filbort - Slashdot User

Comment Re:Ironic (Score 2) 437

by filbort on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:47PM (#42999591) Attached to: World's First Bitcoin ATM

Bitcoin has no inherent worth; neither does "real" currency. The value comes from the promise that others will accept it in exchange for the things you want to get. For traditional money, this guarantee is practically given, but because money can be minted or multiplied in questionable ways, the system is prone to, ahem, "incidents".

For Bitcoins, speculative devaluation is not a significant risk thanks to the design of the system; but all the parties getting bored of running an informal, distributed economy is. We have some examples of such p2p systems working OK, but also many examples where some form of institutional oversight and coordination is necessary. So, it's complicated...

Submission + - Doctor Who's Dalek Designer Dies at 84 (guardian.co.uk)

Submitted by

SchrodingerZ

on Sunday February 24, 2013 @06:05PM

SchrodingerZ writes: "Raymond Cusick, a production designer for the BBC show Doctor Who from 1963 to 1966, has died from illness. 'Terry Nation, who died in 1997, wrote the 1963 story The Daleks, in which the "satanic pepperpots" first appeared, but it was Cusick who came up with the machines' distinctive look, including the bobble-like sensors, eyestalk, sucker and exterminator weapons.' His horrid creation has remained a prime enemy in Doctor Who for over 50 years, and have remained relatively unchanged. His tireless work however was never fully awarded, as his only pay for the project was about £100. Cusick also worked on such shows as Z Cars, Dr Finlay's Casebook and The Forsyte Saga to The Duchess of Duke Street, When the Boat Comes In and Rentaghost. He officially retired in 1987. Claire Heawood, Cusick's daughter has said that her father was 'suffering from an illness and died peacefully in his sleep on Thursday.'"

Submission + - Could the Election of the New Pope be Hacked? 1

Submitted by

Hugh Pickens writes

on Saturday February 23, 2013 @10:11PM

Hugh Pickens writes writes: "The rules for papal elections are steeped in tradition. John Paul II last codified them in 1996, and Benedict XVI left the rules largely untouched. The "Universi Dominici Gregis on the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff" is surprisingly detailed. Now as the College of Cardinals prepares to elect a new pope, security people like Bruce Schneier wonder about the process. How does it work, and just how hard would it be to hack the vote? First, the system is entirely manual, making it immune to the sorts of technological attacks that make modern voting systems so risky. Second, the small group of voters — all of whom know each other — makes it impossible for an outsider to affect the voting in any way. The chapel is cleared and locked before voting. No one is going to dress up as a cardinal and sneak into the Sistine Chapel. In short, the voter verification process is about as good as you're ever going to find. A cardinal can't stuff ballots when he votes. Then the complicated paten-and-chalice ritual ensures that each cardinal votes once — his ballot is visible — and also keeps his hand out of the chalice holding the other votes. Ballots from previous votes are burned, which makes it harder to use one to stuff the ballot box. What are the lessons here? First, open systems conducted within a known group make voting fraud much harder. Every step of the election process is observed by everyone, and everyone knows everyone, which makes it harder for someone to get away with anything. Second, small and simple elections are easier to secure. This kind of process works to elect a pope or a club president, but quickly becomes unwieldy for a large-scale election. And third: When an election process is left to develop over the course of a couple of thousand years, you end up with something surprisingly good."

Slashdot Top Deals