My guess is that some of the problems with digital cameras vs film are due to stupid things where the designers tweaked things in one direction to compensate for something most users would do wrong, but did so in a way that seriously messes up certain other situations. For example, sometimes camera manufacturers anticipate that and really overdo it on the red. The effect is that that you see bright reds as very flat — right up to #FF0000 and stopping there over a large area, because they have pumped it up (I don’t remember why they do this).

My camera is also sometimes weird with violets, which makes me really want to find objects that are truly violet to test it on (i.e. high-frequency wavelength, not a mix of blue and red).

Really, it’s a technology-still-distinguishable-from-magic problem. My fear is that the restricted gamuts of monitors are covering for the restricted abilities of cameras, and consumers are just putting up with it.

I have seen this done, but never tried it when the sky was exactly right, myself.

Plans are good – knowing where to start is important after all. And starting from “must make a plan” is way the hell easier than starting from “must make a successful un-university”

A second point is that in a system with interns, apprentices, and research assistants, you can have everybody come out better off in real economic terms without any actual money changing hands.

As to the shoe-making example, the problem there is that you might need a whole shop worth of equipment. A social network could still help you find apprenticeships in the same city.

Okay, my turn to post this instead of just sitting and staring at it.