Scholarships are not a guaranteed payout to all the athletes on a team. In other words you can play a sport and be good at what you do, but your application for a scholarship can still be rejected if they don't feel you're good enough. It's the same with any other academic field. Good at art? You can apply for an art scholarship and hope. Good at Math? Go for the Math Scholarship. Scholarships are not compensation; they're a hand up to students that show themselves to be over-achievers to give them a better chance of succeeding in their demonstrated passion.
That said, going to your other post above: The kid taking pictures isn't a leech. There's a reason that Photography is a paid profession (that's quite expensive). Yes anyone can take a picture, or snap a few hundred shots and be lucky to come out with one or two in the batch that might be worth money. When you want the really good shots, you hire a photographer. Someone who understands what kind of lighting and shadow make a good shot. Someone who knows when you want blur in the action or a solid frozen still. Someone who knows how to use Depth of Field to isolate a subject from the background. A really good photographer will usually have a ratio of every 4th shot is production quality good.
Also, in reference to your claim of the student using a cheap camera, looking at the sample of shots in the article that are credited to the student he is very well acquainted with whatever camera he's using; whether it's a cheap sub $500 model or a more expensive $1,000 plus. I doubt he used a cheap/disposable camera in the sub $100 range because those are very difficult to manage exposure and depth of field let alone focal point, which, as evidenced in the images, the photographer had shown substantial control over. It doesn't matter how expensive a camera is, so long as it has a way to manually adjust f-stop, shutter speed, and focus a good photographer can do amazing things with them, but having those three aspects as a manual option is required. Cheap throwaways don't usually have any manual options.
The school at best might have a case on privacy, albeit a very weak one. This is a sporting event which very likely was covered by local news crews as well (if they're anything like the local news outlets in Big-Smalltown, Georgia). The students/athletes don't have any expectation of privacy in these situations. They're going to be photographed, by their parents, other parents, other spectators, news crews... what they do is already going to be public record. The student here, like the athletes on the field, is learning the skills of a profession and penalizing him for performing a function of that profession (publishing where he sees fit) is disingenuous and careless on the school district's part. They'd be best to concede now and stop penalizing the kid, or be prepared for this to go to court and possibly lose a lot more; especially if the parents get a good lawyer.
...to rate their favorite hacker SBCs from a list of 53 single board computers...
Well, it's a good thing that DeviceGuru wrote the summary to include the acronym again...and then the definition just a few words away from it.
Except everybody wants to drive giant guzzler SUVs that are bigger than ever.
I'd sure love to find one, now... all I'm seeing on the road lately are these Piece of Crap CUVs that are just oversized unibody station wagons. Who the hell wants to go offroad with that? Powertrain on them will most likely break just from jumping a curb at 3 MPH (Yes, I know. Hyperbole).
Link to Original Source
Technology is supposed to make life easier, not harder.
That may be true, but the current track record of technology is that when it makes things easier for the user it also makes things easier for the hacker.
Don't want a smartphone? All the capabilities stated above could in theory be placed into a relatively small dedicated device that is only used for Authentication purposes. Hell, instead of even having an onboard battery, the device could have a cord that plugs into the POS device and transfers data while receiving power that way.
I personally want something more secure than the Swipe & PIN that my Debit Card uses with the protection that comes with Swipe and Sign that's the current method used by American Credit Card companies. Like I said, Chip and PIN is only mildly more secure than Swipe & PIN and I feel that my proposed method would bring security to a more comfortable level, at least for me.
I still don't like Chip & PIN. It's better than swipe and sign of current credit cards, but it's not much more secure than using a Debit Card at the terminals now, which is Mag-stripe Swipe and PIN here. I'd rather have cards with 2FA. Sure, my idea requires a smartphone with data access, but a business needs some kind of data-line to process credit card transactions now anyway. For my Idea to work replace the card machines with a type that has a keypad and provides NFC or Bluetooth access, or uses a screen to display a QR code; similar to the parent's idea so far... Now the device doesn't even have to be a smartphone... just smartphone like. Smartphones now are capable of using fingerprint readers so a payment device only would need a Camera, NFC radio, Cell Radio (possibly optional, but would make SMS messaging viable), WiFi radio, Fingerprint reader, and a TFT (maybe GPS too...).
My idea goes something like this: POS has rung up all the customer's items and requests payment. POS Pay-Pad Pops up the total and a QR code on the screen and activates the NFC Radio. Customer can either use the NFC or Camera on their device to get the relevant information (Store Name/Number/Location, Total amount due, any other pertinent info), Device then uses whatever data connection it has available (POS NFC, POS Bluetooth, Wi-Fi hotspot, Cell Data, SMS...etc) to send the information to the requisite Authentication company (MC/V/AmEx/Dsc/Store Card Auth; possibly chosen from a menu on device), Authenticator application then requests fingerprint from user to authenticate with. Upon successful authentication a confirmation page would come up where the user can verify all the information received from the QR code / NFC transfer and make sure it's right (the information would not be what was stored from the initial read but received again from the AuthCo to ensure that the data wasn't corrupted in transfer). Re-authenticating by fingerprint confirms the info, hitting a physical button will cancel it. Upon successful second authentication, a one time use pin number would appear on the screen for the user to punch into the POS terminal keypad. When the POS receives the PIN and verifies it against information it just received from the Authentication Company, it accepts payment and marks the transaction complete. The only time this whole scenario would fail is during data outages, which could be mitigated by having a physical card as a backup for performing imprints and manual processing on, which the user can possibly log in their authenticator application.
This is just a thought, but I'm just a dreamer. I hope I'm not the only one.
Developed by Nikhil Gupta at NYU Polytechnic University, the alloy is 44 percent stronger than similar, aluminum-based foams, and each individual sphere within the foam can withstand pressure of more than 25,000 pounds per square inch before breaking, which is roughly 100 times the pressure exerted by water coming out of a firehose. Gupta's foams are currently used by the Navy and he suspects this one will be ready for use in warships within three years.