Timothy Knox wrote:
IIRC setting the environment variable MOZ_NO_REMOTE (catchy!) disables this
behaviour. As violations of the principle of least astonishment go, though,
it's a doozy.
Is that your final answer? ;-) Of course that doesn't work, at least on the
firefox installed on CentOS 5. N
Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:55:30PM +, Steff
Davies wrote:
> Timothy Knox wrote:
>> I spend my days in heavily Linux-y environment. My main machine is a Linux
>> box,
>> my dev box is Linux, my client-test box and my server-test box are all
>> Linux
>> boxes. Woo-ho
Timothy Knox wrote:
I spend my days in heavily Linux-y environment. My main machine is a Linux box,
my dev box is Linux, my client-test box and my server-test box are all Linux
boxes. Woo-hoo! I can run firefox on any of my boxes...or can I?
IIRC setting the environment variable MOZ_NO_REMOTE (
I spend my days in heavily Linux-y environment. My main machine is a Linux box,
my dev box is Linux, my client-test box and my server-test box are all Linux
boxes. Woo-hoo! I can run firefox on any of my boxes...or can I?
Those of you who like to skip ahead to the end know the answer to this: Of
c
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> And if you can't tell whether a bunch of bits is a scanned-in
>> handwritten signature or not, you might as well not include that bunch
>> of bits in the file since it's not adding any semantics.
>
> This is why I have always wondered how faxing a signed document was
>
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Philip Newton wrote:
>
> The problem is that a forged signature does *not* record the assent of
> the purported signer, and that you can't tell them apart if all you
> have is a digital document that was supposedly scanned in from a piece
> of paper.
Right. If you dispute the
> Ah, but how can you tell from a bunch of pixels on the screen/a bunch
> of bits in a PDF file whether they're the result of scanning in a
> handwritten signature that shows from a signer giving his assent, or
> whether they're the result of someone having fun with their graphics
> tablet and Phot
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > It's not like we haven't had have secure, cheap digital signature
> technology
> > for decades now. It's not like everyone with a PC, scanner and printer
> > doesn't have the technology to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It's not like we haven't had have secure, cheap digital signature technology
> for decades now. It's not like everyone with a PC, scanner and printer
> doesn't have the technology to forge a handwritten signature.
Handwritten signatures are a recor
On 20 Feb 2008, at 10:28, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
It's not like we haven't had have secure, cheap digital signature
technology for decades now. It's not like everyone with a PC,
scanner and printer doesn't have the technology to forge a
handwritten signature.
Michael G Schwern wrote:
It's not like we haven't had have secure, cheap digital signature
technology for decades now. It's not like everyone with a PC, scanner
and printer doesn't have the technology to forge a handwritten signature.
Especially a DIGITAL handwritten signature. Scanner + phot
I hate that it's 2008 and we're still signing documents with a pen. Let me
explain.
I'm working out the final details of a contract which involves signing a very
simple NDA. The code is all public so the NDA is a mere formality. They took
a PDF and printed it. Then they signed it. Then th
12 matches
Mail list logo
