder in a standard DSLR smarter.
I'd still like prisims to give me a real TTL view, but there is no reason that you couldn't superimpose on that additional information. Maybe visual cues that indicate exactly what areas are in the focal plane, and so on. Right now typically a viewfinder has a few LEDs in it that flash whether a given focus point is good, and of course a one-line display at the bottom. Imagine instead that this is just extended to a high-resolution display superimposed on top of a regular viewfinder.
We've already had cameras that use a high-resolution "viewfinder" display INSTEAD of an optical viewfinder - so this is just combining two existing technologies smartly. I'd envision that less is more, and that the photographer could turn on or off cues as makes sense. The idea would be that at any time most of the pixels on the superimposed display would be dark.
I tend to agree with the previous post in general - for the cost of adding this stuff to a camera there is a lot of other stuff that I'd probably want first.
Oh, and anybody thinking about spending $400 on this focus-free camera should strongly just consider getting an older low-end DSLR. When I bought mine I thought that I'd be the main one using it since I can appreciate the technical side of photography. What I found is that my wife who doesn't really care to learn about anything other than setting it to "P" or full-auto with the built-in flash can take MUCH better shots than with any point and shoot for several reasons:
1. Much better optics means a LOT less flash in the picture. That just gives any picture a lot more depth.
2. Fast and accurate autofocus means a lot less time fussing with the camera and missing shots.
3. Instant shutter response means fewer missed shots.
On the other hand, I still own a $100 point-and-shoot. It has the following purposes:
1. It is its own insurance plan. If I break the thing on an amusement ride, or lose it, or drop it in the toilet, I won't lose any sleep.
2. It fits in my pockets, let alone a pocketbook. That means we always have it with us.
3. For outdoors vacation photos, it isn't too shabby. Once you get inside the need for heavy flash is pretty noticeable.
I think the main thing keeping DSLRs from taking off is that people like to buy stuff that is brand new, and that DSLRs are bulky. I don't think you can do much about the bulk - size is a major optical tradeoff and if you want to shrink the camera it just won't be a DSLR any longer (the mid-sized noninterchangable lens cameras accomplish this to some degree). The fact that people would rather spend their $300 on a brand new point-and-shoot rather than an older DSLR that still outperforms it in just about every regard is more a matter of psychology, and one that smart buyers would do well to get over.
The thing I wonder about is that there is more to a light field than vectors with only direction and intensity and color.
First, color itself in the real world is how your brain interprets the result of a distribution of photons of many different wavelengths hitting your retina. Your typical monitor just uses combinations of three wavelengths. That might still be good enough, but clearly this is a simplification.
Next, a photon of light has more information in it than just these. It has phase, and it has polarization (which might be related - I am not strong enough on the physics here).
Now, perhaps in everyday life these don't matter as much, but if you want to perfectly re-create a light field you'd need all of this information. A perfect reproduction of the light field to the individual particle level would be impossible due to the uncertainty principle. You could create better and better approximations of it in the aggregate, however.
Thats why a 1960s phone worked great and lasted forever, and you can only buy garbage now. The days of a mobile phone lasting more than a couple months are going to go away if cell phone subsidies go away... why shouldn't they?
Well, I don't routinely use my wired phone for practice throwing hoops, so maybe that is why I've never had one break on me. The worst I've seen is wireless ones having their batteries die out, and they all used battery packs that were reasonable to replace. If my next cell phone lasts as long as the $20 phone sitting next to my bed has, I'll have to list it in my will.
Yup, I'd go with that and go a step further. It would be legal to offer phone service plans, and it would be legal to offer phone device payment plans, but it would not be legal to bundle them or set limits on quantities. So, you could buy a phone without a plan, or a plan without a phone. If AT&T offers a phone for 1 cent per month, they'd have to honor anybody who walks in and asks for 1000 of them with no plans/etc to go with them.
It would be better still if the phones were interoperable across services. I'm not sure I'd require that upfront, but I'd seriously consider transitioning to a regulatory framework where only specific protocols/bands were allowed, and all phones would have to support all of them (with no vendor locking) to be FCC licensed. Suddenly phones have to complete against phones, and service against service, and I'm sure the competition would easily save consumers far more than the extra $1 for the phone's modem chip.
I think selection bias may also have something to do with it. Who is more likely to spend $5 on a game? Somebody who just spent $300 for a phone with a contract, or somebody who spent $50 for something comparable, assuming they didn't hold out for a $0 sale? Your android phone owner is also more likely to be on a network that costs less per month in the first place. From what I've seen iPhone/Pod owners are also much more likely to buy $30 cables, $30 protectors, and the $1000 Bose clock radio with a dock on it.
So, if the people who buy your phone are also the people who are loose with their money, then it stands to reason that you're going to make more money on app sales, even if there are more Android phones out there.
Now, if you were talking about accessories for BMWs vs Fords I could see how the latter could make money through volume (though the diamond-studded steering wheel cover will probably sell better on the BMW 7-series than on the Focus). However, when you look at iOS vs Android while Android has more volume it isn't such a huge difference that the sheer volume will make up for the fact that nobody wants to buy $5 apps.
How about having to type up one of those documents in the first place?
If you're just compiling info other people send you, and giving your approval, then a phone or tablet works great. That's why managers love them.
However, if you're actually creating stuff - documents, spreadsheets, diagrams, images, video, data processing, etc - then they aren't so useful.
Now, if you add a bluetooth keyboard, and ideally a mouse and corresponding UI then obviously they'll work fine.
Yup, all those businesses bought typewriters back in the early 20th century because things were so much better when options for writing included the pen and fingerpaint.
Yeah, but think of the upside - billionaires with incentive to actually fight dumb traffic laws to the US Supreme Court means less dumb traffic laws for the rest of us to worry about.
Well, I2P is the most obvious option, considering that they actually encourage P2P and it works pretty well. The only problem with I2P is that nobody uses it, so good luck finding seeds/peers. It even supports magnet links, but again only for peers in I2P.
The other option is tor, which has the advantage of working with regular internet-based bittorrent clients which means there are tons of peers. The downside of tor is that most clients are not well-designed, so you need to make sure that your client does not know your internet IP address, and that it cannot get past the proxy, otherwise chances are your client software is going to broadcast your IP via side-channels. The other downside of tor is that it is NATed, so it is limited to outgoing connections only - it can still upload to other peers that are connected to a tracker and which are not NATed themselves. DHT does not work with bittorrent over tor, as it is UDP-only, but there is no reason that somebody couldn't make DHT work via TCP which would solve that problem (again with the limitation that only non-NATed peers could be reached). Oh, and anytime a tor developer thinks you're using bittorrent a kitten dies (not that they can be too sure).
I'm not sure if Freenet counts as P2P or not. It doesn't support connections over the network, but everything on Freenet is distributed anyway, based on popularity. It shares many of the advantages and disadvantages of I2P.
If you want to end bullying and other Lord-of-the-Flies-like behavior, cut down on the amount of child-child interaction. I'm not saying to get rid of it, but kids should spend a lot more time around adults - and not just with a 30:1 ratio in a classroom. If kids spent a lot more time around adults, they'd tend to act like them, and when they became adults most likely they'd act a lot better than most adults do now.
Kids try to fit in to whatever is around them. If that is mostly kids, then they'll do whatever their peers thinks is a good idea. If they are around adults more often than not, then they'll care more about what adults think about them. Just look at homeschooling, or the days when kids apprenticed from an early age.
Well, maybe. But it's well known in the software industry that a large percentage of users of most software will handle "fill in the form" situations by copying the examples in the manual.
Yeah, well, in any regulated industry EVERYBODY knows this is unacceptable, a violation of company policy, and illegal. People caught doing things like this in roles like aircraft mechanics, doctors, clinical lab techs, evidence handling, or food/drug testing are almost always immediately terminated and turned over to the relevant regulatory agency. Usually regulations allow people doing such things to be punished personally for them, and of course the company ends up in hot water as well.
In fact, in such industries companies are usually required to prove that they train their employees to be aware of such things. There is no allowance for incompetence where things of this importance are at stake.
Oh, they're quite aware it was necessary. That's why they filled out all those forms - it would have been conspicuous if they hadn't documented that they had performed the calibration.
They just felt that goofing off at work was even more important.
I don't want to pay to put someone in jail when they aren't actual a dangerous threat to society.
I too tend to favor restitution/etc and fines when it makes sense. However, I'm not convinced they work unless you use a European means-based system (where Bill Gates might get a $70M speeding ticket), at least for serious crimes like this one. If there isn't real deterrance it isn't effective.
Make no mistake - this is a serious crime. In most regulated industries falsifying paperwork to show that some test was performed when it was not is a criminal act, and it subjects the person signing the form to personal criminal liability beyond just that which applies to the company for failing to prevent it. If an engineer signs off on a bridge without reviewing it, they can be held personally responsible for what happens. If a doctor signs off that somebody is fit to fly a commercial airliner without evaluating them they can be held personally responsible, even if they're on a corporate payroll.
This wasn't some trash collector accidentally skipping somebody's house. The legal system depends on those in positions of trust upholding that trust.
Yup - in almost any regulated industry doing something like this would subject a company and an individual to criminal liability.
No doubt all we'll see here is an apology and a promise not to do it again.
Excellent - now point me to a client that lets me use magnet links without publicizing my IP address and using it to upload data to anybody who asks for it. Right now that exists for torrent files, but not for DHT (largely because DHT is UDP-only).
If all p2p switched to a similar method, the only targets for authorities would be IP addresses in the swarm. Right now that rarely happens, but it could very easily become commonplace if there are no big targets left.
