[A] report noted that the chip is expected to remain viable for at least 16 years once implanted.
While the "target" population is poor, third-world women, such technology is, of course, ripe for abuse. After all, think about it: If that demographic is the primary target, why would the chips need to be encrypted? How many third-world populations have within their midst the technological capability or the power to resist?
When he began Microsoft, Bill Gates likely never thought he'd become rich enough to hold the power of life in his hands. Talk about your "evil corporations."
The sourced article says that the encryption is meant to prevent hackers or cybercriminals from accessing the device. Robert Langer says the chips could hit the market in 2018.
Additionally: This amazing remote-controlled contraceptive microchip you implant under your skin is the future of medicine [Washington Post] (July 17, 2014)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @08:24PM
Actually, we were thinking of giving a former NSA officer a little time to bash Snowden later, another submission from an Anonymous Coward. Got any thoughts on it [soylentnews.org]?
Anyway, the quoted material in the summary is less infactual and more inflammatory (it's "asking questions"). With the contrast it allows you to see what others (perhaps the batshit crazies) think about this. Maybe it would be better without the quote or even the NN link, but that's how it was submitted, and there are variety of options ranging from "reject submission" to "accept submission without changes". I thought the middle ground was best.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Friday July 24 2015, @09:09PM
As a sometimes [scienceblogs.com] (though increasingly rarely) wise man put it, "Squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town."
If you really want to show what the crazies think...well, first, be aware that mentioning them at all is going to derail the whole conversation into insulting their craziness. But, if you're really after a five minutes hate, the proper form is to open with the straight-up reporting, and end with a parenthetical mention of the crazy. Something like this:
If you really must "teach the controversy," please at least have the decency to teach it like that.
And, yes. Natural News really is full-tilt nutjob central; the RationalWiki reference given above will tell you all you need to know -- and you can confirm for yourself just by reading the "About" page on Natural News itself.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.