How to create a multi-page JPG or PDF

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

|The big gotcha with
| both the NYT web edition and the NYT app is, without a subscription you
| only get access to 10 feature articles per month.
|

I think we talked about this before. I never read
10 NYT articles online per month, but since they
must be counting via cookies, there should be no
limit if you just delete your cookies. Or better still,
set them to always be deleted when your browser
closes, if that's an option.

there are ways around paywalls, but you're basically ripping them off.

do you read a magazine at the store and then go home without buying it?

do you steal your neighbor's newspaper?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| often, an app will have two versions, a free version that's ad
| supported and a paid version (usually a buck or two, which is almost
| free) without ads. many times there is an in-app purchase to remove the
| ads rather than download a separate app.
|

This sounds better all the time. With apps I can
have ads *and* pay money. Well why didn't you
say so? Why have I been living in the past?

that's not what i said.

what i said was free apps are typically ad supported (but not always)
and the ads can be *removed* if you pay a buck or two. you do
understand what removed means, don't you?

with very rare exception, paid apps do not have ads.

i remember an app (don't remember which one now, it's been a few years)
that was a buck or two and *did* have ads and users were *****ed*. the
app developer changed their tune rather quickly.

| what is an 'honest ad'?

If I visit somewhere.com, the people at somewhere.com
have a webpage that I load into my browser. An honest
ad would be an image that's actually on that webpage,
hosted on their domain. A dishonest ad is one that's coming
from someplace like doubleclick.com and typically loaded
into an IFRAME so that Google/Doubleclick can set a first-party
cookie for tracking. I never chose to visit doubleclick.com.
The dishonest ad is trying to trick me into visiting there.

(If you block doubleclick and don't block iframes you'll see
a surprising sight on many webpages. There will be up to
a dozen little browser windows with 404 error pages, in
the main webpage. Doubleclick, and others, are tricking you
into loading a dozen browser windows, where each window
is actually just holding an ad image. Each of those little
browsers can then run script and set cookies -- which is
why cross-site scripting bugs are a common form of malware
attack.)

that doesn't make them dishonest ads but whatever.

People forget that these techniques used to be considered
no better than malicious hacking. Cookies were specifically
designed to respect privacy, with only the originating website
being able to set a cookie. Now we have 3rd-party cookies,
web beacons, scam 1st-party cookies set by using a iframe,
Flash cookies, supercookies....
Those are all sleazy, dishonest tricks to enable spying on
people. But for those of us who like tin foil it backfires
because it's very easy to block dishonest ads by simply
putting sleazy adservers in one's HOSTS file and/or by blocking
3rd-party content.

browsers on mobile still use cookies (most sites won't work without
them) but they can still be blocked and/or deleted at any time.

some mobile browsers have extensive cookie control and some even
include ad blocking.

there is no flash so there are no flash cookies or security exploits
that go along with flash either.

in other words, ads and cookie tracking can be blocked on mobile if the
user wants, contrary to your ignorant beliefs.

| you've obviously never used an app and are unaware of the advantages of
| a dedicated app.
|

For your gerbil, you mean. Yes, I can see how
my spacious 24" screen would make it difficult
for your little Herbie to read an article online
without walking back and forth. A phone or iPad
screen is far better suited to gerbils.

your 24" display is not mobile and it's highly unlikely whatever you're
reading is using every square inch of the display anyway.

although you may be able to see more content at once, those with
smartphones and tablets can read it anywhere, anytime.

| in addition to a better user experience, an app can download new
| content in the background, which means users don't have to wait to
| download it since it's *already* there when they launch the app.

You're so cute. Browsers do that, too. It's called
pre-fetching.

nope. that's something *completely* different.

the background fetching on mobile is done while the device is sleeping
and/or the app is not being used, so when the user launches a given
app, the info they want is already there.

you *can't* do that on a desktop/laptop computer for a number of
reasons.

not only would you have to leave the browser running all the time
because it won't do a whole lot if you quit it, but you'd also have to
leave the computer running 24/7 because once you sleep the computer and
certainly if you shut it off entirely, apps no longer run and the
internet connection is off.

how exactly do you propose that browsers can prefetch when the browser
is not running and the computer itself is sleeping in your bag?

It's been irrelevant ever since high-speed
connections and can hamper privacy/security, which
is why I have it disabled through about:config in
Firefox and Palemoon. It's also a problem on phones
for a different reason, if you have a data cap: You can
end up pre-fetching videos and other files that you'll
never view but which add to your data download.

it's configurable, but more importantly, videos are not prefetched
since it's both a bandwidth issue for the user *and* a battery drain to
be downloading huge amounts of data, and millions of users downloading
videos is a burden for the provider too.

in other words, you have no idea how mobile devices work.

| by the way, iphone apps can't get a device id to track you, nor can an
| app get your name or other identifying information unless you provide
| it, such as for a subscription or logging into a service.

Again, all I can say is you're so cute. To think you
have privacy on an iPhone just leaves me speechless.

i do, and i can prove it. the key here is i know what iphones can and
cannot do. you do not, and you continually demonstrate your ignorance
and closed mindedness about it.

you're just spewing more of your usual tinfoil hat nonsense.

what personal data do you think is being mined? because i guarantee you
are *wrong*.

apps do not have access to any user data unless the user specifically
consents to it.

users are asked the first time the app wants access and they can say no
as easily as they can say yes. that choice can be reversed at any time,
for any reason.

saying no might affect the functionality of the app, but that's a
tradeoff the user makes for themselves.

for instance, if you disable location for a weather app, it's not going
to be able to tell you what the weather is where you are.

as i said (and which you snipped) apps can't use the device id to track
the user and in fact, it's unavailable to apps. the wifi mac address is
randomized in many situations, which means users can't be tracked that
way either (sometimes it needs to be the same, for obvious reasons).

with applepay, apple has no idea what you bought or where you bought it
and the store doesn't get your name or card number.

with ios 8, everything is encrypted and it's almost impossible to get
access to data without the passcode, something which is ****ing off the
fbi and other law enforcement.

and that's just a small part of it.

so i ask again, what personal data is the iphone tracking?
or are you talking out your ass again?

In article , am says...

| often, an app will have two versions, a free version that's ad
| supported and a paid version (usually a buck or two, which is almost
| free) without ads. many times there is an in-app purchase to remove the
| ads rather than download a separate app.
|

This sounds better all the time. With apps I can
have ads *and* pay money. Well why didn't you
say so? Why have I been living in the past?

| what is an 'honest ad'?

If I visit somewhere.com, the people at somewhere.com
have a webpage that I load into my browser. An honest
ad would be an image that's actually on that webpage,
hosted on their domain. A dishonest ad is one that's coming
from someplace like doubleclick.com and typically loaded
into an IFRAME so that Google/Doubleclick can set a first-party
cookie for tracking. I never chose to visit doubleclick.com.
The dishonest ad is trying to trick me into visiting there.

Personally I think we need legislation that holds advertisers strictly
liable for any damages resulting from their advertising, with "damages"
rather broadly defined.

(If you block doubleclick and don't block iframes you'll see
a surprising sight on many webpages. There will be up to
a dozen little browser windows with 404 error pages, in
the main webpage. Doubleclick, and others, are tricking you
into loading a dozen browser windows, where each window
is actually just holding an ad image. Each of those little
browsers can then run script and set cookies -- which is
why cross-site scripting bugs are a common form of malware
attack.)

People forget that these techniques used to be considered
no better than malicious hacking. Cookies were specifically
designed to respect privacy, with only the originating website
being able to set a cookie. Now we have 3rd-party cookies,
web beacons, scam 1st-party cookies set by using a iframe,
Flash cookies, supercookies....
Those are all sleazy, dishonest tricks to enable spying on
people. But for those of us who like tin foil it backfires
because it's very easy to block dishonest ads by simply
putting sleazy adservers in one's HOSTS file and/or by blocking
3rd-party content.

| you've obviously never used an app and are unaware of the advantages of
| a dedicated app.
|

For your gerbil, you mean. Yes, I can see how
my spacious 24" screen would make it difficult
for your little Herbie to read an article online
without walking back and forth. A phone or iPad
screen is far better suited to gerbils.

| in addition to a better user experience, an app can download new
| content in the background, which means users don't have to wait to
| download it since it's *already* there when they launch the app.

You're so cute. Browsers do that, too. It's called
pre-fetching. It's been irrelevant ever since high-speed
connections and can hamper privacy/security, which
is why I have it disabled through about:config in
Firefox and Palemoon. It's also a problem on phones
for a different reason, if you have a data cap: You can
end up pre-fetching videos and other files that you'll
never view but which add to your data download.

| by the way, iphone apps can't get a device id to track you, nor can an
| app get your name or other identifying information unless you provide
| it, such as for a subscription or logging into a service.

Again, all I can say is you're so cute. To think you
have privacy on an iPhone just leaves me speechless.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

Personally I think we need legislation that holds advertisers strictly
liable for any damages resulting from their advertising, with "damages"
rather broadly defined.

what damages might that be?

"J. Clarke" wrote:
I for one rather resent the notion that I have to be exposed to
advertising to know my "real needs and wants".

You seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand me. "nospam" keeps harping on
about "what people want" and I notice, it's exactly what advertising is
trying very hard to sell them and have my doubts about the validity of
their choice. So you and me seem to be in effect in agreement in spite
of your trying to contradict me.

Axel

Mayayana wrote:
I never read
10 NYT articles online per month, but since they
must be counting via cookies, there should be no
limit if you just delete your cookies. Or better still,
set them to always be deleted when your browser
closes, if that's an option.

I don't know about the NYT, but my local paper told me I had reached my
10 articles for the month several months ago and that's how it staid.
Allowing cookies to be permanent did not help. Allowing scripts from
their own domain did not help either. I did not and will not try
allowing all those snoping scripts from other domains, So I won't read
them, fine.

Axel

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 11:43:24 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article , tlvp
wrote:

you have no apps at all?

No apps at all.

... you do *everything* in a browser?

Hardly. I use a browser to see (and interact with) stuff that's on the web.
I use programs for everything else.

so you do have apps, exactly as i thought.

... somehow i
find that *very* hard to believe.

You should. After all, it's not true.

it is true. you even admitted you have apps.

... and even if you have no apps, why
should what you do be what everyone should do?

I don't know. Should it even? Why?

why should what you do dictate what others do?

the fact is that users want native apps and have overwhelmingly
rejected web apps running in a browser. that's reality, no matter how
much you think otherwise.

Do users want native apps? I doubt that I do, any more than I want "web
apps running in a browser."

users have overwhelmingly rejected web apps in favour of native apps.

Do I think otherwise of what you claim is
"reality"? I doubt it -- remember, I too reject web apps, same as I reject
all other apps. But keep building up straw men, if you like :-) .

it's reality, and you don't reject web apps at all since you say you
use a browser for interacting with stuff on the web. you also don't
reject other apps since you say you use them too.

OK, you're calling a browser a web app. And you're calling Word and
Irfanview and FileZilla and other such programs just apps pure and simple.
For all I know, you'll want to call my skillet for scrambling my morning
eggs in an app, too :-) .

For me, apps are the baby program-lets that Android and Apple and Redmond
are distributing in their "app store" sites, and (apart from the Sophos AV
"app" for Android) I have no use for them.

You may enjoy such quibbling-for-the-fun-of-it; I don't find it much fun.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

| there are ways around paywalls, but you're basically ripping them off.
|

Ripping them off? They put the page online and they
allow me to read it. And if the page has any ads that
are actually on the page, I'll allow those through, too.
So I'm ripping them off because I read their pages and
also don't allow permanent cookies? You really will
argue about anything.

They're free to *really* put up a paywall, in which
case I won't be able to see their page without signing
up. But the NYT is specifically avoiding that. They want
people to read their articles in the hopes that people
will eventually sign up and pay. They know perfectly
well that they don't currently have a saleable product in
their subscription service.

Anyone
who knows anything about privacy will set cookies to
be deleted when the browser closes, to avoid cross-
site tracking. Such a person -- allowing cookies but
not allowing them to be permanent -- will find that the
NYT online is an unrestricted website. They're unlikely to
ever even discover that NYT allegedly has a paywall.

Though this doesn't actually apply to me personally.
As I said earlier, I read very few articles at NYT online.
I've never gone over 10 articles per month.

On 2014-11-08, nospam wrote:
In article , Axel Berger
wrote:

do you edit photos in a browser

Of course not.

exactly the point. apps do a better job than a browser for most things.

I read documents distributed all over the world, written
by all kinds of people on all kinds of machines using all kinds of tools
and referred and linked to in all kinds of other documents. That's what
the browser was invented for.

technology moves forward and now there are better and more capable ways
to do that.

why are you stuck in the past?


Now remind me, what was it I wanted to do at the NYT? Edit their
photographs?

entirely missing the point.

so clearly you use an app for mail instead of a browser and it
looks like you don't use a browser for
usenet either, which makes you a hypocrite.

Mail is not browsing, neither is Usenet. But reading newspaper articles
is.

they're not significantly different, other than the content.

the communication protocols are significantly different too.

and email and usenet fits your description above, being documents
distributed all over the world and written by all kinds of people, yet
you say you use dedicated apps for them.

Yeah, but that doesn't make the NYTimes app the best way to read
newspapers, especially if you want to read "El Reg." or "The Guardian",

you're assuming that an app does exactly the same thing a browser does,
except that it's a standalone app. that is completely wrong.

dedicated apps can do *so* much more than a browser ever could and in
far easier and better ways.

Yeah, for example the adobe(?)I ebook app sends your reading hitory
unencrypted across the internet... browsers block external scripts
from accessing hitory.

why are you against progress?

I am against it when it is against me.

--
umop apisdn

On 11/8/2014 2:05 AM, nospam wrote:

snip

you have no idea what other people need or want, nor are you in a
position to tell them what they should do.

What is the factual basis for your statement?


some people don't mind ads since they want to be made aware of products
they otherwise would not have known about, while other people do mind
ads, going so far to block them. most people don't care one way or the
other.


Most people?
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.

people can decide for themselves what works best for them, not you.


Please explain what you meann. Are you saying that J. Clarke cannot
decide for himself? If that is not your meaning Please tell us what you
meant. All he said was that advertising influences percieved need. do
you disagree with tht statement?

It will be ineresting to see if and how you twist.


--
PeterN