I think it's more likely they'll produce them for a fifth as much, and charge half as much. They'll still look great compared to the competition, the actual price per photo goes down, and they make a bundle.
Other way around:.mobi sites are supposed to be accessed from your phone. What you're suggesting sounds more like a way to get at your phone.
That's actually a more useful idea, and I believe that there are a couple of proposals for such a thing (except that they'd probably omit the wireless provider and just give your phone a unique URL with a specialized TLD, and no registrar.)
This idea is supposed to be that if you wanted to get google.com specialized for your mobile device, you'd go to google.mobi instead. Not a completely useless idea; just a mostly useless idea.
I'd also highly recommend Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. In my opinion the best Shakespearean comedy on film. (The tragedies are significantly easier to make work than the comedies.)
An off-topic anecdote: my equivalent of your Scottish Play experience was Branagh's Henry V. I hated Shakespeare; thought it was dull and irrelevant. Then a friend took me to see that movie. The darkened theater... Derek Jacobi lighting a match, and then intoning one of Shakespeare's greatest speeches: "Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the highest heaven of invention."
The damage from an inside job is limited to a single entity. The worst case is where that entity is a bank and you're stealing from hundreds of thousands of customers, but more often the inside job is just stealing from the company itself.
This dipstick (and the editorial is pretty damn foolish) is rightly pointing out that there's a difference between the limited damage done by a single insider and the immense damage done by outsiders who can be everywhere at once with a worm or virus. To make a hysterical analogy, it's like the difference between killing somebody and genocide. Both bad, but different scales.
Like I said, the article is pretty stupid. Insiders can cause plenty of damage, the more so because they've got all the access they need. A company is obligated to defend itself against the insiders, too. But the thing with insiders is that you know who they are, and can use that to your advantage. It's the ones who manage to hack in from outside that do stuff you can't anticipate.
I think the Mel Gibson Hamlet is much more accessible than the Olivier Hamlet to young people today. Olivier is brilliant and timeless, but Gibson's Hamlet is more engaging. (As well as shorter by a full hour.)
What I'd really love for them to see is Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, which is incredibly high energy. It's silly, especially compared to a more traditional R&J like Zefferelli's, but it's so stylish that I think it does a better job of evoking the way Shakespeare's audiences would have reacted.
I'm glad your teacher did it right. I had a hard time caring about Shakespeare, or literature in general that wasn't sci-fi, until well after college. It just took the right lessons.
I don't know of any good recordings. A lot of them are really old, and use acting styles that are out of date. If it's American actors faking a British accent, just skip it.
I didn't want to get too far into it, but movies are actually a better choice. Yes, it's poetry, and yes, it's meant to be heard, but Shakespeare has a visual component, too.
Again, the styles age badly, but there are recent films that I would recommend to a teenage audience: Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado; Mel Gibson as Hamlet; the new Merchant of Venice with Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons. Very modern, natural acting styles totally at odds with the stand-and-deliver poses you're probably used to seeing from Shakespeare.
(I'm about to leave the office for my "second job" as a Shakespearean actor, so you kinda pushed the button. Sorry.)
Shakespeare (and literature in general) needs to be taught more like physics (wait, hear me out) and less like history and biology are usually taught. The goal isn't whether you can read the text and translate it well enough to figure out who killed Mercutio. The goal is to develop an appreciation for the process of reading, and for the pleasures of literature.
Just throwing somebody the e-text isn't sufficient, but just throwing a copy of the Penguin edition and telling them to have it read by next Wednesday isn't substantially better. For Shakespeare, read it out loud. Don't just have them read it to each other, at least not at first, because they don't know what's going on.
That's actually something that could be done better with the laptop. It's a multimedia device. Let them hear actors reading, or watch actors performing. Good actors can make the page come alive far better than a high school freshman can. That's their job.
Using the laptop as a substitute for paper is worthless. But there are some great ways to start with the laptop and use it to change the way we teach. That's my rant for literature, but expand the thinking to watching demonstrations of physics, or using a fly-through 3D model of a plant in biology.
I would love to be able to have a high school senior pick up a copy of Hamlet and be able to truly understand it, but only once you've given him or her the basics. I certainly don't expect a freshman to be able to do more with Romeo and Juliet than look up the hard words in the footnotes and try to parse the syntax. Which means that they're reading all the words and missing everything that's really there, and they'll never do any better with Hamlet three years later.
If all they can do is tell you that Laertes' father is Polonius, you've wasted their time and yours. But if they've seen Laertes overwhelming rage and blame for Hamlet, and they have some idea why it sounds so awesome when he says, "I would cut his throat in the church," you've really accomplished something.
Colors, perhaps? If "230k" pixels means "76k blue pixels, 76k red pixels, and 76k green pixels" that would make the math work. It's not what I call a pixel, but it's exactly the sort of thing that marketing departments are likely to come up with.
You can't send any bits over the internet without the possibility of them being watched in transit. They're carried over networks you can't trust.
If you value your privacy that highly, use SSL to an anonymizing proxy. Other than that, assume that the feds and anybody else is watching your packets, whether you're on an airplane or not.
The other thing it's missing is resolution. At 320x240, that's not really enough to see the visual details you'd want if you're going to play the game well.
Presumably that's part of the reason it is so much smaller and lighter than your present unit (in addition to the lack of motion tracking.)
It'll be interesting to see if OS X runs comparable apps faster or slower when they're running on nearly-identical hardware.
Benchmarks and even performance measurement of real apps isn't all of it. One nice thing about Apple is that they usually look at the subjective performance as well. Sometimes an app will work slower but feel "snappier" because of good human-factors design, and in many cases that's actually more important. If you're writing a document it doesn't much matter whether the spell check takes.02 or.04 seconds to run, as long as it is still responsive.
But even without that, it'll be interesting to see whether OS X or Windows is actually "faster" for certain benchmarks, just to answer some of these questions once and for all.
That is what they're saying, though they don't say which other malware they're comparing it to.
If you read their whitepaper, they probably consider the thing to be relatively low on the damage scale, which is kinda true: it doesn't wipe your disk or log your keystrokes. It is sending out personal info, but it's not sending out your credit card numbers. It's just tracking your browsing habits.
I'm not saying that's good, especially since it's potentially worse than the declared intent if there are any bugs or undeclared "features". But the declared intent is comparatively benign. The tin-foil-hatters will tell you that any privacy breach is major, and they're not wrong, but it's not the reason I'm ticked off.
The real evil with Gator is how hard it is to remove. That's what makes the thing truly malicious malware. The "ignore" setting should only be applied to software that can believably be removed by uninstalling it. That's not Gator, at least not last I heard. (I'm sure not gonna install the thing to find out.)
If you install it and you like the popups and don't mind people tracking your browsing, well, bully for you. But if you don't like it and you can't get rid of it, that makes it an even better candidate for the "quarantine and remove" setting even than a keylogger that can at least be deleted easily.
Actually, I'm not convinced of that. The question was still "what color five?", and "none" is a numerical answer, not a color answer. The bird had previously spat out a different nonsensical answer to the question "what color three?"
As the article says, "zero" and "none" are not quite identical. Perhaps the bird is showing substantial insight and playing a new game; perhaps it's just bored and throwing out random stuff.
Among humans, the "invention" of zero is a lot more than being able to count zero objects. It comes with at least some basic arithmetic, like 0+x=x, x-0=x, and perhaps even x*0=0. Without that, I'm also tempted to dismiss it as a "silly parrot trick".
Personally, I think it's easy to anthropomorphize a creature with a human voice. I'd expect many other creatures, especially mammals, to be smarter than birds. Biologically speaking it's not much different from a chicken. So I'd like to see a lot more research before I'm prepared to grant the bird more than some lucky guesswork.
If you can find customers willing to pay you for the customizations, and both (a) let you keep the source code and (b) allow you to release it open source (and thus to their competitors), you've got friendlier customers than I do. I need to change jobs.
For me the real question is not the relatively small differences in mileage between diesels, hybrids, and standard cars, but which technology is going to develop in ways to seriously mitigate the real problem.
(I'm not saying the difference is irrelevant, though I'd much rather see US fuel economy standards rise, since those differences would matter a lot more if it applied to the millions of cars we introduce rather than the few thousand that go to the economically-minded.)
Diesels are very promising because we may be able to run them on something other than petroleum. Whether the biodiesel is more promising than ethanol-based solutions I'm not in a position to say.
And it may work to combine the best of both, putting a diesel engine in with a hybrid. Research into hybrids may also be useful if it can be combined with a different power plant (a fuel cell, or a hydrogen cell, for example.)
