I think you are overstating the problem - in fact, I would say that it is easier to secure online voting than it is to secure online banking - because you can retain the status of "secret ballot" while publishing more information than would be acceptable in a banking system. It's simple: the government issues each voter a random id. For the voting process, (id+vote+salt) are hashed, the user gets their hash - and then at the end everyone's hash and the cleartext voting choice are publicised. Mr. malware can still change your vote and display in your client that you've voted for "your choice" but the publicly available hash-vote pair will show the truth and you can then report your vote was tampered with. Although I suppose that would open the window to post-election vote switching...

But the place your data is stored is directly relevant to its security and privacy...

Actually, that's since the last block - so, in the last five to ten minutes.

I always had problems with data breeches too, but then I switched to data trousers and was much happier from then on. :)

I read this quote in one of Dan Dennett's books:

Agreed, actually - I've always followed the advice of Guybrush Threepwood in the Secret of Monkey Island:

"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."

The article does seem to imply that the organisms are given the (pre-programmed) ability to be altruistic rather than evolving it themselves (they just decide how likely they are to be altruistic) - but what this study allows is observation of the sorts of conditions where altruism is valuable, and why.

Your $60 game should be incomparable to a $1 game, in terms of both gameplay and technology. If it's not, you are Doing It Wrong.

Silly Advertising Standards Authority, april fools' day was yesterday!

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Inner-Platform_Effect.aspx

They already have ALAC, which they'd probably prefer to FLAC.

I'm not sure you can have 47% of one person...