Oh, that's bull! Every edit needs to appear for everyone! Maybe I can turn that on; maybe not. I'll have to dig a little.
Bull? Really? I don't ever recall seeing a thread edited by an admin/mod being tagged as such, even tho it might be mentioned by editor himself in a subsequent post.
FWIW the post MacRulz questioned still does not indicate it was ever edited, at least that I can see.
EDIT: Perhaps by bull you meant that it's not right for the post not to be tagged as edited no matter who did so? I initially thought you were saying it wasn't true. By the way, I agree with you that it's not helpful to bait other members. You're doing your job when moderating comments that mock or ridicule other forum members. I've no issue with it myself.
Huh. It doesn't show as edited for you? That's bothersome; it shows for me. It should really be showing up for everyone.
Maybe it's not showing the edit times because the edits were done too close to the posting time. I've noticed that in both Huddler and vBulletin if a post is edited quickly enough, it doesn't append an "edited by/on" tag.
TS, you could test that theory by editing my last post if you wish. Wait 5 min and give it a try.
If they can't agree on a number, the court decides the final price regardless of whether it's licensed by Apple or other companies. It is non-discriminatory. Or Apple can go look for alternatives. End of story. It won't come to injunction.
The full text of the agreement then goes on to state, in effect: If, after the court or arbitrator has reached its determination of an appropriate final price, the potential licensee still refuses to pay that final price, then injunctions will become an available option (presumably manifested as a form of punishment for the potential licensee's non-compliance with a court order).
Bull? Really? I don't ever recall seeing a thread edited by an admin/mod being tagged as such…
Oh, sorry, I don't mean that directed at you! I meant it for the software. I mean to say that it's incredibly silly that admin/mod edits wouldn't be shown on posts where they happened.
Originally Posted by MacRulez
I'm all for moderator efforts to raise the level of conversation here to something more professional. But really, take a look at the stuff that's allowed to stand here. "Kids" is among the milder epithets posted here, and given the relatively recent adoption of the slash-s convention here it's probably not all that inaccurate.
That said, I'm happy to support your efforts at removing ALL such epithets, and look forward to seeing a less selective application of this principle.
Would this also apply to potentially libelous allegations of specific crimes made by posters who have no evidence to support them?
If you see something that you believe is in violation of our rules, please do report it! Users still see the report button on every post, right? Haven't gotten very many user-submitted reports as of late, and I've been chalking that up to increased civility.
This new interest in editing out unnecessary insults will keep you busy and trim a great many posts at first, but once folks get used to writing less insultingly it'll make for a better forum experience for everyone.
I don't want to give out infractions left and right, but people say things sometimes that I believe could have been worded better (to put it nicely ). Usually the rest of the post is perfectly fine. In trimming out the insult (or what have you), it just saves that much headache later for all parties.
Yes, it's possible to pick fly poop from pepper to arrive at an arbitrary point where some court orders against a company mean that the company is evil while other court orders against a company merely mean that the company was misunderstood.
But for all your claims of massive criminal activity, you have yet to tell us how the DOJ responded when you submitted your proof to them. I mean, after all, you're an earnest enough fellow that you certainly wouldn't be running around making random allegations of crimes without proof, of course.
And the lulz of reading your posts, such as this one, in which you claim so many of us "assasinate the truth" but fail to provide any substantial evidence to support that.
Relax. In case you haven't noticed, Apple's doing great. They're not going anywhere, and your anger here will not help them; they don't need it.
All companies will always have competition, and the very existence of competitors to one's preferred brand does not equate to evil. It's simply your preference. Enjoy your products, and try letting others enjoy theirs without claiming the entire rest of the world is stupid, evil, or misled.
See Stelligent's wisdom in my sigline, and have a better day.
No no no, you're going about this all wrong!
As he mentioned, he doesn't have the money to bribe the DoJ to press charges. He needs to go to someone that does.
I recommend Microsoft. No one wants to see Google brought down more than them. shoot, with such convincing proof of Google's criminal activities, I bet they're just drooling with anticipation and would pay a hefty sum for it.
Don't wait! Contact Microsoft legal today! You'll be a billionaire before you know it!
P.s. what fun is there in sarcasm when it's made explicit with /s?
The mobile version of Google Maps has never officially supported Windows phone. MS has resisted incorporating WebKit into it's mobile browser, needed for viewing Google Maps on Windows handsets and even tho iPhones, Blackberrys, Android smartphones, the Kindle e-readers, Bada and Tizen OS's and others all have WebKit support. That Google was somehow making their mobile maps at least somewhat available on an officially unsupported Windows phone browser was nice of them. Perhaps they no longer want to go out of their way for a company trying to put them out of business. Or perhaps it's just some minor change in API's on either Google or Microsoft's end. Who knows for certain. FWIW a number of comments on other sites mention it's never worked all that well on Windows phones even before this.
The simple solution for Microsoft if they're truly concerned about their users convenient access to Google maps? Just include WebKit support in MS Explorer for mobile. They do know how to write code don't they? Microsoft locking down their Windows 7 & 8 phones by restricting them to Trident-based browsers only is their choice.
The mobile version of Google Maps has never officially supported Windows phone. MS has resisted incorporating WebKit into it's mobile browser, needed for viewing Google Maps on Windows handsets and even tho iPhones, Blackberrys, Android smartphones, the Kindle e-readers, Bada and Tizen OS's and others all have WebKit support. That Google was somehow making their mobile maps at least somewhat available on an officially unsupported Windows phone browser was nice of them. Perhaps they no longer want to go out of their way for a company trying to put them out of business. Or perhaps it's just some minor change in API's on either Google or Microsoft's end. Who knows for certain. FWIW a number of comments on other sites mention it's never worked all that well on Windows phones even before this.
The simple solution for Microsoft if they're truly concerned about their users convenient access to Google maps? Just include WebKit support in MS Explorer for mobile. They do know how to write code don't they? Microsoft locking down their Windows 7 & 8 phones by restricting them to Trident-based browsers only is their choice.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, that's bull! Every edit needs to appear for everyone! Maybe I can turn that on; maybe not. I'll have to dig a little.
Bull? Really? I don't ever recall seeing a thread edited by an admin/mod being tagged as such, even tho it might be mentioned by editor himself in a subsequent post.
FWIW the post MacRulz questioned still does not indicate it was ever edited, at least that I can see.
EDIT: Perhaps by bull you meant that it's not right for the post not to be tagged as edited no matter who did so? I initially thought you were saying it wasn't true. By the way, I agree with you that it's not helpful to bait other members. You're doing your job when moderating comments that mock or ridicule other forum members. I've no issue with it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Huh. It doesn't show as edited for you? That's bothersome; it shows for me. It should really be showing up for everyone.
Maybe it's not showing the edit times because the edits were done too close to the posting time. I've noticed that in both Huddler and vBulletin if a post is edited quickly enough, it doesn't append an "edited by/on" tag.
TS, you could test that theory by editing my last post if you wish. Wait 5 min and give it a try.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu
If they can't agree on a number, the court decides the final price regardless of whether it's licensed by Apple or other companies. It is non-discriminatory. Or Apple can go look for alternatives. End of story. It won't come to injunction.
The full text of the agreement then goes on to state, in effect: If, after the court or arbitrator has reached its determination of an appropriate final price, the potential licensee still refuses to pay that final price, then injunctions will become an available option (presumably manifested as a form of punishment for the potential licensee's non-compliance with a court order).
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Bull? Really? I don't ever recall seeing a thread edited by an admin/mod being tagged as such…
Oh, sorry, I don't mean that directed at you! I meant it for the software. I mean to say that it's incredibly silly that admin/mod edits wouldn't be shown on posts where they happened.
Originally Posted by MacRulez
I'm all for moderator efforts to raise the level of conversation here to something more professional. But really, take a look at the stuff that's allowed to stand here. "Kids" is among the milder epithets posted here, and given the relatively recent adoption of the slash-s convention here it's probably not all that inaccurate.
That said, I'm happy to support your efforts at removing ALL such epithets, and look forward to seeing a less selective application of this principle.
Would this also apply to potentially libelous allegations of specific crimes made by posters who have no evidence to support them?
If you see something that you believe is in violation of our rules, please do report it! Users still see the report button on every post, right? Haven't gotten very many user-submitted reports as of late, and I've been chalking that up to increased civility.
This new interest in editing out unnecessary insults will keep you busy and trim a great many posts at first, but once folks get used to writing less insultingly it'll make for a better forum experience for everyone.
I don't want to give out infractions left and right, but people say things sometimes that I believe could have been worded better (to put it nicely
Company breaks them to be anticompetitive.
Here's a legal threat.
Company claims to agree to a change in behavior.
Company finds passive-aggressive ways of being maliciously compliant, essentially still doing what it wants to in order to be anticompetitive.
Welcome to sociopathic America. As long as you have money and lies, you can get away with anything.
No no no, you're going about this all wrong!
As he mentioned, he doesn't have the money to bribe the DoJ to press charges. He needs to go to someone that does.
I recommend Microsoft. No one wants to see Google brought down more than them. shoot, with such convincing proof of Google's criminal activities, I bet they're just drooling with anticipation and would pay a hefty sum for it.
Don't wait! Contact Microsoft legal today! You'll be a billionaire before you know it!
P.s. what fun is there in sarcasm when it's made explicit with /s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria
Here are the rules.
Company breaks them to be anticompetitive.
Here's a legal threat.
Company claims to agree to a change in behavior.
Company finds passive-aggressive ways of being maliciously compliant, essentially still doing what it wants to in order to be anticompetitive.
Welcome to sociopathic America. As long as you have money and lies, you can get away with anything.
Like this passive aggressive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Like this passive aggressive?
The mobile version of Google Maps has never officially supported Windows phone. MS has resisted incorporating WebKit into it's mobile browser, needed for viewing Google Maps on Windows handsets and even tho iPhones, Blackberrys, Android smartphones, the Kindle e-readers, Bada and Tizen OS's and others all have WebKit support. That Google was somehow making their mobile maps at least somewhat available on an officially unsupported Windows phone browser was nice of them. Perhaps they no longer want to go out of their way for a company trying to put them out of business. Or perhaps it's just some minor change in API's on either Google or Microsoft's end. Who knows for certain. FWIW a number of comments on other sites mention it's never worked all that well on Windows phones even before this.
The simple solution for Microsoft if they're truly concerned about their users convenient access to Google maps? Just include WebKit support in MS Explorer for mobile. They do know how to write code don't they? Microsoft locking down their Windows 7 & 8 phones by restricting them to Trident-based browsers only is their choice.
EDIT: Here ya go Hill60
http://mashable.com/2013/01/04/windows-phone-google-maps/
deleted
That would explain why Google Maps doesn't work in Internet Explorer on the desktop or with Opera or Firefox on Android...
...oh, hang on.
deleted
Yeah, it does suck that Google Maps doesn't work on...
...oh, hang on.