Today I think that individuals will make choices but they're going to make relatively trivial contributions to the overall problems of petroleum: pollution, greenhouse gases, diminishing supplies, support for repressive regimes that happen to have oil. The last is most important to me, but they're all good reasons and no matter which ones you support we're going in the same direction.
About the best you can hope for, I think, is to buy a diesel or a hybrid to send a message that you don't just want to keep doing what you've always done, and are willing to pay a premium to do it. If that encourages the auto manufacturers to put more research into higher-mileage cars and other technological advances, that's going to make a far bigger difference than a few MPG.
ERP is a fascinating case study. It's hard for so many reasons, the biggest of which is the fact that people insist on customizing it to within an inch of its life (and usually miles past it). If people were to start standardizing their business practices so that they could use the software more out-of-the-box, they'd spend a lot less money and have far more reliability.
Arguably PeopleSoft isn't closed source enough. Go to business school, adopt some standards, and quit messing with the software. If you think your company is so different from every other company on the planet that you need to run it in a completely novel way, either your a genius or an idiot. I know which side I'm betting on.
I'm exaggerating for comic effect; I've worked with ERP systems and many businesses and I know that there are too many variables to make a turnkey solution for any company with more than, say 500 employees. But I still think that the management of most of them needs to spend less time customizing and more time reusing standards. They're like programmers who insist on rolling their own libraries for every project they do.
And not that PeopleSoft hasn't made a complete botch of it anyway, though I suspect it would be more solid if they didn't have to expose every hook inside of it so that people could customize it (making it nearly impossible to do any housecleaning without breaking everybody's customized solution.)
I think the wiki article may be way, way off. Another poster, somebody who actually works with antimatter, cited 4 hours of work in a collider to produce "a hundred-thousandth of a microgram" of antiprotons.
Even at $10/hour to run the collider (and I'm sure its more like $1,000/hour or $10,000/hour) that's closer to a trillion dollars per gram. That's two orders of magnitude difference, and more like four or five, which raises the price of your 310 micrograms to more like a billion dollars (or a hundred billion dollars).
Of course they're speculating, and conceivably we could make it more efficient, but improvements of orders of magnitude are pretty damn speculative.
Another post pointed the wikipedia article pricing antimatter at $25 billion per gram.
That struck me as extremely low. If it takes you 4 hours of collider time to produce 10^-11 grams, even at $10/hour (and I'm sure it's three orders of magnitude more than that) it would cost more like $4 trillion/gram.
Some are probably fakes but some look very convincing.
Just for reference, the plural of "anecdote" is not "proof".
The supreme overlords may not like it very much, but they'd have an extremely hard time suppressing a remarkable fact like a fundamental change to the laws of physics. They may be able to force technology companies out of business before they can succeed, but suppressing knowledge is a lot harder.
So unless you want to assert that the conspiracy is truly huge (thousands of physicists all looking for a more perfect model of the universe wilfully ignoring a massive piece of counter-evidence) you're best off with the rule of thumb that any "free energy" theory is bogus. No matter how many of them there are.
(The title of this post, BTW, is from Romeo and Juliet; Shakespeare knew how hard it was to keep a secret once you start telling people about it.)
How is that possible? The details required to make an iris scan work are perhaps a millimeter across. Can a camera really take a millimeter-resolution picture of your eyeball from a few feet away, while you're moving?
Are irises sufficiently stable, or will you spend a lot of your life updating your iris scan?
I assume it would be tricky to custom-make a contact lens to fake out an iris scanner, but how hard is it? I've seen color-changing contact lenses and they're actually very crude; they wouldn't even begin to fool a scanner and those already require specialized technology. But if somebody were intent on doing it (and making it the primary biometric source of identification would be a major incentive), how hard would it be?
(Thinking out loud: you could probably paint on a hard contact lens, but the details are very small. But something using an ink-jet printer as a base wouldn't be that hard to build if HP put its mind to it, assuming that the proper pigments could be created to print on that surface. You'd have to keep it oriented, but there are weighted contacts for that.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's more likely they'll produce them for a fifth as much, and charge half as much. They'll still look great compared to the competition, the actual price per photo goes down, and they make a bundle.
Other way around: .mobi sites are supposed to be accessed from your phone. What you're suggesting sounds more like a way to get at your phone.
That's actually a more useful idea, and I believe that there are a couple of proposals for such a thing (except that they'd probably omit the wireless provider and just give your phone a unique URL with a specialized TLD, and no registrar.)
This idea is supposed to be that if you wanted to get google.com specialized for your mobile device, you'd go to google.mobi instead. Not a completely useless idea; just a mostly useless idea.
I'd also highly recommend Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. In my opinion the best Shakespearean comedy on film. (The tragedies are significantly easier to make work than the comedies.)
An off-topic anecdote: my equivalent of your Scottish Play experience was Branagh's Henry V. I hated Shakespeare; thought it was dull and irrelevant. Then a friend took me to see that movie. The darkened theater... Derek Jacobi lighting a match, and then intoning one of Shakespeare's greatest speeches: "Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the highest heaven of invention."
Shivers down my spine, fifteen years later.
Actually, that would be a spoiler. Remus Lupin certainly wasn't a villain. And Lockhart was a bad guy, but he wasn't the villain of the piece.
So yeah, the odds are with you for the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor being one of the villains, but it's not guaranteed.
The damage from an inside job is limited to a single entity. The worst case is where that entity is a bank and you're stealing from hundreds of thousands of customers, but more often the inside job is just stealing from the company itself.
This dipstick (and the editorial is pretty damn foolish) is rightly pointing out that there's a difference between the limited damage done by a single insider and the immense damage done by outsiders who can be everywhere at once with a worm or virus. To make a hysterical analogy, it's like the difference between killing somebody and genocide. Both bad, but different scales.
Like I said, the article is pretty stupid. Insiders can cause plenty of damage, the more so because they've got all the access they need. A company is obligated to defend itself against the insiders, too. But the thing with insiders is that you know who they are, and can use that to your advantage. It's the ones who manage to hack in from outside that do stuff you can't anticipate.
I like it! You sit the guy down at a special computer:
Punch the monkey to win a prize!
[click]
WHOMP!
Splat.
***
It's got kind of a poetic justice.
I think the Mel Gibson Hamlet is much more accessible than the Olivier Hamlet to young people today. Olivier is brilliant and timeless, but Gibson's Hamlet is more engaging. (As well as shorter by a full hour.)
What I'd really love for them to see is Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, which is incredibly high energy. It's silly, especially compared to a more traditional R&J like Zefferelli's, but it's so stylish that I think it does a better job of evoking the way Shakespeare's audiences would have reacted.
I'm glad your teacher did it right. I had a hard time caring about Shakespeare, or literature in general that wasn't sci-fi, until well after college. It just took the right lessons.
I don't know of any good recordings. A lot of them are really old, and use acting styles that are out of date. If it's American actors faking a British accent, just skip it.
I didn't want to get too far into it, but movies are actually a better choice. Yes, it's poetry, and yes, it's meant to be heard, but Shakespeare has a visual component, too.
Again, the styles age badly, but there are recent films that I would recommend to a teenage audience: Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado; Mel Gibson as Hamlet; the new Merchant of Venice with Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons. Very modern, natural acting styles totally at odds with the stand-and-deliver poses you're probably used to seeing from Shakespeare.
(I'm about to leave the office for my "second job" as a Shakespearean actor, so you kinda pushed the button. Sorry.)
Shakespeare (and literature in general) needs to be taught more like physics (wait, hear me out) and less like history and biology are usually taught. The goal isn't whether you can read the text and translate it well enough to figure out who killed Mercutio. The goal is to develop an appreciation for the process of reading, and for the pleasures of literature.
Just throwing somebody the e-text isn't sufficient, but just throwing a copy of the Penguin edition and telling them to have it read by next Wednesday isn't substantially better. For Shakespeare, read it out loud. Don't just have them read it to each other, at least not at first, because they don't know what's going on.
That's actually something that could be done better with the laptop. It's a multimedia device. Let them hear actors reading, or watch actors performing. Good actors can make the page come alive far better than a high school freshman can. That's their job.
Using the laptop as a substitute for paper is worthless. But there are some great ways to start with the laptop and use it to change the way we teach. That's my rant for literature, but expand the thinking to watching demonstrations of physics, or using a fly-through 3D model of a plant in biology.
I would love to be able to have a high school senior pick up a copy of Hamlet and be able to truly understand it, but only once you've given him or her the basics. I certainly don't expect a freshman to be able to do more with Romeo and Juliet than look up the hard words in the footnotes and try to parse the syntax. Which means that they're reading all the words and missing everything that's really there, and they'll never do any better with Hamlet three years later.
If all they can do is tell you that Laertes' father is Polonius, you've wasted their time and yours. But if they've seen Laertes overwhelming rage and blame for Hamlet, and they have some idea why it sounds so awesome when he says, "I would cut his throat in the church," you've really accomplished something.
If your mom downloaded a copy of Ethereal, yeah.
Colors, perhaps? If "230k" pixels means "76k blue pixels, 76k red pixels, and 76k green pixels" that would make the math work. It's not what I call a pixel, but it's exactly the sort of thing that marketing departments are likely to come up with.
You can't send any bits over the internet without the possibility of them being watched in transit. They're carried over networks you can't trust.
If you value your privacy that highly, use SSL to an anonymizing proxy. Other than that, assume that the feds and anybody else is watching your packets, whether you're on an airplane or not.
The other thing it's missing is resolution. At 320x240, that's not really enough to see the visual details you'd want if you're going to play the game well.
Presumably that's part of the reason it is so much smaller and lighter than your present unit (in addition to the lack of motion tracking.)
It'll be interesting to see if OS X runs comparable apps faster or slower when they're running on nearly-identical hardware.
.02 or .04 seconds to run, as long as it is still responsive.
Benchmarks and even performance measurement of real apps isn't all of it. One nice thing about Apple is that they usually look at the subjective performance as well. Sometimes an app will work slower but feel "snappier" because of good human-factors design, and in many cases that's actually more important. If you're writing a document it doesn't much matter whether the spell check takes
But even without that, it'll be interesting to see whether OS X or Windows is actually "faster" for certain benchmarks, just to answer some of these questions once and for all.
That is what they're saying, though they don't say which other malware they're comparing it to.
If you read their whitepaper, they probably consider the thing to be relatively low on the damage scale, which is kinda true: it doesn't wipe your disk or log your keystrokes. It is sending out personal info, but it's not sending out your credit card numbers. It's just tracking your browsing habits.
I'm not saying that's good, especially since it's potentially worse than the declared intent if there are any bugs or undeclared "features". But the declared intent is comparatively benign. The tin-foil-hatters will tell you that any privacy breach is major, and they're not wrong, but it's not the reason I'm ticked off.
The real evil with Gator is how hard it is to remove. That's what makes the thing truly malicious malware. The "ignore" setting should only be applied to software that can believably be removed by uninstalling it. That's not Gator, at least not last I heard. (I'm sure not gonna install the thing to find out.)
If you install it and you like the popups and don't mind people tracking your browsing, well, bully for you. But if you don't like it and you can't get rid of it, that makes it an even better candidate for the "quarantine and remove" setting even than a keylogger that can at least be deleted easily.
Actually, I'm not convinced of that. The question was still "what color five?", and "none" is a numerical answer, not a color answer. The bird had previously spat out a different nonsensical answer to the question "what color three?"
As the article says, "zero" and "none" are not quite identical. Perhaps the bird is showing substantial insight and playing a new game; perhaps it's just bored and throwing out random stuff.
Among humans, the "invention" of zero is a lot more than being able to count zero objects. It comes with at least some basic arithmetic, like 0+x=x, x-0=x, and perhaps even x*0=0. Without that, I'm also tempted to dismiss it as a "silly parrot trick".
Personally, I think it's easy to anthropomorphize a creature with a human voice. I'd expect many other creatures, especially mammals, to be smarter than birds. Biologically speaking it's not much different from a chicken. So I'd like to see a lot more research before I'm prepared to grant the bird more than some lucky guesswork.
If you can find customers willing to pay you for the customizations, and both (a) let you keep the source code and (b) allow you to release it open source (and thus to their competitors), you've got friendlier customers than I do. I need to change jobs.
Why shouldn't it? Windows has built-in accessibility support. A well-written Windows app will be able to take advantage of it.
For me the real question is not the relatively small differences in mileage between diesels, hybrids, and standard cars, but which technology is going to develop in ways to seriously mitigate the real problem.
(I'm not saying the difference is irrelevant, though I'd much rather see US fuel economy standards rise, since those differences would matter a lot more if it applied to the millions of cars we introduce rather than the few thousand that go to the economically-minded.)
Diesels are very promising because we may be able to run them on something other than petroleum. Whether the biodiesel is more promising than ethanol-based solutions I'm not in a position to say.
And it may work to combine the best of both, putting a diesel engine in with a hybrid. Research into hybrids may also be useful if it can be combined with a different power plant (a fuel cell, or a hydrogen cell, for example.)
Today I think that individuals will make choices but they're going to make relatively trivial contributions to the overall problems of petroleum: pollution, greenhouse gases, diminishing supplies, support for repressive regimes that happen to have oil. The last is most important to me, but they're all good reasons and no matter which ones you support we're going in the same direction.
About the best you can hope for, I think, is to buy a diesel or a hybrid to send a message that you don't just want to keep doing what you've always done, and are willing to pay a premium to do it. If that encourages the auto manufacturers to put more research into higher-mileage cars and other technological advances, that's going to make a far bigger difference than a few MPG.
ERP is a fascinating case study. It's hard for so many reasons, the biggest of which is the fact that people insist on customizing it to within an inch of its life (and usually miles past it). If people were to start standardizing their business practices so that they could use the software more out-of-the-box, they'd spend a lot less money and have far more reliability.
Arguably PeopleSoft isn't closed source enough. Go to business school, adopt some standards, and quit messing with the software. If you think your company is so different from every other company on the planet that you need to run it in a completely novel way, either your a genius or an idiot. I know which side I'm betting on.
I'm exaggerating for comic effect; I've worked with ERP systems and many businesses and I know that there are too many variables to make a turnkey solution for any company with more than, say 500 employees. But I still think that the management of most of them needs to spend less time customizing and more time reusing standards. They're like programmers who insist on rolling their own libraries for every project they do.
And not that PeopleSoft hasn't made a complete botch of it anyway, though I suspect it would be more solid if they didn't have to expose every hook inside of it so that people could customize it (making it nearly impossible to do any housecleaning without breaking everybody's customized solution.)
I think the wiki article may be way, way off. Another poster, somebody who actually works with antimatter, cited 4 hours of work in a collider to produce "a hundred-thousandth of a microgram" of antiprotons.
Even at $10/hour to run the collider (and I'm sure its more like $1,000/hour or $10,000/hour) that's closer to a trillion dollars per gram. That's two orders of magnitude difference, and more like four or five, which raises the price of your 310 micrograms to more like a billion dollars (or a hundred billion dollars).
Of course they're speculating, and conceivably we could make it more efficient, but improvements of orders of magnitude are pretty damn speculative.
Another post pointed the wikipedia article pricing antimatter at $25 billion per gram.
That struck me as extremely low. If it takes you 4 hours of collider time to produce 10^-11 grams, even at $10/hour (and I'm sure it's three orders of magnitude more than that) it would cost more like $4 trillion/gram.
So is the wiki article full of it?
Some are probably fakes but some look very convincing.
Just for reference, the plural of "anecdote" is not "proof".
The supreme overlords may not like it very much, but they'd have an extremely hard time suppressing a remarkable fact like a fundamental change to the laws of physics. They may be able to force technology companies out of business before they can succeed, but suppressing knowledge is a lot harder.
So unless you want to assert that the conspiracy is truly huge (thousands of physicists all looking for a more perfect model of the universe wilfully ignoring a massive piece of counter-evidence) you're best off with the rule of thumb that any "free energy" theory is bogus. No matter how many of them there are.
(The title of this post, BTW, is from Romeo and Juliet; Shakespeare knew how hard it was to keep a secret once you start telling people about it.)
Take yourself out and have yourself slapped silly.
How is that possible? The details required to make an iris scan work are perhaps a millimeter across. Can a camera really take a millimeter-resolution picture of your eyeball from a few feet away, while you're moving?
Are irises sufficiently stable, or will you spend a lot of your life updating your iris scan?
I assume it would be tricky to custom-make a contact lens to fake out an iris scanner, but how hard is it? I've seen color-changing contact lenses and they're actually very crude; they wouldn't even begin to fool a scanner and those already require specialized technology. But if somebody were intent on doing it (and making it the primary biometric source of identification would be a major incentive), how hard would it be?
(Thinking out loud: you could probably paint on a hard contact lens, but the details are very small. But something using an ink-jet printer as a base wouldn't be that hard to build if HP put its mind to it, assuming that the proper pigments could be created to print on that surface. You'd have to keep it oriented, but there are weighted contacts for that.)