The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology & Information => Topic started by: markjo on July 25, 2014, 02:11:19 AM
-
Seeing as Thork has reservations about revealing his mobile phone number to the rest of the Zetetic Council, I suggested texting to an email account. Unfortunately, this was misunderstood as sending an email via text. This is not what I had in mind. Rather, I was suggesting that an email account be added to the messaging app. This means that, rather than using your phone number, the messaging app uses an email address. For example, I can send and receive texts on my iphone by my cell number, Apple ID, or two other non-Apple ID email addresses.
How to add multiple email address to iMessage on iPhone and iPad
1 Launch the Settings app on your iPhone or iPad.
2 Scroll down and tap on Messages.
3 Now tap on Send & Receive.
4 Select Add Another Email... underneath the You can be reached by iMessage at: section.
5 Type in the email you'd like to add and hit return on your keyboard.
It seems that Android and Windows phones should have similar capabilities.
-
I have a Windows phone, its not an iPhone. Are you making this thread because you tried to embarrass me and ended up looking pretty silly?
-
Oh look, yet another way to have non-synchronous communication. How delightfully droll.
-
What exactly do you need to talk about that can't be discussed via PM or through the forum itself? Seems like a weird Bishop request.
-
I have a Windows phone, its not an iPhone. Are you making this thread because you tried to embarrass me and ended up looking pretty silly?
No, I'm trying to offer you a way to text without giving out your phone number. I'm sure that Windows phone has the same ability to use an email address for texting that iPhone and Android have.
-
What exactly do you need to talk about that can't be discussed via PM or through the forum itself? Seems like a weird Bishop request.
I think the idea was that ZC members could poke each other when some of them get inactive and their votes/input are needed.
-
Seeing as Thork has reservations about revealing his mobile phone number to the rest of the Zetetic Council, I suggested texting to an email account. Unfortunately, this was misunderstood as sending an email via text. This is not what I had in mind. Rather, I was suggesting that an email account be added to the messaging app. This means that, rather than using your phone number, the messaging app uses an email address. For example, I can send and receive texts on my iphone by my cell number, Apple ID, or two other non-Apple ID email addresses.
How to add multiple email address to iMessage on iPhone and iPad
1 Launch the Settings app on your iPhone or iPad.
2 Scroll down and tap on Messages.
3 Now tap on Send & Receive.
4 Select Add Another Email... underneath the You can be reached by iMessage at: section.
5 Type in the email you'd like to add and hit return on your keyboard.
It seems that Android and Windows phones should have similar capabilities.
But Thork doesn't have iMessage. Your email address is useless for texting with him.
-
I still don't understand why we can't just all standardise on XMPP. SMS is so dated.
-
Everybody should just get BBM messenger, it's available for all platforms, and you don't have to give out your phone number. Also, it's probably the best messaging system out there for phones, because it's the one thing that blackberry did right.
-
Everybody should just get BBM messenger, it's available for all platforms, and you don't have to give out your phone number. Also, it's probably the best messaging system out there for phones, because it's the one thing that blackberry did right.
I don't believe tom has a smart phone. Hence the problem.
-
Ah, I see. Well then I suppose there's no solution unless someone wants to gift Tom with a phone/tablet/ipod touch capable of using apps.
-
The messaging platform that everyone should be using is hangouts.
iMessage is cool, as long as you are only interested in messaging iPhone users.
BBM Messenger is cool, but nobody uses it and god it's ugly.
Hangouts is on iPhone and Android and you can use it from any computer. It also has hangout video chats which allows up to 10 people to all be videochatting at the same time. The videochat functionality uses Web RTC too which means that nobody has to install any software for it to work.
-
The messaging platform that everyone should be using is hangouts.
No, let's not lock ourselves into one vendor's proprietary solution.
-
The messaging platform that everyone should be using is hangouts.
No.
Yes
-
Hangouts is on iPhone and Android and you can use it from any computer. It also has hangout video chats which allows up to 10 people to all be videochatting at the same time. The videochat functionality uses Web RTC too which means that nobody has to install any software for it to work.
So, in what way is it a more appropriate text messaging platform than XMPP?
-
Hangouts is on iPhone and Android and you can use it from any computer. It also has hangout video chats which allows up to 10 people to all be videochatting at the same time. The videochat functionality uses Web RTC too which means that nobody has to install any software for it to work.
So, in what way is it a more appropriate text messaging platform than XMPP?
All the services that were plugging into it have been slowly ditching it for years. I mean, you can use what you want. It's not like I have any interest at all in participating in whatever it is you are doing. I'm just offering an opinion and I like hangouts because it is fast, reliable and easy to access. The video service is second to none and every hangout can be published into a YouTube video as well.
The messaging in general across the whole internet is getting annoying though. There are too many competing standards and stubborn users who think everyone else should be using the messaging app that they like. Myself included. It's only getting worse too.
-
Hangouts is on iPhone and Android and you can use it from any computer. It also has hangout video chats which allows up to 10 people to all be videochatting at the same time. The videochat functionality uses Web RTC too which means that nobody has to install any software for it to work.
So, in what way is it a more appropriate text messaging platform than XMPP?
All the services that were plugging into it have been slowly ditching it for years. I mean, you can use what you want. It's not like I have any interest at all in participating in whatever it is you are doing. I'm just offering an opinion and I like hangouts because it is fast, reliable and easy to access. The video service is second to none and every hangout can be published into a YouTube video as well.
That doesn't answer pizaaplanet's question.
The messaging in general across the whole internet is getting annoying though. There are too many competing standards and stubborn users who think everyone else should be using the messaging app that they like. Myself included. It's only getting worse too.
Which XMPP solves, since it isn't a "messaging app", but a protocol that any app can implement.
Can you please answer the question now?
-
Hangouts is on iPhone and Android and you can use it from any computer. It also has hangout video chats which allows up to 10 people to all be videochatting at the same time. The videochat functionality uses Web RTC too which means that nobody has to install any software for it to work.
So, in what way is it a more appropriate text messaging platform than XMPP?
All the services that were plugging into it have been slowly ditching it for years. I mean, you can use what you want. It's not like I have any interest at all in participating in whatever it is you are doing. I'm just offering an opinion and I like hangouts because it is fast, reliable and easy to access. The video service is second to none and every hangout can be published into a YouTube video as well.
That doesn't answer pizaaplanet's question.
The messaging in general across the whole internet is getting annoying though. There are too many competing standards and stubborn users who think everyone else should be using the messaging app that they like. Myself included. It's only getting worse too.
Which XMPP solves, since it isn't a "messaging app", but a protocol that any app can implement.
Can you please answer the question now?
Sounds like you are trying to have a debate. I'm sorry that I don't care.
And xmpp does not solve this problem. People don't want to use apps that use xmpp. People want to use hangouts, Skype, Facebook messenger, bbm, Snapchat and imessage. Go ahead and get your jabber on. Nobody wants that shit.
-
Here's the highest rated xmpp app in the play store.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.xabber.android
A very small minority of people care about xmpp enough to consider installing something so horrendous on their device.
It tried to become a standard. It succeeded for a while. Then AOL became irrelevant and google talk gave it up too and the game was over.
-
Yes, I'm well aware that XMPP isn't widely accepted as a standard. That's irrelevant to my claim that it would be a far better standard than anything we have currently. Pointing out that specific apps which implement XMPP aren't popular is missing the point.
-
Yes, I'm well aware that XMPP isn't widely accepted as a standard. That's irrelevant to my claim that it would be a far better standard than anything we have currently. Pointing out that specific apps which implement XMPP aren't popular is missing the point.
Well it doesn't sound like we are having the same conversation then. It'd be nice if there was a standard, you may wish all you want.
-
Well it doesn't sound like we are having the same conversation then. It'd be nice if there was a standard, you may wish all you want.
I think we are, you just seem to assume that standards come about because someone, somewhere decides that there shall be a standard. No, standards come about because people use them, and the best way to improve the adoption of a standard is to adopt that standard.
You can wish for one thing and do something that achieves the polar opposite if you like. Meanwhile, I will use the things that I think are good.
-
Well it doesn't sound like we are having the same conversation then. It'd be nice if there was a standard, you may wish all you want.
I think we are, you just seem to assume that standards come about because someone, somewhere decides that there shall be a standard. No, standards come about because people use them, and the best way to improve the adoption of a standard is to adopt that standard.
You can wish for one thing and do something that achieves the polar opposite if you like. Meanwhile, I will use the things that I think are good.
I know what a standard is. If a messaging standard ever comes about it won't be xmpp. Not because it isn't any good but because we tried it, it had its chance and it failed. People are not adopting it, its numbers are dwindling. What you consider good won't ever be much without people using it. You sort of need people to use it for it to be worth anything.
-
I know what a standard is. If a messaging standard ever comes about it won't be xmpp. Not because it isn't any good but because we tried it, it had its chance and it failed. People are not adopting it, its numbers are dwindling. What you consider good won't ever be much without people using it. You sort of need people to use it for it to be worth anything.
What is the logical connection between "we tried it and it failed" and "it won't become a standard"?
-
I know what a standard is. If a messaging standard ever comes about it won't be xmpp. Not because it isn't any good but because we tried it, it had its chance and it failed. People are not adopting it, its numbers are dwindling. What you consider good won't ever be much without people using it. You sort of need people to use it for it to be worth anything.
What is the logical connection between "we tried it and it failed" and "it won't become a standard"?
The fact that it had its chance. If you were talking about some new potential standard then you might have a point. We aren't talking about a new standard though. We are talking about an attempt at a standard that the world said bye bye to.
-
The fact that it had its chance. If you were talking about some new potential standard then you might have a point. We aren't talking about a new standard though. We are talking about an attempt at a standard that the world said bye bye to.
Yes, we've established that. Do you know what a logical connection is?
-
The fact that it had its chance. If you were talking about some new potential standard then you might have a point. We aren't talking about a new standard though. We are talking about an attempt at a standard that the world said bye bye to.
Yes, we've established that. Do you know what a logical connection is?
You're a fool.
-
You're a fool.
rofl
ITT: rottingroom is wrong again, doesn't know how to handle it again.
-
You're a fool.
rofl
ITT: rottingroom is wrong again, doesn't know how to handle it again.
No I'm not. You are out of your mind. I am right again. Just as the Facebook thread.
-
It's no surprise that you think that when someone is right they are wrong and vice versa. I mean you think the earth is flat.
-
Its no surprise that you think that when someone is right they are wrong and vice versa. I mean you think the earth is flat.
And you think e-mails can't be spoofed. Now that we've dealt with random irrelevant crap, would you like to substantiate your point, or are you done?
-
Its no surprise that you think that when someone is right they are wrong and vice versa. I mean you think the earth is flat.
And you think e-mails can't be spoofed. Now that we've dealt with random irrelevant crap, would you like to substantiate your point, or are you done?
I already did. Parsifal thinks that xmpp has the potential to become a standard. Which is wrong.
-
I already did. Parsifal thinks that xmpp has the potential to become a standard. Which is wrong.
I don't think you quite understand what "substantiation (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/substantiate)" is1. Nonetheless, what you said is also wrong. Google Talk Hangouts already had its chance and failed, therefore it clearly can't become popular again. Right? Wrong. The fact that it dipped in popularity means nothing.
Also, given the prominence of Facebook Chat, I would strongly suggest reconsidering your claims about XMPP, even if you intend to leave them unsubstantiated as you did.
1 - protip: You're supposed to back it up with facts, not just restate it over and over
-
I already did. Parsifal thinks that xmpp has the potential to become a standard. Which is wrong.
I don't think you quite understand what "substantiation" is. Nonetheless, what you said is also wrong. Google Talk Hangouts already had its chance and failed, therefore it clearly can't become popular again. Right? Wrong. The fact that it dipped in popularity means nothing.
Also, given the prominence of Facebook Chat, I would strongly suggest reconsidering your claims about XMPP, even if you intend to leave them unsubstantiated as you did.
Incorrect. Hangouts is backed by a large corporation that can put funds into making hangouts a big deal. Its the default messaging app on android and google voice integration is coming with carrier deals.
Facebook is a standard for talking to close friends but not for messaging as a whole because people treat their Facebook accounts like silos and are very selective about who they friend.
You and Parsifal have not made a single good point. You just circle jerk each other. That's about it.
-
Incorrect. Hangouts is backed by a large corporation that can put funds into making hangouts a big deal. Its the default messaging app on android and google voice integration is coming with carrier deals.
And how does that matter, given how few people use it?
Facebook is a standard for talking to close friends but not for messaging as a whole because people treat their Facebook accounts like silos and are very selective about who they friend.
I see, you seem to think how all people use Facebook. News flash: Google+ is a social network, too. News flash #2: Facebook uses XMPP. You just said that XMPP is a standard. Bam!
You and Parsifal have not made a single good point. You just circle jerk each other. That's about it.
Sokarul, is that you????? :^)
-
Few people use G+? That's funny. I'm sure it the fastest growing social network of all time. The second largest at the moment.
Facebook Chat does not actually run an XMPP server internally, but merely presents an XMPP interface to clients. This is not helping the attempt to make it a standard at all.
-
And really, you and Parsifal seem like the same person. Always backing each others wrong ideas up.
-
Few people use G+? That's funny. I'm sure it the fastest growing social network of all time. The second largest at the moment.
Few people use Google Hangouts. Don't change the subject, just because you were wrong doesn't mean you need to be dishonest, too. There are at least ten (http://www.thehubcomms.com/the-top-10-instant-messaging-apps-in-the-world/article/325820/) more popular solutions.
Facebook Chat does not actually run an XMPP server internally, but merely presents an XMPP interface to clients.
And what, in your non-factual opinion, is an XMPP server if not an application that presents clients with a standardised interface and the functionality to support that interface? Because, y'know, that's what an XMPP server is. Again, the problem here is that you don't understand what XMPP is.
I suppose what you're trying to say is that it's not a complete or fully compliant implementation of XMPP, in which case you're correct.
This is not helping the attempt to make it a standard at all.
It's okay, they're fixing it. And yes, it is helping.
Facebook Chat is terse when sending updates for new friends, because the negotiation happens outside of XMPP. Future versions of Facebook Chat may be more conformant.
And really, you and Parsifal seem like the same person. Always backing each others wrong ideas up.
It's because we understand computers m8. Don't worry, one day you'll learn what XMPP is (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt) and you can join us cool kids.
-
Parsiplanet: Computer Whisperer
-
I'm not at a computer so I cant be bothered to quote individual parts of what you said. I'll address them in order though.
That info graphic doesn't display hangouts numbers. You have just implied that all of these apps have better numbers than hangouts but you can't tell this from the chart. Oh, and g+ users are hangouts users.
Xmpp.... Yes, not a complete implementation. There is nothing standardizing about what Facebook does for xmpp. If anything its making it proprietary, not to mention that Facebook competes with itself in messaging via its acquisitions.
I think you do understand computers. I'll give you that. I do too.
-
That info graphic doesn't display hangouts numbers. You have just implied that all of these apps have better numbers than hangouts
The enquiry in question investigated 10 most commonly-used mobile chat applications. You are correct that Google Hangouts is not displayed. Since the research was performed after Google Hangouts hit its peak, the conclusion should be obvious.
Oh, and g+ users are hangouts users.
No. People who use Google Hangouts are Google Hangouts users. Of course, in this particular case we're talking about users of the Google Hangouts app, so your point is irrelevant anyway.
Xmpp.... Yes, not a complete implementation. There is nothing standardizing about what Facebook does for xmpp.
Incorrect. (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat)
If anything its making it proprietary
Incorrect. (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat)
-
So if we are just talking about the hangouts app then that means nothing really
I don't see how that helps xmpp be a standard. For your purposes. A few messenger of sorts. Do you want to add random FE people to your personal friends list. Is this something anyone wants to do. Like I said earlier when I brought up fb. People treat it like a silo. They are choosy about their friend lists.
-
So if we are just talking about the hangouts app then that means nothing really
I agree, but that was your original claim. Perhaps now you understand why we thought it was dumb.
I don't see how that helps xmpp be a standard.
Well, I'm tired of explaining words to you.
Do you want to add random FE people to your personal friends list.
Yup, done it many times, loads of people here have me on FB.
Is this something anyone wants to do.
Yes.
Like I said earlier when I brought up fb. People treat it like a silo. They are choosy about their friend lists.
And like I said before, and as is usually the case with your random allegations about what people do on Facebook, you do not actually know how people use Facebook. Don't speak for everyone just because you're one of those old guys who are afraid to add more than 200 people to your list.
-
The whole point of markjo making this thread was satisfy some members fears of revealing a phone number. That's exactly the type of thing that would make me think they wouldn't want to do this with Facebook.
-
That's exactly the type of thing that would make me think they wouldn't want to do this with Facebook.
And why would they want to use G+? It's literally the same thing, only less popular.
-
That's exactly the type of thing that would make me think they wouldn't want to do this with Facebook.
And why would they want to use G+? It's literally the same thing, only less popular.
G+ isn't for close friends. Well, it turned out to not be for that. It turned out to be for connecting to people with like minded interests.