Nope, it's not enough. An explanation helps the people who find the bug via search engine later. Not providing a reason aside from "this isn't supported anymore" is simply lazy; an additional sentence or two of why would go a long way towards keeping everyone on the same page.
Wireless charging is ineffective? Do you actually use it? I've used it for months and it charges my phone quite nicely and conveniently.
You could argue that some energy is lost to the ether, but that really doesn't affect me. Sure, It's not as fast as a quality cable charger, but it's still faster than the knock-off chargers that most people use. In any event it's fast enough to get me charged up for a while.
Plugging\unplugging cables doesn't sound like a terrible chore, but when you go wireless, you get very used to it. For example, I have wireless charging installed\hacked into my car. I get into my car and slap my phone onto my magnetic wireless charging mount (which is a Mountek magnetic mount with a Nexus Qi charger attached. The phone is Nexus 5). I don't have to adjust the mount to grab the phone (no grips, just magnets!) and I don't have to plug anything in. Within half a second, the phone is charging and mounted, and it charges at a fast enough rate that even with screen on and GPS active, the phone charge level is ticking upwards. When I leave my car, I just grab the phone. No fussing with cables or the mount. Awesome. Fast. Convenient. I'm living in the future.
I also have a Nexus Qi charger on my bedside table. With this, I never have to retrieve a cable that's fallen to the ground, and never have to drag a cable across the bed over a sleeping partner. It charges my phone all night, I wake up with a full charge, and it's easy, so I don't give a damn if some energy is lost. It's very effective for me.
Git is perfectly capable of having a repo that is considered the "single source of truth". All you have to do is tell everyone which repository to consider the "main" one.
The reason it's fine to use any random developer's git repository to restore is because the data's integrity is guaranteed by git's design. Let's say you had some disaster and lost your repository. Suppose you found a random developer (that you don't necessarily trust) who has a git repository that is a clone of your old, destroyed repository. You can safely and confidently restore from his copy so long as they have a commit id (hash) that matches exactly with a known hash from the original repository. If the hashes match then his copy at that commit is guaranteed to exactly match, bit for bit, your original repository. Compromising that integrity would be extraordinarily hard.
Of course you shouldn't rely on random developers having copies, just out of pure luck. Make your own backups and keep them safe.
This permission grouping is the exact opposite direction that Android permissions should be heading. There are a number of permissions, such as "Read Phone State and Identity" that should be broken up because they aren't even strongly related to each other.
You're not a real coder unless you write your own OS, processor microcode, support libraries, network architecture and programming language before you make your application. Otherwise, you're just letting other people do the hard work for you!
Do see what a bad place this line of thinking takes you? If you want to get anything done, you have to reinvent the world. Imagine if everybody did that... how slow development would be and how slightly incompatible everything would be.
Go ahead and proceed with your elitist worldview. If you need me, I'll be over here, being productive and shipping actual products.
doing things that break browsers that are somewhat out of the mainstream (while avoiding more portable solutions), it's not even a good, well-thought-out solution. If my browser doesn't work right on a given website, it's almost a certainty that the site uses JQuery.
So JQuery doesn't support your esoteric, out of mainstream, unnamed browser, but it works just fine for 99% of the world who do use mainstream browsers. Therefore JQuery is a bad solution? JQuery only has the developer mind\time resources to support only so much stuff. They just can't support everything, as that draws time\attention away from making the mainstream use cases work (read: use cases that are important to everyone else).
Faulting JQuery for not supporting your oddball browser is like faulting Adobe for not bringing Photoshop to FreeBSD; there are precisely 6 people who would use Photoshop on FreeBSD, so they choose to spend their time on other things.
Do you really want to sap the performance of your script by following the JQuery ethos of using expensive DOM-query navigators for every operation instead of simply gathering up an array of element references only once and then using that repeatedly?
Who says you have to query inefficeintly? Just query once and save the result somewhere. Just because it's possible to do something the wrong way doesn't mean JQuery is bad. There are ways to shoot yourself in the foot on every platform ever made.
Git is a great system, but it relies on SHA1. If SHA1 has feasible attacks, is git going to stay on SHA1 or will it move to something more secure? Can it even do so without breaking compatibility?
The lightning connector is nice, but it's limited to only Apple products, thus its usefulness as a technology is limited. To reduce waste and for convenient charging, I wish everyone would agree on a nice reversible connector that is an industry standard, charges quickly regardless of manufacturer, and "just works". I somehow doubt Apple would go for that.
Micro USB is fine except the cables are always upside down (as they seem to exist in 4 spacial dimensions) and the cables break easily if you charge the phone while they're in your pocket, such as when using a portable battery.
digital signal all the way to the monitor means better audio quality (speakers are in monitor).
Seriously bro? Any miniature benefit that digital audio signals would have given you is completely blown away by using speakers that are integrated into your monitor. Integrated speakers are just universally bad, full stop. I'm not talking about an audiophile's definition of bad, either; I bet my grandma could hear the difference.
I'd wager that given the same sound source, a stereo analog signal going into standard desktop computer speakers will sound better than your pure digital setup through your computer monitor.
If this was a troll, well, you deserve a beer, cause you got me.
It isn't just slashdot either. Extraordinary claims + no extraordinary evidence = BAM front page of major news site + accepted as fact by 1/3 of our facebook friends.
This story is far fetched and is definately not the simplest possible explanation. I call bullshit. Slashdot should know better.
You have basically two choices: Program to a older API, and ignore all new features, or, Program to a newer API, and ignore all older phones.
There is a 3rd choice that is usually ignored in these discussions: support the feature if it's present on the device, but do not require it. Continue running the app without the functionality if it is not available on the device. The term is graceful degradation.
I've found that they do correct map errors eventually, especially if given quality error reports. It usually takes a few weeks.
For your safety I recommend you make the correction yourself using Google Map Maker. There is still a human approval process but it should expedite your correction. http://www.google.com/mapmaker
Ask anyone who has dated around enough and they'll tell you that the circumstances under which you first meet don't matter for much. Sure, for a few weeks she'll be "my new OkCupid girl" or "my new Barnes and Noble girl" to you, but that fades. At that point I typically don't think too much about how we met and think more about what's going on in the present moment.
I have this vision of the scientists keeping the cell cultures separate by placing them into separate waffle holes. Square waffles make more sense because they form a simple grid, which makes recording the data easier.
That all makes sense, I personally have purchased apps just to remove the ads. I had gotten the impression from the first post that you wanted free services with no ads, ie something for nothing.
If this is the world you want, it sounds nice from a user perspective. The problem is that stripping ads destroys the revenue model for the free services. How do you expect businesses to monetize it?
If they can't monetize it, they won't play the game. Who then is going to provide these services at the scale we enjoy today? How do you expect them to remain free if you reject the only viable revenue model?
We've accepted this model because it's the best one available for free. Are you willing to pay for services like YouTube instead? Do you have a better suggestion for encouraging businesses to give us free stuff?
The problem with the "LOW MARKET SHARE!!1!!" comments is that you're talking about a company having a 10% of a market worth billions of dollars. I will take 10% of a billion dollars any day of the week.
but to roll out the "low market share" argument is absurd here when Apple has more cash on hand than the federal government.
As a consumer buying computer equipment, why on earth would you care how much money Apple has? Once you're past the low-bar threshold of "this company isn't going out of business and has enough cash to do R&D", how do their cash reserves really affect your experience in any tangible way?
I like OS X and have used it for years, but I've never experienced any personal benefit from Apple's pile of cash. It simply doesn't matter, and I've never read any convincing argument that it does. Got one for me?
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it's not enough. An explanation helps the people who find the bug via search engine later. Not providing a reason aside from "this isn't supported anymore" is simply lazy; an additional sentence or two of why would go a long way towards keeping everyone on the same page.
Wireless charging is ineffective? Do you actually use it? I've used it for months and it charges my phone quite nicely and conveniently.
You could argue that some energy is lost to the ether, but that really doesn't affect me. Sure, It's not as fast as a quality cable charger, but it's still faster than the knock-off chargers that most people use. In any event it's fast enough to get me charged up for a while.
Plugging\unplugging cables doesn't sound like a terrible chore, but when you go wireless, you get very used to it. For example, I have wireless charging installed\hacked into my car. I get into my car and slap my phone onto my magnetic wireless charging mount (which is a Mountek magnetic mount with a Nexus Qi charger attached. The phone is Nexus 5). I don't have to adjust the mount to grab the phone (no grips, just magnets!) and I don't have to plug anything in. Within half a second, the phone is charging and mounted, and it charges at a fast enough rate that even with screen on and GPS active, the phone charge level is ticking upwards. When I leave my car, I just grab the phone. No fussing with cables or the mount. Awesome. Fast. Convenient. I'm living in the future.
I also have a Nexus Qi charger on my bedside table. With this, I never have to retrieve a cable that's fallen to the ground, and never have to drag a cable across the bed over a sleeping partner. It charges my phone all night, I wake up with a full charge, and it's easy, so I don't give a damn if some energy is lost. It's very effective for me.
Git is perfectly capable of having a repo that is considered the "single source of truth". All you have to do is tell everyone which repository to consider the "main" one.
The reason it's fine to use any random developer's git repository to restore is because the data's integrity is guaranteed by git's design. Let's say you had some disaster and lost your repository. Suppose you found a random developer (that you don't necessarily trust) who has a git repository that is a clone of your old, destroyed repository. You can safely and confidently restore from his copy so long as they have a commit id (hash) that matches exactly with a known hash from the original repository. If the hashes match then his copy at that commit is guaranteed to exactly match, bit for bit, your original repository. Compromising that integrity would be extraordinarily hard.
Of course you shouldn't rely on random developers having copies, just out of pure luck. Make your own backups and keep them safe.
Ever actually watch the closed captions? The data isn't as accurate or consistent as you may hope.
If such were the case, Google surely would have been sued to the brink by its shareholders by now.
This permission grouping is the exact opposite direction that Android permissions should be heading. There are a number of permissions, such as "Read Phone State and Identity" that should be broken up because they aren't even strongly related to each other.
You're not a real coder unless you write your own OS, processor microcode, support libraries, network architecture and programming language before you make your application. Otherwise, you're just letting other people do the hard work for you!
Do see what a bad place this line of thinking takes you? If you want to get anything done, you have to reinvent the world. Imagine if everybody did that... how slow development would be and how slightly incompatible everything would be.
Go ahead and proceed with your elitist worldview. If you need me, I'll be over here, being productive and shipping actual products.
doing things that break browsers that are somewhat out of the mainstream (while avoiding more portable solutions), it's not even a good, well-thought-out solution. If my browser doesn't work right on a given website, it's almost a certainty that the site uses JQuery.
So JQuery doesn't support your esoteric, out of mainstream, unnamed browser, but it works just fine for 99% of the world who do use mainstream browsers. Therefore JQuery is a bad solution? JQuery only has the developer mind\time resources to support only so much stuff. They just can't support everything, as that draws time\attention away from making the mainstream use cases work (read: use cases that are important to everyone else).
Faulting JQuery for not supporting your oddball browser is like faulting Adobe for not bringing Photoshop to FreeBSD; there are precisely 6 people who would use Photoshop on FreeBSD, so they choose to spend their time on other things.
Do you really want to sap the performance of your script by following the JQuery ethos of using expensive DOM-query navigators for every operation instead of simply gathering up an array of element references only once and then using that repeatedly?
Who says you have to query inefficeintly? Just query once and save the result somewhere. Just because it's possible to do something the wrong way doesn't mean JQuery is bad. There are ways to shoot yourself in the foot on every platform ever made.
You can always search with the word "near". "Pizza near Anytown, USA"
Git is a great system, but it relies on SHA1. If SHA1 has feasible attacks, is git going to stay on SHA1 or will it move to something more secure? Can it even do so without breaking compatibility?
