Even if Acrobat didn't let you get at the text by cutting-and-pasting, someone familiar with the PDF format could still get to it with some work.
Which is why I stated that the only way to ensure that the text is removed is to actually remove the text. Changing font colors doesn't do it. Changing background colors doesn't do it. Drawing boxes over the text doesn't do it (you only need to open a PDF file in Illustrator to be able to manipulate the layers). However, actually deleting the text or replacing it with XXXXXXXXXXs does do it.
What happens when I actually want to print white text on a black background? Will I have to go through some convoluted process because setting the background as black doesn't actually change the background to black, but rather also eliminates any text contained within it?
Hasn't the government been doing that with information previously released under the FOIA? You simply slap a "Classified" or "Top Secret" or whatever stamp on it.
Why not have a handy context menu option, "Redact selection"
Because management and clueless users will demand that there be an "unredact selection" menu option, also. I'll let you sort out the implications of that. Either that or original copies of documents everywhere will have text permanently blocked out by the above-mentioned clueless users and management types.
...then import each image as a page into their PDF creator...
While not a bad suggestion, there is a major problem with it. Many offices will use Paint for this process, with the final image saved as a bitmap. Ever tried making a PDF file out of 8.5x11 inch bitmap images? The resulting filesize tends to be pretty nasty. Of course, there are ways around this, but the requisite knowledge of graphics is far beyond the knowledge necessary to understand that white text is still text--e.g., if you can properly handle this, you can easily handle properly blanking the document in Word.
You don't even need to go into vector graphics with these people. All you need to do is attempt to convince them that white text is still text, or that black text on a black background is still text. Either way, the text is still there. The only way to ensure that it's gone is to ACTUALLY GET RID OF THE TEXT.
No, a company will most likely not punish themselves for violating their privacy policy. However, my understanding is that they do constitute legally binding agreements with regards to what they do with your information. If the company is found to have violated the agreement that was presented to you, then you do have legal grounds to pursue them for damages. Of course, IANAL, so the preceding may be completely wrong.
You've been modded as a troll, but I completely agree with you. Also, from his "Why This Site Has Almost No Graphics" page:
My original design used a simple colon to separate the levels, but some users thought that the colons indicated alternative choices on the same level (and not a progressively deeper nesting of options, as intended).
It seems that he should have considered that different people might view the separator in ways other than he intended. This is a pretty basic tenet--consider all possible ways that people could misinterpret your intentions and try to eliminate these misinterpretations.
Aside from running a bit cooler, does it actually affect performance in any way? And I'm assuming the power brick still gets nice and toasty, too. I can't check for myself cos of wonderful wonderful Websense.
If only!!! I'd definitely go in for surgery then! Unfortunately, as it currently stands, they're only shooting lasers AT your eyes, not putting them IN them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a queer thing to say...
Okay, it looks like I am certifiably blind. Time to go adjust some font sizes...
I like to rot13 my dingbats.
Even if Acrobat didn't let you get at the text by cutting-and-pasting, someone familiar with the PDF format could still get to it with some work.
Which is why I stated that the only way to ensure that the text is removed is to actually remove the text. Changing font colors doesn't do it. Changing background colors doesn't do it. Drawing boxes over the text doesn't do it (you only need to open a PDF file in Illustrator to be able to manipulate the layers). However, actually deleting the text or replacing it with XXXXXXXXXXs does do it.
What happens when I actually want to print white text on a black background? Will I have to go through some convoluted process because setting the background as black doesn't actually change the background to black, but rather also eliminates any text contained within it?
Hasn't the government been doing that with information previously released under the FOIA? You simply slap a "Classified" or "Top Secret" or whatever stamp on it.
Why not have a handy context menu option, "Redact selection"
Because management and clueless users will demand that there be an "unredact selection" menu option, also. I'll let you sort out the implications of that. Either that or original copies of documents everywhere will have text permanently blocked out by the above-mentioned clueless users and management types.
...then import each image as a page into their PDF creator...
While not a bad suggestion, there is a major problem with it. Many offices will use Paint for this process, with the final image saved as a bitmap. Ever tried making a PDF file out of 8.5x11 inch bitmap images? The resulting filesize tends to be pretty nasty. Of course, there are ways around this, but the requisite knowledge of graphics is far beyond the knowledge necessary to understand that white text is still text--e.g., if you can properly handle this, you can easily handle properly blanking the document in Word.
Yeah, except the page isn't blank. Hmmm, sounds like more of that NSA doublespeak to me...
You don't even need to go into vector graphics with these people. All you need to do is attempt to convince them that white text is still text, or that black text on a black background is still text. Either way, the text is still there. The only way to ensure that it's gone is to ACTUALLY GET RID OF THE TEXT.
perhaps firefox should include its own version of solitaire?
No, but it sounds like a great idea for an extension!
No, a company will most likely not punish themselves for violating their privacy policy. However, my understanding is that they do constitute legally binding agreements with regards to what they do with your information. If the company is found to have violated the agreement that was presented to you, then you do have legal grounds to pursue them for damages. Of course, IANAL, so the preceding may be completely wrong.
I think this really shows McBride's level of understanding of the business he runs.
"It is only a matter of time until such an incident breaks out on a plane"
Hmmm, sounds like a great idea for a movie...
I can't wait till we get hydrogen fuel cells in our laptops!
Please contact your sysadmin if your computer stays up for longer than 48 hours.
Don't let Levanta's nondescript, prescription drug-sounding name fool you
Glad I'm not the only one who immediately thought I'd be getting spams saying: L3van7a at l0w lovv pr1ce5
Well, since the Wii isn't a portable device (yet), it's still safe to say that they're epileptics.
I just opened a browser what do you think my intensions are?
Oh oh oh oh. I know this! To go to msn.com!
Ummm, that we're rational people who learn from our mistakes?
Aside from running a bit cooler, does it actually affect performance in any way? And I'm assuming the power brick still gets nice and toasty, too. I can't check for myself cos of wonderful wonderful Websense.
*Begins humming In The Navy*
That answer your question?
YOU'RE PUTTING FRIKKIN' LASERS IN YOUR EYES
If only!!! I'd definitely go in for surgery then! Unfortunately, as it currently stands, they're only shooting lasers AT your eyes, not putting them IN them.
I don't see why they don't just throw 10 or 15 million bucks at Brian Eno to create some nice sounds for them...