From: address@is.invalid   
      
   Herbert,   
      
   > There is a time line, so they have to be displayed in the given   
   > order, but the start of the sequence should be random.   
   ...   
   > But the number of pictures displayed in one session is always much lower   
   > than the total number of pictures.   
      
   In that case that concatenation will certainly work.   
      
      
   So, back to the %random% value.   
      
   Yes, in that case using the second %random% value will give a better   
   "random" (read: non-sequential) starting position than the first %random%   
   value.   
      
   Though as mentioned before, the second on which you switch your machine on   
   will probably be "random" enough to suffice.  Than again, that value is   
   harder to extract (from %time%) than grabbing the second %random% result.   
   :-)   
      
   A remark though:   
   Do remember that those second %random% values are not actually random.   If,   
   for some combination of total available and displayed-in-a-session images an   
   image isn't presented (a session ends before the next starting point) it   
   never will.   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)