Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #68829 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Madison James <madison@mailisnothere.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-24 00:49 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-01-26 01:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Madison James <madison@mailisnothere.org> - 2015-01-24 00:49 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Dave Doe <hard@work.ok> - 2015-01-24 14:00 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-01-23 20:19 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 02:07 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2015-01-24 13:01 +0100
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) victor davis <vic@this.is.not.real.com> - 2015-01-24 15:41 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:47 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 20:23 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 16:34 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 10:29 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 20:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 15:49 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-24 15:14 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 21:51 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 21:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 17:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) victor davis <vic@this.is.not.real.com> - 2015-01-24 16:22 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Mike Barnes <mikebarnes333@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 16:28 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 11:49 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-24 17:08 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-24 14:34 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-24 16:56 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-24 16:04 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:33 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:47 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2015-01-25 04:44 +0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> - 2015-01-24 17:55 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 18:24 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-25 11:29 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2015-01-25 12:37 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:31 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-24 17:22 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 00:39 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:10 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 11:25 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-25 13:24 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:37 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:30 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:21 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:50 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:16 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 13:40 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 00:59 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 16:13 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 03:13 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:34 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 21:25 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 03:44 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 03:42 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:44 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 22:50 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 23:48 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 23:51 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 03:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-29 02:16 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 03:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:23 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:19 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 16:11 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:59 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 16:14 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:53 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 09:05 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:46 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:55 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-01-27 18:04 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 13:40 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-01-27 21:04 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 18:12 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 13:38 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 16:51 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-01-28 12:21 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 13:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 22:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-28 15:41 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:21 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-29 02:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:01 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-29 18:35 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2015-01-29 10:34 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-30 09:06 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-29 11:26 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:20 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-01-28 16:54 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:13 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-01-28 17:15 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 23:59 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 22:58 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 00:01 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-29 02:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 03:31 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:14 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-28 15:46 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-01-30 12:36 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 17:46 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:14 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:50 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:38 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 11:24 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:31 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 07:47 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:37 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 07:46 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:48 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:54 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-25 18:02 +0100
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:54 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:41 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 22:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:33 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 07:48 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:56 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 15:28 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:23 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-01-27 13:00 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:13 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:52 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 22:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:43 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:40 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:22 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:53 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 03:15 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:48 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 14:10 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 22:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:43 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 09:00 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 21:28 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:34 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:35 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:47 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 08:12 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 10:27 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 10:19 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) ". . .winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 15:16 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 13:38 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 14:49 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 18:13 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 10:28 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 16:25 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-01-28 12:12 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 09:29 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:38 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-01-27 12:54 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 08:57 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 20:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 20:34 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:49 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-25 18:27 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-25 22:52 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-26 07:36 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-26 07:27 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:42 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:49 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 16:11 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:48 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 21:27 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:35 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:38 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2015-01-26 12:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:10 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 00:51 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:51 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 22:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 13:44 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2015-01-24 22:29 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:11 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:29 +0000
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120151602276906%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69122 |
In article <bvhfcatovnhg16afdcggbjplvgjfel0hvo@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > > > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > > > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > > > typewriters to PCs with word processors. > > > > email existed long before pcs became common.\ > > Existed? Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I used the word "prevalent," > not "existed." Few people had an e-mail account before the 1990s, and > it wasn't until the turn of the century before it could be said that > it was common. email was very common well before that. people may not have had a computer *at home* but businesses and universities had them with email certainly internally and sometimes externally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6u1gcadcj5i7abm72jt7c1iaacemcnh5mm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69148 |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:02:27 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bvhfcatovnhg16afdcggbjplvgjfel0hvo@4ax.com>, Ken Blake > <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > > > > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > > > > typewriters to PCs with word processors. > > > > > > email existed long before pcs became common.\ > > > > Existed? Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I used the word "prevalent," > > not "existed." Few people had an e-mail account before the 1990s, and > > it wasn't until the turn of the century before it could be said that > > it was common. > > email was very common well before that. We differ greatly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 18:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120151813047091%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69155 |
In article <6u1gcadcj5i7abm72jt7c1iaacemcnh5mm@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > > > > > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > > > > > typewriters to PCs with word processors. > > > > > > > > email existed long before pcs became common.\ > > > > > > Existed? Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I used the word "prevalent," > > > not "existed." Few people had an e-mail account before the 1990s, and > > > it wasn't until the turn of the century before it could be said that > > > it was common. > > > > email was very common well before that. > > We differ greatly. then you're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cipseuFg93pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69113 |
On 2015-01-27, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> today people email or text, which is why typewriters have long been
>> relegated to antiques on display. nobody actually uses one other than a
>> novelty.
>
>
> Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became
> prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from
> typewriters to PCs with word processors.
>
> Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I
> still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did
> continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was
> hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter,
> and gave it away.