If all p2p switched to a similar method, then authorities would simply have to wait until there was nobody left in the swarm. I don't believe any existing clients provide any mechanism to connect to a DHT swarm without having a tracker to point you to at least one client, and the approach TPB is moving to doesn't point you to a tracker/torrent.
In any case, I'd never use a p2p that required uploading data to the swarm using my own IP. Right now alternative options exist (even for bittorrent), though none of those options support the bittorrent DHT.
Whether fair or not, the incident violated the trust people had in the administrators of the nuclear tech, and it's going to take something to earn that trust back.
This sounds a bit like having a doctor botch a surgery, and therefore refusing to go to the doctor the next time you're having chest pains.
By all means fix the regulations and reign in corruption and industry coziness/etc. However, refusing to use nuclear power does nothing to punish those who messed up (bureaucrats who will still be paid the same to watch over unused reactors) - instead it harms society as a whole.
This isn't exactly true. Most people who have jobs didn't qualify for tons of scholarships.
Many people who currently have corporate jobs didn't go to college at all, granted that generation is almost completely retired. The next generation or two could get by with average college performance. However, I don't think that future generations will be this fortunate. My employer probably has hired almost nobody new out of college in the last 5 years (fortune 500). When we have interviewed for temp positions/etc we've been able to be VERY selective.
Talent is overrated. Sabu was talented. You have to be talented, educated, and socially connected. If you aren't all 3 then you were probably just lucky (right applicant at the right time).
I will tend to agree with this. With the huge drops in employment patronage probably matters more than skills in many situations. I'd flag that as another big problem in our economy - in general most managers of established companies are motivated far more by personal interest than shareholder performance, so hiring your cousin's friend makes a lot more sense than hiring somebody who could achieve good results, as long as they aren't such a disaster that it could come back at you.
The current US free market approach has some serious problems:
1. Education is WAY too expensive. I wouldn't recommend that anybody pay (via cash or loans) for a college education, period. If you're good enough at what you're doing to get a nearly-free ride then it probably is a good investment of time. If you don't qualify for tons of scholarships, you'll never get a job in the field anyway.
2. Education is VERY time-consuming. The 4-year degree is a one-size-fits-all solution for just about any corporate job. For those who need to change careers in response to the changing market, it is very difficult to take a multi-year jobless hit even if the education is free.
3. There is almost no safety net. If you lose your job, then you lose health insurance (bills go from paying 10% of a negotiated rate to paying 100% of 10x the negotiated rate), and you have to beg for a small percentage of your previous salary for a relatively short period of time. If you try a new career path and it doesn't work, then the subsequent safety net is even weaker.
Basically the US model puts all the risk on the individual. That works out well for those who are talented/etc, and poorly for those who are not. The European model tends to socialize the risks/benefits.
Ah, got it. So, Apple invented the V-chip then?
If you want something more maintainable I'd suggest Gentoo. It gives you most of the flexibility of LFS, and exposure to enough of what is going on that you're likely to keep learning. It is also a lot easier to keep up-to-date.
I'm not suggesting the previous situation was acceptable - only that there might be a better end-state than the guy being in prison for the rest of his life, or mowing lawns.
Any kind of rehabilitation would obviously need to address whether he is suitable for a return to the workforce. If somehow this could be achieved, then the only way this could happen is if records were stricken (both public and private), and employers were forbidden from inquiring about expunged criminal records. This is already routinely done for juvenile offenses - I'd consider this to be just a natural extension.
My understanding is that other countries manage to achieve much lower recidivism rates compared to the US. Perhaps they're doing something right - hopefully beyond having a placement service for landscapers.
I didn't say that, which you know, because you at least pretended to respond to what I actually wrote. What I said was that he can't complain if he's not trusted in the very area where he's shown himself to be an untrustworthy fool.
Can I complain about the fact that I as a productive member of society am going to end up paying a larger share of taxes because this guy is going to end up consuming more in social services than he contributes in taxes, because nobody will actually employ him to his full potential?
Sure, I don't want criminals hacking into banks and robbing people. However, I'm not convinced that having people who clearly have a strong understanding in computer software and networking mow lawns or sit in prison is the optimal solution either. I'm still the one paying for their crimes, when I could be benefiting from their skills as they contribute to the marketplace.
IF he has friends and family to keep him going, and can find a willing employer, he will come out okay. Social injustice won't come in to play here, I'm fairly certain of that.
And suppose he doesn't find these things? Then he either goes back to being a criminal, or ends up on the dole somehow, or he ends up starving to death, or maybe mowing lawns for a living as somebody else suggested.
In any of these cases society has lost the potential contributions of somebody who obviously has a great deal of technical skill, which is something that society needs.
Is it society's job to productively employ everybody? Perhaps not, but society certainly isn't better off for it...