I know you're not really trying to make this argument, but it will probably come up in the thread so I'll address it here. The argument about locking a store the quality of apps isn't very valid.

Linux distros regularly deal with open source app quality fluctuations and have no problem keeping quality high. Repos are a standard way of keeping tested, high quality apps and lower quality minimally (or un-) tested apps separated. Take CentOS for example: You want stable? Keep the base and update repos only. You want more cutting edge? Try RPMForge.

Apple could easily open up another store with untested apps and give the standard 'caveat emptor' line. The decision to not provide an open store probably was more of a business decision than a technical quality one.

I understand why people say biometrics is a poor use of security, but with a few adjustments, would it really be?

For example with a facial scan, you could require the user to set a "password" with a sequence of facial expressions. Instantly by using expressions, you change the requirement for forgery from static images to video, which is much more difficult to fake (refresh rates of monitors and CCDs are easy to detect). In addition, the movement of facial qualities provides much more data, including underlying muscle control and structure.

Same idea for retinal scans. You could define a series of eye movements as a password. Can't fake that with a picture.

This is ridiculous. You're making a fundamental invalid logical assumption: you're assuming that you know what traits are perfect/desireable.

You don't.

Hypothetical scenario. Lets say it becomes really popular to have red hair, so a large percentage of people in that generation are selectively born with red hair and the alleles that express red hair. This would cause the human species to end up with a net reduction in bio-diversity. This in turn makes us more susceptible to some disease coming along that has a selective advantage over people with the allele expressing red hair. End result: we end up being ravaged by this disease (even those who don't have red hair) because people wanted to look good.

That example was relatively silly, but the point is that you can't select traits because you don't know what perfect is and you'll never be able to define it either. Certain genetic traits that seem like disadvantages under the current conditions can confer advantages under a different set of conditions.

Sickle cell anaemia is a perfect real-world example. On the surface, it's a disease with mutation in hemoglobin's ability to carry oxygen and form red blood cells properly, is very well understood, easily screened for, and easily preventable with eugenics. It's a painful disease, why not get rid of it? Once you consider other factors though, you learn that sickle cell anaemia is one of the most effective genetic defenses against malaria. If you hadn't known the second fact beforehand and had eliminated the alleles for sickle-cell from the population, then you would have effectively destroyed a very useful and effective tool in the fight against malaria. (partial expression of the sickle-cell alleles still offers protection against malaria)