It's perfectly ok to sell Android and Linux according to the GPL, the license used by Linux.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
The lightning connector is nice, but it's limited to only Apple products, thus its usefulness as a technology is limited. To reduce waste and for convenient charging, I wish everyone would agree on a nice reversible connector that is an industry standard, charges quickly regardless of manufacturer, and "just works". I somehow doubt Apple would go for that.
Micro USB is fine except the cables are always upside down (as they seem to exist in 4 spacial dimensions) and the cables break easily if you charge the phone while they're in your pocket, such as when using a portable battery.
digital signal all the way to the monitor means better audio quality (speakers are in monitor).
Seriously bro? Any miniature benefit that digital audio signals would have given you is completely blown away by using speakers that are integrated into your monitor. Integrated speakers are just universally bad, full stop. I'm not talking about an audiophile's definition of bad, either; I bet my grandma could hear the difference.
I'd wager that given the same sound source, a stereo analog signal going into standard desktop computer speakers will sound better than your pure digital setup through your computer monitor.
If this was a troll, well, you deserve a beer, cause you got me.
Why do these assholes care so much?
It isn't just slashdot either. Extraordinary claims + no extraordinary evidence = BAM front page of major news site + accepted as fact by 1/3 of our facebook friends.
This story is far fetched and is definately not the simplest possible explanation. I call bullshit. Slashdot should know better.
This pic says it better than I can.
IANARS*, but 40 didn't mean "new Integer(40);" in biblical times, it was equivalent to when we say "a million" today; it means "a hell of a lot".
To me, 40 - 1 means to beat someone within an inch of their life.
*I am not a religious scholar
You have basically two choices: Program to a older API, and ignore all new features, or, Program to a newer API, and ignore all older phones.
There is a 3rd choice that is usually ignored in these discussions: support the feature if it's present on the device, but do not require it. Continue running the app without the functionality if it is not available on the device. The term is graceful degradation.
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/uses-feature-element.html#required
I've found that they do correct map errors eventually, especially if given quality error reports. It usually takes a few weeks.
For your safety I recommend you make the correction yourself using Google Map Maker. There is still a human approval process but it should expedite your correction.
http://www.google.com/mapmaker
Ask anyone who has dated around enough and they'll tell you that the circumstances under which you first meet don't matter for much. Sure, for a few weeks she'll be "my new OkCupid girl" or "my new Barnes and Noble girl" to you, but that fades. At that point I typically don't think too much about how we met and think more about what's going on in the present moment.
I have this vision of the scientists keeping the cell cultures separate by placing them into separate waffle holes. Square waffles make more sense because they form a simple grid, which makes recording the data easier.
Clearly I'm thinking about this too much.
I'll go ahead and assume that you're the same AC.
That all makes sense, I personally have purchased apps just to remove the ads. I had gotten the impression from the first post that you wanted free services with no ads, ie something for nothing.
If this is the world you want, it sounds nice from a user perspective. The problem is that stripping ads destroys the revenue model for the free services. How do you expect businesses to monetize it?
If they can't monetize it, they won't play the game. Who then is going to provide these services at the scale we enjoy today? How do you expect them to remain free if you reject the only viable revenue model?
We've accepted this model because it's the best one available for free. Are you willing to pay for services like YouTube instead? Do you have a better suggestion for encouraging businesses to give us free stuff?
Bacon acts as a catalyst in this process
Oh look over there, something new and shiny! And 1 billion people jump ship in a heartbeat.
Windows Phone is both new and shiny, but the adoption has been slow. There's more to it than that.
The problem with the "LOW MARKET SHARE!!1!!" comments is that you're talking about a company having a 10% of a market worth billions of dollars. I will take 10% of a billion dollars any day of the week.
but to roll out the "low market share" argument is absurd here when Apple has more cash on hand than the federal government.
As a consumer buying computer equipment, why on earth would you care how much money Apple has? Once you're past the low-bar threshold of "this company isn't going out of business and has enough cash to do R&D", how do their cash reserves really affect your experience in any tangible way?
I like OS X and have used it for years, but I've never experienced any personal benefit from Apple's pile of cash. It simply doesn't matter, and I've never read any convincing argument that it does. Got one for me?