How to create a multi-page JPG or PDF

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Just for hohos, I went to the NYT site using Firefox and loaded articles
| until it told me my ten count had been exceeded. So then I went there
| from Chrome and was able to see another 10. I didn't try doing it from
| Opera and Safari and the several other browsers I have installed.

If you just go into the Firefox privacy tab and
select custom settings from the dropdown you'll
see cookie options. If you then select to accept
first party cookies, block 3rd-party cookies and
delete all cookies when the browser closes, you'll
have full cookie functionality while blocking a
great deal of spying between websites. The only
thing you might lose would be useful functionality
of permanent cookies: The ability for websites to
recognize you on return. You should then be able
to also read the NYT to your heart's content.

there are ways around it for those who want to read content that
they're not paying for. even the ny times admits that.

it's clear you're one of those people, since you know so much about
getting around paywalls.

To put it another way, the NYT does not actually
have a paywall. If they did you'd have to log in to
read articles. If you ever find that you can't read
articles at NYT you probably have sub-optimal cookie
settings that are allowing you to be spied on by ad
companies as you travel online.

they do have a paywall and it's working out rather well for them.

http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/20...times-paywall-
is-working-better-than-anyone-had-guessed/
More than a year and a half later, it¹s clear the New York Times¹
paywall is not only valuable, it¹s helped turn the paper¹s
subscription dollars, which once might have been considered the
equivalent of a generous tithing, into a significant
revenue-generating business. As of this year, the company is expected
to make more money from subscriptions than from advertising ‹ the
first time that¹s happened.

In article , Axel Berger
wrote:

The ability for websites to recognize you on return.

That and more. Some shops store your cart in a cookie. so if you decide
not to buy yet and return a few days later, all the stuff you selected
already is still there. I hate it when stores don't offer that.

note that some carts will expire the contents if you don't return to
the store in a certain period of time, which varies per store.

But the main thing is, it's up to me to decide whether something is
valuable to me or not and to allow permanent cookies accordingly. It is
not up to them to mess around on my machine regardless.

you give them permission to store cookies when you visit their site.

if you don't want them 'messing around on your machine' (which isn't
what they're doing), then don't visit their site or disable cookies.

nospam wrote:
you give them permission to store cookies when you visit their site.
... or disable cookies.

So we are in agreement and you quite suddenly begin to accept, that
disabling cookies is the normal and standard, or at the very least a
quite common and legal thing to do.

if you don't want them 'messing around on your machine' (which isn't
what they're doing), then don't visit their site

It is, when they not only run their own scripts on my machine but invite
all and sundry, half a dozen or more sites I never heard about and
haven't got the slightest reason to trust, to do the same and save their
cookies too while they're at it.

Axel

nospam wrote:
there are ways around it for those who want to read content that
they're not paying for.

It is not "a way around" if it's nothing more than the normal and
standard browser setting. How can I be accused of threading a "way
around" something I never even become aware exists?

Axel

| By the way, I just wanted to mention that anyone who
| visits my website is supposed to send me $5. You can, of
| course, get away with visiting and not sending me the
| money. I put the pages online, available to anyone to see.
| But I'd like to think you're an honest person who won't try
| to cheat me by pretending that you didn't notice my 87 page
| Terms of Service unilateral contract when you arrived.
|
| asking for a donation is not the same as setting up a paywall and you
| know it.

Beg your pardon? My fee *is* a paywall, just as much as
the NYT is: You can access my pages but you owe me money
for it. To paraphrase our legal system: ignorance of the fee
is no excuse; just as is the case with NYT.com.

The beauty of unilateral corporate Terms of Service is that
you don't have to know or agree specifically. It's unilateral
and I agree. That's all that matters. You auto-agree to it even
if you don't know about it. And I reserve the right to change
it at any time. And you auto-agree to the changes! It's the
magic of our plutocratic corporatocracy.

My current TOS says you owe me 5 bucks, whether you've
visited my site or not. I haven't actually posted that TOS yet.
I just thought of it. But it's in effect, and since you auto-pre
-agree to it anyway, there's really not much reason to post it.
And anyway, no one would read 87 pages of legalese, so it's
only common sense to assume that by visiting my site you've
performed the equivalent of reading the TOS and providing
you signature. And if that's true then it's only sensible to
assume that you also agree to the TOS when you don't visit
my site.

(And I have legal precedent to back me up. See
Daffy Duck vs Elmer Fudd in the case of the property insurance
disagreement. Elmer Fudd gave up his right to insurance coverage,
even though he was not informed of the terms, because his
house did not burn down between 4:05 and 4:09 PM, on
July 4th, during an elephant stampede and in the midst of a
hailstorm. Since the last requirement [hailstorm] was not met,
Mr. Fudd forfeited his rights to compensation.)

So please be a decent person and send me money. Don't be
a jerk or some kind of pro-democracy/anti-business nut who
just takes from others without paying.

On 2014-11-10, nospam wrote:
In article , Jasen Betts
wrote:

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

there are other ebook apps and adobe addressed the issue anyway.

Indeed they have addressed it. they said in effect "we want that
information and we don't care who else gets it".

that's not what they said.

No, those are my words, but they're congruent with adobe's
statement in early october. (I posted a link but it got deleted)

this is what they said:
http://www.cso.com.au/article/558711...are-collects-l
ess-data-now-eff-says/

Adobe said on Oct. 23 it fixed the issues in 4.0.1,

ah, I didn't see that announcement earlier.


--
umop apisdn

XKCD on dedicated applications for accessing online content:

http://xkcd.com/1174/


--
umop apisdn

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:53:25 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

XKCD on dedicated applications for accessing online content:

http://xkcd.com/1174/

+10 on that one.