I Hope That Canon Watched Today's Apple Event

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

There is no way that I can invoke a computer function to automatically
unwrap URLs in this newsgroup if I continue to use the newsreader
software that I use.

then the software you're using is ****ty and outdated, just like the
rest of the things you use.

Like Lightroom, CS2015, an iPhone, and an iPad?

there you go, twisting things again.

you mentioned a newsreader. lightroom is not a newsreader.

What you are doing is your usual weaseling around to to cover up
making a misstatement. The proper answer you should have provided is
"a task that computer software can do automatically". You need not
have included "computer" in that sentence at all since it would be
assumed the software runs on a computer.

nonsense.

you're arguing over something completely stupid and irrelevant because
you're bored and have nothing better to do.

every computer has software and when someone says a computer can do
something, they mean the entire package, hardware, software and
firmware (something you neglected to mention).

You're equivocating as usual. Ducking the issue that you misspoke.

nope.

Your excuse for being the #1 poster in frequency of appearance in this
group, and the reason you appear to argue with everyone, is that you
are here to correct statements that are not factual.

you're the one who is arguing and looking like a total moron doing so.

If someone says that Macs are more expensive than Windows units, you
react like you've been tasered and harp on the factual issue that a
similarly equipped Windows unit is similar in price to a Mac. You
know the statement means that buying a Mac means a greater expenditure
of money, and that many users don't need the specs that Macs offer,
but you claim the facts are wrong and person misspoke. In other
words, you ignore what "they mean" and insist on a full disclosure of
all facts.

there is nothing factual about macs costing more than windows
computers. the statement is flat out false.

not only that, but many times, macs are *cheaper* than an equivalent
windows computer, with the best example being the retina imac 5k.

with rare exception, products with higher specs are more expensive than
products with lesser specs, whether it's computers, cameras, tvs or
whatever else.

what you are doing is comparing products with *different* specs and
then blaming the price difference on the manufacturer. that's bull****.

this has been explained to you many times already, yet you stubbornly
refuse to learn.

You've made a statement that is equally unfactual and are claiming
that everyone knows that a computer runs on softwear and that's what
you meant. Well, I'm insisting on a full disclosure of all facts and
say you've made a unfactual statement.

there is nothing unfactual about what i said.

by the way, it's 'software' not 'softwear'.

in your ****ed up world, cameras, cellphones, tvs, microwave ovens and
cars do nothing. it's the software in them that does.

Automatically unwrapping URLs is not a computer function. Fact.

whenever someone says 'fact', it means that the referred statement is
unsupported.

the *fact* is that millions of computers unwrap urls every day. how
that happens internally makes no difference to the end user.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:24:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't decided to (helpfully) unwrap the
URL.

a task that computers can do automatically.

I know, I know ... but the evidence is that most of them don't.

nope. most do.

yours might not thought.

Say what you like but just look at what turns up in this news group.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/09/2015 15:24, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't decided to (helpfully) unwrap the
URL.

a task that computers can do automatically.

I know, I know ... but the evidence is that most of them don't.

nope. most do.

yours might not thought.


Mmmm. Mine doesn't. It sorts out URLs I post, but often not on others'
posts.

Do you know how to unwrap URLs in Thunderbird's newreader?

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

There is no way that I can invoke a computer function to automatically
unwrap URLs in this newsgroup if I continue to use the newsreader
software that I use.

then the software you're using is ****ty and outdated, just like the
rest of the things you use.

Like Lightroom, CS2015, an iPhone, and an iPad?

there you go, twisting things again.

you mentioned a newsreader. lightroom is not a newsreader.

Are Lightroom and CS2015 not software? Are an iPhone and an iPad not
things?

seriously?? are you that stupid?

you specifically said 'the newsreader software that i use' (still
quoted above) in a discussion about unrwapping urls.

this is not about graphics software or spreadsheets or whatever else
you come up with in an attempt to twist things.

It is not twisting to reply with specific answer to a specific
statement.

it is when you reply to a statement not made.

nobody is discussing lightroom.


Most of those devices require software to do anything. Without the
software, they are paperweights. Exceptions, of course. Some
cameras do not use software, for example.

all digital cameras and most film cameras are software controlled, as
are most electronic devices these days.

Automatically unwrapping URLs is not a computer function. Fact.

whenever someone says 'fact', it means that the referred statement is
unsupported.

the *fact* is that millions of computers unwrap urls every day. how
that happens internally makes no difference to the end user.

No, it doesn't matter to the user. However, if it's done, the
software did it, not the computer.

the computer did it, via software.

you are making an argument out of nothing.

Forte Agent is installed on my computer. On my other screen I have a
post up with a wrapped URL. What button do I push on my computer,
without using the Agent software, to automatically unwrap it?

there's no need to push anything, other than the mouse button if you
want to visit the link.

urls can automatically be detected and be made clickable even if they
span multiple lines without *any* effort by the user. any software that
does not do that is buggy and non-compliant with the rfcs.

In article , RJH wrote:


Mmmm. Mine doesn't. It sorts out URLs I post, but often not on others'
posts.

Do you know how to unwrap URLs in Thunderbird's newreader?

as i said before, it's not something you need to do manually.

detecting urls is trivial. all that needs to happen is be compliant
with the relevant rfcs.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

as i said before, it's not something you need to do manually.

detecting urls is trivial.

How are they detected ?

parsing for http{s} in the text stream.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 03:44:40 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 10 September 2015 16:47:40 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:



Nope. It's a software function. My newsreader, Forte Agent, does not
automatically unwrap. On the same computer, but using a different
newsreader's software, URLs would be unwrapped.

you truly are an idiot. software requires hardware. software does not
run in a vacuum.

Yes it does,m it sdoesn;t need air or oxygen it can run in space.

It needs electrons. Or maybe it needs where electrons aren't.

when someone says computer, they do not mean a
computer void of all software. *every* computer has software on it.
every single one.

What do you mean by on it, do you mean like an overcoat ?



you are once again, arguing to argue and showing just how dumb you
really are.

A computer is still a computer even when it's turned off.

if the computer isn't on the software can't do anyhting without teh hardware in place.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:15:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

as i said before, it's not something you need to do manually.

detecting urls is trivial.

How are they detected ?

parsing for http{s} in the text stream.

Umm ... you really need to parse for 'http{s} ... ' in the text
stream.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

as i said before, it's not something you need to do manually.

detecting urls is trivial.

How are they detected ?

parsing for http{s} in the text stream.

Umm ... you really need to parse for 'http{s} ... ' in the text
stream.

both are needed.

delimiters are the standard and obviously should be handled, but
properly written code should also handle the case where non-compliant
software generated the stream.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:26:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

as i said before, it's not something you need to do manually.

detecting urls is trivial.

How are they detected ?

parsing for http{s} in the text stream.

Umm ... you really need to parse for 'http{s} ... ' in the text
stream.

both are needed.

delimiters are the standard and obviously should be handled, but
properly written code should also handle the case where non-compliant
software generated the stream.

The problem, then, is deciding where is the end of the URL string.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens