So you openly admit you might have visited countless mobile sites without even knowing, as you only notice the bad ones as being mobile sites. Your argument is quickly unravelling with every post...
And this change can serve to force those sites to get their acts together, as Google has frequently penalised sites for broken user experiences. If a company's mobile site is being returned as their search result, they will (if their marketing department knows what they're doing) do anything they can to get it higher. Mobile sites are designed with the other differences in the platforms in mind. Clearly it's more than just screen resolution - touch-compatible inputs & UI, reduced data usage by more use of AJAX, high-DPI compliant, and so on. Picking one difference and pretending it's the only isn't helping you differentiate from the usual waft of people scared of change
Well, actually, their ad revenue is a secondary concern to their search engine. If their search engine doesn't work, people won't use it, and so they can't make money from AdWords and so forth. The way they can maximise their profits is to get as many people using a service, and the easiest way to do that is to offer a good service. It seems many old farts on this site aren't particularly happy with anything changing, so when Google changes anything, they get all cranky and call for the nurse.
Maybe, just maybe - and this is a guess - they know what they're doing? What's more likely?
Which matters naught, as they can still have different, contradictory goals. One department might be hardening the US's equipment, while another seeks to infiltrate similar equipment (as other countries use it). Not too difficult, is it?
The only way your question has any merit is if everyone, the world over, can only work on one problem at a time. Either you think that is true, or you should probably spend more time thinking before typing
You can ask these questions, or you can learn the answer. I guess if you're happy being ignorant yet sounding like you care, you're doing it right.
That was true well over 15 years ago, but now Slashdot is harboring a bunch of angry old bastards like yourself who think trying to make a fair and just society is somehow a bad thing.
You are conveniently forgetting how much it costs to do it legally. How long it takes is not the most pressing matter.
So it's ahead of the rest of the world if you ignore those which are better? Brilliant logic!
If you could manage to choke down your hurt pride, you'd realise he was talking about the normal detritus of modern development rather than actual trash. But I think you knew that, but needed something to make yourself feel better
You conveniently missed the part of his posting where he said archaeologically historical. He kind of has a point.
The United Kingdom, perhaps, but you should see how old the countries of the British Isles are
:) European history is deep. Really really deep. For example, the town I grew up in was inhabited for the last ~9,000 years. But whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.
You just showed everyone how proud you are of your ignorance. Ouch. How embarrassing.
Norway is not in the EU.