On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 10:37 -0400, m wrote: > According to the info I have found, twins of any sort will not have > identical fingerprints, though their DNA might be virtually > indistinguishable if they are identical twins. Many many years ago I remember finding out that identical twins are rarely ever *identical*, but it was possible. I'm sure I've read of at least one instance where fingerprints were, too. Which identity documents have your finger prints on? It's years since I've seen someone's passport, but they only had photos on them. Likewise with our driver's licences. I wonder if they'll start fingerprinting babies, in the modern terrorist paranoid era? (Still, though, such people don't seem to care if you know who they are.) Apparently we used to have DNA records of every baby in Australia, thanks to Guthrie test cards (pin-prick to the heel, with the blood drop pressed against a card) just being casually filed away in the back of some cupboard. Then there was a flap on as someone realised this, and the potential for using them for something more than they were ever intended for, and I recall reading that they were going to be destroyed. Ultimately, identifying someone doesn't really prove a great deal, unless you can also find out whether they're trustworthy or a con artist, as well as who they are. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.19-78.2.30.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
