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 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120151335330185%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #68944 |
In article <ma36op$nt8$4@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > because linux users won't pay for the original fonts so they end up > > with knockoffs that are never exactly correct or as good. > > What does that mean? it means that font designers create fonts to be sold (no surprise there, as it's a lot of work to create) and linux users won't pay for much of anything, so linux users end up with knockoff fonts that may not have the same metrics and might not look correct when substituted for the real thing. > I'm not sure what an "original" font is, but, to me, a font is pretty > darn simple. fonts are *very* complex, and basically works of art. the museum of modern art in new york even has a collection: <http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2011/01/24/digital-fonts-23-new- faces-in-moma-s-collection> > I could live with two (one monospaced and one not mono spaced), both > truetype, and that would cover almost everything I do, which is read > the web and type email and Usenet posts. as i said, that might work for you but it sure won't work for others. adobe's font folio includes more than 2400 fonts, and that's just *one* collection from one company: <http://www.adobe.com/products/fontfolio.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma3vmv$gvj$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #68952 |
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. Who cares if they have a fancy serif, or a hooked ascender or a short bracket or a long spine or a curved beak or a straight shoulder or a round counter or a long tail or an offset axis? It's just a freakin' character. Do you buy your text books based on the font? Do you choose your newspaper based on the font? Do you choose your web site based on the font? No. The "artistry" of a font is an absolutely meaningless thing. It's for someone who cares more about pretty than functional. Most of us are functional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmcb6r9.2fdl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #68968 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sage <sage@mail.invalid> was all, like: > 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. Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. > They're just stinking basic characters that have been around > for thousands of years. No. Helvetica is quite new, in terms of thousands of years. It was designed in the 1950s. > Who cares if they have a fancy serif, or a hooked ascender or a short > bracket or a long spine or a curved beak or a straight shoulder or a > round counter or a long tail or an offset axis? Anyone with the slightest sense of taste? Anyone who cares what they are looking at? > It's just a freakin' character. That's a silly statement, and worthless. > Do you choose your web site based on the font? Absolutely. And I routinely blacklist websites that display text as grey on white. > No. The "artistry" of a font is an absolutely meaningless thing. That's absurd. And wrong. > It's for someone who cares more about pretty than functional. A well-designed font is the very heart of functionality. -- DODGEBALL STOPS AT THE GYM DOOR Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF12
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 22:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c5b350$0$31378$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68976 |
In article <slrnmcb6r9.2fdl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > Absolutely. And I routinely blacklist websites that display text as grey on > white. Comic Sans walks into a bar, and the barman says "Sorry, we don't serve your type here." -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma58m7$qh8$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #68976 |
Lewis wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:41:29 +0000: > Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced font at times. Remember the olden days of the typewriter? We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 07:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ma5d1i$bhp$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69006 |
Sage wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Lewis wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:41:29 +0000: > >> Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. > > The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced > font at times. > > Remember the olden days of the typewriter? > > We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine. Monospaced fonts are important when writing code. -- And... What in the world ever became of Sweet Jane? She's lost her sparkle, you see she isn't the same. Livin' on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine All a friend can say is "Ain't it a shame?" -- The Grateful Dead
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11i7c730xpg9n$.dlg@stumbler1907.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69014 |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:48:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Sage wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Lewis wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:41:29 +0000: >> >>> Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. >> >> The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced >> font at times. >> >> Remember the olden days of the typewriter? >> >> We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine. > > Monospaced fonts are important when writing code. True. I've had bugs caused by using proportional fonts, and Man! were they hard to track down. Actually, my first real programming fonts were collections of holes in 80 monospaced columns. They worked. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 15:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ma6814$3vt$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69033 |
Gene E. Bloch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:48:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Sage wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> Lewis wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:41:29 +0000: >>> >>>> Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. >>> >>> The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced >>> font at times. >>> >>> Remember the olden days of the typewriter? >>> >>> We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine. >> >> Monospaced fonts are important when writing code. > > True. I've had bugs caused by using proportional fonts, and Man! were > they hard to track down. > > Actually, my first real programming fonts were collections of holes in > 80 monospaced columns. They worked. Yeah, I remember those days. Before that, in high school, we used #2 pencil marks on "hollerith" cards. Sometimes we'd get time on the teletype and could read/write code using paper tape. -- HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 1 proof by example: The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that it contains most of the ideas of the general proof. proof by intimidation: 'Trivial'. proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 00:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma6lp5$l9f$6@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #69014 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:48:17 -0500: > Monospaced fonts are important when writing code. I agree that monospaced fonts are useful. So, the only question of import is whether or not a monospaced font comes, by default, with the operating system. Does it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma825d$u6g$3@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx> |
| In reply to | #69054 |
On 2015-01-27, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:48:17 -0500: > >> Monospaced fonts are important when writing code. > > I agree that monospaced fonts are useful. > > So, the only question of import is whether or not a monospaced > font comes, by default, with the operating system. > > Does it? Often there's one in the BIOS, unless ypu've only got MDA -- umop apisdn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120151523433529%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69006 |
In article <ma58m7$qh8$3@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > > Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. > > The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced > font at times. > > Remember the olden days of the typewriter? > > We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine. people definitely worried about fonts then and some typewriters could change out the print head fairly easily to change. more importantly, who the hell wants to go back to the days of typewriters, where one change could mean retyping an entire document? that's not communicating 'just fine'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 13:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4gc5ewgbofo7.dlg@stumbler1907.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69036 |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:23:43 -0500, nospam wrote: > In article <ma58m7$qh8$3@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > >> >>> Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. >> >> The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced >> font at times. >> >> Remember the olden days of the typewriter? >> >> We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine. > > people definitely worried about fonts then and some typewriters could > change out the print head fairly easily to change. > > more importantly, who the hell wants to go back to the days of > typewriters, where one change could mean retyping an entire document? > that's not communicating 'just fine'. Picky, picky, picky. Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, since I hadn't thought of it on my own. But I *had* remembered how nice typewritten pages looked...Ugh. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma6lig$l9f$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #69036 |
nospam wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:23:43 -0500: > more importantly, who the hell wants to go back to the days of > typewriters, where one change could mean retyping an entire document? > that's not communicating 'just fine'. I think you missed the point. The point is that most of us can do just fine with the default fonts, and, some of us, (me included) hadn't realized that /adding/ fonts, makes us more easily fingerprinted. Once fingerprinted, we look the same whether we move our laptop to Bangladesh or if we are using it in our own home. That's bad (from a privacy standpoint). All I want to do is figure out how to restore the laptop to the default fonts, which are just fine, for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120152041086204%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69052 |
In article <ma6lig$l9f$4@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > The point is that most of us can do just fine with the default fonts, > and, some of us, (me included) hadn't realized that /adding/ fonts, > makes us more easily fingerprinted. it does't do any such thing. adding fonts only means you have more fonts installed. the only way to fingerprint you is if you have a *unique* set of fonts which nobody else has, something which is highly unlikely given your ignorance of typography and design.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma6r17$irm$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #69065 |
nospam wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:08 -0500: > the only way to fingerprint you is if you have a *unique* set of fonts > which nobody else has, something which is highly unlikely given your > ignorance of typography and design. My panopticlick result is unique. The combination of factors makes it so. Part of that, is the screen size (as the color depth is 24, like most others). Another part are the fonts installed. The only goal is to look like everyone else. That takes a better undertanding of how to modify the reported screen size than I have, and it takes a better understanding of how to look like I only have the default fonts. I'm sure I'm not the only one who needs this help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120152217443961%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69070 |
In article <ma6r17$irm$2@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > the only way to fingerprint you is if you have a *unique* set of fonts > > which nobody else has, something which is highly unlikely given your > > ignorance of typography and design. > > My panopticlick result is unique. no doubt it is unique, but who cares. just what do you think someone is going to do knowing that? > The combination of factors makes it so. > Part of that, is the screen size (as the color depth is 24, like most others). > Another part are the fonts installed. there are a lot of things someone can look at. fonts are but one. > The only goal is to look like everyone else. not possible. > That takes a better undertanding of how to modify the reported screen size > than I have, and it takes a better understanding of how to look like I only > have the default fonts. it doesn't matter if you do or don't. nobody is going to hunt you down. > I'm sure I'm not the only one who needs this help. i don't know about the only one, but you sure do need help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 00:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmcgc72.1eih.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69070 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sage <sage@mail.invalid> was all, like: > nospam wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:08 -0500: >> the only way to fingerprint you is if you have a *unique* set of fonts >> which nobody else has, something which is highly unlikely given your >> ignorance of typography and design. > My panopticlick result is unique. Almost certainly not. > The combination of factors makes it so. I doubt it. For example, it claimed that a 10.10.0 machine with a brand new user account using the Safari version included in 10.10 was unique. > I'm sure I'm not the only one who needs this help. It's good you admit to needing help. Now, if you can just find a support group. -- http://2blog.kreme.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmcdgka.182m.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69006 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sage <sage@mail.invalid> was all, like: > Lewis wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 01:41:29 +0000: >> Helvetica is. Courier is horrible, but it might be art. > The only reason I pick CourierNew (TT) is that we need a monospaced > font at times. CourierNew is better than Courier, but it's still not good. > Remember the olden days of the typewriter? What do you mean, "olden days"? > We didn't worry so much about fonts then, and we communicated just fine. One of the key features of the IBM Selectric was the ability to chose different fonts. -- http://2blog.kreme.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 00:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma6ln8$l9f$5@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #69047 |
Lewis wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:40:42 +0000: > CourierNew is better than Courier, but it's still not good. I was under the impression that CourierNew was TrueType, while Courier was not. That's the only reason for specifying it. But people are diving into the wrong shell hole. My only point was that the default fonts, which come with the operating system, are just fine for most of us. Since most Windows and Mac users add MS Office, and since many Linux users add whatever the most common Office-Equivalent is, all I'm trying to do, now, is figure out how to set up the machine to just have the most common typical fonts. How do we do that? What ARE the most common typical fonts on Windows, Mac, and Linux? How do we figure that set out?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120152041056014%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69053 |
In article <ma6ln8$l9f$5@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > My only point was that the default fonts, which come with the > operating system, are just fine for most of us. nobody said otherwise. you are saying you want to reduce that to two fonts which is stupid. > Since most Windows and Mac users add MS Office, and since many > Linux users add whatever the most common Office-Equivalent is, > all I'm trying to do, now, is figure out how to set up the > machine to just have the most common typical fonts. it already does. > How do we do that? > What ARE the most common typical fonts on Windows, Mac, and Linux? > How do we figure that set out? whatever comes with a stock install is that set.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web