Cool Spotlight "feature"...
Alan Baker
Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
that page.
So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
some point that talked about him having coined the term.
What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
tricky.
Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Snit
alangbaker-E6ABBE.18140929032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net] on 3/29/08
6:14 PM:
> ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
>
> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>
> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
> that page.
I use this in Safari's history search... works well.
> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
> some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>
> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
> page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
> tricky.
>
> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>
> Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
Add ons for Firefox I am pretty sure.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Patrick Nihill
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-E6ABBE.18140929032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>
> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
> that page.
>
> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
> some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>
> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
> page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
> tricky.
>
> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>
> Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
Well, if it's IE we're talking about, I don't think you can. The Temporary
Internet Files folder is marked with the "Content Not Indexed" attribute, so
the contents of web pages you've visited recently, which are stored here, is
not indexed. This makes sense, as this folder is highly volatile and gets
cleared as soon as IE exits. I tried unsetting the attribute from the
command line. but IE put it right back on again immediately.
IE's history list is stored in the registry, which isn't part of the search
index. This is why doing a system search won't even find a matching domain
name from your IE history. It's not a weakness of the search system, per se,
it's a case of IE not being designed to store data in a way that's
meaningful to the indexer. Safari on the Mac has been designed to properly
interact with Spotlight. I wonder how it behaves on Windows? I might
download it and investigate.
This reminds me of another oddity I noticed with Vista search, where files
continued to appear in search results after they'd been deleted. It turned
out to be because of the Recent Items folder - like on OS X, Vista keeps a
folder of aliases of recently accessed documents. When I deleted a file that
was in this list, the indexer removed the reference to the original file,
but continued to hold the shortcut in its index, and this was showing up in
search results. I excluded the Recent Items folder from indexing, and
everything immediately worked as you would expect.
This is a good example of how getting one tiny little default setting wrong
can have a major impact on the user experience, and it's something that has
historically tended to catch Microsoft out more than Apple.
ed
<snip>
> Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
make sure indexing is on for the directory web cache is in.
Alan Baker
<ff2e9bd8-0355-4408...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
And would the resulting hit return you to the actual page, or would you
just get the cached page?
Hasta La Vista
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-E6ABBE.18140929032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>
> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
> that page.
>
> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
> some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>
> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
> page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
> tricky.
>
> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>
> Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
Sure, no problem. Click the Star icon in IE. In the History drop down
arrow, pick "Search History." Type in whatever word or phrase you want to
search for to get a list of Web sites you visited that have that word or
phrase.
Alan Baker
Really?
Of the content of the page, or just in the URL and title?
Show us a screenshot.
Patrick Nihill
Yes, it's of the content of the page. It works fine.
After a little playing around with settings, I can't get Vista search to
index the web cache folder though - still keeps having the attribute that
marks the content as non-indexable set automatically even after I turn it
off. So you have to do the search from within IE, I reckon.
>
> Show us a screenshot.
Hasta La Vista
Yes, really, Gimp.
> Of the content of the page, or just in the URL and title?
Any part of the page, Gimp.
> Show us a screenshot.
Go do it for yourself, Gimp.
Hasta La Vista
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:658gbeF...@mid.individual.net...
This is just like when Alan mistakenly assumed there was no easy way for
Windows to switch between Japanese fonts.
Steve de Mena
Recently typed URLs are stored in the registry, but the actual
"History" of URLs you have visited is not.
Steve
Patrick Nihill
"Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
news:D_CdnWMC4akWiXLa...@giganews.com...
Is it within the Temporary Internet Items folder then? I only played with it
for a few minutes, but I couldn't get the indexer to work on that folder.
Steve de Mena
> ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>
> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
> that page.
>
> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
> some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>
> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
> page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
> tricky.
>
> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>
> Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
I'd be happy just to get them in OS X. I typed "canon" into Spotlight
and got no web relevant pages, despite the fact I was searching for
Canon point and shoot cameras at a number of sites earlier today.
(Safari 3.1 on OS X 10.5.2)
Steve
Steve de Mena
Look under Local Settings\History under your documents folder. They
are in index.dat files and won't help you. It's not the page contents
but every URL you visited.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>>
>> "Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
>> Is it within the Temporary Internet Items folder then? I only played
>> with it for a few minutes, but I couldn't get the indexer to work on
>> that folder.
>>
>
> Look under Local Settings\History under your documents folder. They are
> in index.dat files and won't help you. It's not the page contents but
> every URL you visited.
>
> Steve
I think it does help you, as someone mentioned you could search
history and find content on a page too.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
>> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>>
>> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
>> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
>> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents*
>> of that page.
>>
>> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
>> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
>> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page
>> at some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>>
>> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of
>> the page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going
>> to be tricky.
>>
>> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
>> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>>
>> Would anyone care to share how you get the same result in Windows?
>
> I'd be happy just to get them in OS X. I typed "canon" into Spotlight
> and got no web relevant pages,
They did show up when I hit the "Show All" button.
Steve
Patrick Nihill
Ah right, I found it in C:\Users\Patrick
Nihill\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History. I think it would be a good
think if IE8 stored all this info in a way that made it accessible to the
search indexer.
