Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | the_mitsuhiko's comments login

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how would having just access to the UTXO helped here?

This fork could have still been prevented even if only UTXO were stored.

The problem behind the fork here is that 950 out of the last 1000 blocks had the block version set to 3, but didn't follow through with their promise. By setting the block version to 3, they were voting to transition to BIP66, meaning that once 950 of the last 1000 blocks vote for version 3, then no more nonstandard DER signatures will be allowed in blocks.

Even if you prune spent transactions (so only keep UTXO) you still keep the block version, so you can still measure if 950/1000 blocks vote for version 3. And you are still able to verify that new blocks don't have nonstandard DER signatures.


So since this is widely misreported currently, here is how I understand the situation:

* Freedom of panorama is the freedom to take a picture of a building or environment that might be copyrighted. The EU currently allows countries to restrict this right because of historical context.

* There are a handful of countries that restrict that usage (France, Belgium etc.)

* They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage.

* There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted.


> There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted.

This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europ...

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA...

> They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage.

Yes, but "non-commercial usage" and "commercial usage" are poorly-defined terms, particularly in the Internet age.


Interesting point re:commercial usage. If a user of a social media site posts an image not for their own profit, it's still contributing to the social media network's profits in that it's keeping users engaged with the site while the social network runs ads.

> This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits.

Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. This only tries to harmonize the restrictions between the countries that have such restrictions already.


That’s wrong! The new law would add those restrictions for ALL the countries. That’s why everyone is in such an uproar.

The changed proposal would make it illegal for a nation to allow the freedom of panorama.

Read the blog of the MEP who wrote the original proposal (which had a clause saying that the Freedom of panorama should apply everywhere): https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/


> That’s wrong! The new law would add those restrictions for ALL the countries. That’s why everyone is in such an uproar.

Can you link to where this is written?


Read the blogpost I linked? It’s from the MEP who wrote the original proposal, and explains why it would add those restrictions for all the countries in the first few paragraphs already.

> Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules.

No, existing member states will have a restriction. It will only have Freedom of Panorama for non-commercial use. Member states are NOT allowed to have freedoms beyond those in the directive: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA...


If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?

> If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?

Because it's very annoying to have to consult local laws to figure out if you can use a picture or not. The idea is that you end up with three levels: free to use, free to use for non commercial use, restricted.

A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those (for instance it would be not permitted to say "restricted but free for professional magazines" or something like that)


> A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those

A country would no longer be permitted to allow commercial use, period. EU law does not allow member states to add additional copyright exemptions.


A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those

Ah, I didn't get that from your earlier post.


Yep, works with 1.0.

-----


Before you get your pitchforks out: this is a better start for the discussion than the apple-touch-icon mess from the past. They attempted to extend the standard in an almost intended way, but it turns out that it was not really ever considered well enough for this.

There is a discussion on the mail thread about how to deal with this issue properly. This is for a preview version of Safari and this is not the final specification.

-----


> They're both (subjectively) wrong: the natural place for data in JS is the this parameter.

... said the person not understanding the language semantics.

Passing arbitrary data as this is a terrible idea. It has to be an object and as such all primitives end up boxed.

-----


Not in strict mode... `(function(){ console.log(typeof this); })(5);` try in sloppy and strict mode - remember modules are strict mode by default.

-----


(function double() { return this * 2; }).call(2) === 4

I didn't have to box anything to pass a primitive as this. Maybe some other versions are different, but this works in Chrome 40 and Firefox 33.

-----


Are you sure?

    > function isboxed() { return this instanceof Number; }
    > isboxed.call(5);
    true

-----


as inglor said, this depends on strict mode:

    > var isboxed = (function() {"use strict"; return function isboxed() {return this instanceof Number;}}());
    > isboxed.call(5);
    false

-----


> so why should we have to horizontal swipe to change screens?

Because you change screens and you don't scroll. As the swipe motion is over more than 80% of the screen that would not work from top to bottom, only scrolling feels natural.

-----


OS X generally has terrible 3D support and the same hardware on Windows will perform much better. That's unfortunate but no reason to go to court for.

Apple writes their own device drivers and they write them to the extend their software and hardware needs it and no step further.

-----


It seems to be intentional though. I seem to recall Microsoft and IBM got into big trouble for anti-competitive conduct. This is the sort of thing that brings about anti-trust suits.

-----


It seems intentional in a "it would cost resources to extend this past what we benefit" way. In other words, a business made a cost-benefit analysis.

I fail to see where your frustration is coming from, or why it's targeted at Apple. It's most likely just a calculated cost savings measure.

-----


The frustration is targeted at Apple, because someone there likely made this decision... The support was likely already written, and expressly removed, because Apple makes Thunderbolt monitors. Not to mention that Apple is known for it's wide profit margin, so any cost/benefit analysis is less meaningful in that regard.

I'm not sure where you think said frustration should be directed.

-----


Rather than speculating on what Apple did internally, I think the real question is whether Apple advertises DisplayPort 1.2 support, since this feature is part of the DP 1.2 spec. So far I can't find anything about this on their product pages. If that's the case it's basically users demanding features that were never put into the specs of a product.

-----


Then Apple is in trouble:

Mini DisplayPort Connector

The Mini DisplayPort Connector is a small form factor connector designed to fully support the VESA DisplayPort protocol. It is particularly useful on systems where space is at a premium, such as portable computers or to support multiple connectors on reduced height add-in cards.

https://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/min...

-----


It doesn't say which version though.

-----


Mini DisplayPort started from 1.2 of the DisplayPort standard.

