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outdated and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.

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

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...?

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

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

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.

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

wrote:
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


Sad thing is the *artist* doesn't receive those, but the *collector*
that does.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"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!)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.