Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 356
Should have included this, but: They explicitly describe their criteria for a "good" mobile site, which I'm guessing the "mobile sites" that are receiving so much hate don't meet:
Should have included this, but: They explicitly describe their criteria for a "good" mobile site, which I'm guessing the "mobile sites" that are receiving so much hate don't meet:
Their criteria is not "has a mobile site", their criteria is "site doesn't look like shit when rendered on a mobile device".
It isn't rating a site positively for having a mobile version. It is rating it positively for "not looking like shit on mobile".
It's not just saying "oh this site claims to have a mobile version, great!" or "I don't see a mobile-specific version, ding it in the results!", it's "Does the site render well on mobile?" with various criteria for "renders well on mobile".
If anything it's pretty lenient, in many cases rating sites which people say suck on mobile as "mobile-friendly" - including slashdot.org itself. https://www.google.com/webmast...
But it isn't feasible. On the server side, you can stuff a number of virtual websites behind a single IP, but many customers want their own VM (sometimes for very good reasons). There are things other than http(s) on the net.
On the client side, there is a matter of administrative control. Who will own the NAT device that you and your neighbors all sit behind so that you can be NATed behind a single IP? Do you want to leave it up to your ISP if a rule can be added to the NAT box so you can ssh into your network through a selected port? What if your neighbor wants the same port for something else?
It sounds more like a desperate last resort than a real solution. Compared to that kind of pain, upgrading to IPv6 is a no-brainer.
I believe that this is what Google's system is doing. It isn't looking for "this site has a specific mobile variant", it's looking for "the site does not suck on a mobile device".
If anything, it's apparently lenient, since most of the comments here say Slashdot is shitty when viewed on a mobile device, but Google's "Mobile-Friendly Test" at https://www.google.com/webmast... ranks slashdot.org as "Mobile Friendly"
(not to mention drug dogs are complete BS anyway)
OK, I'll bite. Why are drug dogs "complete BS"? Dogs are demonstrably useful and effective in sniffing out all sorts of items. They are a well established tool in our legal system and for good reason. Clearly there was no probable cause to use a drug dog for a search in this case. That does not make drug sniffing dogs "complete BS".
"Instead" doesn't apply here... SINCE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
True we don't. The Internet became asymmetric. On the other hand the PSTN never did. And non-experts use that. We don't know to what extent address scarcity issues drove the internet becoming asymmetric. If the internet is permanently going to be asymmetric than with things like virtual hosting there is no good reason IPv4 couldn't be made to work for a very long time.
In fact, you'll return to the early NAT days when they were rare, and spend hours trying to figure out why your VOIP app works half the time, but when someone calls in, you can't talk, at all because someone has a firewall in the way and it's blocking the connection.
I would agree that there will be transitioning problems as the world moves from a mature IPv4/NAT to a less mature IPv6. I see that as fairly short term and overall the situation will be much improved.
And let's not forget the nice corporate firewalls that already exist today and filter everything that's not HTTP, HTTPS, FTP or SMTP. Just silently dropped. Those will be really fun to diagnose
I don't think those exist much anymore. There are too many network protocols. And there is nothing to diagnose. If communication X has to happen on port Y and Y is blocked at location Z...
And work firewall-less? This is the modern internet, and remote vulnerabilities, spoofs, amplification attacks and others are just sitting there waiting to be discovered.
Our phones go on the internet essentially naked. Our laptops do as well. If the device doesn't allow unsolicited incoming on most ports and almost all ports are closed except when in use that is very much like a firewall.
Well this is a USA group dealing with USA law so that requirement on evaluating the group can't budge. As for the rest, I don't know what the status is but mostly native animals in the USA can be owned.
By the way, since you seem like an informed person (and because i am a Greek - and sorry for my English!): this Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), is some kind of the usual left-wing group (that cares for the rights of animals but believes killing unborn human babies is a human right)?
The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only organization working through the common law to achieve actual LEGAL rights for members of species other than our own. So normally in the USA groups work for "animal rights" which are specific prohibitions on acts of cruelty. They are aiming to give animals legally enforceable rights. So for example it is illegal to starve a dog to death but a dog under no circumstances has a legal right to food.
As far as their attitude towards abortion.
The organization is official neutral.
Steven M. Wise (Harvard Law School animal rights activist) who heads the group has written on the analogy though only with passing references so it is hard to develop a clear view. He appears to believe. that the fetus is less developed than sophisticated and thus they have a weaker claim. He has specifically made the claim that higher primates should have rights similar to those we grant profoundly retarded human beings. He seems mildly pro-choice, but his writings would be consistent with either pro-choice or pro-life positions.
Jane Goodall who is a spokesperson is a strong advocate for population control, unquestionably pro-choice.
Not really. With a few exceptions, circuit boards are thin. Very few manufacturers use 3D techniques (daughterboards, etc.) especially not in mobile.
So "larger circuit board" means "more area but rarely thicker".
"more area at same thickness" means "wider/taller device"
"wider/taller device" means "more room for battery".
They're "horrible" but they are, sadly, the best now that TI has exited the business.
MTK is notorious for giving their customers C&D letters when they dare to comply with the GPL (Google is cracking down on this with Android One, but I know of at least one non-One device that had its kernel sources C&Ded by MTK.)
Rockchip and company are no better
Samsung publishes no reference source that matches any production devices (I speak from experience here - back in 2012/2013 I was one of the CyanogenMod co-maintainers for Samsung Exynos4 devices. Every member of the team got sick of dealing with Samsung's crap and lack of documentation, we all switched to Qualcomm)
Nvidia was horrible but have improved a lot with the SHIELD family of devices, although I dislike their approach to AOSP support. They have a lot of closed-source binary HALs (just like Samsung) but at least don't hack the interfaces of those HALs in ways that break compatibility with AOSP. Unfortunately this means that if you find an issue with the HAL (such as not supporting AC3 passthrough) there's nothing you can do about it.
Qualcomm is no angel (see the Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 factory image messes), but with their CAF reference sources, they're better than anyone else currently in the business about software support.
I would be shocked if 90% - 99% of the code between the 2 apps was the same
Then you should be shocked. I've managed a bunch of tablet vs. phone apps and the code sharing is around 60-80% best case and around 10-30% worst. You have to remember they have different functionalities, whole different systems. The GUI code is vastly different. How long the designer targets the interaction for affects greatly the GUI.
If anyone is still making completely different apps for different devices, they are doing it wrong.
I think you need think about UI design and forget about the technology issues. The technology exists to enable GUIs but the GUIs exist to enable particular use cases. Different use cases means different GUIs.
Storing data to the cloud and restoring the data from the cloud should be abstracted. If you had an OO app, you'd just have concrete classes to implement the google and apple cloud save/load features.
It isn't just save/load a particular non-district binary.
Certainly iCloud supports a storage mechanism for "Documents" which are blobs of data. But they also use Core Data where 3 way merging of data can occur between devices and Apple servers and the servers understand the object hierarchy. Finally there are things like key/value pairs where the data is small but the lookups can be Apple managed. You can't just abstract that all as a save/load for blobs of data without doing lowest common denominator and losing huge chunks of iCloud functionality.
The 3 way merge being the most critical. Apple customers are coming to expect that they can do work on their phone then pick up their tablet and work on the same data seamlessly. For that to happen the system has to be able to intelligently deal with the situation where changes have occurred:
A makes change to version X it is not saved
B makes change to version X. Saves and creates X1
A gets online and sees that current version is X1 not X.
Why doesn't apple do vector graphics?... Anyway the answer is easy. You just do all the graphics as vector graphics and then generate the raster graphics for specific resolutions when needed (that's actually exactly what happens when rendering vector graphics anyway).
Because of visual quality that's possible when you lock down the pixels:
left is rastor right is vector.
http://projectgenerationd.com/...
Apple's belief is, that icons (which are seen over and over again) should be hand drawn at the right resolution to be perfect not auto-generated. Versatility here you are gaining at the cost of image quality.
The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst
