"It is odd how an industry so dependent on search engines would help raise the cost of running a web scale search engine and thus even further contribute to reduce the number of players in that market."
How is that odd? Most companies would *like* to get rid of their competitors. I don't think that that was really the intent (or will be the effect) here, but that would actually be a pretty good reason to do this. Especially since suing makes them *less* reliant on Google for advertising: now they have/. advertising for them.
Why do you think that Al Capone was the largest single contributor to prohibition supporters? They kept out the legal competition that would have brought down his prices.
Ohio has a Republican governor and reelected the Republican senator by a larger margin than they reelected Bush. Staunch democrats they are not.
It's also worth noting that Ohio has voted with the overall popular vote from 1964 on. I.e. from 1964 through 2004, Ohio voted for the winning presidential candidate every time. If Kerry had won Ohio while losing the popular vote, that would have broken the trend.
"I know you aren't serious about this. At least I hope now, otherwise I'm wasting my time responding to a troll."
I don't think that you are using the word troll correctly here (or if you are, I don't understand what you mean). A troll is someone who deliberately saying something offensive/stupid to get responses. By definition, trolls are never serious about what they say...if they were, they wouldn't be trolling, just speaking their mind.
"Anything a terrorist does to a cable will be done to less than 0.01% of the cable."
What happens when you *cut* a cable that is under tension? Further, what if they *hijack* the elevator. Then they can cut the cable at the middle or top, rather than at the bottom. Yes, hijacking the elevator will require considerably more personnel than did the 9/11 attacks, but it doesn't take any more trained personnel. You only need enough to operate the elevator. The rest can be cannon fodder.
"The reason to build a space elevator on the Moon is practice;"
Thank you, I was looking for this comment. Another reason to build it on the Moon is testing. In particular, before we attach a rope to the Earth that is more than twice the circumference of the Earth, I would like to know what happens if the thing breaks (especially at the far end): i.e. how much damage will it do when it comes down?
Those are estimated numbers (2004 isn't done yet), but consistent with 2003. This surplus is actually projected to increase over the next five years in that table. This may or may not be true...are there a lot of seniors who are in their 80s?
Could be. WWI ended in 1919, so the early 1920s had a baby boom of sorts. 1929 to 1945 was a slow period for births. The baby boom was in the mid 1940s (until the late 1950s or early 1960s) and won't be retiring until at least 2008, with 2012 being the real kickoff point (1946 + 66, which is the retirement age for full benefits). Thus, we need to start dampening outgo by 2012.
Your numbers leave off that Bush created a new class of income that is taxed at 15%: dividends. Since many of the "rich," e.g. Theresa Heinz Kerry and Dick Cheney, get most of their income from investments, their *effective* tax rate has dropped precipitately. Those two actually pay a tax rate of about 13%...lower than those who make 14-56K in your list.
It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich. On the bright side, people can now argue that a flat tax would raise taxes on the rich.
Incidentally, the 1986 tax changes came very close to creating a flat tax. If you combine the income tax with the Social Security and Medicare wage taxes, you get (.15 +.153) / 1.0765 (since half the contribution is paid by the employer, so it doesn't appear in the nominal income. This creates an effective minimum rate of 28%. The top rate was also 28%. The only people who weren't paying a 28% marginal rate were those in the middle, some of whom paid 33% plus the wage taxes.
"So, what is going to happen is that the amount of money currently moving into the social security fund will drop"
There is no "social security fund." All they do when there is more collected than they spend is they loan the money to the general fund. When social security stops collecting more money than it pays out, they will have to run a general fund surplus. Privatizing can partially alleviate that (particularly if they start by allowing people who are projected to retire before the social security system starts running deficits).
This would have been easier if they had started twenty years ago, when the social security system first started running surpluses. However, even if it doesn't start until next year, it can start reducing payouts almost immediately. All they have to do is to reduce the payout proportional to the privatized to traditional quarters ratio.
It would also be simple enough to create a requirement that any balance left at death would go back to the social security administration, reducing the cost of the privatization.
Domain keys allows client level authentication if you absolutely need it. Alternately, you could install a domain key on your local SMTP server (SPF can achieve the same effect with dynamic DNS entries). However, the obvious solution to this is to *authenticate* with your non-local mail servers (port 587 is provided for this for times when port 25 is blocked). Both my current and immediately previous mail servers do support this, as well as the services like NetIdentity, Pobox, GoDaddy, etc.
"This does not provide any incentive for a vehicle user to travel a shorter distance, rather it allows them to travel further."
Nah...if that were happening, we would see people moving farther and farther from the cities. First, into suburbs and then even farther, maybe to something called an "exurb." Obviously that isn't happ...
Oh, wait. It is.
If a gas tax causes unfairness (because the poor buy as much gas as the rich), it can always be fixed by rebates (possibly means tested but not necessarily).
A national gas tax would also help in that prices tend to rise in a smaller amount than the tax increase due to demand changes. I.e. some of the tax is born by oil *producers*, rather than consumers (who would be Americans).
"(from 70% to about 5-10% for most of the truly wealthy"
It's closer to 13%. Both Cheney and Heinz Kerry published their tax returns. It's also worth pointing out that even though the rate was 90% (prior to the Kennedy years), few people paid it. You are also mixing book rates (90%, then 70%, then 28%, and now 15-35% depending on type of income) with effective rates. The effective rate when tax rates were 70% was much lower than that. Tax loopholes aren't new. In fact, Ross Perot got his own personal loophole in 1978 (which is what made his 1992 claim to be an outsider so ridiculous).
Dropping the top rate from 90% to 28% (1986) encouraged people to get their income in reportable ways. The rich paid *more* in taxes (as a percentage of total taxes paid) in 1988 than they did in 1980. I haven't seen numbers since Bush cut the rate on dividends. It is reasonable to expect that the result has been a drop, but it is hard to say how much was the tax changes and how much was the recession.
"They still have enough money to buy mansions and fancy cars, but they do not then after taxes have enough to manipulate the voters and the govt through media propaganda."
You are confusing income and wealth. You aren't going to take away the rich's "media propaganda" abilities with an income tax. It's not their income that establishes their control of the media. It's the ownership of the media. Even a 100% income tax won't change that. It would only make it more difficult to buy mansions and fancy cars (things that are bought with income).
If you want to reduce the "power" of the rich, tax *wealth*, not income. Income is what pays for the toys. Wealth is what gives the power.
"I've already paid for the hardware and paid for the service"
But others aren't. Did you see the post about the person who paid $30 for Tivo? TiVo is trying to shift to a more sustainable revenue stream. Studies have shown that people would rather pay less and lose some time to advertising. Perhaps not you, but most people.
I would tend to agree that it is at least unethical for them to switch models *after* you have paid the original rate for hardware and service (assuming you got the lifetime service). However, it is perfectly reasonable for them to adapt their model to increase market share.
XML is a standard, but it still required someone to create an XHTML to implement it.
Context Free Grammar is a standard, but one needs to write a programming language to make use of it. Just because two programming languages have Context Free Grammars does not mean that code written in one will work in the other.
In the same way, there are multiple ways to implement LSB compliant packages. It is not guaranteed that two LSB compliant packages will be able to interact with each other. Presumably all these LCC packages will work with each other (just like you use RH 7.3 RPMs *or* 8.0 RPMs). Note: I haven't RTFA, so I may be misinterpreting what this LCC is supposed to do.
"Of course, you can already block their domain; none of these things actually help there."
Which is really effective when they send you email from *your* domain or that of someone with whom you keep in contact (e.g. gmail.com or yahoo.com). Blocking domains is useless unless you know that the email is actually coming from the domain. That is what Domain Keys, etc. provide, assurance that email that claims to be from someone@example.com really did come from the example.com mail server.
"Perhaps you are labouring under the illusion that it is expensive to setup a domain covered by this stuff. It isn't. Spammers will just continue as they always have."
Perhaps you are laboring under the illusion that it is expensive to send spam. It isn't. Even if it only costs $10 per million spams to set up a domain key domain, it could double the costs of most spammers. Email is cheap.
And at the very minimum, at least I won't have to get failed delivery notices at *my* domain for their spams. If that were the *only* benefit, it would be enough.
Zombie computers do not have domain keys. They are PCs. They send through a mail server. The mail server will have the domain key. To use that domain key, they will have to send *through* the server. Currently spammers avoid doing that, because it makes them easy to detect and shut down (mail servers usually have 24 hour admins that can respond quickly to a compromise; PCs have users who do not know what it means to be compromised).
Finally, even if a server is compromised (and thus its domain key), they wouldn't change the domain. They'd cancel the domain key and make a new one. Domain blocking is something that you do with a new domain that doesn't send legitimate mail, not an existing domain (e.g. gmail.com or yahoo.com).
"wouldn't having the sending servers wrap up the headers and md5sum them also work?"
No. The problem is that the sending server is lying about its identity. Instead of saying, "I am a mail server for a spammer" (or a virus infected PC), it is saying "I am Gmail's mail server." Having it do an md5sum would be useless, as it would lie *first* and then create the checksum.
Btw, in regards to checking that the sender matches the from, how do you check that? In theory, you could check the PTR record, but many legitimate mail servers do not have PTR records set up (not to mention that it would be difficult for multi-domain mail servers to operate; they would need to set up a PTR record for *each* domain that sends mail through that server). Thus, a spammer can simply not provide a PTR record and bypass the from check (even if the legitimate mail server does have a proper PTR record).
Basically, the biggest thing that this (as well as SPF, et.al.) provides is that a domain holder can say, "Hey, any server that is sending mail for me *should* have a PTR record or similar. If it doesn't, it's not from this domain!"
"Can't spammers just get verified domains to send their mail from?"
Sure, and if they do illegal things with their verified domains, those domains can be suspended and their purchase tracked. If they do legal but distasteful things with their verified domains, we can block the domain.
SPF, Sender/Caller ID, and Domain Keys are all basically identity verification services. They allow responses to emails that assume that the sender information is correct.
To hold the cable together mostly. The cable needs tensile strength enough to hold the weight of the cable. It's not just the strength of nanotubes that is important: it's their strength to weight ratio.
Amanda Tapping was the only one of the main cast members who had not worked with Richard Dean Anderson previously.
Yes, shows tend to all share the same sets of background character. For example, Kevin Durand was Joshua (the dog boy) on Dark Angel, Zipacna on Stargate SG-1, and a really minor character on Dead Like Me. A.J. Cook was in Dead Like Me, then Tru Calling, and is now back to movies. Jewel Staite was in both Wonderfalls and Firefly (and Dead Like Me for that matter).
What would you expect actors to do when they aren't in a show? Of course they look for other work, full time or part time.
"Have you considered that a significantly more advanced race might not actually use it's shields out of contempt for a preagrarian race?"
I would say that a better argument is that an advanced race might not actually have shields that are effective against physical weapons. If no one uses physical weapons against them, why would they shield against physical attacks? All their weapons were designed to work against the Ancients, who were presumably well past the need to use physical weapons.
Notice how the humans are more effective against the replicators than are the Asgard. This is despite the fact that the replicators have incorporated all the tech that the Asgard have. The replicators are still damaged by the guns of the humans while they simply absorb the energy of the personal weapons used by the Asgard and the Goa'uld.
The point of the smart card is that it allows you to have only *one* password, which requires the smart card to use. Many people compromise security by choosing passwords that are simple and easy to remember (and reusing the same password in multiple instances)...but also easy to crack. Even if they continue to use an easy to crack password on their smart card, it still needs to be stolen to be useful.
This is more secure because it combines the benefits of two security mechanisms. Physical thieves are unlikely to be versed in password cracking; password crackers are unlikely to be versed in physical theft. Thus, the combined system is more secure than either would be alone.
It's also helpful in that it gives additional time to report the theft. Now, the thief may have a few hours to use the card before you report it stolen. Under this system, they have to crack the password first, then they can use the card. By that time, you may have already reported the card stolen.
Someone above also mentioned the idea of using biometric data to lock the smart card. Yes, biometric data can be stolen. However, it is not likely to be stolen by the same person who casually steals your wallet. Further, linking the biometric data to the smart card means that stealing the biometric data does not do any good without the smart card. Thus, cancelling the smart card (if stolen) confounds someone who stole both card and biometrics.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is odd how an industry so dependent on search engines would help raise the cost of running a web scale search engine and thus even further contribute to reduce the number of players in that market."
/. advertising for them.
How is that odd? Most companies would *like* to get rid of their competitors. I don't think that that was really the intent (or will be the effect) here, but that would actually be a pretty good reason to do this. Especially since suing makes them *less* reliant on Google for advertising: now they have
Why do you think that Al Capone was the largest single contributor to prohibition supporters? They kept out the legal competition that would have brought down his prices.
Ohio has a Republican governor and reelected the Republican senator by a larger margin than they reelected Bush. Staunch democrats they are not.
It's also worth noting that Ohio has voted with the overall popular vote from 1964 on. I.e. from 1964 through 2004, Ohio voted for the winning presidential candidate every time. If Kerry had won Ohio while losing the popular vote, that would have broken the trend.
"I know you aren't serious about this. At least I hope now, otherwise I'm wasting my time responding to a troll."
I don't think that you are using the word troll correctly here (or if you are, I don't understand what you mean). A troll is someone who deliberately saying something offensive/stupid to get responses. By definition, trolls are never serious about what they say...if they were, they wouldn't be trolling, just speaking their mind.
"Anything a terrorist does to a cable will be done to less than 0.01% of the cable."
What happens when you *cut* a cable that is under tension? Further, what if they *hijack* the elevator. Then they can cut the cable at the middle or top, rather than at the bottom. Yes, hijacking the elevator will require considerably more personnel than did the 9/11 attacks, but it doesn't take any more trained personnel. You only need enough to operate the elevator. The rest can be cannon fodder.
"The reason to build a space elevator on the Moon is practice;"
Thank you, I was looking for this comment. Another reason to build it on the Moon is testing. In particular, before we attach a rope to the Earth that is more than twice the circumference of the Earth, I would like to know what happens if the thing breaks (especially at the far end): i.e. how much damage will it do when it comes down?
"SS already pays more than it collects."
Page 283, 2004: Income = 555 billion; Outgo = 417 billion; Surplus = 138 billion
Those are estimated numbers (2004 isn't done yet), but consistent with 2003. This surplus is actually projected to increase over the next five years in that table. This may or may not be true...are there a lot of seniors who are in their 80s?
Could be. WWI ended in 1919, so the early 1920s had a baby boom of sorts. 1929 to 1945 was a slow period for births. The baby boom was in the mid 1940s (until the late 1950s or early 1960s) and won't be retiring until at least 2008, with 2012 being the real kickoff point (1946 + 66, which is the retirement age for full benefits). Thus, we need to start dampening outgo by 2012.
Your numbers leave off that Bush created a new class of income that is taxed at 15%: dividends. Since many of the "rich," e.g. Theresa Heinz Kerry and Dick Cheney, get most of their income from investments, their *effective* tax rate has dropped precipitately. Those two actually pay a tax rate of about 13%...lower than those who make 14-56K in your list.
.153) / 1.0765 (since half the contribution is paid by the employer, so it doesn't appear in the nominal income. This creates an effective minimum rate of 28%. The top rate was also 28%. The only people who weren't paying a 28% marginal rate were those in the middle, some of whom paid 33% plus the wage taxes.
It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich. On the bright side, people can now argue that a flat tax would raise taxes on the rich.
Incidentally, the 1986 tax changes came very close to creating a flat tax. If you combine the income tax with the Social Security and Medicare wage taxes, you get (.15 +
"So, what is going to happen is that the amount of money currently moving into the social security fund will drop"
There is no "social security fund." All they do when there is more collected than they spend is they loan the money to the general fund. When social security stops collecting more money than it pays out, they will have to run a general fund surplus. Privatizing can partially alleviate that (particularly if they start by allowing people who are projected to retire before the social security system starts running deficits).
This would have been easier if they had started twenty years ago, when the social security system first started running surpluses. However, even if it doesn't start until next year, it can start reducing payouts almost immediately. All they have to do is to reduce the payout proportional to the privatized to traditional quarters ratio.
It would also be simple enough to create a requirement that any balance left at death would go back to the social security administration, reducing the cost of the privatization.
Domain keys allows client level authentication if you absolutely need it. Alternately, you could install a domain key on your local SMTP server (SPF can achieve the same effect with dynamic DNS entries). However, the obvious solution to this is to *authenticate* with your non-local mail servers (port 587 is provided for this for times when port 25 is blocked). Both my current and immediately previous mail servers do support this, as well as the services like NetIdentity, Pobox, GoDaddy, etc.