Patrick Nihill
Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general system
search.
Steve de Mena
Thats not the same data as the full history I referenced, Local
Settings\History. You'll probably have to take ownership to access it.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general
> system search.
Here you go:
or
Windows Desktop Search: Add-in for Internet Explorer History
Overview
This Add-in indexes the history of the web pages you have browsed
using Internet Explorer.
By downloading this Add-in, your Internet Explorer History will be
indexed by Windows Desktop Search when your PC is idle or when you
select ‘Index Now’. Once the index is updated you can immediately
search your Internet Explorer History.
System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows
Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Vista; Windows XP Service Pack 2
Requires any of these: Windows Desktop Search 02.06.5000.XXXX, Windows
Desktop Search 02.06.6000.xxxx or Windows Desktop Search 03.00.0000.XXXX
Internet Explorer 6.0 SP2 or a later version
Patrick Nihill
> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general
>> system search.
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ea7f95d9-69ae-4639-9d76-a44f51109053&displaylang=en
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2tylax
>
> Windows Desktop Search: Add-in for Internet Explorer History
Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's already been
written.
Alan Baker
Alan Baker
Alan Baker
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>
> > Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general
> > system search.
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ea7f95d9-69ae-4639-9d
> 76-a44f51109053&displaylang=en
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2tylax
>
> Windows Desktop Search: Add-in for Internet Explorer History
>
> Overview
> This Add-in indexes the history of the web pages you have browsed
> using Internet Explorer.
>
> By downloading this Add-in, your Internet Explorer History will be
> indexed by Windows Desktop Search when your PC is idle or when you
> select ŚIndex Nową. Once the index is updated you can immediately
> search your Internet Explorer History.
>
> System Requirements
> Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows
> Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Vista; Windows XP Service Pack 2
>
> Requires any of these: Windows Desktop Search 02.06.5000.XXXX, Windows
> Desktop Search 02.06.6000.xxxx or Windows Desktop Search 03.00.0000.XXXX
>
>
> Internet Explorer 6.0 SP2 or a later version
Therefore, it *isn't* available without an add-on.
Thanks.
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like Spotlight already does!
Patrick Nihill
"You guys"? Are you lumping me in with Edwin? Why?
Patrick Nihill
Slightly more accurate to say that it's like *Safari* already does, but the
effect is the same, yes.
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, Patrick. That was unfair of me. I apologize.
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Safari and Spotlight together, actually.
You can do the search when Safari isn't even running.
Patrick Nihill
Right, what I meant was that it's the responsibility of the applications to
store data in a format that can be indexed, and provide a plug-in to do the
indexing. In this case, Safari is doing it and IE isn't.
Patrick Nihill
No apology necessary, but thanks.
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes and no. Yes, it is the responsibility of the app to store date in a
format that can be index, and yes, an application *may* need to provide
a plug-in to do the indexing, but web pages are just text...
...well, here's the content of my /Library/Spotlight folder:
AppleWorks.mdimporter
GBSpotlightImporter.mdimporter
iWeb.mdimporter
Keynote.mdimporter
LogicPro.mdimporter
Microsoft Entourage.mdimporter
Microsoft Office.mdimporter
Numbers.mdimporter
Pages.mdimporter
Please note what you do *not* see there...
Steve de Mena
No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS
and the browser separate for legal reasons.
Steve
Alan Baker
Funny...
Apple had no trouble providing the functionality without tying Safari to
the OS...
Patrick Nihill
I don't see plug-ins for anything that actually comes as part of the OS
there. No AddressBook.mdimporter, or Mail.mdimporter, for example. So the
code for Spotlight's built-in types is presumably located somewhere else.
Patrick Nihill
Do you have a reference that supports this, or is it a theory? I'm a bit
skeptical of whether an indexing plug-in could be construed as making the
browser part of the OS.
Steve de Mena
>>> Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's
>>> already been written.
>>
>> No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS
>> and the browser separate for legal reasons.
>
> Do you have a reference that supports this, or is it a theory? I'm a bit
> skeptical of whether an indexing plug-in could be construed as making
> the browser part of the OS.
It's not a "theory". They need to keep the browser separate from the
operating system, period. What is it with everyone wanting a
"reference". Next time I won't even bother helping you like I did.
Let's say Vista did inlude that that search functionality. What if you
wrote a browser. Would Vista natively search *your* browser's
history? No. Do you see the issue now? Case closed.
Steve
Patrick Nihill
> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>
>>>> Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's already
>>>> been written.
>>>
>>> No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS and
>>> the browser separate for legal reasons.
>>
>> Do you have a reference that supports this, or is it a theory? I'm a bit
>> skeptical of whether an indexing plug-in could be construed as making the
>> browser part of the OS.
>
> It's not a "theory". They need to keep the browser separate from the
> operating system, period. What is it with everyone wanting a "reference".
> Next time I won't even bother helping you like I did.
Well I was asking if this was your interpretation, or if this was something
that had been mentioned as part of a court settlement, or by a source from
Microsoft when asked why the plug-in was a separate download.
Why the sudden jump to full-on attitude mode, by the way? I only asked you a
simple question.
