Slashdot Mirror


Barcode Tatoo as Permanent ID - Arrgh!

Anonymous Coward writes "It seems someone has received a patent on tattooing barcodes on people to verify your identity. Check it out at the US government's Patent Site." Yes, it's a real patent. Yes, it's loony. Yes, it's scary. So scary that we might as well laugh at it, because laughter is healthier than tears. (Sigh)

245 comments

  1. Mark of the Beast - TM by Max+Planck · · Score: 1

    So, the mark of the beast has been patented? Does that mean the second coming has been delayed pending legal action?

    --
    "137!! Why 137!"
    1. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by Dreadcat · · Score: 1

      Hm, Didnt Kyle in the orignal Terminator show a laser-burnt barcode tatto....

      The future is alredy here, i guess....

      --
      You are the same decaying organic matter as the rest of us.
    2. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by martin · · Score: 1

      errm I thought the second coming was BEFORE all this marking of people to buy and sell ?-) Maybe its definitely getting closer...

      Maitin

    3. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      errm I thought the second coming was BEFORE all this marking of people to buy and sell ?-) Maybe its definitely getting closer...

      my dose of apocalypticism (?) for the day: the dark one has already come, his company is in a titanic struggle with the DOJ ...

      Jesus is too busy with his cable-access show to bother at the moment.

    4. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by martin · · Score: 1

      No to mention fighting Santa - what a totally excellent show that was :-)

    5. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by spykermj · · Score: 1

      In the movie "Twelve Monkeys" Bruce Willis had bar code tattoo on the back of his neck. I also believe that the movie came out in the summer of 1996. Is the date he registered the patent a coincidence?

    6. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by Bill+Currie · · Score: 2
      Hmm, prior art:
      • the bible - revelations (?)
      • Heinlein - Friday
      • Hitler - nuff said
      • Hollywood - lots of movies
      • ...
      Plenty of prior art, but the only good that will do is wreck the patent application. It won't stop this sort of thing from happening.
      --

      Bill - aka taniwha
      --
      Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

    7. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by Shayne · · Score: 1

      I say, "Bring it on," *tongue in cheek*.

      Get me a camera and some tatoo equiptment and I'll be rich in no time. I see nothing in the patent securing the tatoos against reproduction.

    8. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The full text of this patent is available at

      http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05878155 __

      And, yes, he DOES list the X-Files under "Prior Art," as well as Nazi concentration camp tattoos. He does point out the shortcomings of each of these.

      Actual quote: "Thus, bar codes on teeth would not be practical because of the limited size of the teeth and the embarassment caused by sales personnel placing scanning equipment in a customer's mouth."

      Sean Costello

    9. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why 137? Thats easy.... what number is missing in the sequence? 5 - the law of 5's once again! Who lives in Houston? Harass this guy! 55 Lyerly, Houston, Tx Look at the date it was issued 3-2-1999 law of 5's AGAIN!!!

    10. Re:Mark of the Beast - TM by sandman_sbm · · Score: 1

      Get over it...

      You're already numbered. Try doing anything without your social security number and see how far you get.

      cheers
      sandman

  2. Memories of the Holocaust? by Chuck+Milam · · Score: 5

    Just ask any holocaust survivor how dehumanized it made them feel to have an ID number tatooed on their arms. This is scary stuff, if you think about it that way...

    1. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and stupid too. Economic transactions based on a barcode tattoo? Would be so easy to forge. Besides, how can you patent an idea stolen from a movie? (don't remember which one, but I saw it in a movie once)

    2. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by schporto · · Score: 3

      This was the first thing I thought of. I mean these people just patented what the Nazis did 60yrs ago. That means there's prior art so this thing can get shotdown. Furthermore anybody who tries to make money off of this is gonna be in one heck of a PR battle. You mention the fact that this is how the Nazis treated the Jews and there isn't a sane person who will want this done to themselves or anyone they know. I really can't believe someone had the balls to do this. All sorts of legal groups will be looking for their blood should it be marketed.
      -cpd

    3. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Psiren · · Score: 1

      The Terminator. "Branded by laser scan." ;)

    4. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Trak · · Score: 1

      I believe he is referring to Aliens 3 where all of the prisoners had barcode tatoos.

    5. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by redhog · · Score: 1

      This "technology" is, right now, used in sweden by farmers for cows and pigs. And that was exactly what the nazists meant the system ; for; for "these human animals", if I got the quote right... Scary, rally scary.

      --
      --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
    6. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Psiren · · Score: 1

      Only seen it once... a long while ago, but you maybe right. Still, he *did* have a barcode in Terminator ;)

    7. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by toup · · Score: 1

      If I am not mistaken, Nazi's used numbers not barcodes that deduct money from your bank account. Don't get me wrong I am no way for this, I think it _is_ the mark of the beast, but they are not patenting tatoos, they are patenting the idea of using tatoos for financial transactions.

      --
      -toup
    8. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention "Field Whore for the German Army." (auf Deutsch, natuerlisch.)

    9. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      I remember the movie, but the title escapes me. They stole the idea from the Nazis also, because the premise of the movie involved a parallel universe where Germany won WWII.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    10. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by umoto · · Score: 1

      Digital age politics prevent all but the smallest countries from even considering repeating such a foolish move. That's why I don't think we can take this patent seriously at all. If implemented in the U.S. or other large countries, the offending politicians could be thrown out of office. In other cases the UN or the US military would march right in. And rightfully so.

      What we need to watch out for, however, is the more subtle ways people might be digitally fingerprinted. We've all seen recent moves by large corporations that would allow them to track our purchases or discover our preferences and contact information without our knowledge. That is what we must oppose.

    11. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by emag · · Score: 1

      That would be Philadelphia Experiment II that you're thinking of.

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    12. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by emag · · Score: 1

      That would be Philadelphia Experiment II that you're thinking of. I'm thinking movie from 1993 is just a leetle bit before a 1996 patent filing.

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    13. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by kootch · · Score: 2

      see, I think barcodes are now outdated and passe. Why would you have a barcode to designate who you are instead of just having an retina scan? the signature of your eye or bio-rythem would be much more difficult to forge, plus it wouldn't involve getting some stupid tattoo burned into your skin that would change when you put on 50 lbs or could get manipulated or put on poorly. And I believe that the mark of the beast is to be put on your forehead or the back of your hand... strange that the two places that are used for ID are the eyes (located next to the forehead) and the finger prints (next to the back of the hand)... but that's just me making weird connections due to the caffeine in me.

      So somebody patented barcode tattoos. And microsoft tried to patent the word processor. And Al Gore tried to say he invented the internet. woopdeedoodah. so when the antichrist comes (assuming he's not here already), do you really think he's going to go up to this dude/dudette and say I need to have a right to use your patent so I can brand everyone and take over the world and lead the world into the Apocalypse and so that the forces of Gog and Magog can have at each other on the Plains of Apocalypse? hmmmm, would be so much easier just to give out those American Express cards that came out the other day and are dumbed-down smartcards. Geez.

    14. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People often talk about retinal scans as a universal ID while forgetting the obvious point:

      Not everybody has a scannable retina.

    15. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by eggnet · · Score: 1

      A bar code is just a machine-friendly number. Neither nature nor the patent could place any restrictions on its use.

    16. Re:Memories of the Holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and not everyone has fingerprints. And not everyone can sign something. And, and, and... You achieve nothing by pointing out these things. Every method known to mankind is going to have some sort of "obvious" shortcoming. Nothing can account for every possible permutation. However, there are probably a great deal more people with incomplete fingerprints than there are people without scannable retinas. Anyway, retina scanning is much more acceptable to the general public than fingerprinting. One can find out a lot more about where you've been by using your fingerprints than they can using your retinas.

  3. We've got prior art!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My friend has had a barcode tattoo on the back of his neck for 4 months now. :)

    1. Re:We've got prior art!!! by stuntpope · · Score: 1
      More prior art:

      www.spinster.org

    2. Re:We've got prior art!!! by loki7 · · Score: 3

      He's not the only one. Check out BME for an example. If you do a search for "barcode tattoo" on google you get 76 hits.

      It's a stupid idea anyway. A subdermal microship (like those used for pets or small children (no kidding!)) is much more effective, since it's less obtrusive and can hold way more data.

    3. Re:We've got prior art!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the patent:
      Filed: Sept. 5, 1996

    4. Re:We've got prior art!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a barcode tattoo in 1991. Has nothing to do with identifying me, though....it's from a package of kool aid(tm) and looks a hell of a lot better (I must say) than the one at the url above.

    5. Re:We've got prior art!!! by Oms · · Score: 1

      Bruce Willis sported a barcode tatoo in "12 Monkeys"...

  4. The Mark by Pete+Barnett · · Score: 2

    What manner of rough beast is this,
    It's time come around at last
    That slouches toward Redmond to be born again?

    (with apologies to Yeats...)

  5. Viva! Viva! La revolucion! by mrogers · · Score: 3

    The more insane the US patent office gets, the sooner its insanity will be recognised. I don't think the people of the world are going to be very happy when they work out that a US company owns all the patents from the Human Genome Project, and therefore has intellectual property rights over the DNA of every person on earth.

    1. Re:Viva! Viva! La revolucion! by Bartmoss · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, the US patent office should hold little authority over the reast of the world.

      besides, we have prior arts, if that's what it's called. We (speaking as German, not about me personally) marked people with a serial ID on their arms during world war two, if you remember that sad story of human history. Barcodes are just another form of representation for numbers.

    2. Re:Viva! Viva! La revolucion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the merry workers at the patent office have moved waaaaay up the list of those to be put against the wall when the revolution comes. :-)

  6. my my my by psilocybe-influence · · Score: 1

    Should stop people having tatoos in their private places... Imagine the scenario - walk into a shop, buy some groceries and in a line of 5 people are asked to reveal your tatoo for scanning... "yes they're sharing a drink they call loniless but it's better than drinking alone..." - Billy Joel.

  7. That's what would be know as a useless patent. by Mandoric · · Score: 1

    If I wanted to, I could print barcodes out of say, WordPerfect, and hold them up to the scanner.

    All it does is freak people out, those of us who desire privacy and those who have some sort of religious objection to it.

    But maybe that's the point. It might be just to distract from something else...

  8. Depends on who has the patent by Hrunting · · Score: 4

    If this person is, say, a Holocaust survivor, then maybe patenting this device is a way of preventing its use for 17 years. Or perhaps, the person is researching it as a way for people to voluntarily go through grocery lanes faster, move through toll booths immediate, etc. Not all the possibilities have to exist purely in the realm of forced control of human beings. The idea, obviously enough, has been out there far longer than this patent. All the patent does is say that this process now has a 'owner'.

    1. Re:Depends on who has the patent by dmd · · Score: 1
      As I'm sure you're aware, this is complete bunk. Want to move through grocery and toll queues faster? Think a universal ID is the way to do it? Fine. There's probably some good a universal ID would do. Put it on a laminated card, then.

      Voluntary means choice -- if you don't want to be identified going through the checkpoint this particular time, do you expect there to be tattoo-removal clinics on the side of the road (and matching booths on the opposite side to re-imprint you)?


      --

    2. Re:Depends on who has the patent by Godin · · Score: 1

      You say voluntary.
      If you read the stuff on your tax forms it mentions that Income tax is voluntary. Does anyone here remember volunteering to pay taxes? I didn't.

      --
      --"Cynical?? Who's cynical???" -k-
    3. Re:Depends on who has the patent by wesmills · · Score: 1
      If I want to move through a toll-booth faster, I'll buy a TollTag (tm, North Texas Tollway Authority, and don't you forget it! :) ). If I want to get through the grocery line faster, I'll use my debit card. Those and any other activity you can come up with do not require an indelible marking on my person. (I am also strongly opposed to biometrics and fingerprinting, tho I have to submit to the last one thanks to the lovely state of TX)

      Precisely the reason I do neither of these things is because the convenience outweighs the loss of privacy. I do not want to have a transponder on my car that can be used to track where and who I am (BTW: Yes, NTTA will let you have a cash-basis TollTag account, with few problems. I'm considering it). I do not want the grocery store irrevocably linking me with my purchases. And, no, I have nothing to hide, except everything because I feel like it.

      Sure, there are many good uses for this technology. And, the motive for the patent holder is probably not sinister. However, remember the kind of (US) government we (US citizens) live under, and then ask if you even want this on a "volunteer" basis, where the alternative is worse than "volunteering."

      (Let's not forget the blurb on the (US) IRS tax form: "Completion of this form is voluntary, however failure to do so may subject you to criminal penalties for income tax evasion.")

    4. Re:Depends on who has the patent by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Umm, just, like, cover it up.

      Or say, "Ignore the barcode today, Sam."

      If you don't have the barcode tattooed someplace stupid like the center of your forehead, you'd always have the choice to simply not show it. I don't understand why you don't think there's a choice here.

      Of course, I'm hardly advocating the use of a tattooed barcode, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

  9. Thank God.... by Rabbins · · Score: 1

    I am always losing my debit card and I.D.
    :-)

    1. Re:Thank God.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why the ATM won't just take
      my number and my PIN.

      I mean, I *know* my number, and there is an
      interface that would allow me to enter it in
      less than a second (I'm a badass keyboarder),
      and then the card could stay locked up.

      I've already limited the security to the PIN and
      the card number (since that's all internet banking or the ATM needs) so why not?

      If this comment reaches some slashdotter that's
      got a contract to work on the next model of ATM guts, there's my feature request!

    2. Re:Thank God.... by Rabbins · · Score: 1

      How 'bout the ones now being made by Diebold that use retinal scans?

    3. Re:Thank God.... by crispy · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% positive but I was always under the impression that the PIN(via one-way-encryption) was stored ON the card! Which seems horribly succeptible to fraud (I mean there's only 10,000 possible PINS)... However I am pretty sure that ATMs can still operate even if they are completely disconnected from the network (they just store the transactions and post them when the network comes back up...) which raises the level of confidence. I knew that 3 years as a Bank teller would come in handy some day.

      <SIG>
      I think I lost my work ethic while surfing the web. If you find it, please email it to crispy@crotch.caltech.edu.
      </SIG>

      --
      My sig has a broken link in it.
    4. Re:Thank God.... by Dino · · Score: 1

      That is correct. The pin number, and the card number itself is stored unencrypted on your debit card. We did a lab at school where we interfaced a 6812 to a card swiper. It was real freaky to swipe your ATM card and be able to get at your pin so easy.

      --
      That's not what I meant.
    5. Re:Thank God.... by Neuroprophet · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to an article about this, because I don't buy it.

      When I wanted to change my PIN number on my ATM card, I just went to my bank, and told them I wanted to change it. They brought out a small box connected to their computer with a keypad. I swiped my card and then put it back in my wallet. I then punched in my current pin. When I was verified I punched in the new pin I wanted twice, the second time to verify the first incase I made a typo. They then told me the pin would be changed overnight, so tomorrow I could start using my new pin. They never sent me a new card, and since my card wasn't swiped there after I changed it, there is no way they could have changed the info on my card.
      When I wanted a PIN for my credit card, I filled out what PIN I wanted on a little form that came with my bill. Again, I never got a new card. I did get a letter saying that my PIN was now active though.

      If your bank does it the way you say (everything unecrypted on the card), I suggest you change banks quickly...

    6. Re:Thank God.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the witness segment on privacy invasion from the Canadian Broadcasting Company. This details PIN numbers in cards somewhat, and even shows "live" proof. This is true, your pin is stored on the card. Perhaps the pin number used is the one from the bank, though. Only way to find out will be to try a bank machine when it is disconnected from the bank. I'm not sure how they connect, but I'd guess the more remote ones would use phone lines. Try one out in the middle of nowhere when the phones are broke... :-)

    7. Re:Thank God.... by jkovach · · Score: 1

      It's possible that the number on the card gets rewritten the next time you use the bank's ATM.

    8. Re:Thank God.... by Dino · · Score: 1

      I can't verify it for you. I could go on and on about HOW the data is stored there. They use magnetic pulses for the clock and the data is stored in between the pulses.

      We just used various cards we had to prove that it worked. The card I used for the demonstration was my college ID card which had, amoung other things, my Social Security Number on it.

      As for changing you number later. That's plausible. I remember when I got my ATM, they had my type in my PIN number first, then they stuck my card in a laser printer sized machine which then encoded my card.

      --
      That's not what I meant.
  10. What's good for the goose... by Mur! · · Score: 4

    Or, in this case, the cow or the horse or the pig or the goat...

    There are people *now* who have their infants or children tattooed for identification - just in case they get kidnapped or killed or whatnot. Heck, my mom used to threaten to have my lip tattooed if I forgot to take some ID with me in case something bad happened. She never did, but the sentiment is out there - keep our kids safe by marking them perminantly with something that identifies them as *ours*.

    I'm not advocating this, and I'd never do it to my kids, but I can understand the sentiment - especially when there are hundreds of kids stolen or lost every year, and at least twice as many parents who can't stand the not knowing. People have even gone so far as to implant digital tracking devices in dogs and cats - and extrapolate use of them on children!

    It's scary, but it's only symptomatic of the world we live in. That's pretty darn scary, too.

    1. Re:What's good for the goose... by SSKennel · · Score: 2
      People have even gone so far as to implant digital tracking devices in dogs and cats - and extrapolate use of them on children!

      People have been tattooing their SSN or other identification number on valuable animals for years. More recently, chips embedded in the skin at the back of the neck have begun to replace tattooing.

      The chip's ID number is read with a hand-held scanner held near the animal's neck. Most animal shelters and many veterinarians have the scanners. The hope is that the technology will help return more lost animals to their rightful owners. It's hard to argue that this is a bad idea.

      Implanting these chips in children is a whole 'nother thing....

    2. Re:What's good for the goose... by alumshubby · · Score: 1

      Y'know, this technology could replace MedicAlert bracelets. Imagine tattooing/implanting Alzheimer's-disease patients, so if they wander off, they're that much easier to identify. (Before you flame me, I spent a night along with a bunch of my neighbors helping look for one's lost father, whom the cops later found a half mile away on a stranger's porch.)

      --
      "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
  11. Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The Onion, that nefarious and now-popular news magazine, has prior work on this topic. Back in the late eighties when I was in school at UW-Madison, The Onion sponsored a contest for the most original tatoo, and would pay to have the winner's tatoo emblazoned on their body.

    The contest winner came up with the idea of tatooing the UPC barcode for Spaghettios on his arm, to save time in the checkout line (he could just wave his arm over the scanner instead of those heavy cans).

  12. Dumb patent - biometrics beat him to it. by laetus · · Score: 2

    With biometrics using fingerprint, palm, retina, etc. scanning, what need is there for a barcoded tattoo?

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re:Dumb patent - biometrics beat him to it. by Chuck+Milam · · Score: 1

      Good point. I'm actually surprised that biometrics hasn't caught on more than it has. I have a woman in one of my classes whose husband's company specializes in installing biometric time and attendance systems based on hand scanners. Seems like the the technology is there, now we just need to implement it.

    2. Re:Dumb patent - biometrics beat him to it. by alexjohns · · Score: 2

      There are some identification technologies that are easier to implement than others. If you've got your ID number tattooed on your forearm, you can just wave it over the scanner at the grocery store, and they can deduct the money from your account - really only marginally quicker than swiping your credit/debit card. It would come in handy if you forgot your wallet, though.

      But the point is that barcode scanning technology is ubiquitous - it's been around for years and is easy to implement. Any true biometric would be much harder to implement and would take years to arrive at the same amount of infrastructure.

      Of course, it would be almost absurdly easy to fake a barcode tattoo. I'm sure there's portable barcode scanners. Go someplace where people are baring their barcodes (the beach at last resort), surreptitiously scan in some numbers, then go make yourself a fake tattoo and you're golden.

      Makes me wonder what they'll do to make this more tamper-resistant. Special ink? Holographic type? A watermark?

      Overall, it doesn't seem like it fills any specific need. Definitely raises some spectres though.

    3. Re:Dumb patent - biometrics beat him to it. by Liria · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Your retinal scan pattern is pretty unique and permanent. So is your DNA. So are your fingerprints. Tattoos would be incredibly easy to duplicate or fake, no matter how intricate they were. If someone can design it, someone else can copy it. Dumb patent, amen.

  13. Hehe.. by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Dose this mean the US gov. wil have to pay this guy royalties to use it? Can we patent up most of the other ways of identifing people?

    Seriously, the patent should not have been awarded since it is a trivial (and has even been used in movies).

    Unfortunatly, the U.S. gov. dosn't need any such primitive methods of keeping track of people. All the law abiding people have social security numbers and they take DNA sample from a LARGE number of criminals.

    Jeff

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:Hehe.. by artg · · Score: 1

      This is the first reasonable response I've seen : why are so many others claiming there's prior art, it's a stupid patent etc. etc.

      This is a GOOD patent : it will make it harder (expensive) for the gov. to use that technology.

      We should patent key escrow, serialised CPUs, closed-source development, closed comms protocols and all those other things we love to hate.
      And then sit on the patents.


  14. Satan and his personal ID by confuzn · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this will be in every right wing christian mag in existance. Im sure that someone will start a Holy War because of these people. Woohoo I just love that R.E.M. song.........

    --
    http://www.confuzn.com
    1. Re:Satan and his personal ID by Chuck+Milam · · Score: 1

      The same woman I mention in a post above (her husband has a biometric time and attendance system) told me a some interesting stories about the problems her husband encountered in the southern bible-belt states. It seems that some of his client's employees were willing to quit, some actually became physically ill out of sheer terror--they truly believed they were about to recieve the mark of the beast. Apparrently, when they are calibrating these hand scanner systems and taking someone's initial measurements, the scanner displays numbers on a screen. One woman, who was already scared of this whole process, fainted when the numbers "666" came up while her hand was being scanned.

  15. I am not a number, I am a free man! by bjb · · Score: 1

    Funny, I mentioned this in a comment a month or two ago. I just wish I could search out the comment and also the quote from the movie Naked which someone was so courteous to post for me... Something along the lines of how it is written in the bible that the mark will be required to buy, sell or trade and the mark will appear on all goods and on all people. Scary stuff.
    --

    --
    Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    1. Re:I am not a number, I am a free man! by pompomtom · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where it's originally from, but Snog (Melbourne industrial dance outfit) use the sample.... cool track too.

      Buckets,

      pompomtom

      --

      Buckets,

      pompomtom

      "There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
    2. Re:I am not a number, I am a free man! by ingvar · · Score: 1

      "Prisoner", English TV series in 16 episodes, made in the mid-to-late 60's. Darned good, too.

  16. The mark by Nipok+Nek · · Score: 3
    "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (Revelation 13:16-18.)


    http://www.greaterthings.com/essays/666mark.htm


    Check out what they have to say about Bar Codes!

    --
    Why choose white shoes?
  17. Mark of the beast. by Qstyk · · Score: 1
    This is so totally Biblical. Increased natural disasters, the mark of the beast, people going on killing rampages... Better look skyward, people.

    Sounds like the book of Revelations to me...

    1. Re:Mark of the beast. by arthurs_sidekick · · Score: 1

      Actually, it makes me wonder whether some devoted fan of this whole "Mark of the Beast" thing has gotten tired of waiting for it to happen on its own and decided to go ahead and make it happen.

      --
      "Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
    2. Re:Mark of the beast. by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine if it really WAS? That'd be wacky! That'd mean that all those kooky Christians were RIGHT! Oh no! Then THEY all get beamed up to Heaven(TM) happy, smiling and high-fives all around, while the ominous music starts and the toads fall in waves from the sky upon the rest of us, and some Charismatic World Leader reaks havoc and destruction upon our wretched souls.

      Would that be stupid or what?

      I'd be so totally disappointed.

      --
      **>>BELCH
    3. Re:Mark of the beast. by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2

      Some of the other posters have a point: barcodes are very easily forged. However, just the fact that someone would patent such an idea seems to be a sign of the times.

      The Mark will probably not be a barcode. There are more reliable ways of sticking an ID on a person. But I don't doubt something like this will happen, and probably sooner than you think.

      CT

    4. Re:Mark of the beast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it did happen I, for one, would be glad I'd be going to hell. I mean, a heaven full of smug "we told you so" Christians is no place I want to spend eternity...

    5. Re:Mark of the beast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would want to go to heaven anyway? I dont think it would be fun to sit around and sing praises to God for ever. Think about it... Whos going to be in heaven? All the uptight, dont drink or do anything fun people. Hell, on the other hand, will be one big party! All the sinners will be down there engaging in all the sins! Drugs and drinking, and sex and what not... Now THAT is how I'd like to spend the rest of eternity!

    6. Re:Mark of the beast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company.

      steemheet@hotmail.com
      I am not a coward, Slashdot refuses to send me a password!

    7. Re:Mark of the beast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > The Mark will probably not be a barcode. There are more reliable ways of sticking an ID on a person.

      Tattoos are unnecessary. DNA testing / gene sequencing already does the trick with a saliva/blood/hair/anything sample. It's used in courts to solve murder/rape cases. A good movie to see is 'Gattaca'. Everyone must pass through computerized finger-pricking-blood-drop-DNA-analyzers everywhere for identification. The movie portrays a sort of Brave New World-like society of castes based on genetic "perfection".

  18. Not very efficient, though... by try67 · · Score: 1

    Even when not mentioning the severe ethical dilemas this creates (branding human-beings, creating goverment DBs and monitoring each and every purchuse, etc...) this is not a really good idea - Bio Identification is much more reliable and accurate, and is tougher to fake (rip an eye out or laser off a tattoo...)

    and a Barcode tattoo is the best tattoo one can get...

    --

    To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish. ---Euripides
  19. Big brother issues aside... by Mawbid · · Score: 1

    How the hell can you patent something like this?
    --

    --
    Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
  20. But I know I only cost $2.99... by BootHead · · Score: 3

    So wait, does that mean the Barcode I have tatooed on my leg is in breach of a Patent now? And does the fact that it woud "ring me up" as a box of coco pebbles (No I'm not kidding) mean my identity would be that of a box of cereal?

    On a more serious note, I wonder if the patent holder realizes that: 1. You could never get the general populace to agree to tattooed barcodes beacuse a. It's against many religons b. it just plain hurts 2. That they cost an awful lot of money 3. It's just a plain bad idea.

    Ya just got to wonder what's next . . .

    --
    "When I look down I miss all the good stuff, When I look up I trip over things..."-Ani DiFranco
    1. Re:But I know I only cost $2.99... by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      First, yes I am against this idea on moral, technical and common sense grounds....

      But do we know that this would be a traditional tattoo (visible ink injected below the skin with a needle)? I haven't looked up the patent, but it sounds similar to an idea I heard a long while ago.

      A mark that can be painlessly applied that is visible only with ultraviolet or some such. So you can't object for any health or comfort reasons, no religeous or cosmetic objections. And to top it off, it is not compulsory but you get a substantial discount for using it, or you have to pay a huge surcharge if you don't

      Some banks and merchants will insist on it and it will be harder and harder to get by without one. Airlines start to give passengers discounts for using 'ticketless' services, later some carriers simply require it for international travel. After a while, the government decides this would be a great cost-savings for social security, welfare and food stamp programs to reduce costs and fight fraud. Eventually, all public grade schools require that you have one and that your child's immunization records be tied to the code by your private physician. Then, to control overpopulation, everyone must go to carousel by their 30th year, or the red chrystal in their palm starts to blink and Michael York comes and kills you.

      Then I woke up from my nightmare sweating...

    2. Re:But I know I only cost $2.99... by techt · · Score: 1

      Funny you got yourself a tatoo. I've been planning to do the same thing for a couple years now, but have just never done it. Mine was going to be a 3-of-9 coded "techt" on my left wrist.

      Since code 3-of-9 is a different encoding scheme than UPC, at least I wouldn't have to worry about myself ringing up at the check out lane. :)

  21. Planning for the Future? by Pennywise · · Score: 1

    As scary as this is, this guy might be one smart cookie. If things in North America continue in the same direction they're currently going. Holding a patent like this could be a major financial windfall.

    I'm not saying It's not a bad (read: scary, inhumane, degrading) thing, but with governments steadily eroding our freedoms, this could be a step they'd like to take. Think of it, by barcoding people, and making it a manditory requirement for transactions, the spooks could very easily keep track of you wherever you go. I would hope that the politicians, and the general populous would never go along with such a stupid idea, BUT they could always use a new tactic to "protect the children" right?

    --
    "The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
    1. Re:Planning for the Future? by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      Well not really My understanding of the law is that the federal gov can take your patent if they want to. (You can't sue them without their OK, its called sovergn immunity).

      Plus I really don't think that would ever happen. There are just a few to many memories of the Holocost.

      But it is kind of Ironic that this comes up durring the high holy days.

      Happy New year 5760 All.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
  22. Comments about patents... by SparkyUK · · Score: 5

    Some time ago, a company I worked for was going through a buy-out. The management (of both companies) wanted the programmers to identify patentable technology in our (software) product.

    When I pointed out that there was nothing truly unique in our software (is there in anything?) and thus nothing patentable the response I got was : "It doesn't matter if it's enforceable, just applying for a patent will increase our value and the threat of a lawsuit will slow down our rivals."

    They didn't get any ideas out of us but it shows how pathetically cynical the whole patent process has become.

    The failure to include a sig., is in itself a sig.

  23. Warning: bad, possibly inappropriate joke ahead by arthurs_sidekick · · Score: 1

    It really does make you wonder, what would Brian Boitano do?

    --
    "Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
  24. Who needs a tatoo? by crovira · · Score: 1

    We're living breathing mobile bags of bio-metric data.

    Who is the idiot who figured that we needed tatoos? Anybody could get any tatoo and get it lased off or altered. That's a really, really stupid proposal. Patent offices are no longer the place to nurture budding Einsteins I guess.

    I'm me. Really. Like my wife says sometimes, "Its you allright. I just have to scratch and sniff." :-)

    -Charles-A.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  25. Who wants a barcode? by Twinky · · Score: 2

    I don't think that will be ever of any practical use, since you can have the same effect by having a microchip injected under your skin.

    That said:
    Top 5 reasons to have a barcode tatoo anyway
    • You like bars
    • You can have a tatoo even if your parents forbid it
    • You will never forget your name again ("Oh yes, I am 5346-3175!")
    • You are a numerologist and think it is cool
    • Before going on a date, you already know what your partner is worth.
  26. Whats the big deal? by Kewp · · Score: 1

    We already have unique fingerprints, facial structures, DNA, retinal patterns, etc ad nauseum whats the big deal with one more?

    I admit barcodes are tacky and associated with holocaust victims, but why not got for a sub-dermal microchip, or even an optional wearable one, like a ring or wristband? I know I would prefer it to a wallet + license +regisitration + insurance card + mac card + credit card yadda yadda yadda.

    1. Re:Whats the big deal? by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 1

      why not got for a sub-dermal microchip, or even an optional wearable one, like a ring or wristband? I know I would prefer it to a wallet + license +regisitration + insurance card + mac card + credit card

      I'd happily wear an identity bracelet if it meant I could be rid of all those cards I keep having to shuffle every time I want to buy something. I'd not be at all happy about a barcode tattoo or sub-dermal implant though. Having to be physically altered, even in such a minor way, in order to go about my daily business really freaks me out.

      Of course, voluntary physical alteration is fine by me. Where can I get Borg implants from? :-)

    2. Re:Whats the big deal? by minority · · Score: 1

      When tons of country already force people to bring cards to prove their identity, everything is not a big deal.

      The only drawback - it's not beautiful!

      People just don't like tatoo, not the barcode.

      General public would accept the microchip under the skin more than a tatoo.

  27. Welcome to 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes this worse is that if you look at the referenced patents at the bottom of the page, one patent is for identifying livestock carcasses! What's next?

    1. Re:Welcome to 1984 by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 1

      What makes this worse is that if you look at the referenced patents at the bottom of the page, one patent is for identifying livestock carcasses! What's next?

      I may be wrong about this, but I believe that microchip implantation of cows has been common practice in Ireland for a few years now. It enabled every cow to be tracked and was used to keep track of the ones with BSE so they could be removed from the herd and food chain. Ireland kept BSE well under control.

    2. Re:Welcome to 1984 by QuMa · · Score: 1

      Yes, but CARCASSES? I mean, if they're already dead, you'd want to take em out of the heard anyway, right?

    3. Re:Welcome to 1984 by j_d · · Score: 1
      Yes, but CARCASSES? I mean, if they're already dead, you'd want to take em out of the heard anyway, right?

      Dead cows become cow food in short order. That's how BCE spread. reading a carcass' barcode may give an idea that it needs to go to the incinerator, rather than the make-cow-food-from-cows plant.

      (*sigh*) Who wants the first soylent green joke?
  28. Home of the brave, land of the free by Bartmoss · · Score: 3

    Well, only the American patent office could grant such a patent. It's sad, it's stupid, it pains, and it shows us, that NOONE over there has learnt from history.

    I think they should dump whoever came up with this patent into the deepest depths of the pacific. Someone who has ideas such as those is not only seriously deranged, but a genuine danger to humanity.

    It ALSO makes you wonder, with all the recent control trips, Echelon, and so on that the US has put on, how long will it be until some smart representative/senator/whatever comes up with the idea of really using the system? Maybe only on criminals at first - or child molesters - no once could argue with that... And some day it will creep into everyday usage and then they do it automatically with every newborn child. of course by then, us the people here in Europe get to 'benefit' from the same crap, because afterall, we wouldn't want to disagree with our 'friend', the USA.

    Maybe it's my sarcastic and pessimistic nature coming out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next Hitler is an American president, let's say, 15 or 20 years down the road.

    1. Re:Home of the brave, land of the free by RossB · · Score: 1

      Maybe only on criminals at first - or child molesters - no once could argue with that...

      The US already has this, its called Megan's Law, Or the sex offender registry.

      You must register "IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A SEX OFFENSE". Which is anything from rape to lewd behavior (such as public nudity).

      Its scary when criminals have to start registering so they can be out casts for the rest of their lives, even after they have served their jail time. If they are so dangerous that they need to register, they should still be in jail.

      Anyways, look for more "registries" soon.

      -RossB

    2. Re:Home of the brave, land of the free by hobbit · · Score: 1

      It's not up to the patent office to pass moral judgement in this issue. Their place is to provide the means by which certain disputes over intellectual property can be resolved.

      However, granting this one is absurd because of the existence of large amounts of prior art.

      Hamish

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    3. Re:Home of the brave, land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All general statements are false. All of them."

      - Defiant

  29. I can see it now... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    ...The master of shoplifting...

    Temporary tatoo man!

    (Insert Music)

    1. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone will just show me the standard for the barcode, I can have Bill Gate's barcode tatooed on me: "oh, just charge it to this" he says as he waves his hand.

  30. This can't fly. by stienman · · Score: 1

    First, this cannot be proven to be an original idea. Alien3 used barcodes on the back of prisoner's necks, etc. (I haven't read the patent, /.ed, but I assume they patented a specific method/type/algorithm/place or something along those lines.)

    Second, I can carry a laser barcode scanner that works well past a few hundred feet, scan someone's visible barcode (when they show it to an officer, at the bank, etc) and use it. It is then a simple matter of painting over my own with makeup, and redoing the barcode in makeup.

    -Adam

    What the world needs is more geniuses with humility. There are so few of us left.
    -Oscar Levant

    1. Re:This can't fly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe if you go back and watch Aliens 3 again that you'll discover that they had *numbers*, not barcodes, tattooed on the back of their heads.

  31. Same as it always was by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    used to be, a lot of products sported the mark "Patent Pending" - which makes it sound "new & improved" to the uninformed, but obviously means, hey we've merely applied for a patent. I'd bet more than a few should have changed the mark to "patent rejected" eventually.

    Chuck

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  32. subdermal LCD display exists. by Tekmage · · Score: 1

    There was an article a while back about just such a technology. Someone had demonstrated a very thin, active (as in working, not active-matrix) LCD display embedded just below the surface of the skin in the wrist, about a year ago...

    Can't find a reference to it right now though. Anyone?

    --
    --The more you know, the less you know.
  33. Re:Movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...nevermind the numerous movies that have used barcode tattoos as a plot device in the past. Whoever patented this obviously has no imagination of their own.

  34. Prior art, hell, how about "nonobvious..." clause? by Sun+Tzu · · Score: 2

    Since, to be patentable, this "process" must be nonobvious to one "skilled in the art", we don't need prior art to render it invalid.

    If, however, this is deemed "nonobvious" then I'm gonna get patents on barcoding ( or otherwise marking with machine-readable identification ;) livestock, real estate, public lamp posts, and little blue pills. I would list more but I don't want someone to beat me to it. Meanwhile, if anyone tries to patent one of the "processes" listed above, I can still cite this comment as prior art! ;)

  35. tatto, location of by zenray · · Score: 1

    If this ID tatto ever was forced on me I think I'd get it on my a**. That way I'd at least get the satifaction of mooning anybody that forced me to show it. Just a random thought.
    The two-D barcode is being used by Panasonic as part of their document imaging system. Once this technology is matured, I predict it will be tied into a world wide database to ID everybody. Some states have plans to put it on their drivers licenses. And we all know where digital data in state databases actualy goes, don't we? It won't happen soon, but in the name of 'protecting the children from perverts' or 'protecting the world from terrorists' I can see it happening. I don't like it but what can we do?

    --
    zenray
    1. Re:tatto, location of by bolie · · Score: 1

      Driver license data is already digitally
      stored in databases. The only change would
      be having the number in an easily computer
      scanned format. My Texas driver's license
      already has a magnetic barcode. I'm not
      sure what's on it and no one has actually
      used it for anything, yet, but I'd bet it
      at least has my driver's license number on
      it. Hell, if the whole thing was stored
      magnetically, then someone who found my
      wallet wouldn't know who I was unless they
      had a scanner... hmmm....

      Bolie IV

  36. Infocriminals turn left, Lawful citizens turn righ by anticypher · · Score: 1

    Arrgh. This brings back too many bad memories.

    Remember the story I posted last week about a neighbor who was in the Polish resistance, and helped some of the Polish Intelligence agents smuggle the Enigma plans to England. His wife has a tatoo on her arm, and she had no problems re-telling what life was like in a concentration camp.

    I have a feeling this guy will soon be the target of a lot of people with some very bad memories of tatoos. I wouldn't want to be the guy who sold him life insurance.

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  37. Less privacy than biometrics!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Barcodes can be picked up at much greater distances than biometrics.

    Soon there will be a black truck sitting outside a concert taking barcodes.


    Computer injured software engineer wins against Mattel!"

  38. stuipd ass [atent office by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    gee, does this mean that i could copyright water, and then charge a $30 dollar lisencing fee to drink it in Arazona?

    --bsDaemon
    dfree@inna.net

    1. Re:stuipd ass [atent office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that depends, can you spell Arizona?

    2. Re:stuipd ass [atent office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A natural resource cannot be patented...there's a few (one?) shread of sanity left, aparantly...
      -- Justin Motion

  39. Ha, ha, ha! by uradu · · Score: 1

    This should rile up all the Southern Baptists in the readership! They've been preaching this crap for decades. Also, it's funny how our profession draws some of the looniest freaks on earth. Anything to do with conspiracies, big brother, lord knows...these insecurities must stem from not being loved as a child or something.

    Just apply some logic, people: unique indentifiers are only useful if they are UNIQUE. A barcode is one of the most forgeable things on earth, whether on a box of cereals or the head of your penis. No selfrespecting government--let alone the US one--would give it a second thought. Still, this is great stuff for paranoia.

    Paul Radu

    1. Re:Ha, ha, ha! by JerkBoB · · Score: 1
      whether on a box of cereals or the head of your penis

      The mental imagery conjured up by that... laff. "Your ID, please, sir." "'Scuse me while I whip this out..." *zzzip* *beep*

      (with apologies to Mel Brooks)

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
  40. Voluntarily...? by Skip666Kent · · Score: 3

    Be wary of the whole 'positive' and 'voluntary' aspect often attributed to this sort of thing. It usually poorly conceals a system in which the alternatives to the 'voluntary ideal' are made so distasteful and inconvenient as to actually 'punish' those who choose not to 'volunteer'.

    Forced control is harder to get away with and easier to rally support to fight.

    --
    **>>BELCH
  41. References by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take a look at the first reference cited at the bottom of the page.....
    (or)
    http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ilink4?INDEX+0+ 4597495+F

    speaks volumes.... doesn't it??

  42. Not necessarily visible by MartyC · · Score: 2

    It's just a thought but you don't have to have a visible tattoo and tus suffer from the negative effects of having a number etched onto you.

    I saw a prog on telly once about rave culture, and there was a young woman on who worked for some big firm in a customer facing role. She obviously couldn't go around with a load of facial tattoos in case she freaked out the custo's so she got a really cool Spider web tattoo done on her face in a flourescent dye so you could only see it under UV lighting in clubs or whatever.

    This doesn't mean I'm in favour of this whole idea, but it does mean you don't have to be "disfigured" by a mandatory tattoo...

    --
    -- "Sponges grow in the ocean. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
    1. Re:Not necessarily visible by Shadowlion · · Score: 1

      As a personal anecdote of dubious value...

      I recently visited an amusement park in Minnesota, and if you wanted to leave the park temporarily (for example, running out to your car to grab a towel for the water park inside), they stamped your hand using special ink that could only be seen under a black light.

    2. Re:Not necessarily visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valleyfair uses the invisible ink now. Last time I was there it was still visible when you got stamped.

    3. Re:Not necessarily visible by MartyC · · Score: 1

      under a black light

      ?!?

      What is black light? Is that what happens when you wire a light bulb up backwards? ;)

      --
      -- "Sponges grow in the ocean. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
    4. Re:Not necessarily visible by jkovach · · Score: 1

      A black light is basically an ultraviolet (I think) light. It causes most light and flourescent colors as well as glow-in-the-dark material to glow. They are often used for stage effects. Sometimes they are used to help clean up pet accidents, as urine glows under a blacklight.

  43. Ha! Suck my prior art, bitch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My room mate's brother has had his SSN tattooed in bar-code format on his arm for years, his justification being that if he's ever dismemebered and his head can't be found, they could scan his arm in (I suppose assuming they find THAT) and see who he is.

    And that, I believe, is enough for prior art.

  44. Checkout Person with a BarCode on his/her wrist by robin_s · · Score: 1

    If they are going to put the barcode on, say the inside of "your" wrist, I wonder have they thought about what could happen to a checkout person who's barcode just happens to be say "Milk" !!

    Could you then take them to court for damages ? ie you can no longer work at your chosen trade.

    --
    http://www.munich-irish-rovers.de
  45. Code me up baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm quite happy to be barcoded:

    * Its better than having a chip implanted

    * You can graft it off if neccessary

    * You can play with yourself on 'Barcode Battler'

    * You can hide amongst canned soup in the local supermarket when being hunted by police

    * If ethiopian, you constantly have your family photograph imprinted into you.

    * You can claim that youre a modern art fan and that its really just a Mondrian classic.


    I could of course be talking utter Bullsick.

    1. Re:Code me up baby... by punkrawk_freak · · Score: 1

      Why was that anonymous - i wrote that.... AND IM PROUD OF IT

      --
      -=>>=-
  46. I wonder what his motive is by Nate237 · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder if this is a person who is scared to death of this happening, and applied for the patent to attempt to prevent it in the future.

    It reminds me of a stupid rumor going around a couple of years ago about someone going into a Wal-Mart, telling the cashier to scan their hand, and then telling them that they are part of a test of this method of payment. Of course it was a bunch of crap. I wonder if this person thinks that they are going to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

  47. Re:Your message is a contradiction! by Slef · · Score: 1

    If you think everyone should be identifiable, why are you posting anonymously?

    --
    -- Slef
  48. K3WL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they allow us to choose the number ourselves I'll be the first in line. Of course my # would be: 31337-841)455

  49. Re:Yet another Liberal whiner . . . by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    You are a fucking idiot.

    "the only 'victims' are victims of their own stupidity"??

    Please. That's ridiculous. How bout I torture you to death over the next few months? Would YOU be a victim then?

    "The only people who could possibly object to this are people with something to hide: Drug dealers and other criminals."

    And almost everyone else. How many people wouldn't object to this is the real question. I don't know a single person who would go along with this kind of shit.

    Funny this is coming from an AC. Fucking moron!

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  50. Hmm... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    Why the hell do we have to police the Patent Trade Office? There's prior art out the yin-yang on this, not least(*) of which being me wondering, in this forum, about a year ago, if having RSA tattooed on my ass in bar code format would make me illegal to export out of the country (And the answer to that one should be "yes" since it's in machine readible format.)

    * OK, so it really is the least of it.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  51. Didn't Molly have such a watch? by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2

    I'm referring, of course, to the character in Neuromancer.

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  52. One other possibility... by Patman · · Score: 1

    You know, there's one other scenario that I haven't seen anyone else bring up here - did they possibly patent this so that it would NOT be used? Think of it, what better way to prevent something from being used then if you own it, and the government agrees? Albeit, I have yet to read the patent, due to the /. effect, so I don't know exactly what it reads, but this is a possibility.

  53. Re:Before you go making generalizations by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > All the law abiding people have social security numbers

    Before you go making generalizations please do some basic law research. There is NO law that REQUIRES a person to have a SSN/SIN.

    There ARE law abiding citizens WITHOUT Slave Identification Numbers. They are the Sui Juris (Free Men), and Sovereigns.

    http://www.nyx.net/~imschira/frogfarm/fffaq16.ht ml#sov

  54. Another bit of prior art by Mike+Hicks · · Score: 1

    Didn't they use this idea in Alien3? I seem to recall one opening scene looking at a barcode on the back of the head of the foreman (or whatever title the prison leader had..)

  55. There is prior art in movies... by javatips · · Score: 1

    The patent will not old up in court.

    The movie "Forteress" with Christofe Lambert pictured people with bar code as ids. I think also that in Alien 3 there is some bare code ids on the prisonners.

    The patent was filled in 1996 and these movies date before that.

    Look's like the patent office clerk do not watch movies!

    1. Re:There is prior art in movies... by Darksky · · Score: 1

      Just because the movies show the bar-code tattoos, doesn't mean they filed patents for them.
      If I invented a warp drive, the patents would be mine, not Star Trek's.

      --
      01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011
    2. Re:There is prior art in movies... by BitrSweet · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's not how patents work. It's just the first person to actually apply for a patent, not the actual person to invent it. The makers of those two movies must not have thought it necessary to apply for a patent. There are things that just don't have patents because nobody thought about getting one or needing one.

    3. Re:There is prior art in movies... by phil+reed · · Score: 1

      They (the studios) didn't have to file a patent. All that has to happen is to show that the idea was in circulation prior to the patent, and the patent is therefore shown to be non-original and thus invalid.


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
  56. Aren't tagged animals considered "livestock"... by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    ...even if they're pets?

    Thus, theft or killing such a tagged animal, renders the perp subject to prosecution for a felony.

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  57. barcode tattoos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barcode tattoos are only readable for
    a couple of years. After that, the
    ink loses resolution, and pretty soon it
    can't be scanned. Several people in my very
    tattooed and otherwise modified circle of
    friends have had barcode tattoos.

  58. Re:The mark - prior art by kovacsp · · Score: 1

    Now, if that prior art isn't as clear as day. Man, that patent examiner needs to be.....re-educated. :)

  59. Re:Yet another Liberal whiner . . . by jammer · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't even respond to this ugly troll, but I can't resist:

    1) "By advocating protecting people from their own stupidity, you are advocating a welfare state."

    2) "Drug dealers and other criminals"

    What is the primary nature of many drug laws? To protect people from their own stupidity! Same with seat belt laws, helmet laws, and all the other pointless, freedom-restricting cruft we have in the legal system.

    Try to think a little more before you spew next time -- if you consider drug dealers criminals, you are advocating a welfare state.

  60. Identification and information routing by _jthm · · Score: 2

    How many numbers are currently associated with your body?

    Physical street address, land line telephone, wireless telephone, IP address for your box(es), email address(es), social security number, driver's license number, passport number, school ID numbers, etc, etc..

    Consider eventually having an IPv6 address as an identification number. Emails route to it, snail mail routes to it, you have a small tattoo on the inside of your wrist to scan the large number, and a retinal scan to verify yourself. Local routing tables keep track of a physical locale to leave shipments - updating them when you drop into a hotel for a week, for instance, means packages, bills, whatever could possibly always get to you. The routing table has a permanent address in it as well, and when you sign up for a bill you indicate the floating address or the permanent - and the floating address can change from day to day, updated across the routing system like DNS propogates right now.

    Of course, we'll get mugged - our wrists severed and one eye gouged out. No more 'give me your wallet'.

    1. Re:Identification and information routing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then IPv7 comes out and you're obsolete. I certainly wouldn't want anything transient tatooed on me. Not even the name of a girlfriend.

  61. And lest someone try to patent *that*... by CRConrad · · Score: 1

    try67 writes:

    "Bio Identification is much more reliable and accurate, and is tougher to fake (rip an eye out or laser off a tattoo...)"

    Just so nobody comes up with a Patented Method For Fooling Retina Scanners, Wesley Snipes did that already, in _Demolition Man_. (Prior Art, Prior Art! :-)



    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

    --

    Christian R. Conrad
    mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
  62. Sounds to me like a stonewalling tactic. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    When I was a kid I was raised as a Christian. I was forced to attend church, and sunday school. I learned about the mark of the beast in sunday school.

    I was told that nobody would be allowed to buy or sell anything without the mark. Well, if you read the application for patent protection it is a system to very human identity during sales transactions.

    It sounds to me like either

    1. This is the attempt of some well meaning Christian to legally stall or possibly even prevent the apocalypse that he believes is coming, or perhaps even scare some non-practicing Christians into coming back to the church.

    or

    2. I made a mistake when I changed my religion.

    If I were a betting man, I'd bet on 1.

    This system would be highly vulnerable to color copies being used instead of real flesh and blood to authorize transactions.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Sounds to me like a stonewalling tactic. by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      Speeking as Jew I have 2 probems with this.

      One the memory of the Holocost is way to fresh in my mind. At the old folks home that my grandparents live at there are way to many folks who can't wear short sleaves as they don't want that number visable.

      Two tatoing is agenst my religion on general pricipals.

      Three, Ick.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    2. Re:Sounds to me like a stonewalling tactic. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      My grandmother is a nurse who cares for old Jewish people. I've met some holocaust avoiders (people who pretended to be something other than Jewish until they could escape from Europe) and my wife to be (getting married tomorrow, WooHoo!) is also a nurse and when she was in college she worked at a nursing home where there there was one old man who had the tattoo from when he was in one of the Nazi camps.

      There were actually morons there who didn't know what the tattoo was. Some stupid bitch made this old man cry by grabbing his arm and asking "What is this?"

      Many in our generation are totally clueless. In 20 years when all of the holocaust survivors and most of their children are gone, I can see the short attention spanned people in this country (The USA) thinking that shit like this is actually a good idea.

      It's kinda funny (funny as in strange, not is in comedic) that after the holocaust more than hald of all male babies in the USA now get circumcised. I had a Jewish Biology professor who used to joke that this was a Jewish conspiracy to prevent easy visual identification of Jews to avoid a future holocaust here in the USA.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  63. tatooing for ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My idea was your name in ascii binary tattoo'd on your arm (or my friends idea, inside your lip).

