Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
whether it's possible to produce a viable internet voting system
The big problem is creating a system where votes are both verifiable (alone, easy: PGP sign them) and where the secret ballot is maintained (alone, easy: use TOR). Nobody's yet come up with a viable way to combine these two required features.
Which could also mean that I don't use Internet at all, period.
How could it mean that?
Wireless systems used by passengers on planes in the US could be hacked to access flight controls
One would really hope that not connecting the avionics and passenger wifi on the same network would be a rather elementary element of aircraft design..."
, I'm going to assume the UK has the appropriate treaties and will in fact come down on you for reselling this to China.
I doubt say, Iran, has any difficulty getting the latest Intel server for it's government operations. But the majority of the country[Iran] is deprived, and the market is defunct.
This is an excellent example of the problem with broad sanctions; I have a philosophical objection to these, whether they come from the UN, US, EU or my own government. The only people they end up hurting are the innocent populations of another country. There may be arguments for targeted sanctions against specific individuals, limiting their to travel or invest in the west, but that's not the case here.
The fewer people with effective nukes, the less likely the world ends tomorrow.
I suspect China's current nukes are more than effective enough that a little extra won't hurt. Also I think any one power (even the "good guys") having overwhelming force is a bad thing where nukes are concerned, so I'd rather China's nukes are on a par with the west's.
No need to step away. The ruling was based on the interstate commerce laws
I take it you don't actually know what the ruling was. There was no interstate commerce. A farmer was growing a regulated crop, for his own private consumption, but the ability of the federal government to interfere was upheld regardless. Precedent from drugs cases seems to suggest that the courts will uphold this even when the market in question is a black market.
So, although the (federal) government has very limited power to interfere in commerce constitutionally the precedent for interpretation of the constitution has given them carte blanche to do what they like.
The buyer hasn't committed a crime but they still lose what they have purchased
That would depend solely on the buyer's contract with the seller.
I can't really think of a good analogy for this. The key analogy isn't perfect as Amazon are distributing the product, not simply selling access to it as a third party. However your licensing the product, rather than buying it, so a market stall selling fake handbags wouldn't be a great analogy either (also, generally with copyright cases, you get the real deal product even when it's not appropriately licensed; so it's not like traditional counterfeiting in that way either).
The same way as if you bought stolen goods from a second hand store, the police can remove it.
But unlicensed digital goods aren't stolen goods.
1) The final buyer commits no crime, or civil offence, (even if they know it's improperly licensed) in most jurisdictions
2) The original owner does not lose the goods, and the goods cannot be returned to the original owner. They lose potential revenues.
Also any such action would have to be allowed under the contract between the provider and the customer (in most cases I expect such contractual provisions exist, but they will carry a massive PR hit).
Not to mention that defrauding banksters isn't the crime it is made out to be
Actually, even if you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's OK to steal from people you don't like, defrauding bankers hurts us all here. Here's why: 1) It costs the bank's customers through higher credit interest and lower debit interested 2) If the bank fails customers are likely to lose out (although most individual customers will have their deposits guaranteed by the state) 3) The state guarantees deposits of individual customers (up to a certain limit) so, if the state has to bail out those customers, we all pay.