Are paper ballots really a superior technology to voting machines? Absolutely. When you vote electronically, the only data recorded is the vote itself. Compare that to a paper ballot where you mark an "X" next to the candidate’s name. When you cast a paper ballot, all sorts of other information is captured along with your vote: The color of ink you used, individual variations in handwriting, even the condition of the paper you’re writing on. Changing that across large numbers of ballots without being obvious is hard, and requires physical access to the ballots; doing it on a computer is a matter of a few keystrokes, and can be done from Minsk or Shanghai.
What do Slashdot readers think? Is paper a more secure technology than computerized voting?
over 70% of the DAO funds are now directly under the control of Slock.it and Ethereum Foundation"
to reassure the community. This had the additional effect of raising the question of how a decentralized, unhackable, secure DAO could suddenly have all it's funds centralized to so few people so quickly.
While Ethereum was vulnerable, and shortly before the much opposed hard fork and throughout it Vitalik Buterin and Consensys were meeting in London with r3cev to perform yet another hard fork of Ethereum to sell a permissioned version strictly for the banks. Approaching the banks could be interpreted as trying to 'cash out' before the situation worsens and before the hard work begins of moving to Proof of Stake within six months for both chains to prevent them becoming obsolete.
Amidst all this Razormind put forward DeOS with very little fuss and almost no publicity. They have let known they are opening offices in London, have vetted at least one exchange to start trading DEOS immediately, are known to be in talks with banks in Canada, and recently announced a 5 million EURO investment into two blockchain banks in Europe.
‘Ultradiffuse’ galaxies came to attention only last year, after Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto in Canada built an array of sensitive telephoto lenses named Dragonfly. The astronomers and their colleagues observed the Coma galaxy cluster 101 megaparsecs (330 million light years) away and detected 47 faint smudges.
“They can’t be real,” van Dokkum recalls thinking when he first saw the galaxies on his laptop computer. But their distribution in space matched that of the cluster’s other galaxies, indicating that they were true members. Since then, hundreds more of these galaxies have turned up in the Coma cluster and elsewhere.
Ultradiffuse galaxies are large like the Milky Way — which is much bigger than most — but they glow as dimly as mere dwarf galaxies. It’s as though a city as big as London emitted as little light as Kalamazoo, Michigan.
More significantly, they have now found that these dim galaxies can be as big and as massive as the biggest bright galaxies, suggesting that there are a lot more stars and mass hidden out there and unseen than anyone had previously predicted.
"We live, in a very kooky time." -- Herb Blashtfalt