    1. Re:tatooing for ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, I am part number ||||||+||||||

  64. Tattoo ID'ing happens elsewhere... by Jeff+Ballard · · Score: 2

    I once ran into a guy at a waterpark (which is why I saw him without a shirt on) who was from an eastern European country. Under his left arm on his chest he had tattooed:
    His Name
    His Religion
    His Blood Type
    A number
    And one or two other things I forgot. Apparently they use it for a more simple reason... war. Its easier to 1. know what kind of blood to put in the soldiers quicker, and 2. what kind of headstone to give them if they are killed.

    Scairy...

    --
    Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
    1. Re:Tattoo ID'ing happens elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figure they will spring this on soldiers first,
      who have no choice about anything at all.
      Then, after the big war (which generates a LOT
      of soldiers, most of whom will live to be veterans
      I guess), society will be softer to the notion.
      Things that seem beneficial to the standard of living (just hold up your hand to the tv screen
      to order a pay-per-view sports event!), will tend
      to be more easily accepted.

  65. Yeah, well, exactly. by CRConrad · · Score: 1

    QuMa writes:

    "Yes, but CARCASSES? I mean, if they're already dead, you'd want to take em out of the heard anyway, right?"

    Yup.

    And if you go out in a distant field, where you keep a few hundred of your thousands-of-heads herd and find a carcass, it would perhaps be nice to know which of your [cows / horses / ostriches / whatever] it was. For instance, if since you were last in that field you had found out that Critter #5432 had possibly contracted hoof-and-mouth disease, because your logs show that it had previously been in the same field as Critter #6543 -- does this bloated, rotting, half-eaten carcass where you can't see any ear markings or tattoos any more mean you better kill off the dogs you had running in that field? Stuff like that.

    (Then of course, if the chip itself is missing, you still have a chance of finding it by scanning the dogs -- in case it got lodged in the stomach of one! ;^)


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

    --

    Christian R. Conrad
    mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
  66. Barcode tattoos by linuxy · · Score: 1
    Disturbing, but somewhat amusing. I have a friend who actually got a barcode tattoo. It didn't actually *scan* to anything, but he claimed, and convinced some rather gullible people, that it scanned to a box of tampons at walmart. It would be rather bizzarre to have actual information tattoed on you -- but considering some of the people who are out there some of them will probably want it done.


    Or maybe mothers will get it done on their kids. You know, scan them to get their address in case they are lost.


    'If lost, send to ***TAMPON 24PK***'...


    The future scares me.

  67. Next Hitler a US Pres? Smoke too much crack, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're stark raving mad, Europe-boy. Look through history and see where all the 'evil dictators' have originated. Granted, we've only been around since 1776, but even over the past two hundred odd years, we've had more problems in Europe/Asia/South America/Africa than any other continents. Stalin. Hitler. Mussolini. You get the picture. I'm not saying that a new Hitler couldn't come from the US, I'm just saying it wouldn't be the President; more likely, if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the bastards will come from the NSA, FBI, or CIA, and just take over quietly... and probably start with identification/tracking tech. This tattoo thing just isn't good enough, because it can't be tracked via satellite. I'm sure it will come it a microchip injected at birth to save the children or some such crap. "Love your country, fear your government."

  68. im a trend setter :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had a bar-code on my neck since '89 :)

  69. Subdermal LCD? See it here! by laetus · · Score: 1

    Here's a site that proves it's already here: BBC's Best

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
  70. Just because he got a patent... by ptomblin · · Score: 1

    ...doesn't mean anybody will actually do it. The patent office doesn't rule on practicality or marketability.

    --
    The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  71. Protect your valuable children from theft! :) by Venomous+Louse · · Score: 1


    the sentiment is out there - keep our kids safe by marking them perminantly with something that identifies them as *ours*.

    It's scary in a way, but most of the public discourse about child-rearing in the USA these days starts with the unquestioned assumption that people have a right to do as they please with their property -- be it their children or whatever. Yes, of course, limits are observed when the "property" is a child (e.g. sexual abuse is not acceptable), but one really does hear a hell of a lot of talk about everybody's right, for example, to impose arbitrary limits on their kids' education. Never a word is said about whether it's in the child's best interests; until the kid is 18, the only relevant rights are those of the child's owners . . . (and according to most conservatives, if the child is a she, her body at least should be the joint property of her husband and the government for the rest of her life -- but that's another rant). Ugh. No, I'm not suggesting that the government is likely to do a better job than the kid's parents. I'm not making any suggestions at all about social policy, law, or anything else.


    "Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"

    --
    "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
  72. Or Pat Buchanan a lot sooner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I wouldn't be surprised if the next Hitler is an American president, let's say, 15 or 20 years down the road.

    Don't sell Pat short. He's doing his best.


  73. The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago The Onion had a contest to see who could come up with the best tatoo idea. The winner got the tatoo - which was a barcode. The barcode was taken from a box of macaroni and cheese.

  74. Probably wouldn't work anyway. by skip277 · · Score: 1

    In addition to all the ethical, religious, and aesthetic(sp?) reasons not to do it, here's another. Human skin isn't exactly static. It's organic and constantly changing. Soooo, lets assume that you tattoo a child. By the time they're an adult, the tattoo may have changed enough to be unusable. Same goes for older folks who got them in young adulthood. Have you ever seen a tattoo that someone's had for 50+ years? They are often unrecognizable and that's for pictorial data, not something like a barcode which relys on relative positioning to work.

    This was a shitty idea to start with, but what makes it worse is that the totally evil person who came up with the idea didn't even think it through.

    Skippy

    --
    "False modesty is the refuge of the incompetent." - The Stainless Steel Rat
    1. Re:Probably wouldn't work anyway. by PigleT · · Score: 1

      I thought the outer few layers had a tendency to regenerate every ~50 days or something anyway...

      Imagine being one big barcode from head to toe...
      ...but not with a herd of zebra around ;)

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
    2. Re:Probably wouldn't work anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tattoos fade because of sun exposure and changes in skin.

      This is easily avoidable by correct placement. The small of the back is usually protected from sun and body fat expantion, unless you get a tan, or perhaps right above your crotch. Think Bikini, I guess, but that leaves many of the areas open for question.

      But, I'm guessing that if they did implement these on a wide scale, they'd probably outlaw tans too.

      your local body-art person.

  75. Security through Obscurity by Phrogz · · Score: 2
    There's no need to be concerned, folks! If someone tatoos a barcode on you against your will, just one-up them: Tatoo barcodes over every inch of your body.

    Just let them try to find the right one!
    *beep!* "Oscar Meyer Weiner...try again."
    *beep!* "Liqd Plumbr...try again."
    *beep!* "Sheryl Crow...try again."

    That'll teach 'em! :)

  76. And don't forget books... by aidoneus · · Score: 1

    Like the hot author of the (day,week,year), Neal Stephenson. Who can forget "Snow Crash" where in a future US everyone is tattooed with a bar code to allow easier IDing from the Mafia's helicoptors?

    How prior art is it? Try June 1992...

  77. Re:Yet another Liberal whiner . . . by ushirageri · · Score: 1

    I don't think barcoding, in your case, is what's required. I think you need to be tatooed, on the head, with a large hammer. You A.C. are a gutless idiot.

  78. Re:Before you go making generalizations by Weezul · · Score: 1

    > There ARE law abiding citizens WITHOUT Slave
    > Identification Numbers. They are the Sui Juris
    > (Free Men), and Sovereigns.

    Ok, I withdraw generalization.. but how do they earn money, go to collage, etc.? or is the number only so you can withdraw it later and they don't really care if you have the number so long as you pay the taxes? I'm pretty shure both of the Universities I have been to required a social security number. If you need the number to pay the tax, it sounds like a good cause, but not exactly realistic for most people and if collages require the number then there is a large number of people who need it regardless.

    Jeff

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  79. This make me remind an AbBusters campaign by mewn · · Score: 1

    Scarry thing !

    Did you remember an old AdBusters campaign on the TV ?
    A man watching TV with a barcode tatoo on his head.
    The message were : "YOU are the product"
    If you are curious, go to AdBusters to see some of their ads.

    --
    It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
  80. Gee, this is original.... by emag · · Score: 1

    Not only Philadelphia Experiment II used tattooed barcodes on people, but also an episode of the Swamp Thing TV series did the same. Both were definitely before 1996...

    --
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  81. Depends if its voluntary or not. by BlakStone · · Score: 1
    Look, if some Black Ops gov't agency starts tattooing people to keep permentant records of them, there's gonna be a fucking war in the streets, not to be redundant but "NAZIS!!" Hello? do the following words have any meaning to you: Totalitarian, Dictatorship, Slavery, Oppression. George Orwell??
    My brother has 4 tattoos, one of which is a barcode tattoo on his upper forearm, its not an ID number or anything, if scanned (it was done with IR sensitive ink, cost a fortune) it reads "hello there". its kinda neat, and he uses it to hit on the check-out girls at the supermarket (yes I am fully aware of how lame that its...)but the point is, that is perfectly acceptable, because it was voluntary.

    --
    Gnothe se Auton
  82. Movie: Terminator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is blatantly stolen from the movie "Terminator" staring Arnold "I'll be back" Go watch it again.

  83. patents from the Human Genome Project by ethereal · · Score: 1

    That one's scary. I have no problems with a company patenting the devices they used to determine the genome information - obviously that's their competitive advantage. But I don't see how anyone can patent a naturally-occurring gene anymore than you can patent other natural processes, such as surface tension or erosion. The Human Genome Project is involved in discovery of existing information, not creation of new technology. And (theoretically, at least) you can't patent information, you can only patent a device.

    --

    Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  84. Re:Before you go making generalizations by ethereal · · Score: 1

    Technically I don't think anyone other than the Social Security Administration can require the use of your SSN. Other groups have to generate you a different number for identification purposes if you request it. I remember seeing this on financial aid forms, etc. I'm sure there are a bunch of hoops to go through to do this, however.

    --

    Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  85. Barcode Tatoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The reason this is in the US patent office is that just about everything else is patented. There is even one in there for an male masterbation machine.

  86. Mark of te beast... by Godin · · Score: 3

    One problem that appears to have been overlooked is the elastic nature of skin. If you barcode a human when thay are an infant, they grow, and the surface area of the hand, forehead, whatever increases. If anyone has ever seen an older person who got a tatoo when thay were young, they know that the ink starts to run after a while. Lines get blurry and wide, and less recognizable. This is something that would cause issues with scanners and identity.

    Also, as the fellow who is a box of cocopuffs will testify, anyone with a tattoo pen (wich can be made easily out of a guitar string and a poorly balanced motor) can forge a tattoo. easy enough to masquerade as someone else.

    No The Mark of the beast will be much more elusive, creative and foolproof. A microchip under the skin is what seems to be the latest (well since the 70's but I think that's classified), and in 5 years it may be something else.
    Guess we won't know till it happens huh?

    --
    --"Cynical?? Who's cynical???" -k-
  87. Re:The mark (Of COURSE!) by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    Well, there's one upside to all of this....

    Anyone who believes in the Antichrist, etc can now breath easier. Who'd have thought! All it takes to learn who the spawn of the devil is, is to look at a patent application! :-)

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  88. more misunderstanding and misinformation by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    It's quite obvious that you don't understand Christianity. Likewise, the first two replies don't understand the nature of heaven and hell.

    CT

  89. "livestock" varies by region by / · · Score: 1

    Historically speaking, in England, "livestock" was anything with four legs and a tail, and was therefore taxed. You may have noticed that English sheepdogs have been bred not to have tails. It seems the economy interprets taxes as damage and reroutes around them (to do some paraphrasing).

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  90. case of a bill of attainder by / · · Score: 2

    See Cummings v. Missouri (striking down anti-conferderate loyalty oaths) and US v. Brown (excluding communists as officers of unions). The sexual offender was convicted of a crime and served his penalty for that crime. Any additional punishment inflicted retroactively is unconstitutional: Article I, Section 9, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    The problem is, no one likes sex offenders, and so no one has any qualms about violating their rights.

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  91. please explain this one: by / · · Score: 1

    Parental consent laws (concerning abortion) are founded on the idea that parenting is a fundamental right protected by the constitution (Stanley v. Illinois, etc.). So, the parent can inflict his right to parent upon the child, prevent her from having an abortion, have her give birth, and therefore implicate her fundamental right to parent? What morons!

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
    1. Re:please explain this one: by emerson · · Score: 1

      There's a huge, almost inassailable, mass of precedent that minors do not have full Constitutional rights under the law. Conversely, minors do not have full legal responsibility for their actions under the same mass of precedent.

      That's why putting a minor on trial as an adult requires special permission from the court -- minors and adults simple have a different set of rights and responsibilities under US law.

      Not that I'm making a statement as to whether that's a good or bad thing; I'm just answering your request to explain why adult parents have the right to make a decision that restricts their minor child's (non-)rights.


      --

  92. A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    If I might add a correction,

    What is the primary nature of many drug laws?

    Not as much to protect them from there stupidity as there ignorance. But also to protect the state. Drug use in general produces, Doctors with short memory loss, operators of heavy machinery with impaired judgement, accountants that are addicted to getting high more than a value of not stealing, and bosses with really cranky shifting attitudes. And lazy workers or not workers who need welfare.

