Some odd bits of irony from the article:

1. Lanier goes on about how cool and important interactivity is... in a _magazine_ _interview_. IWe can only comment and respond indirectly.

2. He says "I also seem to have influenced the script, by suggesting the idea that criminals might gouge out eyeballs to fool iris-scan identity-matching machines (though in fact such machines can already tell if an eye is alive or not)." Boy, is he an optimist (or pessimist, depending how you feel about biometrics). I recently read a number of reports about successful spoofs of biometric identification, including peering through a hole in a picture of someone else's iris, thereby presenting a live pupil and an authorized iris at the same time. After all, all you need to do is present an acceptable signal to whatever sensors the machine uses; the machine can't tell how the signal gets to the sensors.