>
> After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before
> I got my first e-mail account.
And yet the stationery supplies store along the street from my office
still stocks typewriters, and when I asked him about them, he said they
sell about 1 a week.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 27th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <p6ifca5d1ltfrrelm9kvurul2h1irofrns@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69119 |
On 27 Jan 2015 16:25:02 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-01-27, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> today people email or text, which is why typewriters have long been > >> relegated to antiques on display. nobody actually uses one other than a > >> novelty. > > > > > > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > > typewriters to PCs with word processors. > > > > Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I > > still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did > > continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was > > hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, > > and gave it away. > > > > After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before > > I got my first e-mail account. > > And yet the stationery supplies store along the street from my office > still stocks typewriters, and when I asked him about them, he said they > sell about 1 a week. And there are undoubtedly some people who can afford one that don't have a computer and an e-mail account. I had a friend who died (in his 90s) a couple of years ago, who owned and used a typewriter, but had no computer. He called himself a Luddite. Note that I said "typewriters *started* disappearing," not that typewriters have disappeared and "*many* people switched from typewriters to PCs with word processors," not everyone switched. But the numbers of those who still use typewriter is decreasing, and if any company is still making them, they will soon stop, as sales decrease to almost nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 16:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c80251$0$42787$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69123 |
In article <p6ifca5d1ltfrrelm9kvurul2h1irofrns@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > I had a friend who died (in his 90s) a couple of years ago, who owned > and used a typewriter, but had no computer. He called himself a > Luddite. John Cleese says of himself that he "was converted from Luddism by watches." -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 12:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.xs6nfqs0a3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #69123 |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:28:10 -0500, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > But the numbers of those who still use typewriter is decreasing, and > if any company is still making them, they will soon stop, as sales > decrease to almost nothing. Tell that to the kgb. They've switched from using email, to using manual (not electric) typewriters, to avoid being snooped on. Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120151602266852%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69119 |
In article <cipseuFg93pU1@mid.individual.net>, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > And yet the stationery supplies store along the street from my office > still stocks typewriters, and when I asked him about them, he said they > sell about 1 a week. compare that to how many computers are sold per *hour*. it doesn't have to be 0 to be considered dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 09:29 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <280120150929418859%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #69113 |
In article <6aafcat3ip8un2l6i2ru283mi8akdidf9g@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > > > today people email or text, which is why typewriters have long been > > relegated to antiques on display. nobody actually uses one other than a > > novelty. > > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > typewriters to PCs with word processors. > > Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I > still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did > continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was > hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, > and gave it away. > > After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before > I got my first e-mail account. Somewhere in between typewriters and PCs there were also real "word processors" - basically electronic typewriters which could store pages of text and use different, if limited, fonts. As you suggested, typewriters have become something of a niche market (a bit like vinyl record players), but they are of course still made, sold, and used, and not just as "a novelty" (just Nospam proving yet again that he knows nothing about anything in the real world). Some authors still insist on using a typewriter to create their written works and there are people who still use them to write letters, print their cheques, etc. because they simply don't want a computer or prefer a typewriter. There is (was?) a Kickstarter campaign for Qwerkywriter - a wireless Bluetooth keyboard for tablets and computers that is made to look like an old-fashioned typewriter. http://www.qwerkywriter.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmcgbtt.1eih.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69113 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> was all, like: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> today people email or text, which is why typewriters have long been >> relegated to antiques on display. nobody actually uses one other than a >> novelty. > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > typewriters to PCs with word processors. You'd be surprised how long that took. In fact, there was a time when the secretaries would have a computer AND a typewriter on their desks. > Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I > still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did > continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was > hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, > and gave it away. But that is not what happened in offices. Up through the late 90s I still saw typewriters at the desks outside the offices. -- http://2blog.kreme.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 12:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma81pe$u6g$2@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx> |
| In reply to | #68968 |
On 2015-01-25, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:35:33 -0500: > >> fonts are *very* complex, and basically works of art. > > I could make do with CourierNew and Helvetica. > You're implying they are works of art. > I disagree. > > They're just stinking basic characters that have been around > for thousands of years. nah, any font containg a glyph for the letter u is less than 1000 years old. -- umop apisdn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 08:57 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <280120150857051498%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #69101 |
In article <ma81pe$u6g$2@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx>, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > On 2015-01-25, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:35:33 -0500: > >> > >> fonts are *very* complex, and basically works of art. > > > > I could make do with CourierNew and Helvetica. > > You're implying they are works of art. > > I disagree. > > > > They're just stinking basic characters that have been around > > for thousands of years. > > nah, any font containg a glyph for the letter u is less than 1000 years > old. Which explains why Americans leave the letter u out of words like "colour" ... they're still 1000 years behind everyone else. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 20:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ciqa4nFilm2U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69134 |
On 2015-01-27, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <ma81pe$u6g$2@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx>, Jasen Betts ><jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >> On 2015-01-25, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: >> > nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:35:33 -0500: >> >> >> >> fonts are *very* complex, and basically works of art. >> > >> > I could make do with CourierNew and Helvetica. >> > You're implying they are works of art. >> > I disagree. >> > >> > They're just stinking basic characters that have been around >> > for thousands of years. >> >> nah, any font containg a glyph for the letter u is less than 1000 years >> old. > > Which explains why Americans leave the letter u out of words like > "colour" ... they're still 1000 years behind everyone else. ;-) No thanks. One less letter to type is an improvement. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54c55359$0$2832$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #68944 |
In alt.os.linux Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > I could live with two (one monospaced and one not mono spaced), both > truetype, and that would cover almost everything I do, which is read The problem is: the "original" set of TrueType Fonts (.ttf) are all copyrighted by MicroSoft for M$-Windows, so a) you cannot use them in Linux b) you cannot create fonts that look "exactly the same" because in both cases MicroSoft will sue you (cq the creator) and they have more money for lawsuits than you (cq that creator) have/has. So you'll loose that just by running out of money for those lawsuits. So Linux had to mske do with the Type1 fonts (first) cq TrueType fonts (later) that were DIFFERENT from the MicroSoft ones. PS: the original X11 fonts were all fixed size ones, so you needed a different set for each font-SIZE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma3veb$gvj$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #68958 |
Eef Hartman wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:34:33 +0000: > So Linux had to mske do with the Type1 fonts (first) cq TrueType fonts > (later) that were DIFFERENT from the MicroSoft ones. I didn't know this, but it still wouldn't matter if the names are the same for the "standard" set of fonts. I do agree that you'd want truetype fonts so that you don't have to have each font size in store.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 18:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87y4oq1j3v.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #68958 |
Eef Hartman writes: > The problem is: the "original" set of TrueType Fonts (.ttf) are all > copyrighted by MicroSoft for M$-Windows, so a) you cannot use them in > Linux b) you cannot create fonts that look "exactly the same" because > in both cases MicroSoft will sue you... Typefaces are not protected by copyright in the USA. Thus you *can*, with impunity, create fonts that look "exactly the same". And people frequently do so. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces> -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120152154437158%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #68969 |
In article <87y4oq1j3v.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > > The problem is: the "original" set of TrueType Fonts (.ttf) are all > > copyrighted by MicroSoft for M$-Windows, so a) you cannot use them in > > Linux b) you cannot create fonts that look "exactly the same" because > > in both cases MicroSoft will sue you... > > Typefaces are not protected by copyright in the USA. Thus you *can*, > with impunity, create fonts that look "exactly the same". And people > frequently do so. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces> read it again. However, the same abstract design is protectable by other means in the United States, such as design patent (indeed, the very first US design patent was for a typeface[1]), and by similar industrial design protections in other countries, including the UK, Germany and France. Further, the form in which that typeface is often reproduced, a computer font file, is registrable for copyright in the United States (since 1992). Other forms of protection are also applicable: the typeface's trade name may be registrable as a Trademark. (And the trademark would apply, simultaneously, to the trade name of the thing that actually changes hands when the typeface is bought, sold, licensed, or in any way redistributed that is, the digital font file within which the measurements of the typeface are recorded as data.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <250120152252416550%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #68969 |
In article <87y4oq1j3v.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > Typefaces are not protected by copyright in the USA. But, according to the article you cited, they can be patented, and their names can be trademarked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qlfccapl2hp559gnl2oh2604u7nilsrck6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #68990 |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:52:41 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >In article <87y4oq1j3v.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler ><jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> Typefaces are not protected by copyright in the USA. > >But, according to the article you cited, they can be patented, and >their names can be trademarked. "However, in 1992, the US Copyright Office revisited its 1988 decision, and determined that the latest digital outline fonts in fact had elements that could be protected as software.[4] Since that time, the Office has accepted registration of copyright for digital vector fonts, such as PostScript Type 1, TrueType, and OpenType format files. This is part of the basis of the unpublished opinion in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., decided in 1998, wherein Judge Whyte found that Adobe Software held a valid copyright for its Utopia font and that it had been infringed by the defendant(s) in that case."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 07:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87ppa11x50.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #69015 |
Stormin' Norman writes: > However, in 1992, the US Copyright Office revisited its 1988 decision, > and determined that the latest digital outline fonts in fact had > elements that could be protected as software.[4] Since that time, the > Office has accepted registration of copyright for digital Not that I carefully wrote "typefaces", not "font files". This ruling means that you can't get away with redistributing somebody else's font files without permission, but you can with impunity copy the actual character outlines. It's the hinting etc that is protected by this ruling, not the typeface itself. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web