IGA, Shop & Save, Giant Eagle
I've also seen Marc's, Rally's, Save-A-Lot, and Aldi's
"This does not provide any incentive for a vehicle user to travel a shorter distance, rather it allows them to travel further."
Nah...if that were happening, we would see people moving farther and farther from the cities. First, into suburbs and then even farther, maybe to something called an "exurb." Obviously that isn't happ...
Oh, wait. It is.
If a gas tax causes unfairness (because the poor buy as much gas as the rich), it can always be fixed by rebates (possibly means tested but not necessarily).
A national gas tax would also help in that prices tend to rise in a smaller amount than the tax increase due to demand changes. I.e. some of the tax is born by oil *producers*, rather than consumers (who would be Americans).
"(from 70% to about 5-10% for most of the truly wealthy"
It's closer to 13%. Both Cheney and Heinz Kerry published their tax returns. It's also worth pointing out that even though the rate was 90% (prior to the Kennedy years), few people paid it. You are also mixing book rates (90%, then 70%, then 28%, and now 15-35% depending on type of income) with effective rates. The effective rate when tax rates were 70% was much lower than that. Tax loopholes aren't new. In fact, Ross Perot got his own personal loophole in 1978 (which is what made his 1992 claim to be an outsider so ridiculous).
Dropping the top rate from 90% to 28% (1986) encouraged people to get their income in reportable ways. The rich paid *more* in taxes (as a percentage of total taxes paid) in 1988 than they did in 1980. I haven't seen numbers since Bush cut the rate on dividends. It is reasonable to expect that the result has been a drop, but it is hard to say how much was the tax changes and how much was the recession.
"They still have enough money to buy mansions and fancy cars, but they do not then after taxes have enough to manipulate the voters and the govt through media propaganda."
You are confusing income and wealth. You aren't going to take away the rich's "media propaganda" abilities with an income tax. It's not their income that establishes their control of the media. It's the ownership of the media. Even a 100% income tax won't change that. It would only make it more difficult to buy mansions and fancy cars (things that are bought with income).
If you want to reduce the "power" of the rich, tax *wealth*, not income. Income is what pays for the toys. Wealth is what gives the power.
"I've already paid for the hardware and paid for the service"
But others aren't. Did you see the post about the person who paid $30 for Tivo? TiVo is trying to shift to a more sustainable revenue stream. Studies have shown that people would rather pay less and lose some time to advertising. Perhaps not you, but most people.
I would tend to agree that it is at least unethical for them to switch models *after* you have paid the original rate for hardware and service (assuming you got the lifetime service). However, it is perfectly reasonable for them to adapt their model to increase market share.
XML is a standard, but it still required someone to create an XHTML to implement it.
Context Free Grammar is a standard, but one needs to write a programming language to make use of it. Just because two programming languages have Context Free Grammars does not mean that code written in one will work in the other.
In the same way, there are multiple ways to implement LSB compliant packages. It is not guaranteed that two LSB compliant packages will be able to interact with each other. Presumably all these LCC packages will work with each other (just like you use RH 7.3 RPMs *or* 8.0 RPMs). Note: I haven't RTFA, so I may be misinterpreting what this LCC is supposed to do.
"Of course, you can already block their domain; none of these things actually help there."
Which is really effective when they send you email from *your* domain or that of someone with whom you keep in contact (e.g. gmail.com or yahoo.com). Blocking domains is useless unless you know that the email is actually coming from the domain. That is what Domain Keys, etc. provide, assurance that email that claims to be from someone@example.com really did come from the example.com mail server.
"Perhaps you are labouring under the illusion that it is expensive to setup a domain covered by this stuff. It isn't. Spammers will just continue as they always have."
Perhaps you are laboring under the illusion that it is expensive to send spam. It isn't. Even if it only costs $10 per million spams to set up a domain key domain, it could double the costs of most spammers. Email is cheap.
And at the very minimum, at least I won't have to get failed delivery notices at *my* domain for their spams. If that were the *only* benefit, it would be enough.
Zombie computers do not have domain keys. They are PCs. They send through a mail server. The mail server will have the domain key. To use that domain key, they will have to send *through* the server. Currently spammers avoid doing that, because it makes them easy to detect and shut down (mail servers usually have 24 hour admins that can respond quickly to a compromise; PCs have users who do not know what it means to be compromised).