> Let's say Vista did inlude that that search functionality. What if you
> wrote a browser. Would Vista natively search *your* browser's history?
> No. Do you see the issue now? Case closed.
It would search my browser's history if I wrote a plug-in to do so, just as
is the case with IE. Neither browser would be any more "part of the OS" by
virtue of having an indexing plug-in installed, and IE wouldn't have any
technical advantage - my plugin has all the abilities available to the IE
plugin.
Alan Baker
Apple's would if you just wrote out the history files appropriately...
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
> news:KNadnScrruQyoHLa...@giganews.com...
> > Patrick Nihill wrote:
> >
> >>>> Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's already
> >>>> been written.
> >>>
> >>> No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS and
> >>> the browser separate for legal reasons.
> >>
> >> Do you have a reference that supports this, or is it a theory? I'm a bit
> >> skeptical of whether an indexing plug-in could be construed as making the
> >> browser part of the OS.
> >
> > It's not a "theory". They need to keep the browser separate from the
> > operating system, period. What is it with everyone wanting a "reference".
> > Next time I won't even bother helping you like I did.
>
> Well I was asking if this was your interpretation, or if this was something
> that had been mentioned as part of a court settlement, or by a source from
> Microsoft when asked why the plug-in was a separate download.
>
> Why the sudden jump to full-on attitude mode, by the way? I only asked you a
> simple question.
Haven't you noticed? Whenever Steve declares something to be true,
that's supposed to be the end of it.
NetInstall can't install anything without the OS, although the
documentation and references on the web say different.
Two video cards produce the same basic colours differently.
Etc.
>
> > Let's say Vista did inlude that that search functionality. What if you
> > wrote a browser. Would Vista natively search *your* browser's history?
> > No. Do you see the issue now? Case closed.
>
> It would search my browser's history if I wrote a plug-in to do so, just as
> is the case with IE. Neither browser would be any more "part of the OS" by
> virtue of having an indexing plug-in installed, and IE wouldn't have any
> technical advantage - my plugin has all the abilities available to the IE
> plugin.
--
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you have a point, but!
Here's the content of /System/Library/Spotlight:
Application.mdimporter
vCard.mdimporter
Archives.mdimporter
Audio.mdimporter
Automator.mdimporter
Bookmarks.mdimporter
Chat.mdimporter
Font.mdimporter
iCal.mdimporter
Image.mdimporter
iPhoto.mdimporter
Mail.mdimporter
MIDI.mdimporter
PDF.mdimporter
PS.mdimporter
QuartzComposer.mdimporter
QuickTime.mdimporter
RichText.mdimporter
SystemPrefs.mdimporter
Note what you don't see, again.
:-)
Sandman
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>
> >>> Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's
> >>> already been written.
> >>
> >> No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS
> >> and the browser separate for legal reasons.
> >
> > Do you have a reference that supports this, or is it a theory? I'm a bit
> > skeptical of whether an indexing plug-in could be construed as making
> > the browser part of the OS.
>
> It's not a "theory". They need to keep the browser separate from the
> operating system, period. What is it with everyone wanting a
> "reference".
Because most people here thinks that you make things up, of course.
> Let's say Vista did inlude that that search functionality. What if you
> wrote a browser. Would Vista natively search *your* browser's
> history? No.
Why not? If that suposed browser saved the history in an
index-friendly way, what mechanism does Vista have to detect that that
index-friendly format should not be indexed anyway, since it comes
from a competing browser?
You're not making much sense here.
--
Sandman[.net]
Patrick Nihill
Indeed. It would appear it's just indexing the html files as plain text so,
not doing anything special based on particular HTML tags.
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, I've looked at the files that Safari stores in the
~/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari/History are just the text of the page
-- no html at all.
Patrick Nihill
I installed the plug-in Steve mentioned, and it's giving me odd results. If
I open a search window and type in something from a webpage I just visited
in IE, it finds the page without a problem. The exact same search string in
the search box in the Start Menu produced no results.
I found that if I go into the Start Menu customization screen and change the
search option from "Search this user's files" to "Search the entire index" I
now get the right results in the Start Menu. I think it's safe to say this
round goes comfortably to Spotlight/Safari.
Alan Baker
<alangbaker-7020FA.01073630032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
To be more specific, the files are plists in binary format (i.e. XML
data) which include the full text of the page. Run them through the
command line's plutil (with "-convert xml1") and all becomes clear...
...well, even clearer. :-)
So you see, any browser on the Mac that wanted to implement this...
...could. No magic tying to the OS necessary. :-)
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Handily, I agree. :-)
Steve de Mena
Do you know that there are APIs that would even allow you to include
that functionality in your browser?
I don't think you realize what a hot topic "searching" is. That's
Google's whole business.
Steve
Patrick Nihill
> In article
> <alangbaker-7020FA.01073630032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <658vcvF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> > Indeed. It would appear it's just indexing the html files as plain text
>> > so,
>> > not doing anything special based on particular HTML tags.
>>
>> Actually, I've looked at the files that Safari stores in the
>> ~/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari/History are just the text of the page
>> -- no html at all.
>
> To be more specific, the files are plists in binary format (i.e. XML
> data) which include the full text of the page. Run them through the
> command line's plutil (with "-convert xml1") and all becomes clear...
>
> ...well, even clearer. :-)
>
> So you see, any browser on the Mac that wanted to implement this...
>
> ...could. No magic tying to the OS necessary. :-)
Same on Vista, of course. Any plain html or xml file is indexed properly -
as I mentioned in an earlier post, the folder where IE stores its cache is
persistently marked as non-indexable, even if you try and manually add it. I
don't know why this is.
Steve de Mena
> I installed the plug-in Steve mentioned, and it's giving me odd results.
> If I open a search window and type in something from a webpage I just
> visited in IE, it finds the page without a problem. The exact same
> search string in the search box in the Start Menu produced no results.
>
> I found that if I go into the Start Menu customization screen and change
> the search option from "Search this user's files" to "Search the entire
> index" I now get the right results in the Start Menu. I think it's safe
> to say this round goes comfortably to Spotlight/Safari.
>
If it weren't for the EU and other government's antitrust actions that
feature would be builtin to the OS.
Steve
Alan Baker
Wow.
It's so easy... ...I never realized.
Just declare what truth is and everyone has to accept it!
Patrick Nihill
Of course there are, anyone can write an IFilter to index a particular
filetype. There are lots of them available. Also, a plug-in need not even be
necessary, as long as the web cache was in the form of HTML files stored in
a folder the indexer can access.
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channel9.DesktopSearchIFilters
> I don't think you realize what a hot topic "searching" is. That's
> Google's whole business.
I don't really understand the relevance of this comment, I'm afraid.
Alan Baker
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He's trying to allude to anti-trust concerns...
He's not producing any facts, so allusions are pretty much all he's got.
Patrick Nihill
I doubt the EU told Microsoft to only show a subset of result types in one
search results window, and the full result list in another. If they did,
they have a better sense of humour than I gave them credit for.
Patrick Nihill
By the way, I downloaded Safari for Windows to see what it did - no indexing
of history available there either. The cache is stored in a single Cache.db
file in C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Apple Computer\Safari. I assumed I
would be able to search the history from within Safari itself, but it didn't
work. The content of the visited pages wasn't searchable.
Incidentally, I was amazed at just how badly out of place Safari is on
Windows. It's almost obnoxious. It uses its own buttons, drop-downs, menus,
tabs, everything. iTunes makes much more of an effort, using proper Windows
dialogs, menus, buttons, tabs etc.
Sandman
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Safari does us Windows-menues though, which makes them look out of
place against the slick user interface.
This reminds me somewhat about Kai's tools back in the day, like Soap,
which was a photo/image editor that went full screen and hid the OS
and took over with its own UI, but when it had to use OS UI (like
open/save dialogs) it detracted from the visuals (back when MacOS
wasn't all that pretty).
With OSX, no application needs to have a "nice UI" because it's all
provided by the OS, in Vista, the difference is much more obvious
where Safari has the nice UI and when it uses OS components, the huge
difference between the "not so nice" Vista-UI and the much more
refined OSX look is obvious.
Now, if this had been done some five years ago, back when OSX was
"glossy", the difference wouldn't be so much, but it's really obvious
just have far ahead of "UI style" OSX is when seeing them side by side.
Safari dialogs in Vista actually looks great, which is new for Vista
:-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Patrick Nihill
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-2378B6.11...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <65942dF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, I downloaded Safari for Windows to see what it did - no
>> indexing
>> of history available there either. The cache is stored in a single
>> Cache.db
>> file in C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Apple Computer\Safari. I assumed
>> I
>> would be able to search the history from within Safari itself, but it
>> didn't
>> work. The content of the visited pages wasn't searchable.
>>
>> Incidentally, I was amazed at just how badly out of place Safari is on
>> Windows. It's almost obnoxious. It uses its own buttons, drop-downs,
>> menus,
>> tabs, everything. iTunes makes much more of an effort, using proper
>> Windows
>> dialogs, menus, buttons, tabs etc.
>
> Safari does us Windows-menues though, which makes them look out of
> place against the slick user interface.
No, it doesn't. I'm looking at them here. Safari's menus are unlike any
other in the OS. Their highlight colour is a deep blue, their menu
seperators are much darker than standard, and they're missing the vertical
separator bar on the left that Vista menus have. They are neither OS X nor
Vista-standard.
> This reminds me somewhat about Kai's tools back in the day, like Soap,
> which was a photo/image editor that went full screen and hid the OS
> and took over with its own UI, but when it had to use OS UI (like
> open/save dialogs) it detracted from the visuals (back when MacOS
> wasn't all that pretty).
>
> With OSX, no application needs to have a "nice UI" because it's all
> provided by the OS, in Vista, the difference is much more obvious
> where Safari has the nice UI and when it uses OS components, the huge
> difference between the "not so nice" Vista-UI and the much more
> refined OSX look is obvious.
>
> Now, if this had been done some five years ago, back when OSX was
> "glossy", the difference wouldn't be so much, but it's really obvious
> just have far ahead of "UI style" OSX is when seeing them side by side.
It should attempt to fit in on the platform it's running on, regardless.
Safari looks fine on OS X, but in isolation on Vista it just looks silly and
totally out of place. Without the context the rest of the UI provides,
individual OS X widgets here and there don't work at all.
Steve de Mena
What the fuck are you talking about?
*PLONK*
Steve
Patrick Nihill
What a strange boy.
Sandman
<pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> By the way, I downloaded Safari for Windows to see what it did -
>>> no indexing of history available there either. The cache is stored
>>> in a single Cache.db file in C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Apple
>>> Computer\Safari. I assumed I would be able to search the history
>>> from within Safari itself, but it didn't work. The content of the
>>> visited pages wasn't searchable.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I was amazed at just how badly out of place Safari
>>> is on Windows. It's almost obnoxious. It uses its own buttons,
>>> drop-downs, menus, tabs, everything. iTunes makes much more of an
>>> effort, using proper Windows dialogs, menus, buttons, tabs etc.
>>
>> Safari does us Windows-menues though, which makes them look out of
>> place against the slick user interface.
>
> No, it doesn't. I'm looking at them here. Safari's menus are unlike
> any other in the OS. Their highlight colour is a deep blue, their
> menu seperators are much darker than standard, and they're missing
> the vertical separator bar on the left that Vista menus have. They
> are neither OS X nor Vista-standard.
Yeah, you're right. That's weird.
>> This reminds me somewhat about Kai's tools back in the day, like
>> Soap, which was a photo/image editor that went full screen and hid
>> the OS and took over with its own UI, but when it had to use OS UI
>> (like open/save dialogs) it detracted from the visuals (back when
>> MacOS wasn't all that pretty).
>>
>> With OSX, no application needs to have a "nice UI" because it's all
>> provided by the OS, in Vista, the difference is much more obvious
>> where Safari has the nice UI and when it uses OS components, the
>> huge difference between the "not so nice" Vista-UI and the much
>> more refined OSX look is obvious.
>>
>> Now, if this had been done some five years ago, back when OSX was
>> "glossy", the difference wouldn't be so much, but it's really
>> obvious just have far ahead of "UI style" OSX is when seeing them
>> side by side.
>
> It should attempt to fit in on the platform it's running on,
> regardless. Safari looks fine on OS X, but in isolation on Vista it
> just looks silly and totally out of place. Without the context the
> rest of the UI provides, individual OS X widgets here and there
> don't work at all.
I agree with you, but I think it's more of a case with Apple being
reluctant to "downgrade" the UI of Safari just because it is running
on a lesser system.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
My god, it doesn't take much to have you running away with your tail
between your legs.
--
Sandman[.net]
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com zara
> In article <DrudnQbg18wprnLa...@giganews.com>,
> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>> >
>> > "Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
>> >> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general
>> >>> system search.
>> >>
>> >> Here you go:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ea7f95d9-69ae-4639
>> >> -9d76-a44f51109053&displaylang=en
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2tylax
>> >>
>> >> Windows Desktop Search: Add-in for Internet Explorer History
>> >
>> > Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's already
>> > been written.
>>
>> No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS
>> and the browser separate for legal reasons.
>>
>
> Funny...
>
> Apple had no trouble providing the functionality without tying Safari to
> the OS...
Your OP stated that Windows lacked the feature. Now that you have been
proved wrong, you're building a Strawman. Is Big, Fat, Drunken Jim Polaski
your alter ego? He pulls the same crap.
Hasta La Vista
"Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:658q10F...@mid.individual.net...> news:alangbaker-015AFF.23173729032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>> In article <658pdtF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> > In article <1b2dnQ2dAd-HjXLa...@comcast.com>,
>>> > "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:658gbeF...@mid.individual.net...>>> >> > news:alangbaker-BE1AA9.20355329032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>> >> >> In article <VfCdnfCyQK4RmnLa...@comcast.com>,
>>> >> >> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >>> drop
>>> >> >>> down
>>> >> >>> arrow, pick "Search History." Type in whatever word or phrase
>>> >> >>> you
>>> >> >>> want
>>> >> >>> to
>>> >> >>> search for to get a list of Web sites you visited that have that
>>> >> >>> word
>>> >> >>> or
>>> >> >>> phrase.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Really?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Of the content of the page, or just in the URL and title?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Yes, it's of the content of the page. It works fine.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > After a little playing around with settings, I can't get Vista
>>> >> > search
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > index the web cache folder though - still keeps having the
>>> >> > attribute
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > marks the content as non-indexable set automatically even after I
>>> >> > turn
>>> >> > it
>>> >> > off. So you have to do the search from within IE, I reckon.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is just like when Alan mistakenly assumed there was no easy way
>>> >> for
>>> >> Windows to switch between Japanese fonts.
>>> >
>>> > You guys need to get your stories straight....
>>>
>>> "You guys"? Are you lumping me in with Edwin? Why?
>>
>> Sorry, Patrick. That was unfair of me. I apologize.
>
> No apology necessary, but thanks.
An apology is needed, but not for you.
Hasta La Vista
> In article <VeKdnbg6Z_2xunLa...@giganews.com>,
> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general
>> > system search.
> Therefore, it *isn't* available without an add-on.
Yes it is, and you were already told how. Even there were no way to do it
without an add-on, the feature still is available.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com zara
"Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote in message
news:H_WdnSM2dMOOAHLa...@comcast.com...
His original question was; "Would anyone care to share how you get the same
result in Windows?". He received several answers - but he seems unhappy
with the result. The lesson here; it doesn't pay to help people.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com zara
Now you should give each other a hearty backslap. A truly great development.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com zara
>> ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
>> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>>
>> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
>> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
>> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
>> that page.
>>
>> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
>> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
>> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
>> some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>>
>> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
>> page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
>> tricky.
>>
>> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
>> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>>
>
> arrow, pick "Search History." Type in whatever word or phrase you want
> to search for to get a list of Web sites you visited that have that word
> or phrase.
I just tried it. It works great - thanks.
Maverick
Now you see what I saw.
Alan had him pegged correctly... technically incompetent.
LOL!
Hasta La Vista
> In article <18mdnRbYxtu9knLa...@comcast.com>,
>> > In article <VfCdnfCyQK4RmnLa...@comcast.com>,
>>
>> Yes, really, Gimp.
>>
>> > Of the content of the page, or just in the URL and title?
>>
>>
>> > Show us a screenshot.
>>
>> Go do it for yourself, Gimp.
>
> Nope. It's your claim that it can do it, you show it.
Why didn't you tell Patrick to show it to you, Gimp?
Alan Baker
No, it didn't.
What a pity you can't read English.
Alan Baker
Hasta La Vista
Steve de Mena
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-5404E5.23332229032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>> In article <DrudnQbg18wprnLa...@giganews.com>,
>> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>>>> "Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:VeKdnbg6Z_2xunLa...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Patrick Nihill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, the info is all there, it's just not available from a general
>>>>>> system search.
>>>>> Here you go:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ea7f95d9-69ae-4639
>>>>> -9d76-a44f51109053&displaylang=en
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2tylax
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Desktop Search: Add-in for Internet Explorer History
>>>> Cheers. Odd that this doesn't actually come with Vista, if it's already
>>>> been written.
>>> No, it's not odd and is quite intentional. They need to keep the OS
>>> and the browser separate for legal reasons.
>>>
>>> Steve
>> Funny...
>>
>> Apple had no trouble providing the functionality without tying Safari to
>> the OS...
Apple's OS hasn't been under the spotlight of the EU, etc, like
Microsoft has. And Apple has not separated them if they are both
available upon OS installation.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Go in the corner and cry, baby.
You can only dream of being 1/10th as technically competent as I am.
Steve
Alan Baker
Incorrect.
Spotlight searches text and Safari's ".webhistory" files are essentially
text.
How are the two tied other than by that they can both work with text?
Maverick
>>> Apple had no trouble providing the functionality without tying Safari to
>>> the OS...
>
>
> Apple's OS hasn't been under the spotlight of the EU, etc, like
> Microsoft has. And Apple has not separated them if they are both
> available upon OS installation.
>
Yeah, now lets see you completely eliminate IE from any M$ o/s.
You can't.
That was the crux of the EU matter.
Maverick
Guffaw!! How many times do you need to be spanked?
Your no more than the typical clown troll.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
Hasta La Vista
> ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
> Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>
> Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
> the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
> Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
> that page.
>
> So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
> remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
> usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
> some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>
> What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
> page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
> tricky.
>
> Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
> Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
You didn't post a screenshot, so you must be lying about this Spotlight
feature.
Alan Baker
"Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
Do you want me to post a screenshot?
Hasta La Vista
> In article <h-ydnXjr8ZDtPWza...@comcast.com>,
> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-E6ABBE.18140929032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>> > ...well, it's not actually a separate feature; just an aspect of
>> > Spotlight that isn't immediately obvious.
>> >
>> > Spotlight indexes cached webpages, so that you can search for not only
>> > the words in the URL of a page you've previously browsed (i.e. with
>> > Spotlight indexing the browser history), but also for the *contents* of
>> > that page.
>> >
>> > So say you've been doing some research on cell biology and you can't
>> > remember the name of the person who coined the term "cell" for this
>> > usage (Robert Hooke, BTW), but you remember you'd visited a web page at
>> > some point that talked about him having coined the term.
>> >
>> > What do you do? If you don't happen to recognize the name or URL of the
>> > page, then picking it out of your browser's history list is going to be
>> > tricky.
>> >
>> > Well if you have a Mac with Spotlight, type "coined cell" into the
>> > Spotlight search box and you'll get a link to the page.
>>
>> You didn't post a screenshot, so you must be lying about this Spotlight
>> feature.
>
> Do you want me to post a screenshot?
Why do you have to ask, Gimp? Aren't you the one who told me a claim
needs proof posted along with it? Didn't you tell me I had to post a
screenshot in order to give you the answer you asked for?
Alan Baker
No. I told that a claim that is contested requires proof.
Are you contesting my claim? Do you actually want to go on record as
saying that I'm wrong about this?
If the claim isn't contested -- if everyone agrees that something is so
-- what would it serve anyone to prove it?
Hasta La Vista
No you didn't. When I gave you the answer for Windows, you told me to give
you a screenshot. Nobody contested my answer.
> Are you contesting my claim? Do you actually want to go on record as
> saying that I'm wrong about this?
I want you to produce the same proof for what you post as you demand from
other people for the things they say.
> If the claim isn't contested -- if everyone agrees that something is so
> -- what would it serve anyone to prove it?
So why did you say I had to give you a screenshot of IE searching Web site
history, seeing how you didn't contest what I said?
Sandman
Typical Edwin comeback :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
I contested your answer.
>
> > Are you contesting my claim? Do you actually want to go on record as
> > saying that I'm wrong about this?
>
> I want you to produce the same proof for what you post as you demand from
> other people for the things they say.
Are you contesting my claim?
>
> > If the claim isn't contested -- if everyone agrees that something is so
> > -- what would it serve anyone to prove it?
>
> So why did you say I had to give you a screenshot of IE searching Web site
> history, seeing how you didn't contest what I said?
I did contest it, that's what asking for a screenshot was doing.
I repeat, are you contesting my claim?
Alan Baker
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
All he has to do is say he's contesting my claim and I'll happily
provide the screenshots... ...hell, I'll post a Quicktime movie.
But Quicktime movies haven't made Edwin look good over the years, have
they?
:-)
Sandman
<alangbaker-AA7EE3.21534931032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
Not really :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
alangbaker-7E93EB.21102531032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net] on 3/31/08
9:10 PM:
>> Why do you have to ask, Gimp? Aren't you the one who told me a claim
>> needs proof posted along with it? Didn't you tell me I had to post a
>> screenshot in order to give you the answer you asked for?
>
> No. I told that a claim that is contested requires proof.
And yet you and Sandman insist Hasta La Vista and Edwin are the same person
- and do so with no proof.
Funny, eh?
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> stated in post
> alangbaker-7E93EB.21102531032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net] on 3/31/08
> 9:10 PM:
>
> >> Why do you have to ask, Gimp? Aren't you the one who told me a claim
> >> needs proof posted along with it? Didn't you tell me I had to post a
> >> screenshot in order to give you the answer you asked for?
> >
> > No. I told that a claim that is contested requires proof.
>
> And yet you and Sandman insist Hasta La Vista and Edwin are the same person
> - and do so with no proof.
Apart, of course, from the proof.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-B3A6F9.07...@News.Individual.NET on 3/31/08 11:57 PM:
If you have offered some I have not seen it. Please show where you have.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Maybe he's waiting for you to show him your "proof" that he did as you
claimed... posted about his "porn habits"?
You claimed:
"Sandman is begging me to join his circus... the one where he obfuscates
the questions asked of him by spewing all sorts of BS, in this case even
information about his porn habits - *which I do not want to know about*".
Sandman replied with an offer:
"I will give you a million dollar if you can quote me talking about my
porn habits. One million dollars. Failing to do so will result in
either an apology of your misinformation or admittance to your lie".
<mr-1888D2.21...@News.Individual.NET>
I'm guessing you never collected or apologized.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> Why do you have to ask, Gimp? Aren't you the one who told me a claim
> >>>> needs proof posted along with it? Didn't you tell me I had to post a
> >>>> screenshot in order to give you the answer you asked for?
> >>>
> >>> No. I told that a claim that is contested requires proof.
> >>
> >> And yet you and Sandman insist Hasta La Vista and Edwin are the same person
> >> - and do so with no proof.
> >
> > Apart, of course, from the proof.
> >
> >
> If you have offered some I have not seen it.
"Not seen" is not synonymous with "Ignored", Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Nice dodge: and note your complete lack of support for your claim.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-D89A64.19...@News.Individual.NET on 4/2/08 11:02 AM:
>
> > In article <C41797E3.B1888%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> Why do you have to ask, Gimp? Aren't you the one who told me a
> >>>>>> claim
> >>>>>> needs proof posted along with it? Didn't you tell me I had to post a
> >>>>>> screenshot in order to give you the answer you asked for?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. I told that a claim that is contested requires proof.
> >>>>
> >>>> And yet you and Sandman insist Hasta La Vista and Edwin are the same
> >>>> person
> >>>> - and do so with no proof.
> >>>
> >>> Apart, of course, from the proof.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> If you have offered some I have not seen it.
> >
> > "Not seen" is not synonymous with "Ignored", Michael.
> >
> Nice dodge: and note your complete lack of support for your claim.
As the complete lack of support for all your unsupported accusations
as of lately, one I noted just two posts ago.
Please go back to your usual dodge of ignoring that post and claim
I've not pointed out it in your response to this one.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your dodging is noted, Sandman. You repeatedly spew accusations you have no
intent on supporting... and as you do so the topic is lost and the focus
becomes you and your lack of ability to support your claims.
You, frankly, are not that interesting to me: you are a silly troll who has
been cowed by the folks you call the "bad people". You are so cowed you
will not even state that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10.
You repeatedly make accusations against Hasta La Vista and Edwin that you
cannot prove (unless you have done so in a post neither you nor I can find).
