Node v4.2.0 (Stable) - <AUTHOR> https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v4.2.0/ <comment><USER2> "We are proud to announce the release of Node.js v4.2.0 "Argon", the first release covered under the new Long Term Support plan!

As an LTS release, support for v4.x will continue for a period of 30 months from today."

I'm a bit lost here, so 4.2.0 is the _first_ LTS, v4.x will be supported by 30 months, what about 4.0.0 then? isn't 4.0.0 also v4.x? but it's not LTS? Shoud we replace v4.x above with v4.2.x instead?

<comment><USER3> As far as I remember this is how it works:

Starting from 4.x, every 2nd major version of Node will be LTS (4.x, 6.x etc). But we should expect a few of the early versions of each of these major versions to not be LTS - hence 4.0.x and 4.1.x didn't count as LTS when they were initially released.

But Node is now using Semantic Versioning [1], which mean that there will not be any breaking changes between each 4.x release. So 4.2.x is backwards compatible with 4.1.x and 4.0.x. And 4.3.x will be backwards compatible to 4.2.x etc.

So in essence the entire 4.x branch will therefore be LTS counting from today. So even if we in 29 months release 4.22.0, this will not extend the 30 months.

[1] [http://semver.org](http://semver.org)

<comment> nevi-me What happens 9 months down the line when v8 stable reaches 48.x? I thought that under semver Node would most likely be a semver-major whenever v8 is the same. If my assumption is correct, how will we handle 6.x and 8.x a potential 18 months from now? Will the LTS maintainers have to worry about 3 LTS versions?

I've been following most discussions on Github and TC meetings, but haven't come across this case yet.

<comment><USER4> From article,

> As an LTS release, support for v4.x will continue for a period of 30 months > from today.

They will likely semver major node into 5/6 etc, but that doesn't change the fact that 4.x will continue with 2 and a half years of LTS.

Not sure if that completely answers your question, and I could be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great news. A year ago we didn't know if Node would ever hit a 1.0 and now we have an LTS release. Congrats and thanks to everyone involved.

</comment><comment><USER6> Good to see the pace of Node development since the merger with io.js. Awesome job, Node team!

</comment><comment><USER7> Questions:

1\. On your dev machine, if you are using 4.x, should you keep updating to the newest 4.x version or stay with this version?

2\. If you keep updating and use a version manager like nvm, is there an easy way to install global packages(like gulp, grunt, etc) for new versions?

<comment><USER8> Depends on what you're running in production. As an admin, I'd say stick with the LTS releases. If you're not in production, or you can bundle your Node with your app (like in a container) then I'd vote for "go wild".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Having just started learning about and using node, I read this release note and then this made me say to myself, "What the fuck?"

[15:39 user@host ~] > node -v

v0.10.25

<comment><USER10> > _Having just started learning about and using node, I read this release note > and then this made me say to myself, "What the fuck?"_

If you've started learning node, then it probably makes sense to follow the community portals and news too. In which case you'd known about io.js and the 4.x thing.

In other words, get into the whole project / community / culture.

<comment><USER11> Not everyone has time to get into an entire community / culture when they just need to use tools.

<comment><USER10> On the contrary. It's when you _need_ to use the tools when you most have to get into the community/culture.

If you just wanna learn something as a hobby, have fun, etc, then you don't have to do anything.

But knowing about the product, its community and its release roadmap is essential for anything you want to use to put something in production.

Actually it's essential for even considering to use this technology over another. And I wont even get into security and stability issues that a closer look at the project will make you aware of sooner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > npm: Upgrade to npm 2.14.7 from 2.14.4, see release notes for full details > (Kat Marchán) #3299

Is that correct that npm 3.x with the flat node_modules isn't in the first lts tree? We're still very likely to run into path length problems on Windows?

That would be a shame. I know 3.x doesn't fix it but anything to make it less likely is a win. Now we're screwed for nearly 3 years.

<comment><USER13> I'm not a node or npm apologist but it is seriously time Microsoft update what it considers a reasonable maximum PATH length for Windows to something that makes sense for this era of computing (as well as the tiny ass box you type it into)

We are on a roll with resizable terminals that reflow text in Windows 10 though so I won't push my luck.

<comment><USER14> It's not really a simple change: this is Microsoft respecting _decades_ of API backward compatibility. New APIs support much higher PATH length, for what it is worth, it's just that a _lot_ of software, for various accumulated reasons, rely on older APIs.

For whatever their other faults, it's hard to blame Microsoft for treating backwards compatibility _seriously_. It's an amazing thing that in 2015 you can still run VB4-built Win32 application _binaries_ built in 1995. (Not that I recommend people actually do so, given a choice in the matter, of course.)

<comment><USER15> Agreed. But it still a bit disappointing that they haven't improved the GUI for editing the system path (as observed by the parent comment), but perhaps that also impacts backwards compatibility in some subtle way.

<comment><USER14> The GUI has gotten a refresh in recent Windows 10 builds:

[http://www.ghacks.net/2015/09/22/microsoft-improves- environm...](http://www.ghacks.net/2015/09/22/microsoft-improves-environment- variables-editor-in-latest-windows-10-build/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 'J' is the first letter without an element name. Maybe a new element will be discovered and given a 'J' name before 2024. :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements)

<comment><USER17> Jargoon?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is good to hear.

Gonna play hell with seo for my open source projects:

[https://github.com/geuis/argon](https://github.com/geuis/argon)

[https://github.com/geuis/helium-css](https://github.com/geuis/helium-css)

<comment><USER19> Argon is also a password hash function: [https://www.cryptolux.org/index.php/Argon](https://www.cryptolux.org/index.php/Argon)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There are a couple regressions in v4.2.0, but v4.2.1 should be out right away with fixes.

</comment><comment><USER21> "We are proud to announce the release of Node.js v4.2.0 "Ganja", the first release covered under the new Long Term Support plan!"</comment>


DJ Khaled Loves His Garden - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/video/style/100000005183197/dj-khaled-loves-his-garden.html <comment><USER2> Well enough relaxation, time to scream "DJ Khaled" in the beginning of other people's songs.</comment>


German university finds misconduct by researcher who promoted cancer blood test - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/german-university-finds-severe-misconduct-researcher-who-promoted-questionable-cancer <comment><USER2> The story is even worse than what is publicly reported. The test was actually not developed by this professor but by one of his postdocs. She happened to be Chinese and her contract was up for renewal, when he saw the potential for commercialization, he did not renew her contract. She only had a work visa and therefore was forced to go back to china. There was more shady stuff and nepotism going on, but I don't remember. This guy 100% deserves everything that is coming for him.

<comment><USER3> [https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003806/chinese-scientist- say...](https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003806/chinese-scientist-says-german- university-stole-her-project) has more details on that part of the story. FWIW it says that she resigned herself after she was transferred to another project and got hassled in other ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's terrible specificity, but with a very high sensitivity the test may still have value as a "rule-out" type test. That is, you do this and if it's positive, you do a mammogram. Mammograms are generally very uncomfortable and read by specialized (more expensive) radiologists, so even preventing 1 mammogram for every 2 women getting the test has some value. Similar thing works with people getting Tb tests, or HIV tests. You have a cheap rule out high sensitivity test with low specificity, and follow the positives up with the more expensive sensitive and specific "gold standard" test. I don't see the misconduct based on this article alone.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yay, that's my university!</comment>


The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/administrative-subpoenas/all/ <comment><USER2> Isn't the "without a warrant" part of this story kind of a huge red herring? We're discussing subpoenas, not actual searches.

A subpoena is part of pre-trial discovery. It's similar in spirit to what a lawyer can compel your company to produce if you're targeted in a civil suit. Any lawyer can get a court clerk to issue a subpoena for an open case. The target of the subpoena has recourse: challenge the subpoena in court.

I see clearly the concern about criminal law enforcement agencies casting too wide a net by relying on "relevance to investigation" instead of "probable cause". But the Wired story makes it seem like the biggest problem with administrative subpoenas is that they're extrajudicial. It's obviously the case that judges are going to tend to side with the government in these cases --- not because they're in cahoots, but because in the overwhelming majority ( _not ALL of the cases, just the majority_ ), the government is (a) not abusing process, and (b) acting in the clear service of the public good.

There's no such thing as an "extrajudicial subpoena", is there?

<comment><USER3> How would one go about showing either a) or b), though?

For example, b) is really absurd in common cases: smoking out in your backyard or tripping in your living room really doesn't matter to the public, storing copies of songs and sharing doesn't hurt anyone, and parking the wrong direction on a street doesn't usually cause any real issues--yet we are to assume that the government is looking out for the public good by interfering with these activities?

I'm not sure we can assume as much as you suggest here.

<comment><USER2> I am not saying all subpoenas are reasonable. I'm saying that they _almost by definition_ can't be extrajudicial, because they are in effect court orders. The only way to enforce them is to take them to court.

I recognize that the Wired article raises multiple issues with Administrative Subpoenas. What I'm saying is that one of those issues --- the fact that they can be issued without warrants --- is probably a red herring. Agencies can demand whatever they want. The only thing that gives subpoenas force is a court of law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Speaking as a foreigner living in the US, anecodtally I find the presumption of guilt built into the US system to be incredibly disturbing.

Example: I have to disclose, every year, all foreign accounts I have or have an interest in or have signatory authority over. All in the name of fighting "terrorism". What happens if I forget a retirement account? I can be charged 300% of its balance and be criminally prosecuted.

US residents and citizens can live and work overseas, have not been in the US for 20+ years and still be required to file the same report and additionally they need to still file US tax returns.

No other Western country I know of does this.

Immigration and visa issues have been frequently covered here. The same "atmospherics' apply.

Eric Schmidt was once lambasted and misquoted over his comments on privacy [1]

> If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you > shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

which is further clarified with:

> But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search > engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And > [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible > that that information could be made available to the authorities.

That there's the point. Any US company you use is subject to such "administrative subpoenas". All of the hand-wringing around privacy is, at least to some degree, a distraction from the very real issue that the government can get what you're doing at any time with little to no justification.

Like it or not, US companies need to comply with US law no matter how screwed up it is.

If you want to jump up and down about privacy, you should be jumping up and down about that.

They hysteria over terrorism, child pornography, drugs and money laundering has been used to erode due process and judicial oversight. You can be detained without cause, have your records seized because some official believes it'll help an investigation and have your assets seized at the behest of the content industry and other interests that have bought and paid for the American government (eg Kim Dotcom and Megaupload).

Thing is, witht he ratchet effect I really don't know how you turn this around. Revolution seems to be the historical agent that wipes the slate clean every so often. That seems unlikely with a complacent and apathetic populace.

[1]: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on- priva...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy- if_n_383105.html)

<comment><USER5> > That seems unlikely with a complacent and apathetic populace.

The majority of Americans didn't support the American Revolution (either loyalists, or neutral).

Not that I'm saying we are anywhere near a revolution, but I don't believe it's unthinkable that someday the government could do something so repugnant that 1/3 of the people want to start fresh.

<comment><USER6> > The majority of Americans didn't support the American Revolution (either > loyalists, or neutral).

Could you back this up with some sources (links/references) ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If the government doesn't want to play by the rules, what's the incentive for the common citizen?

The value of the "law abiding citizen" has been evaporating quickly over the last century. Unfortunate. There is no honor in abiding by the law when those entrusted with enforcing it couldn't give a damn about it.

You know where this is going? You'll reach a point where "law abiding citizen" = sucker. Want to know what that's like? Just look at any country where you have to bribe a dozen officials just to take a piss.

<comment><USER2> Who do you bribe in the US to get things done?

<comment><USER5> Ever dealt with local stuff--building inspections and the like?

<comment><USER2> Have you ever bribed a building inspector?

<comment><USER8> If you don't think bribery goes on in local government you've never been involved too closely. A city official in my town was just convicted of voter fraud. Imagine how many people go uncaught.

<comment><USER2> I've had many building inspections done and I've never even been tempted to bribe anyone. The allusion the parent comment is making is to societies in which bribes are practically required.

Dollars to donuts, if I tried to bribe an Oak Park building inspector, I'd end up in administrative court.

I _have_ bribed someone: a municipal impound lot that had towed my car, many years ago. Impound lots are the kind of skeezy places where you can kind of tell that the opportunity exists to bribe your way out of a problem. To me, that's the kind of exception that proves the rule; I could tell the difference between the impound lot and, say, a building inspector _because there is a difference_. Most officials are dangerous to try to bribe.

<comment><USER9> Not that I'm advocating paying bribes (I'd much rather see corrupt officials jailed), but there's a right way to phrase a bribe offer. Something along the lines of "Is there a fee I can pay for expedited service?" gives you plausible deniability. As some government agencies do provide expedited services for an extra fee, it's an entirely reasonable question.

<comment><USER2> That's exactly how I phrased it at the impound lot: "Is there _any_ amount of money I can pay right now to just get my car out of the lot?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I saw a different story today about a judge's ruling that sniffing open Wi-Fi networks is not considered a wiretap.[1]

The implications therein could be far-reaching, should this precedent be applied to other, similar areas:

\- Are civilians now responsible for their own security if they value their privacy?

\- Does this overrule "unauthorized network access" in the criminal code?

\- Would an administrative subpoena, such as those in the OP's story, allow offensive cracking into civilian or corporate networks?

Technology is changing, and the combination of warrant-less data gathering and invasive networking is sometimes frightening.

Bruce Schneier had an interesting quote on the subject from his book _Secrets & Lies_: "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."

[1]: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/sniffing-open- wif...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/sniffing-open-wifi- networks-is-not-wiretapping-judge- says/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews)

<comment><USER11> > Does this overrule "unauthorized network access" in the criminal code?

If you steal your neighbor's car, sue them for wiretapping, and the judge rules that you did not commit wiretapping by stealing the car, that doesn't mean stealing cars is now legal. It just means they sued you under the wrong cause.

<comment><USER10>
      > If you steal your neighbor's car, sue them for wiretapping,
      > and the judge rules that you did not commit wiretapping by stealing
      > the car, that doesn't mean stealing cars is now legal.

What if you're storing cash from a bank heist in the trunk of your unlocked car, and a policeman, realizing it's unlocked, checks it without a warrant?

I think that's closer to the situation I was trying to describe.

<comment><USER12> A local policeman is different than a Federal agent.

Basically, in most situations, an officer needs your consent or a warrant to enter your trunk. (there are exceptions) Evidence gets thrown out of court all of the time when the cops overstep.

The difference with the Feds is that lying to an FBI or other agent is a serious crime in itself, and Federal officials get broader latitude to bend the ruled if they are acting in "good faith".

So if you tell the agent that you don't have contraband in the trunk, and you do, you had better hope that you have some valuable information, becuase otherwise you're getting convicted of a serious felony.

Moral: Don't have any association with drugs (or bank robbers) or people associated with drugs, and don't talk to cops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> These kinds of situations will require, it seems, legislation to fix. There are too many contra-indicating pieces of the puzzle to fix through judicial review. Its not a partisian issue, at all. This is fundamental bill of rights stuff. This is what happens when, on the one hand (a) the executive gets lazy and wants to do XYZ but circumvent the legislature; and (b) what does go into the legistlature is driven by burecratic and financial special interests. The benefits are concentrated, and the costs are dispersed. To reverse, the cost are high (the dispersed public must come together) and the individual benefit is low (as a single citizen). But the value of _being_ a citizen is degraded without the Bill of rights, privacy, etc...</comment>