Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Better: Some new "Pro-Electric Vehicle Party" w (Score 1) 188

But besides all these things got me wondering... in Germany even new and small parties have a chance to get into parliaments and now there are six different bigger parties (cdu/csu, spd, the green party, the left party and now the pirate party) and many more small parties there to chose from, but in the us they just got stuck with two, why? I don't get it where is the democracy in that?

First of all, the US does have a lot of parties, but most are fairly small. Since you for individual candidates, you don't even need parties, but it sure helps having an organization behind you. Historically, the dominant parties have changed, so there is nothing in the system that prevents other parties from growing. But the most important mechanism in the US system is primaries where you let different candidates within a party battle it out. And those candidates can represent as large spread in ideologies as there are in any European parliament. The end result is not all the different to Europe: You need a conflict to get the voters off the couch, but the most extreme can not carry the election. Or perhaps, it is different: After all, the proportional system gave the world Hitler, with only 33% of the votes.

Comment S/MIME is a transport protection (Score 1) 152

At work, we fairly routinely issue people new certificates and revoke the old ones, even when there's no belief that the certs were compromised. As a result, you can send somebody an email and later that day get new certs. This is a problem because all the digitally signed emails you sent earlier now register as revoked and Outlook proceeds to tell you this, that the email can't be trusted, etc...

S/MIME is a transport protection, just like SSL. It is not meant to impart non-repudiation on the content of a mail. It is only meant to ensure integrity (signing) and confidentiality (encrypting) from the moment it is sent to the moment it is received. For this to work, the time between signing and validation (and/or encrypting and decrypting) must be "short". The receiving system should decrypt and validate the incoming message as soon as possible. The result of the signature validation should be remembered, so it is not necessary to do again. The message should be stored in its decrypted form. You should not rely on S/MIME to protect your message after it has been received by you. If you need to ensure integrity and confidentiality when storing the mail, that should be done by whatever is storing the mail (the mail server or the client locally) in a different manner, it is outside the domain of S/MIME.

Now, S/MIME implementations don't work that way, which is why you end up with the problems you have. For one thing, S/MIME is usually a function of mail client rather than the mail server which makes it difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to implement "S/MIME for transport only" model.

Comment Not stolen, shared (Score 1) 85

I thought we learnt this from the *AA against the world debate. Stealing is taking something away from the owner denying him the use of it. Nothing was taken away from Verisign. Somethings may have been shared, which may or may not take some future business away from Verisign, since people can now get their own trusted SSL certs. Copyright wasn't meant to be eternal, they have had their time limited monopoly on those keys. Society will profit as prices for EV certs will now go through the floor. Verisign can always do live performances or merchandize or something.

Comment Luxury diseases (Score 2) 116

is why so many researchers are working on 'luxury' diseases instead of the disease that decimate the third-world, even in universities that should do fundamental research.

While I agree to your general sentiment, I am not convinced about this.

Many, if not most, of the diseases that cause large amount of suffering and deaths in the thrid world, are cureable with known science. That's why we don't have them in the first world. And it is not exactly rocket science either. DDT, mosquito nets and good draining will go a long way against malaria. Good sanitation and clean water (proper toilets!) will reduce the number of deaths in a large number of infectious diseases.

AIDS is a big killer (but interestingly not the biggest), but it does get a lot of attention from first world medical research. There is a problem with how the third world is going to get the benefits of these advances, but it is not fundamentally different from how the third world gets the benefit of advances we do in other areas that could improve their lives (such as water treatment and sanitation). It is a problem being poor, you can't really afford it.

The great news is that the situation is improving big time. (Google Hans Rosling for the full story)

Comment In Sweden (Score 1, Insightful) 116

In Sweden they have had no influence whatsoever. You could compare them to one of those facebook campaigns. People are willing to show their sympathy for the thought that "everything should be free" (its the beer part that matter to people, In Sweden, we are not so much in to liberties), as long as it is effortless and doesn't cost anything. At the end of the day, taxes, interest rates, unemployment and day care is what sets the agenda.

Sure they did well in the EP elections, but that's only because the EP is a phony parliament.

What the PP did do is to vulgarize the debate to the point that no serious politician, whether interested in liberties or in economic efficiency, would dare to touch the issue of reforming the "intellectual property" system with a ten foot pole for the risk of being labeled a wingnut. Any legal system needs reform from time to time, but this issue has been put in the freezer.

It is of course of no help that the founder and until recent party leader of PP is an alternative economy conspiracy theory wingnut.

The bottom line is that the PP is not going anywhere as a political party until it has an opinion on day care. It is questionable whether it has it in itself of getting that, and if not it should stay out of elections. Be a thought smithy, lobby organization, discussion club, what ever, but don't pretend you belong in parliament.

Comment Re:Official religion? (Score 1) 358

In the case of Sweden it is not rubber-stamped as "official". It is registered, which *only* means it can ask for collecting its membership dues over the tax returns (and there are restrictions to this right, even if you are registered). Some religious organizations use this, but not all. The only other thing covered in the law about religious organizations is that your guardian cannot apply to enter or leave a religious organization if you are over the age of twelve (it isn't mentioned if your guardian can veto your application to enter a religious organization, though...).

Comment Re:Why would they? (Score 1) 281

It doesn't make the slightest sense. A strong Iran is in Russia's interest.

And strong talibans were in the interest of the US. Russia has a huge soft underbelly. It is not unthinkable that Iran could turn on its benefactor in the future. It's not that they are united by common values and interests. Iran is only in bed with Russia because it offers the best deal, not because it respects Russia in any way. What if it switches to China? (Similar reasoning goes for China, but Russia is probably more vulnerable.)

Comment Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score 1) 281

First of all there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel." You swallowing the Israeli propaganda talking points hook line as sinker and regurgitating them is not going to convince any reason minded individual here.

Theoretically there might be. But Iran is funding Hezbollah and Hamas, who are not just talking about it. I don't see at as an extreme stretch of imagination that Iran would act themselves if they could (perhaps after acquiring the bomb).

And how many times has the US and Israel threatned to attack them? Double standards much?

I don't recall either US or Israel calling for dismantling the persian state and replacing it by a non-persian state. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  Secondly. What's the difference between terrorizing other countries with stuxnet, infiltration and bombing or killing scientists, by a country or supporting a third party (insert terrorist org here) to do you bidding. If I send a CIA agent to infiltrate and blow up an arms depot or if I pay someone else to do it for me? What's the difference?

Hamas and Hezbollah rarely blow up arms depots. That would be totally in order and according to the laws of war. They intentionally target civilians.

Its OK for us to support terrorist organization but no one else should right? And then there is this

Notice that in the quoted article the US is choosing not to act through Mujahedin-E-Khalq since it is deemed to be a -- terrorist organization.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry