No you don't. Social media sites like Google+ and Facebook vacuum up information about you from everywhere, even things you never intended to be made public like links you've clicked on.
Which to the NSA is useless information overload....
OK: first, you quoted the GP, who had a good point in responding to the GGP.
Second, NSA doesn't need to deal with this info directly, because Google and Facebook already do. They can just intercept the aggregate metadata, and drill down as needed, as they know where to go for the details. How do you think they know how to serve these companies with information requests? They already have the metadata, and can use it to request the information stored by others. Why is this pertinent to the topic? Because to intercept the aggregate metadata, they have to break the encrypted streams -- which often involves FIPS-regulated transactions, which means Dual EC DRBG is possibly a default seed, especially on RSA-based products.
Anyone who uses closed source has forfeitted security. there is no but. none. anyone who claims that has no idea what theya re talking about.
Really?
First thing to realize: on the software level, there is NO SUCH THING as closed source. If your computer can read it, so can you. It's just rather obfuscated, and not in the form that the original author wrote it in.
But as complexity increases, having access to the source doesn't guarantee that the software operator is any more secure; it's trivially easy to insert the right insecurities into a complex system such that each one, by itself (see = vs ==) looks like a trivial bug, but together, they make a nice remote exploit.
And then, of course, you have to drill down. Do you know how all your hardware works (really know, not just understand theoretically how your specific chip types work)? Do you know exactly what information it leaks via networking, radiation and vibration? If you don't, you can't really vouch for the security of your system as a whole.
Sorry; you've got it backwards. Coke owns the hardware where the MAC ID resides, so MAC is the right thing to reserve. The devices themselves can then be on a multitude of networks, using multiple DHCP servers, which would likely be owned by the distributors, not by Coke. A range of IP addresses would be a routing nightmare in a real-world scenario.
They were those Susan B Anthony dollars. The problem was that so many things like newspapers were sold using mechanical spring type vending machines that only accepted quarters, nickels and dimes, and not one dollar coins. Not even laundrette washing machines or electronic vending machines accepted them. So you could get rid of the spare change by buying a newspaper or a snack but not those coins. Not even supermarkets would want to exchange them. They needed the quarters to give customers change.
They were those Susan B Anthony dollars. The problem was that so many things like newspapers were sold using mechanical spring type vending machines that only accepted quarters, nickels and dimes, and not one dollar coins. Not even laundrette washing machines or electronic vending machines accepted them. So you could get rid of the spare change by buying a newspaper or a snack but not those coins. Not even supermarkets would want to exchange them. They needed the quarters to give customers change.
This is a false argument -- those same vending machines are sold in Canada with different software to recognize the $1 and $2 coins. I've personally played with the coin acceptors used in USA Today boxes, and they have no problem with accepting slightly larger and different coins -- and they haven't had a problem for years. There are only a few companies out there manufacturing coin acceptors, and they all widened the slot to handle larger coins years ago, and have easily reprogrammable embedded software to recognize the coin formats.
Laundry machines have for the most part skipped over this hurdle completely, going from the push acceptors to card-based payment. Vending machines have accepted larger coins for almost as many years as newspaper boxes. Supermarkets would not have a choice; they give the bank bills, they get coins back (the banks having incentive to return the bills to the FED).
But yes; the argument with the Susan B Anthony dollars as trotted out by the pundits was exactly as you said.
This makes me wonder -- if a bill costs 4 cents and a coin costs 8 cents, why not start making polymer COINS? Sure, people wouldn't like them at first, but they could get the cost down to about 1/4 cent per coin likely, and the things would still last 20 years or so. For people arguing that you could burn them etc... there's nothing that could destroy a polymer coin that couldn't do much worse to a cloth bill.
The United States has tried to replace the $1 bill on several occasions. The problem is that replacing the dollar doesn't solve any problem to the individual. Its not like people grab a bunch of dollar bills from their pockets and say, "Oh geez, I wish these were coins!".
Canada replaced the bill a long time ago, and then the $2 bill. The process went like this: banks had a window of time to submit their bills to the Mint in exchange for coins. I believe after this point, they were charged a processing fee for returning bills. As such, it was in their best interest to exchange all their bills during the free window, because bills wear out, and banks don't want to be caught holding the bag.
End result? Sure, I've still got the odd $1 and $2 bill hanging around, but anything you get from a bank or out of a till will be a coin.
If the US tried to do this, the same thing would happen. In reality, the US tried to complement the $1 bill with a coin, and let people choose. People chose to hang on to what they were familiar with.
Would it not be simpler to stop installing street lights outside of high pedestrian areas and intersections? Streetlights cost significant amounts of money while hurting drivers night vision and directly polluting the night sky.
I saw some very nifty motion-sensitive streetlights once; they were also directed and only flooded the sidewalks, not the roadway. Lots of implications with that design; still not sure whether it's better or worse for pedestrian safety. Definitely better for energy usage though.
One new machine keeps the keys. We guard it like the cabinet of office keys, and it in turn is locked in the law librarian's office and not connected to networks.
Er... if the keys are kept on an airgapped machine, how do they decrypt/encrypt the messages?
Or do they mean that they have personal and master keys, and the master key is kept airgapped, while the personal keys are kept on the devices (individual can encrypt/decrypt their own data, but only airgapped master keys can decrypt ALL corporate data)?
Also, this does nothing to prevent phishing for account details. I also notice that the fable refers to local encryption/decryption and passwords, but also keys. Wouldn't they do better to use two factor authentication, and for sensitive documents, require the key of a partner as well as whatever employee is encrypting/decrypting the data? This could be done via SMS challenge/response, where the partner's key is never made public.
Interestingly, the other item that he missed was DLP -- software is smart enough now to automatically encrypt data with the correct key based on content and metadata. THIS should be the default.
Under the Illuminated by Monks category: read the Riverside edition of Canterbury Tales -- it'll provide a lot of the back story and "assumed" knowledge. It definitely provides a different perspective on that era, as well as being entertaining. Plus, you'll get all the Chaucer references when people make them:)
Is to change to using an absolute scale of temperature like Kelvin
Not really... they could have said "degrees" and it would have held true for all parts of the world using Celsius (including scientists in the US). The Kelvin bit is just silly, as Kelvin just sets 0 at a different point along the same scale as Celsius (0 being no energy vs 0 being freezing point of water). When you're measuring the temperature delta, Kelvin vs Celsius is meaningless (373.15 - 273.15 = 100 - 0).
That's a fallacy. I choose what I share on social media.
No you don't. Social media sites like Google+ and Facebook vacuum up information about you from everywhere, even things you never intended to be made public like links you've clicked on.
Indeed -- you choose what you share on social media (to a degree), but most people aren't aware of the value of what they're sharing in the first place, and they have almost no control over what is shared about them. This is not the same as gossiping, as gossip involves the game of telephone -- there's no documented evidence that it's true. But when a date-stamped geolocated image of you in a nightclub shows up on your friend's blog with facial recognition indicating that it's you in the picture, and you called in sick that day, that's not gossip; that's evidence -- especially since that photo can then be flagged up for people who are following YOU (including co-workers and possibly your boss), even though you had nothing to do with the publication of the photo.
And this is before we get into whether your privacy settings have been changed by the service host since the last time you reviewed them, and whether others who don't need to honor those settings have found anything interesting in "your" files hosted in an international cloud server system.
If you choose to share nothing on social media, then at least none of the links can be verified, and it's closer to gossip. As soon as you start to share anything though, the metadata is enough of a net to snag all the bits of data about you that are published by others.
shun anything electronic, or electric for that matter. Substinance farm and read dead-tree books for leasure.
Only read illuminated books though, not printed books. Otherwise, you're no better than the Luddites (who, while known for destroying printing presses and automated looms, weren't actually against the technology, just against it only being in the hands of the rich and powerful, to the detriment of the working class).
Actually, this makes a lot of sense -- if your first exposure is REALLY fast, then you get the underexposed image really quickly, and you can use it as an index to build the overexposed image, and interpolate the desired image data from the difference. This should actually be a faster technique than the traditional sensor feedback exposure metering, as you can take your first image as part of the metering process and preserve the data for later use.
I had to dig down another layer to discover that they were creating an intelligent amplifier that used asymmetric multilevel outphasing. This is surprisingly similar to the new logic going into cruise control systems (see recent slashdot article) but applied to phasing the amplifier instead of an automotive powertrain. This thing should waste a LOT less energy when "idle" as well -- just running the chip and sensor controlling the phase level.
Both good points -- however, you missed out the part about GG being in addition to the professional photographer, not as a replacement. The goals are different; GG is for capturing those unstaged moments, which as we both pointed out, is what makes people uncomfortable.
I feel your pain. I'm an amateur photographer with all the high end equipment I need to capture beautiful shots (I prefer landscapes and still life). I absolutely abhor being told by my wife or parents that I'm going to be the designated photographer for an event, and, after losing yet another explosive argument where they won't accept "No" as an answer, I will often "forget" my camera equipment accidentally on purpose, and remind them that I said flatly...no. I'm going to an event to partake in it! Just by being behind a lens of any kind, be it smart phone, Digital Cam, Film Cam, Google Glass... I'm no longer a participant; I'm relegated to an objective observer, and my family doesn't understand why it pisses me off so much.
Well, to be the devil's advocate, I thought the whole idea of GG was that you could continue being a participant, and then review for anything you actually want to keep later. In this way, people interact with the camera naturally, as they would a person (you) instead of doing the automatic forced narrative posing that was the hallmark of 8mm film.
I've found the best coverage of an event to be when I have someone hired to do the "posed" recording, and have an unobtrusive camera going somewhere as well to catch the more natural and candid shots. Then the two can be mixed later to tell a more interesting and compelling story.
I guess one troubling thing though is that with GG, nobody knows when to pose, and keeping a smile plastered on your face whenever you look at a GG wearer would be rather painful.
It's not just hindsight when you're forewarned. In that case, it's also simple blindness.
No, it actually is hindsight when you're forewarned. The issue is that they're "forewarned" about a LOT of stuff, most of which is false. They have to prioritize which bits of intel to pass on to domestic agencies, and how urgent to flag that up. Then they have no control over how those agencies act on that intel.
The failing comes in the fact that they're supposedly the best we've got for intelligence, and they've obviously been messing up a bit on repeated occasions in communicating the right intel to the right people. So they may be doing a great job within their mandate, but the usefulness of that mandate is definitely called into question.
The issue with your statement here is that the NSA does in fact only focus on foreign intelligence. Anything domestic that poses a threat, that they inadvertently collect, gets passed to the FBI to handle, and they have a very poor record at accomplishing anything. So really its on the FBI for not acting on those tips and intel, that info doesnt technically pass through NSA unless its collected through their means.
By definition then, wouldn't pretty much any terrorist threat on US citizens belong to the FBI, with the NSA only passing on the intelligence? So... since this is the way that ALL intelligence is supposed to be used, doesn't that imply that this intelligence channel is next to useless?
If I have an organization heavily funded that observes everything passing on the details they consider useful to my pet rock so that my pet rock can protect the country, it seems to me that yes, the situation of assigning this role to my pet rock should be examined, but so should the situation of both collecting the information that is virtually unusable in a legitimate channel, and setting up channels to communicate that aren't effective.
One idiotic decision doesn't suddenly make all the less-idiotic decisions OK.
From what I can see, the NSA has yet to prove that their domestic programs serve a legitimate use in any effective manner. This may not be their fault, but that doesn't make it any less true. If you disagree, I've got a pet rock to sell you.
I guess that's where we differ in politics between a border. And of course that's a brilliant idea, let's run with yours for a moment. So, Obama is going to do as he pleases, mess up the mid-term, and the following presidential election...just to do what he wants. Right-o...then again, I've seen that in Canada for the Conservative Party...killed them outright...look at the Kim Cambell fiasco.
I think that says more about the difference between the Canadian multi-party system and the US-bipartisan system (and the voters' roles) than it does about how they might kill the Democratic party. In Canada, people have no issues with completely dismantling a party and starting a new one that reflects the views of the people. I don't see that happening in the US any time soon.
There's a reason there's no concept of "lame duck" in Canada, and Mulroney/Campbell demonstrated it nicely when they attempted to play American politics.
Slashdot Mirror
I have 2 dogs. When they pee at the same time, they always do it at right angles to each other...
One of them obviously likes flux closure domains....
I wonder if they did the study with multiple dogs peeing at the same time. This could be your opportunity to publish a follow-up PhD in Zoology!
Ah; now I get why Kelvin doesn't use the 'degree' prefix -- they don't want to be educationally biased in the eyes of science deniers :D
No you don't. Social media sites like Google+ and Facebook vacuum up information about you from everywhere, even things you never intended to be made public like links you've clicked on.
Which to the NSA is useless information overload....
OK: first, you quoted the GP, who had a good point in responding to the GGP.
Second, NSA doesn't need to deal with this info directly, because Google and Facebook already do. They can just intercept the aggregate metadata, and drill down as needed, as they know where to go for the details. How do you think they know how to serve these companies with information requests? They already have the metadata, and can use it to request the information stored by others. Why is this pertinent to the topic? Because to intercept the aggregate metadata, they have to break the encrypted streams -- which often involves FIPS-regulated transactions, which means Dual EC DRBG is possibly a default seed, especially on RSA-based products.
Anyone who uses closed source has forfeitted security. there is no but. none. anyone who claims that has no idea what theya re talking about.
Really?
First thing to realize: on the software level, there is NO SUCH THING as closed source. If your computer can read it, so can you. It's just rather obfuscated, and not in the form that the original author wrote it in.
But as complexity increases, having access to the source doesn't guarantee that the software operator is any more secure; it's trivially easy to insert the right insecurities into a complex system such that each one, by itself (see = vs ==) looks like a trivial bug, but together, they make a nice remote exploit.
And then, of course, you have to drill down. Do you know how all your hardware works (really know, not just understand theoretically how your specific chip types work)? Do you know exactly what information it leaks via networking, radiation and vibration? If you don't, you can't really vouch for the security of your system as a whole.
Sorry; you've got it backwards. Coke owns the hardware where the MAC ID resides, so MAC is the right thing to reserve. The devices themselves can then be on a multitude of networks, using multiple DHCP servers, which would likely be owned by the distributors, not by Coke. A range of IP addresses would be a routing nightmare in a real-world scenario.
They were those Susan B Anthony dollars. The problem was that so many things like newspapers were sold using mechanical spring type vending machines that only accepted quarters, nickels and dimes, and not one dollar coins. Not even laundrette washing machines or electronic vending machines accepted them. So you could get rid of the spare change by buying a newspaper or a snack but not those coins. Not even supermarkets would want to exchange them. They needed the quarters to give customers change.
They were those Susan B Anthony dollars. The problem was that so many things like newspapers were sold using mechanical spring type vending machines that only accepted quarters, nickels and dimes, and not one dollar coins. Not even laundrette washing machines or electronic vending machines accepted them. So you could get rid of the spare change by buying a newspaper or a snack but not those coins. Not even supermarkets would want to exchange them. They needed the quarters to give customers change.
This is a false argument -- those same vending machines are sold in Canada with different software to recognize the $1 and $2 coins. I've personally played with the coin acceptors used in USA Today boxes, and they have no problem with accepting slightly larger and different coins -- and they haven't had a problem for years. There are only a few companies out there manufacturing coin acceptors, and they all widened the slot to handle larger coins years ago, and have easily reprogrammable embedded software to recognize the coin formats.
Laundry machines have for the most part skipped over this hurdle completely, going from the push acceptors to card-based payment. Vending machines have accepted larger coins for almost as many years as newspaper boxes. Supermarkets would not have a choice; they give the bank bills, they get coins back (the banks having incentive to return the bills to the FED).
But yes; the argument with the Susan B Anthony dollars as trotted out by the pundits was exactly as you said.
This makes me wonder -- if a bill costs 4 cents and a coin costs 8 cents, why not start making polymer COINS? Sure, people wouldn't like them at first, but they could get the cost down to about 1/4 cent per coin likely, and the things would still last 20 years or so. For people arguing that you could burn them etc... there's nothing that could destroy a polymer coin that couldn't do much worse to a cloth bill.
The United States has tried to replace the $1 bill on several occasions. The problem is that replacing the dollar doesn't solve any problem to the individual. Its not like people grab a bunch of dollar bills from their pockets and say, "Oh geez, I wish these were coins!".
Canada replaced the bill a long time ago, and then the $2 bill. The process went like this: banks had a window of time to submit their bills to the Mint in exchange for coins. I believe after this point, they were charged a processing fee for returning bills. As such, it was in their best interest to exchange all their bills during the free window, because bills wear out, and banks don't want to be caught holding the bag.
End result? Sure, I've still got the odd $1 and $2 bill hanging around, but anything you get from a bank or out of a till will be a coin.
If the US tried to do this, the same thing would happen. In reality, the US tried to complement the $1 bill with a coin, and let people choose. People chose to hang on to what they were familiar with.
Would it not be simpler to stop installing street lights outside of high pedestrian areas and intersections? Streetlights cost significant amounts of money while hurting drivers night vision and directly polluting the night sky.
I saw some very nifty motion-sensitive streetlights once; they were also directed and only flooded the sidewalks, not the roadway. Lots of implications with that design; still not sure whether it's better or worse for pedestrian safety. Definitely better for energy usage though.
Please stop saying this, it just sounds stupid.
Especially when you think of FIPS... the Military uses it. Therefore Dual_EC_DRBG can be part of Military-Grade encryption.
Er... if the keys are kept on an airgapped machine, how do they decrypt/encrypt the messages?
Or do they mean that they have personal and master keys, and the master key is kept airgapped, while the personal keys are kept on the devices (individual can encrypt/decrypt their own data, but only airgapped master keys can decrypt ALL corporate data)?
Also, this does nothing to prevent phishing for account details. I also notice that the fable refers to local encryption/decryption and passwords, but also keys. Wouldn't they do better to use two factor authentication, and for sensitive documents, require the key of a partner as well as whatever employee is encrypting/decrypting the data? This could be done via SMS challenge/response, where the partner's key is never made public.
Interestingly, the other item that he missed was DLP -- software is smart enough now to automatically encrypt data with the correct key based on content and metadata. THIS should be the default.
Under the Illuminated by Monks category: read the Riverside edition of Canterbury Tales -- it'll provide a lot of the back story and "assumed" knowledge. It definitely provides a different perspective on that era, as well as being entertaining. Plus, you'll get all the Chaucer references when people make them :)
Who knew the Earth's name was Kelvin?
Oh.
It's all just a matter of degree....
Is to change to using an absolute scale of temperature like Kelvin
Not really... they could have said "degrees" and it would have held true for all parts of the world using Celsius (including scientists in the US). The Kelvin bit is just silly, as Kelvin just sets 0 at a different point along the same scale as Celsius (0 being no energy vs 0 being freezing point of water). When you're measuring the temperature delta, Kelvin vs Celsius is meaningless (373.15 - 273.15 = 100 - 0).
Too bad I've already given up on Slashdot and left. Really, I'm not here. You don't see me.
Weak are your Jedi powers, my son.
That's a fallacy. I choose what I share on social media.
No you don't. Social media sites like Google+ and Facebook vacuum up information about you from everywhere, even things you never intended to be made public like links you've clicked on.
Indeed -- you choose what you share on social media (to a degree), but most people aren't aware of the value of what they're sharing in the first place, and they have almost no control over what is shared about them. This is not the same as gossiping, as gossip involves the game of telephone -- there's no documented evidence that it's true. But when a date-stamped geolocated image of you in a nightclub shows up on your friend's blog with facial recognition indicating that it's you in the picture, and you called in sick that day, that's not gossip; that's evidence -- especially since that photo can then be flagged up for people who are following YOU (including co-workers and possibly your boss), even though you had nothing to do with the publication of the photo.
And this is before we get into whether your privacy settings have been changed by the service host since the last time you reviewed them, and whether others who don't need to honor those settings have found anything interesting in "your" files hosted in an international cloud server system.
If you choose to share nothing on social media, then at least none of the links can be verified, and it's closer to gossip. As soon as you start to share anything though, the metadata is enough of a net to snag all the bits of data about you that are published by others.
shun anything electronic, or electric for that matter. Substinance farm and read dead-tree books for leasure.
Only read illuminated books though, not printed books. Otherwise, you're no better than the Luddites (who, while known for destroying printing presses and automated looms, weren't actually against the technology, just against it only being in the hands of the rich and powerful, to the detriment of the working class).
Why would anybody want the video camera on this tablet to be "always on"?
Always on HDR or High Dynamic Range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging
Not the camera
basically it takes images so fast it can snap 2 images at the same time
~Loko
...at different exposure levels.
Actually, this makes a lot of sense -- if your first exposure is REALLY fast, then you get the underexposed image really quickly, and you can use it as an index to build the overexposed image, and interpolate the desired image data from the difference. This should actually be a faster technique than the traditional sensor feedback exposure metering, as you can take your first image as part of the metering process and preserve the data for later use.
How it really works
I had to dig down another layer to discover that they were creating an intelligent amplifier that used asymmetric multilevel outphasing. This is surprisingly similar to the new logic going into cruise control systems (see recent slashdot article) but applied to phasing the amplifier instead of an automotive powertrain. This thing should waste a LOT less energy when "idle" as well -- just running the chip and sensor controlling the phase level.
Both good points -- however, you missed out the part about GG being in addition to the professional photographer, not as a replacement. The goals are different; GG is for capturing those unstaged moments, which as we both pointed out, is what makes people uncomfortable.
I feel your pain. I'm an amateur photographer with all the high end equipment I need to capture beautiful shots (I prefer landscapes and still life). I absolutely abhor being told by my wife or parents that I'm going to be the designated photographer for an event, and, after losing yet another explosive argument where they won't accept "No" as an answer, I will often "forget" my camera equipment accidentally on purpose, and remind them that I said flatly...no. I'm going to an event to partake in it! Just by being behind a lens of any kind, be it smart phone, Digital Cam, Film Cam, Google Glass... I'm no longer a participant; I'm relegated to an objective observer, and my family doesn't understand why it pisses me off so much.
Well, to be the devil's advocate, I thought the whole idea of GG was that you could continue being a participant, and then review for anything you actually want to keep later. In this way, people interact with the camera naturally, as they would a person (you) instead of doing the automatic forced narrative posing that was the hallmark of 8mm film.
I've found the best coverage of an event to be when I have someone hired to do the "posed" recording, and have an unobtrusive camera going somewhere as well to catch the more natural and candid shots. Then the two can be mixed later to tell a more interesting and compelling story.
I guess one troubling thing though is that with GG, nobody knows when to pose, and keeping a smile plastered on your face whenever you look at a GG wearer would be rather painful.
Lunar Orbiter images a single pixel - it must be the Chineese lander.
Actually, it was two double pixels if you look at the images... and they're right where the Chinese claim to be.
I do wonder what the Chinese had to do to get access to the secret set at Universal Studios though....
Captain Hindsight is that you??
It's not just hindsight when you're forewarned. In that case, it's also simple blindness.
No, it actually is hindsight when you're forewarned. The issue is that they're "forewarned" about a LOT of stuff, most of which is false. They have to prioritize which bits of intel to pass on to domestic agencies, and how urgent to flag that up. Then they have no control over how those agencies act on that intel.
The failing comes in the fact that they're supposedly the best we've got for intelligence, and they've obviously been messing up a bit on repeated occasions in communicating the right intel to the right people. So they may be doing a great job within their mandate, but the usefulness of that mandate is definitely called into question.
The issue with your statement here is that the NSA does in fact only focus on foreign intelligence. Anything domestic that poses a threat, that they inadvertently collect, gets passed to the FBI to handle, and they have a very poor record at accomplishing anything. So really its on the FBI for not acting on those tips and intel, that info doesnt technically pass through NSA unless its collected through their means.
By definition then, wouldn't pretty much any terrorist threat on US citizens belong to the FBI, with the NSA only passing on the intelligence? So... since this is the way that ALL intelligence is supposed to be used, doesn't that imply that this intelligence channel is next to useless?
If I have an organization heavily funded that observes everything passing on the details they consider useful to my pet rock so that my pet rock can protect the country, it seems to me that yes, the situation of assigning this role to my pet rock should be examined, but so should the situation of both collecting the information that is virtually unusable in a legitimate channel, and setting up channels to communicate that aren't effective.
One idiotic decision doesn't suddenly make all the less-idiotic decisions OK.
From what I can see, the NSA has yet to prove that their domestic programs serve a legitimate use in any effective manner. This may not be their fault, but that doesn't make it any less true. If you disagree, I've got a pet rock to sell you.
I guess that's where we differ in politics between a border. And of course that's a brilliant idea, let's run with yours for a moment. So, Obama is going to do as he pleases, mess up the mid-term, and the following presidential election...just to do what he wants. Right-o...then again, I've seen that in Canada for the Conservative Party...killed them outright...look at the Kim Cambell fiasco.
I think that says more about the difference between the Canadian multi-party system and the US-bipartisan system (and the voters' roles) than it does about how they might kill the Democratic party. In Canada, people have no issues with completely dismantling a party and starting a new one that reflects the views of the people. I don't see that happening in the US any time soon.
There's a reason there's no concept of "lame duck" in Canada, and Mulroney/Campbell demonstrated it nicely when they attempted to play American politics.