-----


Anti-trust on their whopping < 8% marketshare? You'd get laughed out of court.

All this because osx doesn't do a thing that apple never claimed osx did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...

-----


1) It's not intentional though.

2) Apple doesn't prevent you using dual monitors via other means e.g. USB / HDMI.

3) Microsoft/IBM had ridiculously high market shares (>90%). OSX is around 10%.

-----


> They look nice, I want to look nice. They feel powerful, I want to feel powerful. Men's shoes are boring, I don't want to be boring.

I'm sorry, but that makes very little sense. If you want to look nice then you need to go by what society judges as nice and society does not consider a man with heels to "look nice".

-----


Some people dress for themselves or for a core few others. Lowest common denominator doesn't rule all valid aesthetics.

Anyway one recent popular menswear designer, Rick Owens, wears heels: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg0ahygW5j1qazwkm.jpg

-----


You're making the assumption that by "nice," he means "what society judges as nice," rather than what he personally considers to look nice, and that assumption is almost certainly wrong.

-----


That's only true if you're wearing them out and trying to please others. Society doesn't inform my preferences at home nor does it see what I'm wearing behind closed doors.

Plus, with the right body type and shoes, you too could look quite nice in heels. Or full drag. Except I'm not into that but you are free to do as you like.

Edit: I haven't been able to post for an hour so I have nowhere else to put this: sorry Silverstorm I'm 6'3". Doesn't mean I don't like being taller though.

-----


> you need to go by what society judges as nice

Why?

You've been down-voted, probably because this assertion seems somewhere between weird and offensive to most people here, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe it.

This is particularly relevant to HN because most of the people here are interested in innovation, and innovation comes from precisely deviating from the standards of society. As Henry Ford famously remarked, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."

This is the reception that innovators of all kinds get, and currently men's dress is incredibly restricted. We aren't quite stuck in Victorian days, but the diminishment of acceptable fashion choice for men in the past 200 years has been huge. In 1800 a man could still wear colourful clothing, jewelry, and makeup. Fifty years later, a man could wear clothes that would shock no-one if seen on the street today, and nothing else.

I don't quite buy "the Enlightenment" as the whole answer, or even part of the answer, but there is no doubt that cultural shifts around that time had the effect of putting all men in uniform clothing. Think about that for a minute: women are allowed to wear almost anything today. Men are given a tiny number of acceptable choices, and no one much minds. I'm considered extravagant because I sometimes wear a bright red blazer to the theatre, which would be permitted if I were gay, but when I show up with my girlfriend it gets me insulted.

200 years ago men who were a hell of a lot more manly than me wore far more extravagant clothing and no one batted an eye (except maybe a few women who thought they were particularly attractive dressed like that.)

This is a lousy situation for straight men in the modern world: we deserve to be more than uniformed ciphers in the public eye, and rejecting society's judgement of what looks nice is a necessary step to take, just as rejecting society's judgement of what suitable entertainment is was necessary to the radio and film industry, rejecting society's judgement of what suitable travel technology is was necessary to the automobile and aircraft industry was, and so on. And you better believe that conservatives were frequently strongly against those innovations as well.

Innovation is driven by people with the courage to reject society's judgement and replace it with their own, and we should honour that courage, not denigrate it.

-----


> "You've been down-voted, probably because this assertion seems somewhere between weird and offensive to most people here, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe it."

I have come to believe it because I have come to realize that it is the only notion of "nice" that has real utility.

I only wish somebody had explained that to me earlier in life. I spent too much of my youth disadvantaging myself socially by failing to prioritize how I present myself to others.

-----


> I have come to believe it because I have come to realize that it is the only notion of "nice" that has real utility.

Utility means that something produces (directly or indirectly) satisfaction for the person making the decision. Doing what society judges as nice has instrumental utility, in that it can help you get better responses from society, which either can produce utility for you directly or help get others to do things which produce utility for you.

Doing what pleases yourself -- including aesthetically as in favoring what "looks nice" to you -- has direct and immediate utility, however.

Both are "real" utility. Which is greater utility will vary considerably.

-----


Put it this way, I find that what other people think about me has more impact on my life than what sort of cloth is hanging from my body.

I think that anyone who actually stops to consider this, actually weighs how their dress effects how the rest of society interacts with them, will arrive on the same conclusion (unless they have some serious issues to work out). If cloth honestly has more of an effect on you how other people treat you, you've probably got a disorder.

-----


I'm sorry, but that makes very little sense.

Which is a testament to its power, since a valid reason broke your brain's entire sense of "reasonable." You don't get it because you can't get it, you simply don't have the cognitive capacity for the idea, or else you would have allowed for it to make some sense, even if it didn't appeal to you.

-----


> What would benchmarking say the slowest part of rustc is? Typechecking/semantic analysis, llvm, or something else.

I feel like there are some projects out there that trigger things with bad runtime complexities in Rust. I had to stop using the piston image library because compiling it takes 15 seconds every time, which I'm not in for.

Compiling racer currently needs 2GB of RAM for no good reason.

So I'm pretty sure there is ample room for optimizations.

-----


> A miner could put no transactions in a block, and still get the 25 bitcoin block reward, but if they do that, they are hurting confidence in the bitcoin network

I don't think that's true at all. Even if some would not clear any transactions people would still be okay with that for as long as the rest does. And there are definitely some zero transaction blocks being minted.

-----


And there are definitely some zero transaction blocks being minted.

Yes, there definitely are. As I said, if you read my comment.

-----


The 0 transaction blocks tend to be ones that are mined in rapid succession(less than a minute after the previous block) and not actually miners intentionally including no transactions.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: