Many people view Facebook policies as creepy and unethical, that is probably driving this negative response. We don't know where mainstream VR will take us in ten years, but we do know that there have been many assaults to our privacy and we don't want to create another keyhole into our private lives.
I wonder if it will become a trend to name technologies after taboo items? Imagine if a product called Dildo comes out and it is the best, most easy to use piece of software that ever existed. People would just have to use Dildo and get over the name. It could start a revolution.
Adam has put into words the ideas that have been floating around in my head for awhile, and does so in a very interesting way. Cataloging mental models. Cool. Very loosely reminds me of Jung's personality archetypes.
I'm a person that has spent lots of money on low-latency digital audio interfaces and know from experience that every millisecond counts. It seems like this type of technology always suffers from latency issues. How are latency issue overcome by BandHub?
This is cool, but I found a small defect. If you drag the dot over the images while they are loading, the color change doesn't take place. It might be necessary to call your function after images have been loaded on your demo page.
What problem is ojjs solving and what are the trade-offs?
For me personally, the design principle of "separation of concerns" has always worked well, especially in a team environment. Having a pure designer (on photoshop or illustrator), then an html/css expert for coding pages and finally a programmer for adding dynamic content works out as a nice pipeline for web development. With ojjs, the programmer and html/css person would have blurred lines separating their responsibilities. It is a cool project, but it seems like a step backwards to me. Maybe it's just a step sideways or a better way of doing things for a team consisting entirely of programmers.
That's how I felt, but that is also what made me want to have a quick check with others before voicing that kind of opinion. Seems like when I am the most sure about something, I'm the most vulnerable to making a mistake.
One reason I love HN is due to the contributors having better than average critical thinking skills (IMO). Unfortunately that isn't enough when it comes to asking someone to believe that all governments might be controlled by a secret organization, or something equally as sinister and unbelievable.
Since we know that our (USA) entire financial system is backed by (Federal Reserve) bankers that loan money without moral guidelines, it could be conceived that a family like the Rothschild are at the top of the world power hierarchy. What do they always say in the detective movies, "follow the money".
Maybe we need a manufacturer to step up and make a line of computers that is open source and contains self auditing features such as checksums for all hardware. There has to be a way to do it. Some of the latest Kickstarter projects that are hardware based would be in a good position to try and pull that off.
I must apologize for my mistake, I actually read one of the linked articles (from the main article) and though that was the main article.
I'm still of the opinion that nonfree does not equate to nongood. It should be more like "nonfree software is not easy to audit, therefore it is potentially not safe." When people make blanket statements that are overly simplistic, I automatically feel like their logic is compromised. Their emotions or prejudice are getting in the way of accuracy, which is important when making statements about what other people should do.
Interesting article and I like the motivation behind it, which seems to be owning your own data and keeping it private. It does get a little preachy for me though with sentiments such as this "...which is bad like any nonfree program". Why is any (or every) non-free program bad? That remark displays close mindedness, but I realize that Stallman is the free software guy so I guess it's to be expected. Just a little too idealistic and old fashioned sounding for my taste.
We need a definitive answer on whether PFS is truly perfect. If ssl->vpn->https->anon-dns->tor->tls2->no-logging-search is safe then our searches for weird porn might be private.
"... it is somewhat unfair against DDG since the argument works against any internet company"
What other search engines are being suggested for use as a safer alternative to the major search engines? Did any of those companies respond by affirming their ability to protect your privacy in a way that is not technically possible?
The author's point is that you can't dodge the NSA's scrutiny, and if you think you can then you are either lying or uneducated about the NSA's capabilities.
UPDATE: What I'm trying to say is that the article doesn't really work when directed at Google or Yahoo because we already know that our privacy is compromised there.
Nice resource, thanks for posting. It would be really cool to have some kind of ratings and reviews for each service/app listed. Maybe an official review/rating and then user contributed.
https://github.com/mark-harmon/HexPixiJs