If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 23/03/2019 19:25, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:57:33 -0000, Chris wrote: On 20/03/2019 19:00, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:47:53 -0000, Chris wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:36:47 -0000, Chris wrote: Carlos E.R. wrote: On 18/03/2019 13.40, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 03:26:19 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 18/03/2019 00.15, Commander Kinsey wrote: WARNING!Â* Do not click the misspelt link below (between asterisks) unless you know your computer is protected. On Stirling Council's parking page https://my.stirling.gov.uk/media/442...park-guide.pdf There is a link to the thistle centre car park, which they have misspelt as **** http://www.thethsitles.com/ **** instead of http://www.thethistles.com/ Question 1) Is this a virus?Â* It just bleeps very loudly through the speakers and asks me to click to update something. Question 2) Can this be reported to someone?Â* The company they rent the domain name from perhaps? (I've already advised Stirling Council to correct their spelling error) The first page is a PDF, not a web page Technically yes, but the PDF is displayed in my browser and has links to click just like a webpage. Depends on the local configuration - in my machine it doesn't :-) and looking at the properties it was generated on 2014. It is possible that the link is outdated and now points to somewhere else than intended, because of a typing error or no maintenance of the site. It must be a typing error, it would never have been spelt thsitle. Anyway hopefully they will update it now I've warned them.Â* I'm surprised nobody else came across it before, parking in Stirling is so bad you have to research first!Â* Even if you pay, hardly anywhere allows more than a 2 hour stay. Wow. I have never seen something like that here To be fair there's not a lot to do in Stirling so 2 hours is plenty There is the rather magnificent Stirling Castle, nearby, and there's plenty of parking. Some of it free IIRC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Castle I'm doing jury duty (which could be for the whole day), and has no car park.Â* Everything should have a car park and not expect you to find somewhere else! Ah, yeah. That's a pain in the arse. Does the court have any suggestions? I found two nearby streets with all day parking for £4.Â* Maybe the court insisted on it?Â* No other streets allow over 2 hours stay, even if you pay. Good luck with the jury duty. Apart from them paying me **** all to do it, I'm quite looking forward to it - I've always wanted to have a go. The court system has **** all money, plus it's our civic duty, Why on earth should people be required to sort out other people's problems for free? Because paying them can be misconstrued as an inducement and could pervert the course of justice. |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 23/03/2019 22:36, Mayayana wrote:
"Chris" wrote | It makes perfect sense to get rid of these bit of paper and | simply instruct our banks to perform transactions on our behalf. | You're paying them a fee for every transaction, for no reason. You give your cash to the bank, they pay the merchant, and the merchant has to give them a cut. You pay a fee whenever you take cash out of an ATM. Face it, there's always a fee somehwere. Why? Because you're uncomfortable using cash. I wouldn't mind so much but I end up subsidizing fools using debit cards and phones. And you think that makes sense? You're not saving any money by paying with cash, so what's the point? What if the whole system goes down? Once there's no paper it's entirely possible that the entire record of wealth and ownership could simply disappear. People glibly assume there's lots of backup and trust online companies to keep track. But there's no basis for that trust except an unwillingness to even imagine such a catastrophe. Just recently, MySpace lost 12 years worth of data. I know the banking system in the US is a lot less regulated, but in other countries banks have a regulatory duty to manage their data accurately and effectively. There have been some high profile crashes here in the UK. TSB the latest, but also the Royal Bank of Scotland a few years ago. They were severely fined by the regulator for their cock-ups. Also, it's too late to worry about that. The financial systems are already all digital so you'd be screwed when your cash ran out as the ATMs wouldn't be working. Frankly society would fall apart very quickly if the banking system were as vulnerable as you suggest. That's why I have more than one bank account and more than one credit card. Redundancy. | The privacy angle is fair, but long gone as banks already know all our | transactions unless you stuff your mattress full of cash. | You assume people are using bank cards for everything. Considering online sales are far above retail sales. Yes they are, pretty much. You can't use cash online AFAIK. Likewise you have protections using cards vs cash. Everything you buy over £100 on credit has added consumer protections here. With cash sales that go south your only option is to sue. No one has to be a lackey with a tracking collar, afraid to carry cash. You're just giving extra fees to banks for no reason. Unless you never use a bank and never buy stuff from shops you're always paying fees indirectly. And it's not as though I'm making a big effort to live that way. I simply have no need to blow $100+/month on a cellphone and have several reasons not to use one. I spend £5 pm - I'm not even sure it is possible to spend that much on a single contract. I also don't find cash to be especially dangerous or inconvenient. It's a pain on public transport as many services require exact change. Plus at the end of the night when trying to get home you need to make sure you have enough cash for the taxi. Topping up our kids' school lunch money online is so much simpler that having to find £3 daily. The only times I can think of that cash is better: - giving tips in restaurants. Stops the owner skimming them. - giving to the homeless or street performers. - helping [sic] traders avoid sales/income tax |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: snip Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is more difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who always steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would violate the copyright my clients agree to with the project. Capitalist ****. Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to get paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and actors... You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one piece of work. How the hell you you come to that conclusion? Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once.Â* He wants more money, he does more work. Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30 years.Sheer laziness. Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork. Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once.Â* Is it that hard for you to understand? How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a sculpture...? |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote: snip Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork. Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once.Â* Is it that hard for you to understand? How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a sculpture...? That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:27:27 +0000, Chris wrote:
How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a sculpture...? Exibition royaltis -- Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
In article , Paul
wrote: For example, the table inside the document might only have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F", it's not in the table. You may receive an error message from the PDF editor that "the font is not available". although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so. The advantage is saving space in the PDF file. fonts are very small (*much* smaller than the content of the pdf itself), pdfs can be compressed and disk space is cheap anyway. it's not worth the trouble to bother using only a couple of characters in a font. 20MB for a full Chinese font. you said 'abcde' but no 'f'. that's not a chinese font. many fonts he https://www.dafont.com for example: bebas neue is 61 kilobytes for the ttf: https://www.dafont.com/bebas-neue.font bodoni xt is 82 kilobytes for the ttf: https://www.dafont.com/bodoni-xt.font some of the artsy fonts are a little bigger but they're all in the kilobyte range. trying to jump through hoops to save a few kilobytes is a waste of everyone's time. it's simply not worth worrying about. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
In article , Diesel
wrote: But they can add, and do add, additional features that only them support properly (because they don't publish). as can others, however, content creators are not required to use them, and it would be foolish to do so. it's rare that a pdf on a web site is anything fancy. On the contrary. Most government forms and complex forms I have seen use them. I've seen the same. They only need to be using adobe software for the creation, and bingo! It happens even if they don't intend to. false. At which point I disregard what you say :-P When nospam claimed Malwarebytes was an antivirus, I stopped reading their posts. [g] I know what the software is and isn't, I worked for the ****ing company in Malware Research; not sales. *GRIN* semantic bull****. while technically there is a minor difference, it is irrelevant in this context and the terms are used interchangeably by just about everyone anyway. even malwarebytes considers them to be equivalent: https://www.malwarebytes.com/antivirus/ For the most part, ³antivirus² and ³anti-malware² mean the same thing. They both refer to software designed to detect, protect against, and remove malicious software. Contrary to what the name might suggest, antivirus software protects against more than viruses*it just uses a slightly antiquated name to describe what it does. Anti-malware software is designed to*protect against viruses too. Anti-malware just uses a more modern name that encompasses all kinds of malicious software, including viruses. That being said, anti-malware can stop a viral infection form happening and remove infected files. However, anti-malware isn¹t necessarily equipped to restore files that have been changed or replaced by a virus. Both antivirus and anti-malware fall under the broader term ³cybersecurity.² |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
"Chris" wrote
| You're paying them a fee for every transaction, for | no reason. You give your cash to the bank, they pay | the merchant, and the merchant has to give them a cut. | | You pay a fee whenever you take cash out of an ATM. Face it, there's | always a fee somehwere. | ?? I don't pay ATM fees. | Why? Because you're uncomfortable using cash. I | wouldn't mind so much but I end up subsidizing fools | using debit cards and phones. And you think that makes | sense? | | You're not saving any money by paying with cash, so what's the point? | I don't get that logic. You *are* saving money. Not for yourself directly. But you're reducing the merchant costs. With a debit card you're using cash transfer methods that charge unnecessary fees to the merchant, increasing costs. You ask your bank to give $4 to Starbucks. Your bank does it and they charge Starbucks a fee. Starbucks has to make that up somehow. (Or maybe they don't. They're already getting people to pay $4+ for weak, over-roasted "latte" [AKA kiddie coffee]. So I guess they already tacked on 2 bucks for no reason. But your question seems to imply that you actually regard cash as a hassle. So much so that you feel you should get some kind of payment for putting up with it? I don't find it the least bit tedious or tiring to have a pocket full of cash. I can't imagine how it's a hassle for you, unless you're paraplegic or blind. I suspect the real appeal is more of a Jetsons fantasy. In the same way, an e-door lock that you can open with an iPhone is expensive, insecure, and just plain silly. But people ignore that because they love the Jetsons fantasy. There's a deeply felt, entirely false, belief that life can somehow be richer or more fun with futuristic gadgets. It's actually just the opposite. Life is in the living. If you regard all the details as hassles that's not a good sign. The gadgets tend to create a kind of malaise because they abstract your life, reducing the physical aspect and thereby making it less viscerally felt. I remember partaking of that Jetsons fantasy when I was young, imagining that some day I'd be able to press a button on my armchair and a cold drink would float in from the kitchen. Wow! Wouldn't that be great! But, no. That's really a description of a hospital bed. A life of depression where your only activity is to survive and imagine you're fulfilled.... Or at least you *will be* fulfilled... sometime in the future.... once they figure out how to show movies on the side of your cold drink cup.... It never ends. Because the basic strategy of trying to get a bargain on life is faulty. So... why else not to use debit cards, besides the unnecessary cost? Privacy - not to have every action in my life recorded in a database. But if you're a Facebookie or Twitterite or gmailer then you probably won't understand that motive, either. (You seem to be using a Mac and we're in a Win10 group, so privacy may not be relevant to you.) A third aspect is security. I don't want to have a debit card because there's limited security if your money is stolen. If, for instance, a card skimmer empties your bank account, in most cases you're only covered if you act quickly. | What if the whole system goes down? Once there's no | paper it's entirely possible that the entire record of wealth | and ownership could simply disappear. People glibly | assume there's lots of backup and trust online companies | to keep track. But there's no basis for that trust except | an unwillingness to even imagine such a catastrophe. Just | recently, MySpace lost 12 years worth of data. | | I know the banking system in the US is a lot less regulated, but in | other countries banks have a regulatory duty to manage their data | accurately and effectively. When I made that point I was talking about the long view: If we eventually end up with all records electronic then it will only take an electronic calamity to erase history. We can talk all day about backup and regulation, but data loss happens. Often. And it almost always surprises people who didn't think it was possible. | Also, it's too late to worry about that. The financial systems are | already all digital so you'd be screwed when your cash ran out as the | ATMs wouldn't be working. That's a good point, but again I'm talking the long view. I'm questioning the zeal with which people want to go digital and whether that's actually a wise plan. Why not also have paper records? That zeal also tends to result in poor digital backup, because people trust it too much. As it stands now, I do at least have ATM printouts and monthly bank statements. So if a massive solar flare burnt out electronics tomorrow I'd be in the short line to claim my cash. You'd be in the line for people who have no record of existing save for a plastic card, with embedded data that can no longer be read. Though to be realistic, probably we'd both be f**ked. | You assume people are using bank cards for everything. | | Considering online sales are far above retail sales. Yes they are, | pretty much. That's getting into several different points. First, I was questioning debit cards, not credit cards. Credit cards offer better protection and unlike debit cards they actually serve a purpose: They allow you to borrow money at no cost and they provide insurance for the purchase. A debit card is merely a superfluous step inserted into the process of you giving money to a merchant. It's a bank scam masquerading as a Jetsons miracle. Are online sales really "far above" store sales? I didn't know that. People must be buying a stunning amount of unnecessary junk. Most of what I buy -- groceries, gas, etc -- wouldn't be realistic to buy online. I occasionally buy books, but try to give the business to local bookstores when I can. (Yes, it's cheaper on Amazon. But so what? It won't be once they've put bookstores out of business.) I buy clothes locally. I want to try them on. In fact, I don't buy online in general. I research online. Then I call a human and place an order. Or I go to a store. No human, no order. | No one has to be a lackey with a tracking | collar, afraid to carry cash. You're just giving extra fees to | banks for no reason. | | Unless you never use a bank and never buy stuff from shops you're always | paying fees indirectly. | You might want to change banks. Or maybe Britain is different. I pay $1/month for my paper bank statement. And I have to buy paper checks. There are no other fees. I don't know what "fee" I pay buying something in a shop. I go to the supermarket and buy groceries. I give them cash. No one's getting a fee except the store. I think, though, that you're in the majority. I've asked around at 2 supermarkets I frequent, out of curiosity. The percentage of people who pay cash seems to be only 20-30%. I've even had clerks who ring up the last sale, state the total cost, then turn around to get in a few moment of iPhone diddling while they wait for me to pay. I have to wait for them to wake up. In other words, they just assume they can zone out for a bit because I'll be fiddling with the card reader for long enough that they can read a text or two. What I find especially striking are the people in Whole Foods who are proud to proclaim their Amazon Prime membership and scan their phones, so that Jeff Bezos can record their shopping list. They think they're getting a great deal, but they're just getting suckered. The discounts for Prime members are fleeting and specific. They pay something like $125/year so that they can get $8/pound off the price of scallops, which have been marked up $10/pound. Last week I bought them at the same price or cheaper. But they're feeling so clever about their Jetsons trip that they don't notice. | And it's not as though I'm making a big effort to live | that way. I simply have no need to blow $100+/month | on a cellphone and have several reasons not to use one. | | I spend £5 pm - I'm not even sure it is possible to spend that much on a | single contract. | Interesting. The cheapest plan I know of here is $40. But that's not counting taxes, trumped-up fees, potential extra costs for data, etc. And of course it doesn't include the cost of the phone, which can be over $1,000. I actually researched that a few years ago. I went around to the 3-4 major companies here. All said $39.99 was the cheapest plan. None would tell me the *actual* cost that I'd see on my bill. A woman at the desk in the AT&T store was kind enough to let me see her bill, for her $40 account. It was almost exactly twice that -- close to $80. That seems to be typical. I have a Tracphone, which I think of as a portable phone booth. $10 for the phone. $20 every 3 months for minutes. I keep it in my truck and only turn it on if I need to make a call. So it rarely needs charging. As it turns out, I use it so little that I now have something like 2,500 unused minutes. But sometimes I need it, when I'm out in the country or dealing with cellphone addicts who can't relate to people without phones. (I actually sometimes get customers who insist that I call them from a cellphone rather than ring their doorbell!) |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Unless you never use a bank and never buy stuff from shops you're always | paying fees indirectly. | You might want to change banks. Or maybe Britain is different. I pay $1/month for my paper bank statement. And I have to buy paper checks. There are no other fees. I don't know what "fee" I pay buying something in a shop. I go to the supermarket and buy groceries. I give them cash. No one's getting a fee except the store. handling cash incurs fees for the store, including counting it, transporting it to the bank and also dealing with employee theft and potential armed robberies. ever see an armored van parked in the front of a store? they're getting paid to transport the cash. | And it's not as though I'm making a big effort to live | that way. I simply have no need to blow $100+/month | on a cellphone and have several reasons not to use one. | | I spend £5 pm - I'm not even sure it is possible to spend that much on a | single contract. Interesting. The cheapest plan I know of here is $40. But that's not counting taxes, trumped-up fees, potential extra costs for data, etc. And of course it doesn't include the cost of the phone, which can be over $1,000. then you haven't looked very hard. there are plans for $10/mo and new phones, both android and ios, can be had for around 1/10th your $1000 claim. used phones are also an option. I actually researched that a few years ago. I went around to the 3-4 major companies here. All said $39.99 was the cheapest plan. None would tell me the *actual* cost that I'd see on my bill. A woman at the desk in the AT&T store was kind enough to let me see her bill, for her $40 account. It was almost exactly twice that -- close to $80. That seems to be typical. your research was not very thorough. I have a Tracphone, which I think of as a portable phone booth. $10 for the phone. $20 every 3 months for minutes. but you just said the cheapest plan is $40 before taxes. now you claim it's ~$7/mo. I keep it in my truck and only turn it on if I need to make a call. So it rarely needs charging. As it turns out, I use it so little that I now have something like 2,500 unused minutes. But sometimes I need it, when I'm out in the country or dealing with cellphone addicts who can't relate to people without phones. (I actually sometimes get customers who insist that I call them from a cellphone rather than ring their doorbell!) doorbells don't always work and some of them require a local phone number, which many people do not have. |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 24/03/2019 00.07, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: For example, the table inside the document might only have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F", it's not in the table. You may receive an error message from the PDF editor that "the font is not available". although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so. It's got nothing to do with "zero advantage". it does. it's not worth the trouble to choose only the characters used. It is a program doing it automatically. Not us. the entire font is embedded if needed. there's no advantage to choosing individual characters, automatic or not. Size of the file. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 24/03/2019 00.07, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: For example, the table inside the document might only have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F", it's not in the table. You may receive an error message from the PDF editor that "the font is not available". although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so. The advantage is saving space in the PDF file. fonts are very small (*much* smaller than the content of the pdf itself), pdfs can be compressed and disk space is cheap anyway. On the contrary, when the PDF content is about 1 MB, the size of the embedded fonts is important. it's not worth the trouble to bother using only a couple of characters in a font. No trouble at all. That's what computers are good for :-P -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 24/03/2019 14:35, Mayayana wrote:
"Chris" wrote | You're paying them a fee for every transaction, for | no reason. You give your cash to the bank, they pay | the merchant, and the merchant has to give them a cut. | | You pay a fee whenever you take cash out of an ATM. Face it, there's | always a fee somehwere. | ?? I don't pay ATM fees. ATM transactions have a fee associated with them to the originating bank. | Why? Because you're uncomfortable using cash. I | wouldn't mind so much but I end up subsidizing fools | using debit cards and phones. And you think that makes | sense? | | You're not saving any money by paying with cash, so what's the point? | I don't get that logic. You *are* saving money. Not for yourself directly. But you're reducing the merchant costs. My point is that you're subsidising non-cash transactions regardless as the fees are already costed into the price of the product. If cash is genuinely cheaper there'd be a cash price and a non-cash price. Some organisations (mostly the airlines) tried to add fees for credit card transactions, but have been told they can't do that. But your question seems to imply that you actually regard cash as a hassle. So much so that you feel you should get some kind of payment for putting up with it? No my point was about subsidising others. Which you feel hard done by. So... why else not to use debit cards, besides the unnecessary cost? What is the unnecessary cost of using debit cards? A third aspect is security. I don't want to have a debit card because there's limited security if your money is stolen. If, for instance, a card skimmer empties your bank account, in most cases you're only covered if you act quickly. You're always covered in the case of theft, unless the theft was down to your own negligence. | Also, it's too late to worry about that. The financial systems are | already all digital so you'd be screwed when your cash ran out as the | ATMs wouldn't be working. That's a good point, but again I'm talking the long view. I'm questioning the zeal with which people want to go digital and whether that's actually a wise plan. Why not also have paper records? Because they're unnecessary, take up space and can be easily lost. Digital records take up virtually no space, are searchable and can be duplicated for redundancy in case of disaster. That zeal also tends to result in poor digital backup, because people trust it too much. Paper records are generally very poorly managed. As it stands now, I do at least have ATM printouts and monthly bank statements. So if a massive solar flare burnt out electronics tomorrow I'd be in the short line to claim my cash. You'd be in the line for people who have no record of existing save for a plastic card, with embedded data that can no longer be read. I can still prove who I am and know my bank account details - that's all I need. Though to be realistic, probably we'd both be f**ked. Yup | You assume people are using bank cards for everything. | | Considering online sales are far above retail sales. Yes they are, | pretty much. That's getting into several different points. First, I was questioning debit cards, not credit cards. Makes no difference for online sales. Either are usable and debit are sometimes preferable as credit cards can be charged differently. Everyone* has a debit card here. *To first order approximation. From the age of 13/14 you can get a debit card. Credit cards offer better protection and unlike debit cards they actually serve a purpose: They allow you to borrow money at no cost and they provide insurance for the purchase. It's not no cost. For many it's no cost if they pay in full at the end of the month, but overall the CC company makes money on the customers who pay interest fees. A debit card is merely a superfluous step inserted into the process of you giving money to a merchant. It's a bank scam masquerading as a Jetsons miracle. Are online sales really "far above" store sales? I didn't know that. Actually my mistake it's only ~20% online. Could have sworn I heard that somewhere. Sorry. | Unless you never use a bank and never buy stuff from shops you're always | paying fees indirectly. | You might want to change banks. Or maybe Britain is different. I pay $1/month for my paper bank statement. And I have to buy paper checks. There are no other fees. I don't know what "fee" I pay buying something in a shop. I go to the supermarket and buy groceries. I give them cash. No one's getting a fee except the store. Banking in general is not free. You pay fees, but you may not see them. Bank transfer fees, card transaction fees with retailers, mortgage or overdraft repayment interest, etc. This is why banks make *a lot* of money. We all contribute to that whether we like it or not. In the UK banking is free to the customer. Some even pay you interest on your current account. Some banks charge for certain services like paper statements, although you can download the pdf for free. Or you can pay a monthly fee to get certain advantages like cash back on shopping or 'free' insurance or preferential rates on loans. I move banks regularly to take advantages of any deals - like getting £150 just for opening an account |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 24/03/2019 07.42, Paul wrote:
Paul wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: For example, the table inside the document might only have "ABCDE" from Times Roman. If you want to edit the text string in the PDF file, and you need an "F", it's not in the table. You may receive an error message from the PDF editor that "the font is not available". although technically possible, there is zero advantage in doing so. The advantage is saving space in the PDF file. fonts are very small (*much* smaller than the content of the pdf itself), pdfs can be compressed and disk space is cheap anyway. it's not worth the trouble to bother using only a couple of characters in a font. 20MB for a full Chinese font. That won't make a bit of difference to your 500KB PDF. Â*Â* Paul How to check for subset fonts. https://i.postimg.cc/cLLnpsx5/subset-fonts.gif Â*Â* Paul ~ pdffonts entradas.pdf name type encoding emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- --------- CNWQFL+ArialMT CID TrueType Identity-H yes yes yes 7 0 ALMQWK+Arial-BoldMT CID TrueType Identity-H yes yes yes 8 0 MBTHPX+TimesNewRomanPSMT CID TrueType Identity-H yes yes yes 9 0 cer@Telcontar:~ The "sub" column. name the font name, exactly as given in the PDF file (potentially including a subset prefix) type the font type -- see below for details encoding the font encoding emb "yes" if the font is embedded in the PDF file sub "yes" if the font is a subset uni "yes" if there is an explicit "ToUnicode" map in the PDF file (the absence of a ToUnicode map doesn't necessarily mean that the text can't be converted to Unicode) The part before the font name are the subsets. What's the size of the used fonts, I don't know, but noticeable in a 64K file. It was generated by "cairo 1.9.5", probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_(graphics). It is a cinema ticket, shown on the phone screen to the staff. This is a professionally generated PDF. Despite nospam claims, the fact is that software do use the trick of embedding just subsets of the fonts. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Virus on page?
On 24/03/2019 01.02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:44:27 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 23/03/2019 20.21, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:09:12 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 22/03/2019 17.52, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:20:49 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 21/03/2019 21.23, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:17:19 -0000, Chris wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:56:24 -0000, Chris wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:23:13 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 19/03/2019 00.16, Commander Kinsey wrote:. You'd be hard pressed to develop anything worse than Adobe's Acrobat Reader.* Just try printing something from it, you won't get anything remotely like what's on the screen.* I often have to screengrab it and print it from Paintshop Pro. Huh? I never had any such problem printing from adobe reader reliably. I have, I never get the size I expect.* Easier to put it into a photo editor with a screengrab, then you can fit to page etc. Pdfs are vector formats and by definition can be scaled to any size without losing resolution*. A pdf print dialogue box always has a "shrink to fit" and/or "scale to page" option. By taking a screenshot your rasterising the page and losing the benefit of the pdf. * Unless it had been saved as raster format. But that's dumb so not common these days. I think the last thing I tried to print was a calendar - I'd found a website that generates calendars for any month and year in pdf format.* I wanted to print most of the page, cutting off the borders, but acrobat reader was unable to, so I just screengrabbed.* I got the resolution of the monitor, which is fine. Anything should be able to print properly.* PDF doesn't help here. Actually it does. That's the whole point of the format. It is completely device agnostic so it doesn't matter what you're viewing it on or printing it with it should print as the author designed it. You often see forms as word files and they never print or render properly. But what about how I want it? That's not the main use case for pdfs. It's mainly a read-only format - forms excepted. However, you can edit them in libreoffice draw or Adobe Illustrator plus others. Word allegedly reads them, but always makes a pig's ear of them. Why the hell would I want something I can't adjust before printing?* I might want only the top half, enlarged to fit the page, etc. But PDFs are not designed for you to alter at will. They are designed to be printed as is, just expanded or shrinked to page. Why design something you can't use properly?* Not everyone wants things exactly the same. Because that is not "use properly" :-P When I send a PDF it is print as /I/ intend, not as you intend. Because you're more important than me?* You need your head examined.* I want to print it as I want, not as you want. It is my document. I decide. You want to edit my document? Ask for an editable copy. I may pass it on, or I may refuse. And that's how it is, that's the purpose of PDF, no matter how angry you get. People like you don't get my business. Don't worry about that. You don't get mine. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|