Atlantis Word Processor

On 2/11/2014 9:05 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.

What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?

Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.

Somebody created those tables and charts on a word processor? I don't
think so. If they did, creating them from a spreadsheet and importing
them to a word processor would have been far easier. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.
What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?
Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.


The encryption (128), seems to be removable with qpdf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPDF

qpdf --decrypt input.pdf output.pdf

The resulting output.pdf, you can then copy text. Copy
from Acrobat, into a text file.

But the "flattening" claimed by my print driver,
is still happening. As Shadow notes, the printer
is being forced to produce a bitmap image, instead
of vanilla PostScript. (This is even worse than using
a modern PostScript driver, that only makes bitmaps in
prints. :-( )

If I try and print to PostScript, the decrypted output.pdf
(the one I can copy from), it complains that some embedded
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
of completely removing the protection methods. I would have
to crack open the PDF standards book, to find out what
monkey business this is. Because I've never seen my
old fashioned print driver ever mention "flattening" before
while it was printing. Maybe the print driver itself
is getting hijacked, by code in the document.

I guess this is why they pay software people...

Paul

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:17:50 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.
What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?
Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.


The encryption (128), seems to be removable with qpdf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPDF

qpdf --decrypt input.pdf output.pdf

The resulting output.pdf, you can then copy text. Copy
from Acrobat, into a text file.

But the "flattening" claimed by my print driver,
is still happening. As Shadow notes, the printer
is being forced to produce a bitmap image, instead
of vanilla PostScript. (This is even worse than using
a modern PostScript driver, that only makes bitmaps in
prints. :-( )

If I try and print to PostScript, the decrypted output.pdf
(the one I can copy from), it complains that some embedded
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
of completely removing the protection methods. I would have
to crack open the PDF standards book, to find out what
monkey business this is. Because I've never seen my
old fashioned print driver ever mention "flattening" before
while it was printing. Maybe the print driver itself
is getting hijacked, by code in the document.

If I just flip the copy bit in Sumatra, I can copy all the
text with a CTRL-A and paste it into libreoffice with CTRL-V.
Then copy image by image with right-click copy image, and
paste that into the .doc.
There was no encryption involved.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:17:50 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.
What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?
Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf
Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.

The encryption (128), seems to be removable with qpdf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPDF

qpdf --decrypt input.pdf output.pdf

The resulting output.pdf, you can then copy text. Copy
from Acrobat, into a text file.
But the "flattening" claimed by my print driver,
is still happening. As Shadow notes, the printer
is being forced to produce a bitmap image, instead
of vanilla PostScript. (This is even worse than using
a modern PostScript driver, that only makes bitmaps in
prints. :-( )

If I try and print to PostScript, the decrypted output.pdf
(the one I can copy from), it complains that some embedded
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
of completely removing the protection methods. I would have
to crack open the PDF standards book, to find out what
monkey business this is. Because I've never seen my
old fashioned print driver ever mention "flattening" before
while it was printing. Maybe the print driver itself
is getting hijacked, by code in the document.

If I just flip the copy bit in Sumatra, I can copy all the
text with a CTRL-A and paste it into libreoffice with CTRL-V.
Then copy image by image with right-click copy image, and
paste that into the .doc.
There was no encryption involved.
[]'s

I think it's the protection for making modifications
to the document (like an author's password).

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
[]
Illicit stills are known for blowing up.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

---------------------------------------------------------
"Where do you want to crash today?"
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Haynes

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes:
[]
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
[]
Illicit stills are known for blowing up.

My next door neighbor used to have one (still),
and all it did, was make the guy cranky :-)

We didn't know until he died, and they pulled
a copper spiral out of the basement when housecleaning,
what he was doing down there.

At least it wasn't a meth lab :-)

Paul

| Even the Mozilla products and extensions have an annoying
| habit of trying to track installs by sending the browser to
| their homepage on first run after an install or update.
|
| Noscript comes to mind
|
| | Maybe we could start an about:config thread back in
| | alt.comp.freeware. To make Firefox freeware again. IE and Chrome are
| | built as malware, there is nothing that can be done to avoid the
| | spyware.
|

I was reminded of this thread this morning, reading
this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingco...at-the-center/

It seems the Mozilla people are planning to put ads
in new browser windows, as well as customizing what
people see online. ("User personalization".) Worse, the
spokesman pretends these changes are well intentioned,
describing it all as "putting the user front and center".
They're hoping to convert FF to an adware product that
not only shows ads, but even subverts the main program
functionality in the interest of commercialism.

The sheer dishonesty and disrespect of the piece is
chilling.

I think it would be a good start if we could
just stop referring to people as "users" and "consumers".
Those are crass, exploitive, reductive terms. And the
Mozilla snake oil salesmen would have a tough time
explaining a new drive, to edit what you see online,
called "person personalization".

On 12/02/2014 9:24 AM, Mayayana wrote:

I was reminded of this thread this morning, reading
this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingco...at-the-center/

It seems the Mozilla people are planning to put ads
in new browser windows, as well as customizing what
people see online. ("User personalization".) Worse, the
spokesman pretends these changes are well intentioned,
describing it all as "putting the user front and center".
They're hoping to convert FF to an adware product that
not only shows ads, but even subverts the main program
functionality in the interest of commercialism.

The sheer dishonesty and disrespect of the piece is
chilling.

I think it would be a good start if we could
just stop referring to people as "users" and "consumers".
Those are crass, exploitive, reductive terms. And the
Mozilla snake oil salesmen would have a tough time
explaining a new drive, to edit what you see online,
called "person personalization".

Giving away a product for free just doesn't make sense if no features
are reserved for paying customers. What incentive do people have to
donate to Mozilla? None, unless you want that 'free' t-shirt. We're
going to see a lot of products return to the advertising model which
people detested in the early days of the Internet. Removing the ads was
enough of an incentive to pay a minimal fee for a product and frankly
it's only fair for developers to ask for something in return for the
fact that they're providing you with a product.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux ****' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:24:30 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I was reminded of this thread this morning, reading
this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingco...at-the-center/

It seems the Mozilla people are planning to put ads
in new browser windows, as well as customizing what
people see online. ("User personalization".) Worse, the
spokesman pretends these changes are well intentioned,
describing it all as "putting the user front and center".
They're hoping to convert FF to an adware product that
not only shows ads, but even subverts the main program
functionality in the interest of commercialism.

The sheer dishonesty and disrespect of the piece is
chilling.

I think it would be a good start if we could
just stop referring to people as "users" and "consumers".
Those are crass, exploitive, reductive terms. And the
Mozilla snake oil salesmen would have a tough time
explaining a new drive, to edit what you see online,
called "person personalization".

You do realize that a large part of the mozilla code is now
written by Google programmers, right ? That lovely "remotely switch on
your microphone and cam" came direct from Google's bowels.

about:config

Search:
social

Google "firefox social api"
Delve down in the flames of it's functions ... while you are
at it, have a cup of coffee with the Devil. He always serves it nice
and hot.

[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

| Giving away a product for free just doesn't make sense if no features
| are reserved for paying customers. What incentive do people have to
| donate to Mozilla? None, unless you want that 'free' t-shirt. We're
| going to see a lot of products return to the advertising model which
| people detested in the early days of the Internet. Removing the ads was
| enough of an incentive to pay a minimal fee for a product and frankly
| it's only fair for developers to ask for something in return for the
| fact that they're providing you with a product.
| --

Lots of people give away some of their work, including
myself. I don't see it as "only fair" that people have to make
a buck on everything. What made the Internet so inspiring in
the early days was peoples' willingness to chip in -- whether
it was software, a brownie recipe, or directions for car repair.
A lot of people just contributed. Firefox was originally a small
OSS project on a shoestring budget, intended to provide a
credible alternative to IE's 90+% browser share. It became
almost a movement. And the effort succeeded.

Then they got carried away and went downhill. I don't know
the details. I suspect they were bloated with pride about their
noble quest and decided that with more funding they could
do even more good. What I do know is that for several years
now they've been getting more than $100 million/year from
Google, which is most of their income. It's a sham deal. Google
ostensibly pays to have their search bar in the main window,
but in reality they've essentially bought out Mozilla. Now the
Mozilla Foundation has developed a ridiculous 100-million-dollar
-a-year addiction, Firefox has become grossly overproduced,
and Google pretty much owns them. The result can be seen
in the steady move away from providing settings and options,
especially anything that might hamper Google's spying and
advertising. (The setting to block 3rd-part images was removed;
cookie settings were hidden; javascript settings have been
removed....) So the browser that saved us from corporate control
has itself become one of two browsers that now constitute
nearly a monopoly for Google, which is arguably a more generally
malefic force in computing and on the Internet than Microsoft
ever could have been.

I was using K-Meleon for awhile, which seemed to be picking
up where Firefox abandoned. But that project seems to have
dried up.

On 12/02/2014 10:23 PM, Mayayana wrote:

Lots of people give away some of their work, including
myself. I don't see it as "only fair" that people have to make
a buck on everything. What made the Internet so inspiring in
the early days was peoples' willingness to chip in -- whether
it was software, a brownie recipe, or directions for car repair.
A lot of people just contributed. Firefox was originally a small
OSS project on a shoestring budget, intended to provide a
credible alternative to IE's 90+% browser share. It became
almost a movement. And the effort succeeded.

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

Then they got carried away and went downhill. I don't know
the details. I suspect they were bloated with pride about their
noble quest and decided that with more funding they could
do even more good. What I do know is that for several years
now they've been getting more than $100 million/year from
Google, which is most of their income. It's a sham deal. Google
ostensibly pays to have their search bar in the main window,
but in reality they've essentially bought out Mozilla. Now the
Mozilla Foundation has developed a ridiculous 100-million-dollar
-a-year addiction, Firefox has become grossly overproduced,
and Google pretty much owns them. The result can be seen
in the steady move away from providing settings and options,
especially anything that might hamper Google's spying and
advertising. (The setting to block 3rd-part images was removed;
cookie settings were hidden; javascript settings have been
removed....) So the browser that saved us from corporate control
has itself become one of two browsers that now constitute
nearly a monopoly for Google, which is arguably a more generally
malefic force in computing and on the Internet than Microsoft
ever could have been.

I was using K-Meleon for awhile, which seemed to be picking
up where Firefox abandoned. But that project seems to have
dried up.

I can't help but notice that all of Internet Explorer's competitors in
the browser are either directly made by Google or influenced by them.
Firefox is bought-out by Google, as you say whereas Opera uses Google's
browser engine. It seems as though the only way of getting away from
Google is to use IE. Imagine being forced to use a browser developed by
a supposedly evil corporation to get away from an evil corporation.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux ****' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:21:07 -0500, Silver Slimer
wrote:

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

Never underestimate the power of evil.

#telnet 180.546.xxx.xxx

#Login, but DO check out our new rates at 0800-6732-54**
:silverslimer

#password, after you've checked out our new Mint Diet Coke.
You are THIRSTY, right ?
:**********

#Hello Silver Slimer. Have you tried out new Munchit DIET
cheese cookies ? They are the best in the world. Ask at your local SM
store.
You have 125 messages in your inbox.
You must read them all, slowly, before your prompt is ready.
Press [enter] for the first message.
[ENTER}

MSG 1: Hi, your bank password is outdated. Please telnet
iam.awalrus.com enter your present password and account number to
avoid paying a fine for ...
..............................
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

| Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
| the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
| Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
| stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
| superhighway.'
|

I'd be quite happy to get the information
superhighway back.

| I can't help but notice that all of Internet Explorer's competitors in
| the browser are either directly made by Google or influenced by them.
| Firefox is bought-out by Google, as you say whereas Opera uses Google's
| browser engine. It seems as though the only way of getting away from
| Google is to use IE. Imagine being forced to use a browser developed by
| a supposedly evil corporation to get away from an evil corporation.

Actually, Opera is now a webkit browser, which
comes from that other evil corporation: Apple

Google is using Apple's engine. Though I don't see
any particular problem with the different engines.
It's the implementations of the wrappers where the
sleaze comes in.

I suppose it's also helpful to remember the roots.
IE was designed to cater to corporate IT. Thus its
great flexibility, it's unique vulnerabilities, and it's
unusable settings, which were never meant to be
understandable or accessible outside the IT dept of
corporations. Chrome was designed to be a "consumer"
services interface for the "social web" set who are
perfectly happy having their online lives corporate-
mediated. Firefox was designed to be the peoples'
browser but got sold out, which accounts for its still
being flexible for those who care to fiddle with it.
Opera.... that one always seemed like an oddball to
me. I used to try it once in awhile, but it was never
the best option.
And Safari.... I haven't really tried that. I've heard
that it blocks 3rd-party cookies by default. That sounds
about right. Apple is really the AOL of this decade.
Like AOL they do a good job of protecting their non-
techy flock while taking their money.

Silver Slimer has written on 2/13/2014 1:21 PM:

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

Before the web browser, we had email, so spam was possible back then.
Also, "they" would have found a way to attach ads (maybe not the ones
tailored to the user via cookies) that you would have seen using archie,
veronica, lynx, etc.

Stupid? Maybe by making it a requirement that an Internet user needed
some computer skills, they would have kept a lot of people away, but
younger people would have picked up the "new" technology, just as
they've done with the web, mobile devices, etc.

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:26:07 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:

Before the web browser, we had email, so spam was possible back then.

Before the web browser we had Gopher and Veronica. Gopher still
supported through addons in Firefox at least.