Finally, even if a server is compromised (and thus its domain key), they wouldn't change the domain. They'd cancel the domain key and make a new one. Domain blocking is something that you do with a new domain that doesn't send legitimate mail, not an existing domain (e.g. gmail.com or yahoo.com).
"wouldn't having the sending servers wrap up the headers and md5sum them also work?"
No. The problem is that the sending server is lying about its identity. Instead of saying, "I am a mail server for a spammer" (or a virus infected PC), it is saying "I am Gmail's mail server." Having it do an md5sum would be useless, as it would lie *first* and then create the checksum.
Btw, in regards to checking that the sender matches the from, how do you check that? In theory, you could check the PTR record, but many legitimate mail servers do not have PTR records set up (not to mention that it would be difficult for multi-domain mail servers to operate; they would need to set up a PTR record for *each* domain that sends mail through that server). Thus, a spammer can simply not provide a PTR record and bypass the from check (even if the legitimate mail server does have a proper PTR record).
Basically, the biggest thing that this (as well as SPF, et.al.) provides is that a domain holder can say, "Hey, any server that is sending mail for me *should* have a PTR record or similar. If it doesn't, it's not from this domain!"
"Can't spammers just get verified domains to send their mail from?"
Sure, and if they do illegal things with their verified domains, those domains can be suspended and their purchase tracked. If they do legal but distasteful things with their verified domains, we can block the domain.
SPF, Sender/Caller ID, and Domain Keys are all basically identity verification services. They allow responses to emails that assume that the sender information is correct.
"the length of geosynchronous orbit (30,000 miles or so)"
Geosynchronous orbit is around 22,000 miles. This link gives that plus 62,000 miles for the cable.
"but what is the strength exactly needed for?"
To hold the cable together mostly. The cable needs tensile strength enough to hold the weight of the cable. It's not just the strength of nanotubes that is important: it's their strength to weight ratio.
Amanda Tapping was the only one of the main cast members who had not worked with Richard Dean Anderson previously.
Yes, shows tend to all share the same sets of background character. For example, Kevin Durand was Joshua (the dog boy) on Dark Angel, Zipacna on Stargate SG-1, and a really minor character on Dead Like Me. A.J. Cook was in Dead Like Me, then Tru Calling, and is now back to movies. Jewel Staite was in both Wonderfalls and Firefly (and Dead Like Me for that matter).
What would you expect actors to do when they aren't in a show? Of course they look for other work, full time or part time.
"Have you considered that a significantly more advanced race might not actually use it's shields out of contempt for a preagrarian race?"
I would say that a better argument is that an advanced race might not actually have shields that are effective against physical weapons. If no one uses physical weapons against them, why would they shield against physical attacks? All their weapons were designed to work against the Ancients, who were presumably well past the need to use physical weapons.
Notice how the humans are more effective against the replicators than are the Asgard. This is despite the fact that the replicators have incorporated all the tech that the Asgard have. The replicators are still damaged by the guns of the humans while they simply absorb the energy of the personal weapons used by the Asgard and the Goa'uld.
"Sam Carter: It took us fifteen years and three supercomputers to MacGyver a way to power the gate."
Interestingly enough, it was that ad lib that got Tapping the job. Last piece of trivia on the page
As has been pointed out many times, Gates never said, "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." It's just a story.
The point of the smart card is that it allows you to have only *one* password, which requires the smart card to use. Many people compromise security by choosing passwords that are simple and easy to remember (and reusing the same password in multiple instances)...but also easy to crack. Even if they continue to use an easy to crack password on their smart card, it still needs to be stolen to be useful.
This is more secure because it combines the benefits of two security mechanisms. Physical thieves are unlikely to be versed in password cracking; password crackers are unlikely to be versed in physical theft. Thus, the combined system is more secure than either would be alone.
It's also helpful in that it gives additional time to report the theft. Now, the thief may have a few hours to use the card before you report it stolen. Under this system, they have to crack the password first, then they can use the card. By that time, you may have already reported the card stolen.
Someone above also mentioned the idea of using biometric data to lock the smart card. Yes, biometric data can be stolen. However, it is not likely to be stolen by the same person who casually steals your wallet. Further, linking the biometric data to the smart card means that stealing the biometric data does not do any good without the smart card. Thus, cancelling the smart card (if stolen) confounds someone who stole both card and biometrics.