deif

With location data and browsing habit metadata they already have that kind of info (with warrants). But their logic is still flawed in assuming criminals won't use a VPN and HTTPS.

It seems they want historical data so that they can run algorithms on large datasets and identify potential threats. In theory it's great as it will catch your average low level idealists, so rationally we can conclude that they're trying to focus on identifying, for example, potential IS recruits rather than organised crime.

You don't seemed to have watched the video. You basically just said, "I saw a Segway with a chair. That seemed more practical and useful compared to this Segway with a chair."

If you're in the UK using BT, they have a DNS issue that is not resolving any cloudfront distributions. Best way to get rid of it is to temporarily/permanently use OpenDNS or another provider.

Does P2P Windows updates really count as a question of ethics? I don't think so.

Any privacy options are quite clearly stated in the installation options, and they are in the settings menu in easy to find places.

Security is another issue, I'm not a fan of the OneDrive bitlocker key that MS automatically gets, or the Wifi Sense, but other than that I think MS has been quite transparent.

Considering that most privacy settings revolve around Cortana (i.e. the flagship feature for the OS), I don't see why people are getting their pants in a twist over it. For most people that pick the express installation, that will by default send all data to MS, their experience will be vastly improved.

For everyone else, you can switch the settings off, and for people who still have an issue generally use Linux (or OSX if they're that way inclined).

So really it isn't that MS thought you would say no to all their privacy questions. It's because Cortana doesn't function all that well if she's not able to send data to MS. Would it be nice if MS were more open in what exactly they were sending to their servers? Yes. So if that's the real problem, then don't question ethics, question their documentation.

Unsurprisingly the EU made a sensible ruling. Just like most of the rulings they've made in the past 10 years. I'm not sure why the media and social justice groups got so worked up over it as it was in the minority anyway.

It's called a democracy for a reason - you've got to have fair representation from all angles, not just the most sensible. People are getting mightily agitated every time a strange law is brought to the table recently. I blame Twitter. /s

Yeah but the one specific on ISDS was held early May/late April.

The EU Parliament videos? I don't know how BBC iPlayer works for other countries, but I think the one where they were heavy on ISDS was this on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wq51g

There's also another broadcast on 10th June that the BBC will produce: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05ykxrt

The conclusion to this is very strange. There's vast amounts of people on both sides of this deal that come into the fray in black and white. What I mean is they're either totally for or totally against. I've watched one of these presentations to the EU Parliament and the MEPs completely shredded the negotiators on ISDS. And yet there are still people concerned that the European Parliament is somehow going to lower standards and screw the public over.

The final few paragraphs state that if one EU member votes against TTIP then they will be blamed for not facilitating growth. Yeah, by lobbying companies, but not by the people. The EP have generally been the 'good' guys in history, and I highly doubt that they're going to U-turn and go against everything they created in the past few decades by allowing multinational companies to lobby them into lowering standards.

It's all very sensational and the media takes a very jazz hands approach to presenting the happenings to the public, when in actuality if one did a little research, you would find that the documents that exist right now present the opposite case of what the public believes.

If TTIP is horrible, I still have faith that our MEPs will reject it. But we're not anywhere near a final document to vote on, so I don't think we should be running around waving our hands in the air just yet.

I think that it's pretty reasonable for a similar library to use the same character if the syntax is similar. As an example, the Domtastic library copies the jQuery syntax literally, allowing an easy transition for new users.

It also makes users aware that the library is likely to cover aspects of the other, so they should carefully consider if they really want to include the new one.

As someone who has worked extensively with Ember and Angular in large projects, I'd say that I prefer Angular even though I know the current version will be deprecated.

I've found that ensuring functionality is locked into tiny angular modules and proper project structuring makes working with the framework a complete breeze. The testing framework that is inbuilt is mega handy too.

That said, the ending conclusion that we should be wary to jump on the Angular bandwagon is not unfounded. I'm a bit wary, however, of Ampersand since it looks a LOT like Ember, and well... I'd just use Ember if I wanted that.

Aurelia looks quite promising. There's not a lot of info out there about it, so I doubt a lot of people will start jumping the Angular ship just yet, but it's something interesting to keep an eye on.

Perhaps when the Oculus HD comes out. At the moment the text would be in such a low resolution that it would make it not worth the time. Pre-emptively creating an app in preparation for the Oculus HD might not be a bad idea however.

But express was connect with some extra goodies on top. Surely this is an iteration upon express?

I guess I'm more concerned about the marketing of this framework as there's now two names for the same thing except one is newer than the other. As a dirty analogy - if jQuery started to support yields instead of function callbacks, do they change the name of the library?

Looking at the syntax of Koa, it's still express except it looks nicer because there's no callbacks. What was the reasoning for ditching the big name? It can't be just for that.

I have some questions about this:

1. The FAQ gives a political answer about the status of Express but I imagine that Express will not be actively maintained any more. Correct?

2. If focus is now on Koa, why the name change from Express when it is already a huge name for node frameworks?

3. If a new developer sees Express and Koa, would they immediately know which one is being focused on?

Basically I'm wondering why it couldn't be called Express 3.0 (or 4.0).

A good think about how you would exchange letters can solve this code as they've just given you the most simple example.

You could read through a few ebooks available on cyptography freely on the internet, but you don't even need to do that in this case, I could just tell you.

The most common letter used in the english language is 'e'. Now identify the dot pattern that is the most common. Voila, you can translate a lot of the code. For the other letters, I would investigate some sort of chart that ranks the most common letters in the English alphabet. With a bit of playing you can do this with a pencil and paper.

Obviously computer cryptography is more advanced, but your question related to this code specifically.

The last point the op makes is that you don't need a nodejs framework if you're using backbone/angular/ember. I've consistently used Socketstream combined with Ember in my for-fun projects, and it's extremely easy to build use. Combine that with the massive fun I'm having pushing events to the client from node and watching ember observers adjust accordingly, wonderful things can happen.

On topic - Socketstream is actively being developed and is pretty damn awesome (not to mention easy to pick up). Meteor and TowerJS turned me away when I saw the amount of rigidity in their implementations, whereas SS allows you to plug modules in and out of the framework with ease.

A lot of these comments comment on the fact that development is not available 'on the go'. Obviously one wouldn't carry round a keyboard and a tablet.

What I find interesting is the fact that powerful computing systems can fit into your pocket. I may be crazy, but couldn't we fit 2 projectors to this, get rid of the display completely and require two surfaces to project a display infront of you, and a keyboard/mousepad at your hands.

Maybe have both - a small display for simple tasks and projection for tasks that require a bigger display. Could we see a shift towards holographic display investment in the future? It's already available for keyboards...