The cards discussed in this article strictly provide a number, so they are just being used as a glorified barcode (maybe they have some security features that a barcode doesn't, but the guy scanning the numbers already knows how to bypass them, so they are irrelevant); a barcode is just as easy to link to a government database and introduces all the same problems with securing the database, so the only additional threat created by the RFID here is the ability to track the person holding the card (leakage of identity info is the same with a barcode, and there are no biometrics to edit on the card).
Still, it doesn't seem like the chip adds anything, and it certainly sucks for people to be able to automatically identify the card (not the person, just the card) at a distance.
The U.S. doesn't make any passing attempt at running an efficient health care system. For people that can afford it, spectacular care is available here.
So the well off have plenty to fear from government intervention, they face the potential for higher taxes and the potential for lower availability of care (vast amounts are spent on extreme measures in the U.S.).
Sure, it would probably be healthier for us as a society to provide a more equitable system, but let's not pretend that it is going to be better for everyone.
They scanned passport cards, not regular passports; presumably, quite a few of the folks carrying them around San Francisco travel to Mexico on a regular basis.
I get lots of collisions (and I have relatively obscure first and last compared to John Smith), but there quite a few results in the first few pages that are from postings I made to public mailing lists, revealing that I like computers.
If the particular mailing list was not mirrored all over the place (to draw in search traffic), the number of results would be much smaller. Also, searching for a variant (firstlast with no space) gives many more results (but again, I was well aware of what I was sharing).
If you meant to communicate 'useful tool' in your first message, you did a crappy job of it. I mean, there is even a period between 'useful' and 'tools', and you use 'bunch of' to modify 'tools'.
I think it would be tough to nail down. People losing religion will account for some of it, I would also think that there may have been a greater tendency for non believers to self select as scientists 50 years ago than there is today (mostly based on the notion that there are many more scientists today, so even though non believers still self select, the greater number of scientists has overwhelmed that factor).
Given that the fraction of non explicitly religion American is still only about 1/6 (and there may be folks in that number who believe but do not follow a religious tradition), I think it would take a lot of work to explain it entirely.
Humans bred commercial varieties of bananas for size, flavor, texture and seedlessness (they may have some seeds, but not compared to wild bananas). So not a magical creator, but pretty much a creator.
Anyway, mostly pointing out that that particular argument is dumb.
Well, considering that a certain amount of fat is necessary for survival (it is the stuff that cell membranes are made out of, among other things), I doubt any fat burning genetic modifications would be beneficial if done in such a careless manner.
Not to mention the difficulty of making a virus that would be compatible with your proposed delivery mechanism. If the government really wanted gene editing viruses to spread to the people, it would be through something like the common cold, and that isn't necessarily going to give them access to the correct part of the body.
I don't think there would be a net gain. If it all of the sudden got harder to be fat, people would eat more, so they would end up increasing their lifetime calorie consumption.
So if those calories come from energy intensive farming, there is some room for whining. Not much room though, even 500 extra Calories every day for decades is only equivalent to a few hundred gallons of gasoline.
The price of a barrel of oil has fallen by $10 in the last few weeks, from a recent high of about $70. So not the $40 that it was early in the year, but the recent trend is down.
With this amazing new software, your smart phone can notify you when you are in a coffee shop, and when you are at home relaxing. Will wonders never cease?
I can see some use for the stuff mentioned at the end, where the software would classify periods of time to make them easier to search through, but I don't have any particular desire to have a continuous recording of my life.
Slashdot Mirror
The cards discussed in this article strictly provide a number, so they are just being used as a glorified barcode (maybe they have some security features that a barcode doesn't, but the guy scanning the numbers already knows how to bypass them, so they are irrelevant); a barcode is just as easy to link to a government database and introduces all the same problems with securing the database, so the only additional threat created by the RFID here is the ability to track the person holding the card (leakage of identity info is the same with a barcode, and there are no biometrics to edit on the card).
Still, it doesn't seem like the chip adds anything, and it certainly sucks for people to be able to automatically identify the card (not the person, just the card) at a distance.
The U.S. doesn't make any passing attempt at running an efficient health care system. For people that can afford it, spectacular care is available here.
So the well off have plenty to fear from government intervention, they face the potential for higher taxes and the potential for lower availability of care (vast amounts are spent on extreme measures in the U.S.).
Sure, it would probably be healthier for us as a society to provide a more equitable system, but let's not pretend that it is going to be better for everyone.
They scanned passport cards, not regular passports; presumably, quite a few of the folks carrying them around San Francisco travel to Mexico on a regular basis.
I get lots of collisions (and I have relatively obscure first and last compared to John Smith), but there quite a few results in the first few pages that are from postings I made to public mailing lists, revealing that I like computers.
If the particular mailing list was not mirrored all over the place (to draw in search traffic), the number of results would be much smaller. Also, searching for a variant (firstlast with no space) gives many more results (but again, I was well aware of what I was sharing).
If you meant to communicate 'useful tool' in your first message, you did a crappy job of it. I mean, there is even a period between 'useful' and 'tools', and you use 'bunch of' to modify 'tools'.
I shall endeavor now to stop splitting hairs.
AC's confusion is understandable, you wrote 'useful fool' in your initial message.
It's impossible to guarantee security, so saying something won't do it isn't exactly a huge indictment.
Oddly, the people using the service may not think it is useless.
Now, if you think the well-heeled feel gooders made up those questions, that's a different thing.
I no get rigorous or Brit schooling and I are good grammer.
What I mean is, that is quite a statement to make, there are plenty of people who learned to write by reading, not in school.
It probably makes more sense if you are 15.
Better to protest living in cold climates by smashing his windows during the middle of winter.
They are running lighttpd and PHP (at least, that is what the headers say), so I doubt they are running on Windows.
Your comment fails to make sense, even as an attempt at humor.
Well, to me anyway.
I think it would be tough to nail down. People losing religion will account for some of it, I would also think that there may have been a greater tendency for non believers to self select as scientists 50 years ago than there is today (mostly based on the notion that there are many more scientists today, so even though non believers still self select, the greater number of scientists has overwhelmed that factor).
Given that the fraction of non explicitly religion American is still only about 1/6 (and there may be folks in that number who believe but do not follow a religious tradition), I think it would take a lot of work to explain it entirely.
Humans bred commercial varieties of bananas for size, flavor, texture and seedlessness (they may have some seeds, but not compared to wild bananas). So not a magical creator, but pretty much a creator.
Anyway, mostly pointing out that that particular argument is dumb.
I've talked to ecologists and biologists who argued that there was a distinction between micro and macro evolution.
And I'm one of those pathetic engineers.
When? Where?
Well, considering that a certain amount of fat is necessary for survival (it is the stuff that cell membranes are made out of, among other things), I doubt any fat burning genetic modifications would be beneficial if done in such a careless manner.
Not to mention the difficulty of making a virus that would be compatible with your proposed delivery mechanism. If the government really wanted gene editing viruses to spread to the people, it would be through something like the common cold, and that isn't necessarily going to give them access to the correct part of the body.
Don't worry too much, there will likely be hundreds of millions of people who cannot afford genetic engineering.
I don't think there would be a net gain. If it all of the sudden got harder to be fat, people would eat more, so they would end up increasing their lifetime calorie consumption.
So if those calories come from energy intensive farming, there is some room for whining. Not much room though, even 500 extra Calories every day for decades is only equivalent to a few hundred gallons of gasoline.
The price of a barrel of oil has fallen by $10 in the last few weeks, from a recent high of about $70. So not the $40 that it was early in the year, but the recent trend is down.
With this amazing new software, your smart phone can notify you when you are in a coffee shop, and when you are at home relaxing. Will wonders never cease?
I can see some use for the stuff mentioned at the end, where the software would classify periods of time to make them easier to search through, but I don't have any particular desire to have a continuous recording of my life.
You are wildly mischaracterizing what Microsoft Research does. This isn't a new direction or focus for the company, it is a paper about some ideas.
I was thinking about it, I think the correct name for the device we are discussing would actually be the generalized machine maker machine machine.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Also, the copyright on some material has expired.