cjg

I've generally found UML to be a complete waste of time.

I'd rather outline the major components of a system by drawing (on real paper) simple boxes and lines, or write the code that implements the system.

Not sure what code-as-picture achieves - it's generally has worse tooling (less editable, less versionable, etc.) and tends to be used by 'architects' who don't write code, only for that UML to be essentially ignored by the coders on the ground.

This is why I tend to buy 14" laptops.

15" is too big to fit in train and airplane seats comfortably, but 13" is too small to get lots of work done.

However, I guess that rules out a MacBook Pro - oh well.

Not according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle

"A motte-and-bailey castle was made up of two structures, a motte, a type of mound–often artificial–topped with a wooden or stone structure known as a keep; and at least one bailey, a fortified enclosure built next to the motte."

It may well do.

HMRC has guidelines about how long you have to work at a customer site before it is considered to be a fixed site like this. They have to do this because it informs tax decisions about travel expense claims.

I think the guideline is that after two years, the site should then not be eligible for travel expenses. Nearby sites are also not eligible - where the definition of nearby relates to how similar are the journeys taken to reach each site. Whilst HMRC clearly aren't the branch of government that are involved in this ruling, this is a similar structure around which such an argument could be made.

Anti-money laundering regulation was my first guess as to why, but it doesn't really fit because companies are not allowed to do anything to warn customers that they are under investigation. Cancelling their account could certainly tip them off to this and so it seems unlikely that it would comply.

Having said that, I don't know what the Thai regulations are. Perhaps this fits better under those.

No, because if you have the ability to create the hash on the machine then you have the ability to create a hash for a manipulated version.

The blockchain gets round this with consensus.

Much spam filtering uses Bayes' theorem and it has been this way for a very long time. Your lack of SPF records must massively increase the chance that your emails are spam.

If you are still getting some emails through, they must have other characteristics that make them look less like spam than the others that are getting filtered.

Just add the SPF.

I want to know why the viruses haven't evolved to include Chi sites in their DNA.

My initial thought is perhaps a downwards pressure on the maximum length of the viral DNA, or perhaps Chi sites stop the DNA packaging properly.

When do we upgrade from IPv6?

The pursuit of the "best" is the problem. How about "adequate"?

"Oh, no, I must have put Denmark by mistake."

That seems like a pretty easy line to draw. If the software is effectively a device driver - OK; otherwise - no.

Not sure why you've been downvoted. There is no active development on the project any more and it doesn't work with UEFI.

There's no free full disk encryption for Windows users with modern (UEFI) boxes. The money would be better spent on that, but returning crowdfunded money... tricky.

You've got to love non-invasive tests like this, but the trade-off is lower accuracy.

In this case, for example, it could give false positives for people who have differently shape blood cells - e.g. sickle cell, spherocytosis, elliptocytosis.

This explains what M31-V1 is:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/star-v1.htm...

The problem outlined by the economist article essentially boils down to the fact that the government wanted to subsidise renewable energy but didn't want to pay the subsidy so foisted the extra cost onto consumers with legislation requiring the utility companies to buy renewable energy when it was available.

That's not a problem specific to all "green laws" as you seem to imply.

The Economist does seem to come across as slightly biased in its reportage (I'm surprised), when they say "renewables undercut relatively climate-friendly natural gas on price". Relative to what? It becomes clearer as you read further, relative to coal, but the quoted statement makes it sound like natural gas is more climate-friendly than renewables. Clearly not.

Because you can't just cut taxes. You would either have to increase other taxes or reduce spending. Ex'Tax takes the first of these approaches.

It's not a tax on products (like VAT), it's a tax on specific difficult to acquire resources.

The costs of some things that you mention (oil, electricity) might well go up, but the costs of others might stay the same or drop depending on how much of their cost if attributable to labour costs. Locally sourced food might go down in price.

These price changes are exactly what the tax aims to achieve (e.g. lower energy use)

As some other commenters have pointed out, those particularly hard up can be compensated in some other way (e.g. tax credits).

"NeuroRacer is not commercially available. We do not have any plans of release NeuroRacer to the public because it was developed as a research tool and not a consumer product."

http://gazzaleylab.ucsf.edu/neuroscience-projects/neuroracer...

"It should be completed by the end of the year" seems unlikely.

It requires the attacker to acquire more data - perhaps so much data that the attack is not feasible - but it doesn't rule out a timing attack.

Please see my reply to the sibling post (which made roughly the same points as yours).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8580643

I can understand your objection now. Thank you.

For me the logic of the statement came the other way round: we've got things that are focused on a particular task (accelerators) - because those exist it is clear that the general purpose things we have at the moment (CPUs) are not efficient at everything - if they were we wouldn't have accelerators (or they would be what we were using for CPUs).

Sure, we can't have a general purpose vehicle that is suitable for all tasks, but I can imagine someone creating a general purpose glue that just sticks anything.

Perhaps there is a processor design that can be efficient at every task - this article seems to be encouraging us to think about that problem.

I thought that was one of the more insightful lines in the piece.

Perhaps you should take the time to refute the logic.

I was surprised to see a comment like yours. If you can't be bothered to make a reasoned comment, then don't write anything.

People don't typically exchange randomised versions of their data.

For me, the best link you gave was coinsecrets.org.

Most of the listed blockchain metadata seems to point off to one of these three: https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol/blob/mast... http://coinspark.org/ http://www.proofofexistence.com/

You could use pigeonhole sort with O(n) instead.

Not all the accounts need verification by phone.

Or even five days.

Thanks, I much preferred your full screen version to the small ones on the post. However, you've swapped the pink and green round compared to the original.