Most smart cards are protected from "physical" tampering. If you try to short the card, glitch the circuit, etc. the card can set itself as "dead".
Maybe Siemens web site have information about this, as they are one of the more important producers of the chips that are on these cards. I think smart cards are pretty secure now.
That just covers physical attributes. What about mental ability. Would it really be so bad if more people had higher IQ's?
one question comes to my mind: who are we to answer that question? having an "higher" IQ is one thing, doing something with it is another. And then, those that are currently thinking about this question are _not_ coming from all over the world, are _not_ living in different countries (not those that can act on this, anyway): they are living in America or in Europe, with every bias that this implies.
I am not saying that we can't think properly; only that we should not think for everyone on this planet. I believe that an every human as an equal right to decide what we are to do with our (and our children) lives.
Basically, I don't think we should really mess with our genetic code. A cure for cancer/alzheimer/etc. is not the same thing as a "cure" for aging. Aging is part of our lives. We all have our "imperfections" (genetic or not). Do we really think that we can modify our genetic code without modifying our personnality? We are conditionned since our birth by our body, by what we are.
If "every child has a right to be born with a sound physical and mental constitution, based on a sound genotype" (..as quoted by Katz), who is to be judge of this "sound" perfection? Medicine? Parents? Society? (I don't believe in this right at this time) These (hypothetical) children can't say what they want, obviously.. and we should not forget that a great part of life is to understand and _accept_ our limitations, which will always exist, whatever we do with our genetic code.
[cute end] One that believe in god should not act in his place. And one that does not believe in god should not pose himself as being god. (whatever that means...:) [/cute end]
I know that some data is really important ("critical") on a short-term view. But why is so important to keep so much information for so long? Of course, we should protect a few things (good and bad) for future archeologists.. But this is not the point here.
Archeologists and historians will always wan't to know more than what we have kept for them. That's their job.
We should just face the fact that we can't archive everything. And that even archives can (and sometimes do) get destroyed.
When data get lost, we should see this some very good occasion to reconstruct what was fragile, redesign what was poorly done the first time. Don't tell me how much that cost and how much work has been lost and all that crap..:) I mean, we will all die someday, and our data should die someday too. We should not impose our trash on next generations.
What is [seen as being] good will survive. And if it doesn't survive, it will be re-invented. As the system goes, this might just be a very nice way to get new patents and suck the blood out of your neighbour.
Slashdot Mirror
Most smart cards are protected from "physical" tampering. If you try to short the card, glitch the circuit, etc. the card can set itself as "dead".
Maybe Siemens web site have information about this, as they are one of the more important producers of the chips that are on these cards. I think smart cards are pretty secure now.
You have a good point, but when you ask:
That just covers physical attributes. What about mental ability. Would it really be so bad if more people had higher IQ's?
one question comes to my mind: who are we to answer that question? having an "higher" IQ is one thing, doing something with it is another. And then, those that are currently thinking about this question are _not_ coming from all over the world, are _not_ living in different countries (not those that can act on this, anyway): they are living in America or in Europe, with every bias that this implies.
I am not saying that we can't think properly; only that we should not think for everyone on this planet. I believe that an every human as an equal right to decide what we are to do with our (and our children) lives.
Basically, I don't think we should really mess with our genetic code. A cure for cancer/alzheimer/etc. is not the same thing as a "cure" for aging. Aging is part of our lives. We all have our "imperfections" (genetic or not). Do we really think that we can modify our genetic code without modifying our personnality? We are conditionned since our birth by our body, by what we are.
If "every child has a right to be born with a sound physical and mental constitution, based on a sound genotype" (..as quoted by Katz), who is to be judge of this "sound" perfection? Medicine? Parents? Society? (I don't believe in this right at this time) These (hypothetical) children can't say what they want, obviously.. and we should not forget that a great part of life is to understand and _accept_ our limitations, which will always exist, whatever we do with our genetic code.
[cute end]
One that believe in god should not act in his place. And one that does not believe in god should not pose himself as being god. (whatever that means...:)
[/cute end]
..getting worse.. The horizontal is getting vertical. Whatever that means.
:)
Hey.. is there some kind of accordion performance over there? That's all I hear on the radio. And the bass setting is way too high.
Anyway, I don't quite understand what's so exciting about being able to hear inside jokes from outside..
..getting worse.. The horizontal is getting vertical. Whatever that means.
:)
Hey.. is there some kind of accordion performance over there? That's all I hear on the radio. And the bass setting is way too high.
Anyway, I don't quite understand what's so exciting about being able to hear inside jokes from outside..
I know that some data is really important ("critical") on a short-term view. But why is so important to keep so much information for so long? Of course, we should protect a few things (good and bad) for future archeologists.. But this is not the point here.
:) I mean, we will all die someday, and our data should die someday too. We should not impose our trash on next generations.
Archeologists and historians will always wan't to know more than what we have kept for them. That's their job.
We should just face the fact that we can't archive everything. And that even archives can (and sometimes do) get destroyed.
When data get lost, we should see this some very good occasion to reconstruct what was fragile, redesign what was poorly done the first time. Don't tell me how much that cost and how much work has been lost and all that crap..
What is [seen as being] good will survive. And if it doesn't survive, it will be re-invented. As the system goes, this might just be a very nice way to get new patents and suck the blood out of your neighbour.