Virus on page?

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 21:06:22 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

snip

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.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Ah...*prevents modification* I own my creative work. Apparently you have
either no understand or no appreciation of creative work. Sad for you,
but whatever to each his own.

If you're not making money, why do you wish to prevent others using it?

--
#define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb)) - Shakespeare.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 21:06:22 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

snip

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.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Ah...*prevents modification* I own my creative work. Apparently you have
either no understand or no appreciation of creative work. Sad for you,
but whatever to each his own.

If you're not making money, why do you wish to prevent others using it?


Yep I guess it is both. You have no understand *and* no appreciation of
creative work.

--
Take care,

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

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Chris wrote:
Or by dying

Yeah, dying is a really create career move. Wonder home many others with
different occupations would see the benefit of have payday after their
funeral?


s/home/how/

--
Take care,

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

On 24/03/2019 21.33, 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.

if the pdf is that small, it's unlikely to have any embedded fonts.

Already proven the contrary, with a 64KB commercial PDF sample.

nothing was proven.

do such pdfs exist? sure. are they common? absolutely not.


LOL. Go on, go on...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 24/03/2019 21.37, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 19:33:55 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 24/03/2019 16.54, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:47:11 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 24/03/2019 01.02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:47:58 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 20.29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:17:07 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 22/03/2019 22.51, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:36:55 -0000, Mayayana

wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| Commander Kinsey wrote:
|
| The question should be, why are you deliberately preventing
them
from
| editing it? Why do you care
|
| Copyright protection on original creative work. Allow others to
view
and
| print but not modify.
|

*** That, too. But in this case it's not even that.
It's just common sense and good business. The
same reason we don't write out checks, receipts and
bills in pencil. The recipient has no right to change
them and such a change could be harmful as well
as criminal.

** I can only assume that Cmr. Kinsey has
decided to play devil's advocate. His repeated
questioning makes no sense.

Pssst, I can change your bill by simply screengrabbing it.* Your
feeble
attempts are futile.* Anyone who wants to change something will
do so.

That's why PDFs can be signed. Any modification is verifiable.

After printing?


That's a modification per se. A printed copy is invalid as proof. You
have to pass on the original bill PDF, not the paper. I can refuse to
pay if I get the paper only.

Er, it's you billing me remember?


For that, if I use a signed PDF, the paper is invalid.

Paper is a valid form of bill in law.


Not in this case. The paper you produce from my PDF is not valid under
Law, because it is not the original media. It is a copy.

Bull****.* I've just made it non-electronic.


Bull**** you.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Wolf K wrote:
123456789 wrote:

voting in a large election is a waste of time for ME
because my ONE vote makes absolutely no difference.

Actually, a lot of people did, especially younger voters
(under 40). That's why in many districts (US) or ridings
(Canada) a less than overwhelmingly popular candidate
won.

If a candidate wasn't popular with the VOTERS he wouldn't
win. Unless you mean the recent US presidential election
where the candidate with the least votes won...

It's the "Condorcet paradox of voting". Briefly, although
one vote doesn't count for much from the voter's POV,

It's not just a POV. My one missing vote actually has NO
effect on an election.

from the community POV every vote counts...That's why
every candidate tries to "get out the vote".

Politicians don't try to get out "the vote". They try to get
out the voters that vote their way.

a) Many people believe that some kind of proportional or
ranked voting system would give a more acceptable
result

An election acceptable result, like beauty, is in the eye of
the beholder...

in a two-horse race, a slim margin of victory will annoy
a lot of people,

It only annoys the people who lost.

especially when 30 or more percent of the voters don't
vote "because one vote won't make a difference."

That doesn't change the fact that MY vote really does not
count in the election's outcome.

Next time you bitch about "them %^&* politicians",
remember that enough people voted for them to put them in
office.

Makes sense. Doesn't change the fact that my vote wouldn't
have changed anything though.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 21:53:40 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 24/03/2019 21.37, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 19:33:55 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 24/03/2019 16.54, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:47:11 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 24/03/2019 01.02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:47:58 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 23/03/2019 20.29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:17:07 -0000, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 22/03/2019 22.51, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:36:55 -0000, Mayayana

wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| Commander Kinsey wrote:
|
| The question should be, why are you deliberately preventing
them
from
| editing it? Why do you care
|
| Copyright protection on original creative work. Allow others to
view
and
| print but not modify.
|

That, too. But in this case it's not even that.
It's just common sense and good business. The
same reason we don't write out checks, receipts and
bills in pencil. The recipient has no right to change
them and such a change could be harmful as well
as criminal.

I can only assume that Cmr. Kinsey has
decided to play devil's advocate. His repeated
questioning makes no sense.

Pssst, I can change your bill by simply screengrabbing it. Your
feeble
attempts are futile. Anyone who wants to change something will
do so.

That's why PDFs can be signed. Any modification is verifiable.

After printing?


That's a modification per se. A printed copy is invalid as proof. You
have to pass on the original bill PDF, not the paper. I can refuse to
pay if I get the paper only.

Er, it's you billing me remember?


For that, if I use a signed PDF, the paper is invalid.

Paper is a valid form of bill in law.


Not in this case. The paper you produce from my PDF is not valid under
Law, because it is not the original media. It is a copy.

Bull****. I've just made it non-electronic.

Bull**** you.

Are you 7?

--
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

Wolf K wrote:
123456789 wrote:

voting in a large election is a waste of time for ME
because my ONE vote makes absolutely no difference.

more than half the seats in our parliaments/legislatures
are won with less than 50% of the vote.

Would any of those elections have been changed by MY one vote?

If you would've voted for candidate A, you've given B a
vote by not voting.

Even my non-vote ONE vote for B would not change the outcome.

in a two-horse race, a slim margin of victory will annoy
a lot of people,

It only annoys the people who lost.

It also annoys some of the people who didn't vote at
all.

I try not to be annoyed over something over which I have no
control. And whether I vote my ONE vote or not I still have
no control.

MY vote really does not count

Kindly rethink the Condorcet paradox.

It doesn't apply to me the individual, only the herd.

If I got religion and voted tomorrow, your 30% would still
not vote, and I'd be standing in line for nothing since my
ONE vote still didn't count.

If you had voted for the winner, they would have one more
vote. If you had voted for the loser, your non-vote
reduces their vote by 1, and therefore increases the
winner's margin by 1. So either way, not voting increases
the winner's margin by 1.

Unless the election is decided by a ONE vote margin, my
absent vote will still not affect the outcome.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

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. 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.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work. End of.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

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. 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.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be? Just because you make something doesn't give you the right to stop anyone else making something similar.

End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!

--
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Chris wrote:
Or by dying

Yeah, dying is a really create career move. Wonder home many others with
different occupations would see the benefit of have payday after their
funeral?

It was meant as a dark joke.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon 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:

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. 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. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.


Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

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.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be? Just because you make something doesn't give you the
right to stop anyone else making something similar.

actually, with rare exception, it does.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon 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:

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. 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. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

--
"Consciousness: that annoying time between naps."

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

It's related to the lottery paradox. The odds of any one ticket winning
a lottery is 1/(total number of tickets), a number which could be very
small, so it's pretty certain that any one ticket won't win. But it's
certain that will be a winner. It's the apparent paradox that
uncertainty and certainty can co-exist. In reality, they do: see quantum
theory. But that's also OT. :-)

it's only certain that there will be a winner if *all* combinations are
sold.

since that does not happen, there is often not a winner, which has been
the case for the past three months.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/us/po...umbers/index.h
tml
The Powerball jackpot has continued to climb since it was last won on
December 26, 2018. Saturday night's prize was the fourth largest
Powerball in history and the seventh largest in US lottery history,
according to a news release from the Multi-State Lottery Association.