When you can mature a little and talk about topics other than your
accusations against people in CSMA let me know.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Still no support offered by Michael, as usual.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> Your dodging is noted, Sandman. You repeatedly spew accusations you have no
>> intent on supporting... and as you do so the topic is lost and the focus
>> becomes you and your lack of ability to support your claims.
>>
>> You, frankly, are not that interesting to me: you are a silly troll who has
>> been cowed by the folks you call the "bad people". You are so cowed you
>> will not even state that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10.
>> You repeatedly make accusations against Hasta La Vista and Edwin that you
>> cannot prove (unless you have done so in a post neither you nor I can find).
>>
>> When you can mature a little and talk about topics other than your
>> accusations against people in CSMA let me know.
>
> Still no support offered by Michael, as usual.
The facts are simple here, Sandman:
* You cannot point to any *proof* that Hasta La Vista and Edwin are
the same person
* You are not willing to admit to such basic things as how {0} is not
a subset of integers 1 through 10. You are cowed by the "bad people"
If you think I am wrong it would be *trivial* for you to show it: but you
will not.
At some point, maybe, proof for your accusations against Hasta La Vista and
Edwin might appear... and maybe the "bad people" will even let you admit to
facts about basic set theory. Until that time, though, I admit I shall have
fun pointing out how dishonest you are and how cowed you are by the "bad
people". Call it a weakness if you like but I enjoy watching the folks who
troll me (such as yourself) trip over themselves to run from facts and
logic.
You amuse me. :)
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> When you can mature a little and talk about topics other than your
> >> accusations against people in CSMA let me know.
> >
> > Still no support offered by Michael, as usual.
>
> The facts are simple here, Sandman:
>
> * You cannot point to any *proof* that Hasta La Vista and Edwin are
> the same person
Apart, of course, from the proof that was posted. Ooopps. Just like
the proof that was posted that you posted as sigmond. Ooops.
> * You are not willing to admit to such basic things as how {0} is not
> a subset of integers 1 through 10. You are cowed by the "bad people"
I don't have to "admit" to anything that I haven't claimed isn't true.
admit
confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance
Your claim that I am "cowed by the bad people" is an unsupported
accusation from you.
> If you think I am wrong it would be *trivial* for you to show it: but you
> will not.
Apart, of course, from all the times I've shown it.
> At some point, maybe, proof for your accusations against Hasta La Vista and
> Edwin might appear...
"At some point" it did.
> and maybe the "bad people" will even let you admit to
> facts about basic set theory.
Who are these "bad people" that control what you admit to, Michael?
> Until that time, though, I admit I shall have
> fun pointing out how dishonest you are and how cowed you are by the "bad
> people".
Let me know when you start. Up until now all you're doing is
name-calling and posting unsupported accusations. Wait, that's all you
do, all the time. :)
> Call it a weakness if you like but I enjoy watching the folks who
> troll me (such as yourself) trip over themselves to run from facts and
> logic.
Let me know when you post some. :)
> You amuse me. :)
Too bad you can't return the favor, Mr "most disliked person in csma"
:-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
* You still failed to point to any *proof* that Hasta La Vista and Edwin
are the same person
* You are not willing to admit to such basic things as how {0} is not
a subset of integers 1 through 10. You are cowed by the "bad people"
Contrary to your lie, above, you clearly claimed Wally was right to
make such a claim about subsets:
<mr-6C68B2.20...@News.Individual.NET>
Let's face it, if you *really* disagreed it would be trivial for you to show
I was wrong; 1) point to the proof of alleged sock puppetry and 2) state
that {0} is not a subset of integers 1 through 10.
As I said, Sandman, it is funny watching you spin in circles over this and
go on and on and on showing how right I am about you. Your actions,
Sandman, show I am right about you... no need to run to any idiotic
proof-by-quote-scavenging BS that you so often run to.
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You ignored every part of my post and you tried to summarize the
discussion below, which I will ignore. Go back and respond to the
parts of my post, and I will respond to you. If you ignore my posts I
will ignore yours.
> * You still failed to point to any *proof* that Hasta La Vista and Edwin
> are the same person
>
> * You are not willing to admit to such basic things as how {0} is not
> a subset of integers 1 through 10. You are cowed by the "bad people"
> Contrary to your lie, above, you clearly claimed Wally was right to
> make such a claim about subsets:
> <mr-6C68B2.20...@News.Individual.NET>
>
> Let's face it, if you *really* disagreed it would be trivial for you to show
> I was wrong; 1) point to the proof of alleged sock puppetry and 2) state
> that {0} is not a subset of integers 1 through 10.
>
> As I said, Sandman, it is funny watching you spin in circles over this and
> go on and on and on showing how right I am about you. Your actions,
> Sandman, show I am right about you... no need to run to any idiotic
> proof-by-quote-scavenging BS that you so often run to.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Perhaps you should add a new trolling point to your list of objective
trolling criteria: [x] Repetitious Intentional Hypocrisy.
BTW, I got the Php/Mysql stuff worked out to the point where I have at
least enough of a clue to use routines others have written (which is all
I wanted to do initially). I've purchased BBEdit, too... it's a great
app... better than Taco;)