    Now there are many causes of these symptoms, that isn't an issue. Drug use *is* at least one cause of these symptoms which is preventable. So in this way it tries to prevent a welfare state, since drug users on average require more welfare than people not on drugs.

    I think you have spewed too soon yourself, becuase however much I am a Libertarian, refusing to consider drug dealers as criminals creates a worthless state requireing welfare.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~

    1. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by jammer · · Score: 1

      "Doctors with short memory loss, operators of heavy machinery with impaired judgement, accountants that are addicted to getting high more than a value of not stealing, and bosses with really cranky shifting attitudes. "

      And alcohol produces broken families, dangerous accidents, reduced income, poor work performance and bad breath. Smoking causes lung cancer second hand. Excessive reading of Slashdot reduces your work productivity. Yet we still allow, in one degree or another, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and Slashdot. Why? Because we are, in theory, a free soceity.

      It is *your responsibility* when you read too much Slashdot and fail to contribute to your part of the GNP, not CmdrTaco's. Should we make him a criminal for reducing the national productivity?

      Drug laws are silly.

      You fail to consider the economic benefit of sales tax on drug products, the reduced burden of enforcement of ever more ridiculous rules designed to solve a non-problem, the state support of millions of "drug criminals" in prison, the release back onto street of perps of *real* crimes because some dope peddler is taking up a prison bed.

      Tag. Your turn.

    2. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by ushirageri · · Score: 1

      One question... How much spin-off crime(ie: Break & Entering, Mugging, Murder and Petty Theft) can you attibute to Drugs? Doesn't matter if drugs are legal or not! The criminal mind will do something criminal in order to get enough cash for his/her fix. Unless you plan to put junckies on a government sponsored "Drug Benifit Plan" If so, please count my tax dollars out thank-you. I don't think drug laws are "silly", I just think the enforcement is somewhat misdirected.




    3. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1


      argument 1: two stars(**)
      And alcohol produces broken families, dangerous accidents, reduced income, poor work performance and bad breath. Smoking causes lung cancer second hand. Excessive reading of Slashdot reduces your work productivity. Yet we still allow, in one degree or another, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and Slashdot. Why? Because we are, in theory, a free soceity.

      And there are restrictions on the use of each of these. You need to be over 18 (21 is some areas) to purchase alchohol, and some age for cigarettes too (and might I add they cause lung cancer and kill you). Slashdot is filtered by many corporate firewalls to help increase productivity of employees. I've actually been censored for wating time with slashdot at work, and adequately so. I'm not getting paid by them to read Slashdot. That would be a dole or what some describe *welfare*.

      argument 2: one star(*)
      (paragraph 3)

      Cmdr Taco provides a very informative service that to me generaly benifits society. He is not a criminal. However, no drug dealer (except a pharmacist) can argue that he is at all benifiting society. Lets not confuse the two, shall we?

      Argument 3: no stars()
      (paragraph 5)
      I don't fail to consider the economic benifit. How many science fiction novels have been writen where a government actually uses drugs to placate its citizens while they economicaly rape them. That to me is no different than legalizing drugs so we can "get in on the profitable drug buisness" ourselves.

      Drug selling is a real crime, it contributes to a welfare state where its citizens are less cabable of acting for themselves. I don't think I can be clearer than that.
      ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~

    4. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by stang · · Score: 2
      How much spin-off crime(ie: Break & Entering, Mugging, Murder and Petty Theft) can you attibute to Drugs? Doesn't matter if drugs are legal or not!

      Please.

      How many incidents of "spin-off" crime can you attribute to alcohol? Cigarettes? It makes a big difference if they're legal.

      The criminal mind will do something criminal in order to get enough cash for his/her fix.

      We're *all* criminals. When was the last time you broke the law? I'll confess -- I was speeding on the way back home this morning. Legalization, taxation, and support for those with genuine problems is a much more humane (and realistic) solution than trying to lock up everyone you can get your hands on. The laws are unfair (witness the Cocaine/Crack sentencing disparities), selectively enforced, and are turning our country into a police state.

      Wanna know what's really screwing up this country? The (failed) War on Drugs.


      Stang
      --
      "200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
    5. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by ushirageri · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. It doesn't matter if the particular vice in question is legal or illegal. It's the fact that the consuming individual will go to great lengths, many times criminal lengths, in order to satisfy his/her habit. That's why I stated that the enforcement, time, money and manpower, is misdirected.

      Finally breaking the law by going 10 MPH over the legal speed limit, while yes, I did break the law, has to be taken in a lighter view than someone who mugs you and puts you in the hospital over the 20 bucks you had in your pocket. All in the name of satisfying their addiction. (Whether it be drugs, booze or smokes, they're all addictions. Correct?)

    6. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by jammer · · Score: 1

      Re argument 1:

      Yes, there are "restrictions" on tobacco, booze, etc. But by your arguments, on the points mentioned in this item alone, they should be OUTLAWED, not "restricted".

      Re argument 2:

      How can you state that no drug dealer is benefitting society? If I do something that makes me happy, it generally makes me more productive. If I can go down the street, and buy a bag of marijuana, and smoke it, and it makes me able to go to work with a good attitude the next day, that's a benefit. And don't give me "harm outweighing the good" unless you have numbers on it.

      Furthermore, something not benefitting "society" is not a reason to outlaw it. I used to be a complete M:tG addict -- to the point where I was skipping work to play it (student job). This is obviously harmful, but we didn't make WotC criminals over it, did we? There needs to be a more compelling reason. You have yet to provide a valid one.

      Re argument 3:

      You're using science fiction novels to validate a real-world argument? For what it matters, I don't believe in any sort of sales tax [oy vey, let's not start another debate here!], but the point still remains, as you failed to address any other side of the issue. What's the figure? It costs 30-50 thousand dollars to keep an inmate in prison for a year? In 1996, there were 150000 people in state and federal prisons whose worst crimes were drug offenses. This is between 4 and 8 billion dollars a year! Do you think this is in any way less than the "harm" these people would have done in society, especially if they were participating in a free market?

      It doesn't add up.

    7. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too dumb for words

    8. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by gig · · Score: 1

      >>What is the primary nature of many drug laws?
      >Not as much to protect them from there (sic)
      >stupidity as there (sic) ignorance. But also
      >to protect the state.

      Honest citizens who take drugs like Valium(tm), Prozac(tm), Budweisser(tm) and Viagra(tm) will be rewarded. They will be allowed to keep half of their weekly salary. They will be secure in the knowledge that they are helping our great country's corporations in their quest to patent, manufacture and market EVERYTHING the consumer requires.

      Dishonest Citizens who take drugs made from non-patentable plants such as cannabis, heroin, cocaine and LSD will be punished accordingly. They will be assigned numbers and sent to one of our nations many new prisons (manufactured by our great prison-building corporations) where they will be raped and tortured indiscriminately. Their names will be available in perpetuity to curious Honest Citizens through government Web sites. Their children will be sent to caring foster homes run by Honest Citizens. Their property will be forfeited to the state, who will auction it off for low prices to Honest Citizens. The state will use the money to outfit government police forces with more guns, body armor and surveillance equipment (purchased from more of America's great corporations).

      ... This ain't sci-fi ... it's now, folks. Step up and get your barcode (patent pending).

      >I think you have spewed too soon yourself,
      >becuase however much I am a Libertarian,
      >refusing to consider drug dealers as
      >criminals creates a worthless state
      >requireing welfare.

      Look up the definition of libertarian: someone who doesn't consider the use of force to be a vaild tool for political or social change. Let me spell it out: it mean no put gun to head of pot-smoker, Linux-user or other heretic. Also check the timelines ... the first drug laws were in the late 1800's and welfare didn't start until the mid-1900's. We spend much more on the Drug War and prisons than we do on welfare. Get a grip and a clue.

    9. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      I like what you say... it is an interesting point but one to take up the labeling of good and bad drugs with the FDA. I for one think they have plenty of evidence to back up there descisions.

      Just remember those narcotics you described are more harmful, and *legal* through perscription.

      Besides laws are not enforcement. Enforcement is something you do with laws, and frankly the natural laws that punish the body of a drug abuser more strictly enforced (no judge to repeal, no jury to persuade) than the laws we use to protect people from them. So once again I'm not the one to argue with.

      Here let me help you construct another arguement with her....
      "Mother Nature, your not fair, I smoking shouldn't give you Lung Cancer! Smoking isn't wrong!"

      If she doesn't change for you, go around to all your friends and keep complaining "Mother Nature is just unfair! Its a monopoly, a conspiracy that always helps out big buisness! She's so UNFAIR!"

      I said I was Libertarian, not Anarchist.
      ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~ ^~~^~

    10. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here let me help you construct another arguement with her....

      "Mother Nature, your not fair, I smoking shouldn't give you Lung Cancer! Smoking isn't wrong!"

      Okay, let's spin that argument a bit:

      You're basically saying:

      "Mother nature, you don't punish drug users enough, so we're implementing our own system of punishment. You're not strict enough. Drug use is wrong."

      I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one.

    11. Re:A new game called Liberal Tag, and your it.... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      That was cute. Wrong, and entirely opposite of what I mean, but cute none the less. I'll clarify...

      I'm not saying we need to punish Drug users more. What punishment is there more than an agonizingly long death? At best a drug user OD's and gets it over with quickly.

      Laws and the enforcement of them offer a smaller punishment in hopes that someone does not have to face the larger more unavoidable punishment. It is a law we make and live by to keep us from breaking a more dangerous and unrepealable law.

      I hope this makes it more clear that its actually lesser punishment I would rather, not the greater one. And luckily it is still possible within our law system to face the greater one. No one has taken away your right to choose. No one can stop you from doing something you know already is wrong.

      I emplore anyone who uses them to see the evidence that they are destructive and stop, and although they will face unpleasent consequences there whole lives, they will be absolutely happier they did quit. Laws may help people realize this, but they won't stop you from destroying yourself if you really want to.
      ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~

  93. unit 123073 by sar-fu · · Score: 2

    I've had a barcode tatoo on my right forarm for over 3 years now. The reactions it gets are pretty funny, everything from "that is the coolest thing I have ever seen" to people being noticibly freaked out. Im getting a subdermal tracking implant next.

  94. Prior Art by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 1

    What stunned me about this patent wasn't how outrageous it is, but that it's further proof that our patent examiners are asleep at the switch. There are numerous references to this sort of technology in literature from the 1950's onward. IIRC, THX-1138, George Lucas' first film, has this sort of ID in use to track its citizens. A friend of mine had his SSN converted to one of the more popular types of bar code (Type 37?) and tatooed on his arm.

    All I can figure is that the patentabilty rests on intent - commerce. It could be argued that the references from science fiction describe a use like a passport or green card, and my friend could have gotten his tattoo as self-expression or as social protest, not for the sake of commerce.

    Remember, just because there is a patent doesn't mean that the patent could withstand a legal challenge. One aspect that I hadn't considered before reading this forum was that someone patented this process for the purpose of keeping someone *else* from using it for 17 years.

  95. *very* prior art by xeno · · Score: 1

    I have a friend with his US Social Security Number tattooed on his arm in Code 39 (3 of 9). He's had it since the late 80's which should document prior art of codes designed to be machine-readable.

    If all that's required to document prior art is OCR-able text in a tattoo, I have some pictures of my grandparents' friends, who had identifying tattoos placed on them during a certain unsavory time period most Germans would like to forget. One could even argue that the triangle symbology was designed for optimized recognition, and thus was setting the stage for direct machine-readable identification tattoos.

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
  96. Relax.... by syncsyncsync · · Score: 1

    It's just some tasteless person taking out a patent. Consider... how many people would allow such a thing to be done to them, even (Gods forbid) if there were a law requiring it? Nobody! So this is just like patenting the use of the corkscrew to inflict pain and suffering on yourself. Sure, it's possible. But is anyone asking you to do it? Would you do it even if they asked you to? So chill :) --Sync

  97. Whats next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government run soylent green factories.

    1. Re:Whats next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know sometimes, I like to drag a deceased equine out to the back yard and hit it repeatedly with a large tree branch

  98. A vaguely interesting idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thought occured to me. If the guy gets the patent through, could he then demand royalties from all the tattoo parlor's that do the barcodes?

  99. Re: MODERATION SUCKS by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, my post wasn't THAT offensive!

    Oh well, I guess I should watch my mouth... err.. fingers ;-)

    I suppose this will be moderated down too. So much for my Karma...

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  100. That's Patent Worthy? Excuse me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didnt we already decide that for something to be patent worthy, It needs to be Original?

    That is, I'm sorry, one of the Least original Ideas I've ever heard.

    Perhaps they were patenting the Orientation and placement of the Thing?

    "Bend over." [beep] [Boop beep] "Thank you."


    Lord Bitman.. Having trouble logging in.. I'll make a new account later.

    And my Uncle Works in Barcode R&D, something I really didnt think existed, And I'll be damned if I understand it yet, but he does, And the company he works for has a Patent on 2 Dimensional Barcoding, Wich Stores Package Tracking Information Vertically, and the normal stuff (Like what the package is) Horizontally.

    That to me, is an Original and Patent-Worthy Idea, As well as the software required to allign the image and process it.

    Sticking a Barcode on someone's Arm is no where near patent-worthy.

  101. Speaking Biblicaly by On+Lawn · · Score: 3


    Intuitively, this doesn't seem to be the mark spoken of. Think on this,

    This isn't a very secure individual marking system, any tatoo can be replicated. One can merely have access to your account after taking a picture of your hand. So as a unique identification a mark on your hand is very poor.

    However, taking the reference to Revelations "save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" would denote that one isn't being identified as individual but as part of a society with a mark and two passwords.

    These marks and passwords are used to authenticate that someone can make an economic transaction with another member of a particular society, not as an individual access method to their own money (we will always have cash, or gold or other monitary exchange system. And as long as that is around there is no enforcable "mark" system.

    It has been said that "causing all" is a reference to the government making a law. However this is a hasty reaction since there are many economic and political motivators that such a society can use to "causeth all...to recieve a mark". And by no means does it say that they will be successful in causing "everybody" to get it. But it will entice people in a way that is offencive to God, hence his utter cursing of the mark (boils and blisters).

    In otherwords this isn't a clear reference to government.

    Why some people, in fear of such a society might be motivated to mark themselves to entrust that who they are speaking to are "safe" from the other mark. Others might be setting up a secret economic order where you are essentialy creating a silent monopoly or mafia like order, and you need to know who else is involved so you won't try to steal from them (but will try from everyone else.)

    Also remember, the 144,000 also recieve a mark in there foreheads....

    I'm welcome to further email discussion on the topic. (just remove the SPshieLD)
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~

  102. Voluntary? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2
    Are you sure about this? The print on the 1998 tax forms reads:

    You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number.

    ...

    If you do not file a return, do not provide the information we ask for, or provide fraudulent information, you may be charged penalties and be subject to criminal prosecution...
    Form 1040 does indeed contain a valid OMB number, and this is the only reference anywhere in the IRS form documentation that mentions anything resembling "voluntary".

    Is there some other place on the form or supporting documents that you're basing this information on?
  103. Re:Mark (Natedawg is frightened) by NatePuri · · Score: 1

    With the recent news I can image a scary but realistic sci-reality.

    People who except the mark will receive, not only food and shelter (as approved members of the New Society), but rejuventated neurons and benign nano-viruses that will search for errors in their genetic code and fix them all. Others will modify the person's genes to give them precedented health strength and intelligence. Finally, these people will receive fetal stem-cell treatment over the course of their lives to replace parishable cells with immortal ones. As an added bonus these people will be awarded genetically engineered and cloned automaton slaves to service needs of sex, labor, and comfort.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the population (like all people who do not excepte the tatoo) will be allowed to starve and die from nanomachines and nano-viruses designed to kill them and decompose their bodies into basic non-polluting carbons and nitrogens that will be used to fertilize the global re-greenification project.

    Sound impossible? You don't read /. enough if you think so.

    Here's what I will do: Run for the hills; try to disappear; shoot first ask questions later. Oh shit! I hope nothing even close to this ever happens.

  104. Re:Mark (Natedawg is frightened) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok....I don't know what you're smoking, but everything you've just said about people with the mark of the beast surviving with immortality is such a bunch stuff from someone's far-fetched imagination. The ONLY people who survive after the mark of the beast has begun are the people who DO NOT have it--the ones who've accepted Christ into their hearts. I wish you luck, because I'm sorry, my friend, but the only people who won't die, are the ones with the gift of eternal life.

  105. Complete Movie Quote:NAKED (barcodes & wormwood) by smirkleton · · Score: 2
    In reference to the barcode conspiracy and in response to an earlier request, here is a transcription of the entire apocalyptic monologue from Mike Leigh's "Naked".

    JOHHNY: Has nobody not told you, Brian, that you've got this kind of gleeful preoccupation with the future? I wouldn't even mind but you don't even 'ave a f*ckin future. I don't 'ave a future. Nobody as a future. The party's over. Take a look around you, man. It's all breakin' up. Are you not familiar with the Book of Revelation of St. John, the final book of the Bible, prophesying the Apocalypse?

    BRIAN: Yes. As it happens, I'm familiar with all of the books of Bible.

    JOHNNY: I'm very happy for you. "He forced everyone to receive a mark on his right hand, or on his forehead, so that no one shall be able to buy or sell, unless he has the mark, which is the name of the Beast. Or the number of his name; and the number of the Beast is six-six-six."

    BRIAN: Six-six-six. I know about it!

    JOHNNY: Great!

    BRIAN: I know about Nostradamus. Nostradamus talked about three brothers. Now, did he mean the Kennedy brothers, or was he talking about three bits of the Soviet Union. You see, you just can't tell.

    JOHNNY: F*ck Nostradamus! I'm not talkin' about Nostradamus or Mother Shipton or Russell Grant or Mystic f*ckin Meg- I'm talkin' about the Holy Book! What can such a SPECIFIC prophecy mean? What is the mark? Well, the mark, Brian, is the bar code- the ubiquitous bar code that you'll find on every bog-roll, on every packet of johnnies, on every pocy pork pie. And every f*ckin' bar code is divided into two parts by three markers. And those three markers are always represented by the number six. Six. Six. Six! Now what does it say? "No one shall be able to buy, or sell, without that mark". And now, what they're plannin' to do in order to eradicate all credit-card fraud, and in order to precipitate a totally cashless society, what they're plannin' to do, what they've already tested on the American troops, they're gonna subcutaneously laser-tatto that mark on to your right hand or forehead. They're gonna replace plastic with flesh. FACT! In the same book of Revelation, when the seven seals are broken open on the Day of Judgement, and the seven angels blow the trumpets, when the third angel blows 'er bugle, "Wormwood will fall from the sky. Woodwood will poison a third part of the waters, and a third part of the land, and many, many, many, many people will die". Now do you know what the Russian translation for "wordwood" is?!

    BRIAN: No.

    JOHNNY: CHERNOBYL!

  106. Actually, only $2.64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a 35 cent off coupon.

  107. NEVER!!! by johnrpenner · · Score: 1


    i will never accept a barcode tattoo.
    we are not cattle!

  108. Re:Complete Movie Quote:NAKED (barcodes & wormwood by kuroineko · · Score: 1

    Off-Topic. Just for the sake of clarity....
    There's no such word in Russian, 'chernobyl'. This plant is called "polyn'" or
    'polyng', whatever is you preferred way to transcribe a trailing 'soft n'.
    "Chornobyl" is Ukrainian name for that plant. Ukrainian is close to Russian, but in fact, this is
    completely different language. Yes, I speak both :)
    And one more thing. Russian translation of 'The Revelation' (Apocalypsis) mentions 'the star called wormwood will fall from the sky....'
    I was 16 when this happened, I lived there with my parents. Trust me,
    no start were falling on us. But that's completely another story.

    --
    KuroiNeko
  109. Maybe a patent can help by Ydna · · Score: 1
    Perhaps the patent holder would be so kind as to charge outrageously high royalties as to prevent its use.

    Of course, the point is moot. We'll have chips implanted just like my poor dumb cats.

    --

    "The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me

    1. Re:Maybe a patent can help by Kalak451 · · Score: 1

      Hell, why didn't one of us patent this first??? if it holds up WE could kept it from ever being used!

  110. Re:Complete Movie Quote:NAKED (barcodes & wormwood by smirkleton · · Score: 1
    Mr. Kuroineko:


    Sorry if you perceive errors here, but what was keyed in was an exact quote from a movie called "Naked", by famed British filmmaker Mike Leigh. Your correctly noted language correction (Russian vs. Ukrainian) is appreciated, though.


    As for stars-falling-from-the-sky, most people who believe this was a vision of the future accept that the description is slightly allegorical. The point is well taken, given that a Jew in the first century having a vision of any sort of nuclear catastrophe (or a worldwide, cashless economic entity for that matter) would be at something of a loss for high-resolution descriptions. Visions of a nuclear meltdown, with the glowing core burrowing into the earth, would probably look more like a burning star had hit the earth than anything else imagineable.



    For what its worth.


    Smirkleton.

  111. URL for this invention's grandpa. by M.+Piedlourd · · Score: 1
    This patent was referenced by M. Heeter. Have a look. To summarise, it is a database system for keeping track of animal carcasses at meat packing plants; a disturbing antecedent to say the least.

    Uncanny.

  112. Patents mean absolutly nothing by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1
    How is this news? There are patents for horse powered cars, no not buggies, but cars with a horse in 'em. I don't see the zealous and all too irrational PETA people freaking out about it, yet slashdot seems to think because something is a patent its on its way. Don't hold your collective breaths.

    Ob-its-already-happened: Somewhere Henry Rollins is say 'its about they caught up!'

  113. Check the Patent Claims by Wanker · · Score: 1

    The "claims" of a patent provide the legal definition of the scope of the patent. In order to infringe upon a patent, ALL of the claims must be violated. Needless to say, it's in the inventor's best interest to make the claims as vague as possible. However, the Patent and Trademark office has historically been good about denying overly broad patents.

    If even one portion of the claims is not duplicated exactly as described there is no patent infringement.

    The claims for this patent:

    1. A method of human identification to facilitate electronic sale transactions comprising the steps of:
      providing identity information about a purchaser on a storage medium, providing skin marking invisible ink, applying said invisible ink to an appendage of said purchaser to form a tattoo on said purchaser, storing characteristics about said tattoo on said storage medium to form stored characteristics about said tattoo, and linking said identity information about said purchaser to said stored characteristics about said tattoo.
    2. A method of human identification as in claim 1 further comprising the steps of: providing financial information about said purchaser on said storage medium, and linking said financial information about said purchaser to said identity information about said purchaser.
    3. A method of human identification as in claim 1 further comprising the steps of: providing financial information about said purchaser on said storage medium, and linking said financial information about said purchaser to said stored characteristics about said tattoo.
    4. A method of human identification as in claim 2 further comprising the steps of: scanning said tattoo on said purchaser with a scanning device to obtain scanned characteristics of said tattoo on said purchaser, comparing said scanned characteristics to characteristics about other tattoos found on said storage medium in order to determine if said scanned characteristics match said stored characteristics about said tattoo on said purchaser stored on said storage medium, and only if said scanned characteristics match said stored characteristics then providing said linked identity information in order to verify the identity of said purchaser.
    5. A method of human identification as in claim 4 further comprising the step of: only if said scanned characteristics match said stored characteristics then providing said linked financial information in order to verify that said purchaser has sufficient funds to consummate a sales transaction.
    6. A method of human identification as in claim 5 further comprising the step of: only upon verification that said purchaser has sufficient funds to consummate said sales transaction then modifying said stored financial information about said purchaser to reflect a consummated sales transaction.
    7. A method of human identification as in claim 3 further comprising the steps of: scanning said tattoo on said purchaser with a scanning device to obtain scanned characteristics about said tattoo, comparing said scanned characteristics to characteristics about tattoos stored found on said storage medium in order to determine if said scanned characteristics match said stored characteristics of said tattoo on said purchaser stored on said storage medium, and only if said scanned characteristics match said stored characteristics then providing said linked financial information in order to verify that said purchaser has sufficient funds to consummate a sales transaction
    8. A method of human identification as in claim 7 further comprising the step of: only upon verification that said purchaser has sufficient funds to consummate said sales transaction then modifying said stored financial information about said purchaser to reflect a consummated sales transaction.
    9. A method of human identification as in claim 5 further comprising the steps of: providing financial information about a seller on said storage medium, and only upon verification that said purchaser has sufficient funds to consummate said sales transaction then modifying said stored financial information about said seller to reflect a consummated sales transaction.
    10. A method of human identification as in claim 7 further comprising the steps of: providing financial information about a seller on said storage medium, and only upon verification that said purchaser has sufficient funds to consummate said sales transaction then modifying said stored financial information about said seller to reflect a consummated sales transaction.

    So for example, if one were to use visible ink instead of invisible, it would not be patent infringement. Or, if one were not using financial information, then it would not infringe on this patent.

    Of course, I am not a lawyer and cannot provide specific advice on patent issues. So the above may be patently false. (No pun intended. ;->)

    1. Re:Check the Patent Claims by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      In order to infringe upon a patent, ALL of the claims must be violated.

      Not quite. ALL of the elements of ANY ONE claim must be present.
      /.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  114. Mark Of the Beast Has Come and Went by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People...How many of you on this forum have the
    following items:

    1.)Credit Card Bam! Your life displayed inaswipe
    2.)Shoppers Card Bam! Another piece of the soul
    2.)Toll Tags for the car. Bam!
    4.) Browser Cookies! Bam!

    There is *no need* to identify you any further!
    But, thanks to folks who just don't care, privacy has erodeed for those who do, like me. Thank you for opening the door to retinal scanners! The identification battle is already over. People are funny. Get all hot and bothered when confronted with a "TV scenario" that contains some stereotypical(and unlikely) implication of risk. But blithely accept real-life affronts with a smiling face when those affronts come attatched with the smallest of convienences. To the previous poster. Not about your post! Just a random rant. Ah just another day in the US^H^H^H^Sheepland. Baaaaah!!

  115. your out of it.... by On+Lawn · · Score: 0

    1: laws are restrictions, outlawing something only restricts its use.

    2: No drug dealer is benifiting society. Placating peoples problems doesn't help them deal with them. More often acts to keep them looking for quick escapes, and not deal with problems. Check with the FDA, C Everett Koop, American Medical Acssociation, and other places to see numbers on how harmful these products are to yourself and society. If you refuse to see this incontravertable evidence, if can't look at reasonable facts then you are blind to reason and further argument is futile. If you think illegal drugs are good for you, you may be using them too much and then become a physical proof of what you are arguing against.

    3: The use of science fiction is secondary to the fact that simply adding a sales tax to harmful drugs is creating a government that is feeding off its people, rather than being for the people. Again its a simple truth, and inability to see it warrants this as being useless.

    My point still stands, legalizing the drug use you suggest would create a welfare state, with citizens less able to act for themselves. (Think chemical dependancy and how much that hampers one from acting for themself.)

    Sorry if this has reached an unpleasent end so soon.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~

    1. Re:your out of it.... by jammer · · Score: 1

      1) What has this to do with anything? My point was on outlawing vs. partial restriction. You do not address it.

      2) You can use a substance without using it to "hide" from your problems. You fail to take that into effect. The AMA themselves said, had it been known in the 20s what the DuPont family was pushing as "marijuana" was actually "cannabis", they would not have recommended outlawing it. Read The Emporer Wears Green Clothes [iirc, that's the proper title]. As for your oblique implication that I use illicit drugs, you're wrong. I haven't in some time. And applying to the argument that "if I think illegal drugs are good, I may be using them too much" is a personal attack and has nothing to do with logic.

      3) Again... so? You cite my inability to "see" whatever "truth" you support, without making any real points. I maintain that keeping drugs illegal causes more harm than good, and keeps citizens less able to act for themselves. Again, you can have use without dependency.

      You do not address any of the points I raised, and resort to personal attacks, non sequitors, and misleading arguments. One can only assume from this that you have no further logical footing on which to continue this debate.

      I consider any further discussion on the matter frivolous and unworthy of a reply until any valid contention is raised.

    2. Re:your out of it.... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      whiner
      ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~

  116. Still more prior art. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2
    Mad magazine put their UPS barcode on Alfred E. Neuman's forehead when the system was first deployed.

    I've seen barcodes as I.D. tattoos used by a repressive regime in at least one made-for-TV movie years ago, too.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  117. And? by StormDawg · · Score: 1

    Did any such meltdown occur at Chernobyl?

    And which third of which land was it that was poisoned? Seems awfully arbitrary to me -- as does the interpretation of most prophecies...

  118. Another case of prior art... by Chad+Page · · Score: 1

    In "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland the characters talked about getting barcode tatoos (and rejecting the idea thinking it might become unfashionable later) - and then one of the characters meets on-line a female-geek (who didn't state her gender on-line) who went by 'Barcode'... who just happens to have one... :)

    Wouldn't be suprised if this idea was covered in there...

  119. mmm...re-education by copito · · Score: 1

    Makes you want to live in a dictatorship, doesn't it.

    ...as long as we're in charge. Wink Wink
    --

    --
    "L'IT c'est moi!"
  120. I'd get mine put on my butt. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

    I'd get mine on my butt, with an anaconda and jaguar intertwined around it. That way you'd have a legitimate reason to drop trow and moon everytime you wnated to buy something.

    It would be really handy to get a picture of Bill Gates tattoo and have that put on the appropriate cheek as well. So much for high-security.

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  121. Not just first to file by copito · · Score: 1
    You have to be "diligent" about filing but being first to invent and produce is also important. In the end a court decides.

    Here's the lowdown from http://www.nolo.com/encyclo pedia/articles/pct/pct4.html


    What happens if there are multiple applications for the same
    invention?

    If a patent examiner discovers that another pending application involves the
    same invention, and that both inventions appear to qualify for a patent, the
    patent examiner will declare that a conflict (called an interference) exists
    between the two applications. In that event, a hearing is held to determine who
    is entitled to the patent.

    Who gets the patent depends on such variables as who first conceived the
    invention and worked on it diligently, who first built and tested the invention
    and who filed the first provisional or regular patent application. Because of the
    possibility of a patent interference, it is wise to document all invention-related
    activities in a signed and witnessed inventor's notebook so that you can later
    prove the date the invention was conceived and the steps you took to build and
    test the invention or quickly file a patent application.

    --
    --
    "L'IT c'est moi!"
  122. Agaaaiin! by K-Man · · Score: 1

    Sorry.

    --
    ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
  123. regular religous holidays by holloway · · Score: 1

    So you can't object for any health or comfort reasons, no religeous or cosmetic objections

    There are religions that forbid non-traditional body markers of any kind. The numbers to form a legally recognised religion are pretty low. It's amazing how you can abuse the law from within the MattyFaith.

    But if you're looking for paranoia, come read my piece (of shite).

  124. Three Words by LordXarph · · Score: 1

    Poor Impulse Control.

    -Lx?

  125. No, not the mark of the beast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not yet anyway. But it may be very soon.

    If anything the mark of the beast could be more like putting a digital certificate on everyone. So if you don't have the cert you can't buy or sell.

    In order to prevent duplication, what happens is they scan your iris or use some sort of biometric, add some miscellaneous data, and then The Big Bad Boss signs it, and thus creates the digital certificate, which is then put on the person.

    Why not just plain biometrics? Coz you probably need a huge online network to check everyone for everything.

    With this method, for small stuff they just have to check if the cert is ok. For more important stuff where biometric checking is available they will verify the tattoo, and then read off the biometric data, and compare it with your actual biometrics (iris, etc).

    Probably a 2D "barcode" would be more appropriate as it stores more data. e.g. PDF417.

    The technology is all there.

    Politically: the push by the Big Powers (media, govs, corporations, finance powers) towards globalisation is on. Globalisation would in the end demand the centralisation of authority and power. Coz there will be all these "inconvenient" disputes, and all this "borderless world" problems. So they'll say "We need a final central Authority/Court".

    I prefer a decentralised world. No single point of "failure". Divide and conquer.. The citizens can then run off to some other country if bad things happen. Whereas if everything was under one authority, and the authority went bad..

    So you better watch out who you put at the top.

    Use your votes and voices carefully and responsibly.

    Link.

  126. If people already steal wallets for IDs to copy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suddenly the idea of getting robbed in a dark alley by a person with a knife becomes an even more terrifying prospect to deal with. I actually like the idea... in theory. The convenience would be far outweighed by the "Big Brother" aspect and the increased danger to those who had them.

  127. Bug in the flowchart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a look at the flowchart ( might be easier). Translated into pseudocode, the bottom part goes like this: while true do Search for stored tatoo /*sic*/ characteristics in the indentity /*sic*/ database /* CPU accesses stored tatoo /*sic*/ characteristics from the identity database and compares to scanned tattoo characteristics */ if characteristics match then leave loop end So anyone's barcode isn't in the database, the shop's computer will go into a hard loop.

    1. Re:Bug in the flowchart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a URL there: http://www.patents.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/US0 5878155__

      Let's try it with Plain Old Text this time

  128. Skin Distortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or wouldn't the barcode become runied if you gained, then lost weight. Wrinkles could probably screw it up too. Sounds like a waste of brainpower to me.

  129. No seriously by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    check out www.drug-abuse.com/information

    There is even a link to an article that directly refutes your stupid assumption that smoking Marijuana is at all benificial to an employee. I wish I had time to list and refute all of your adolescent attempts at justification of dangerous behaviour, I really do. But the websight does it all well enough for me and in a less inflamatory way.

    http://www.drug-abuse.com/information/marijuana/ mar7.html
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~

  130. Gee, I believe this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a quote from that page, with my own refutations (footnote markers are mine, not from the page):

    "Employees who report marijuana use are different from nonusers," said Dr. Lehman. They are much more likely than nonusers to have arrest histories [1], low self-esteem[2], high rates of depression[3], and friends who are deviant[4]. Many marijuana smokers also have alcohol-related problems. One-third of marijuana users in the surveys reported they drank frequently[5.1], one-half said they got drunk[5.2], and 60 percent reported a problem with alcohol use[5.3], according to Dr. Lehman.

    1. More likely than nonusers to have arrest histories. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that they can get arrested for the sole reason that they *are* users? Nowhere did I see a statistical "correction" for this mentioned.

    2. Low self-esteem. Gee, mommy, are cause and effect interchangable if I'm a big-shot researcher who would have my career destroyed if I advocated an unpopular idea?

    3. High rates of depression. See #2. Of course, depression and low self-esteem couldn't possibly be tied to each other...

    4. More likely to have friends that are deviant. Let's pop over to dictionary.com for a moment:

    deviant adj : markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; deviant ideas" [syn: aberrant] n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable

    Any given person is deviant from someone's point of view. I was thinking about not mentioning the fact that marijuana use is considered by many to be deviant and that someone who uses marijuana is more likely to have friends who use marijuana, but I might as well point it out.

    5. Funny, they don't compare alcohol use statistics to non-users of marijuana. Last time I checked, plenty of people have alcohol problems without the assistance of marijuana. Let's take a look at some of the things mentioned:

    5.1. I'd really like to see the questions they asked for these. It could easily be "Do you drink more than three times a week?". Depending on who you ask, that person could be a light drinker. Of course, the question could have asked just about anything related to drinking frequency; the point is, no numbers are given.

    5.2. "One-half said they got drunk". Got drunk when? How often? How drunk? Too many variables for this to really mean much.

    5.3. I don't have much to say about this one that hasn't already been said; namely, how was the question worded, and why didn't they put down numbers for non-users of marijuana?

    Now, would you mind explaining to me how this "directly refutes" the previous poster's ideas? By the way, you would do well to not make assumptions about people's ages on a text-only, (relatively) open medium. Just my own advice.

  131. Re:The mark isn't a barcode it is a smart chip by idic · · Score: 1

    And they are already paying people $250 to have it implanted in your hand!

    http://www.idchip.com

    --
    Devout follower of The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
  132. Re:Yet another Liberal whiner . . . by LT+Grant · · Score: 1

    man, untill you have seen IN REAL LIFE some of the sh*t those holocaust people went thru. SHUT THE FSCK UP. nie wieder

    --
    ---
  133. your arguing with the wrong person by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    He has scientific evidence, and you are providing inadequate congecture. Argue with him. But in the mean time I'll take a few quickies...

    1) Duh, but I think you'll find if you look at the study that there is a higher rate of "secondary" crimes among non-users too.

    2 & 3) I don't see where you are getting with your comment, It has the taste of simple FUD (as in you offers no evidence, only creates a story of a doctor you should fear, and then point to him as if we should fear him too.) When you can't fight it just complain?

    Also this comment directly refutes the posters assumption that smoking marijuana makes a happier more productive employee. Others I'd refute if he only offered any reason to believe him in the first place.

    4) You are still assuming that people are only imagioning marijuana to have bad side effects. This is the problem I keep running up against in the two maybe three people who responded to my post. You (and them) have no proof other than vain imagionation, and the author has scientific studies that you can argue with scientificaly. It isn't our imagionation that Marijana is bad, we aren't sugjecting the label of deviant. Illegal drug use is bad, and endorsement of it is deviant.

    5.1,2&3) Exactly, but it is higher than the average of non-users showing a correlation. You'll learn about correlations in Statistics class. But at least you want to delve into the research at this point and maybe conduct your own scientific study and argue with him scientificaly. This offers me hope that you are inclined to actually study the truth. Feel free to do so, feel free to email me with what you find. I think you'll just find (as I did) that the evidence against you is insurmountable.

    And, by no means did I ever infer the previous posters age. Adolescent ramblings can come out of very juvinile adults.

    I may be short, and I may be lazy in supplying evidence to my statements. I hope this helps you understand I don't consider the current laws on drugs should be repealed. (not that I'm not open to another way to restrict there use.) I definately don't see that pointing to the cost of enforcement as adequate reasoning for dismissal of the laws. (This is all I see when someone says "But if it weren't a law then it wouldn't be bad and they wouldn't be breaking a law.")

    The evidence against the use of these drugs show that even without the imposed law, there are natural laws and the natural concequences to them you cannot repeal revoke or change. And those are consequences I would rather not face, or see others face without my warning on the matter. The laws in place I think are a strong enough warning. They are based in scientific and socialogical fact.

    This isn't just a place where I feel my libertarian ideals are justifiably set aside, this is a place where they start screaming for a fight against these drugs that only rob liberty from its subscibers.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~

  134. how it ll finally be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably non visible with plain eyes (UV, fluorocent or smth), and a chip/nanomachine implant will surely follow it. It seems they really like bar code and they try everythin to make us comply with the idea.