Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
How much did it cost? It looks pretty decent.Off the top of my head it was under $300, but I honestly don't remember exactly. Fasttech have it for $300 right now, and they're fairly reliable when it comes to not scamming people.
If I'm understanding PP's post this forum will be the official one and the other forum will be merged into here.That's the hope. It's not final yet.
Can you bring discussions about T-shirts and membership?Sure.
I support reunification as long as we keep Tapatalk support.Assuming we carry on with the idea to use this forum as the base for reunification, we wouldn't be losing anything from the technical POV.
How about Wilmore, Jroa and Roundy from the other site?As far as I'm concerned, that sounds sensible. We haven't discussed the details of the moderation team yet, but if I'm reading Daniel's messages right, we shouldn't have much trouble reaching an agreement there.
Why is there a piece of paper covering the acquitted and discharged column by Hampden's name?Probably the Conspiracy trying to cover up some important details. On a more serious note, the first word looks a bit like "recogniz[ance?]", and then there's something about "2 ye[ars?]". Perhaps it's a note of the recognizance as mentioned in the last sentence of the Times article?
Despite being sent to prison for a week and ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long. As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again. Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country. By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.
So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?Well, if the reference used to substantiate a claim doesn't have any references to the claim, it's a poor reference and shouldn't be considered valid. If no valid references exist, then the claim should be marked as unreferenced or removed. I think that's common sense.
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.
So if we are just talking about the hangouts app then that means nothing reallyI 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.
That info graphic doesn't display hangouts numbers. You have just implied that all of these apps have better numbers than hangoutsThe 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.
If anything its making it proprietaryIncorrect.
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 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.
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 and you can join us cool kids.