or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

  That is strange - when you did that the resulting code was clean (at least by Huddler standards). When I try that I get multiple garbage span tags defining fonts, colors, borders and other stuff, which is why I had stopped doing that and was working in the source code instead.
I cannot see how to get to the mobile version. There are no buttons in the footer that I can see.
  It's not that it's unselectable - but for example in your post quoted above here - if I had wanted to split it and respond to your first paragraph, then have another quote box with your second paragraph, I cannot see a way to split the quote div except in the source.
  The resizing on page width seems to work better, which is good. On the "New Posts" listing, threads that you have posted in are now longer a different color, which makes them harder to spot. Formatting replies still seems clumsy, unless I just haven't worked it out how to do it. Specifically, if you reply by quoting a post and want to address points individually, there seems to be no way to split up the quote div without working in the source html. It would be nice to...
I'd have to say, reading these threads as an unaffiliated observer, that I cannot distinguish much difference in style of attack between left and right. I see just as much false outrage from both sides.
  Indeed. But I'm still not sure that you have failed to comply. I'm still waiting to see the detailed ruling to find out precisely what the court did not like. Samsung's complaint was that it contained inaccurate statements, but only claimed damage in that customers might think that the UK court was out of step, which suggests only by inference. I saw no inaccurate statements, but I have not yet seen the written decision.
  I agree - but I was specifically referring to compliance, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison. You are referring to the intent behind the commission of a criminal act, which may significantly affect the penalty. This is about the intent behind legal compliance with a court order and, in law, compliance either occurs or does not occur - intent is not an issue. Or, more accurately, at least not in my experience.
  Fair enough. This whole business about intent bothers me though. The law is not about intent. There is no requirement to interpret the law or the intent of the rulings of its agents. And in this case, the specific requirement of the court was not to publicize that there was no infringement, which Birss himself noted there was no unanimity on, but to publicize that this particular court had found there not to be infringement. That rather devalues the argument that the...
  Apparently - although I would like to read the latest ruling. Did you actually disagree with my assessment - you did not say anything after I posted it? Having re-read the original order and the earlier appeal decision, I still cannot see where Apple failed to comply.
  That is definitely a problem without an easy answer, but I think it is important not to let it get in the way of taking action appropriate to a problem. For example, as a simple thought experiment - if it were clearly proven that the greenhouse gas emissions were causing significant global warning - would we still think it OK to continue at current emission levels just because other countries were not making an effort to reduce theirs?
New Posts  All Forums: