Multiple monitors

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> 
> Usually printing the PDF to PDF will unlock them enough to print. Some
> will print protect theirs (usually those under NDA), so that doesn't
> work.  The ones where printing them doesn't work, can't be searched or
> copy-n-pasted to, either so they really are pretty useless. I let the
> suppliers know in pretty nasty terms when they lock them down that far
> (watermarks are understandable).  The customer facing people are try
> to get this fixed.  But like corporate Internet systems, functionality
> is way down on the list of priorities.


   Print screen, and save the image is better than nothing.  If you do
it at high magnification you can use a scan to text tool to extract the
text to make it searchable.

-- 
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On 27/08/14 09:36, rickman wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 7:19 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 26/08/14 18:11, rickman wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2014 2:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>>
>>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>>
>>> Every time I have done this I end up with a graphic rather than a text
>>> based document.  Not very desirable.
>>
>> You're doing it wrongly. PDF is very like postscript - there's a direct
>> mapping between most features - and tools like CutePDF convert quite
>> accurately - it uses ghostscript to convert the Postscript output from
>> the Windows Postscript print drivers. It works a treat.
> I seem to recall the last time I tried to download a few PDF tools like
> CutePDF they were infested with Adware.  No?

"A few PDF tools" might be, but not CutePDF. IIRC it offers extra stuff 
for you to optionally install - just say no. You only need ghostscript 
and the CutePDF print driver. It's really a very small piece of shim 
software.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:23:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> 
>> Usually printing the PDF to PDF will unlock them enough to print. Some
>> will print protect theirs (usually those under NDA), so that doesn't
>> work.  The ones where printing them doesn't work, can't be searched or
>> copy-n-pasted to, either so they really are pretty useless. I let the
>> suppliers know in pretty nasty terms when they lock them down that far
>> (watermarks are understandable).  The customer facing people are try
>> to get this fixed.  But like corporate Internet systems, functionality
>> is way down on the list of priorities.
>
>
>   Print screen, and save the image is better than nothing.  If you do
>it at high magnification you can use a scan to text tool to extract the
>text to make it searchable.

That's quite a lot of work on a large (some datasheets are 8K pages
and 1K isn't at all unusual) document. Large documents need to be
searchable far more than those a few pages long.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:40:04 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/26/2014 7:24 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:42:35 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2014 7:02 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I prefer *not* to have it on my primary screen (and that 40 pixels is
>>>> more than 10% of my laptop screen).  It might be something worth
>>>> putting on an "upper".  Though, thinking about it for a minute, it
>>>> might not be possible to put it at the bottom of an "upper".
>>>
>>> What kind of laptop are you using that is only 400 pixels wide?  I've
>>> seen cell phones with more resolution.  BTW, I put the task bar on the
>>> side of my screen.  I find that a more natural fit.
>>
>> Wide?  High (read what *you* wrote).  OK, 40 lines is >5% but the
>> screen is already too small for most web sites.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that your problem is your computer.

No, it's between your ears.

Hi Theo,

On 8/26/2014 5:33 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y<this@is.not.me.com>  wrote:
>> Alternatively, buy a pair of wide 30" monitors -- I suspect that
>> gives me roughly the same "desktop" (?).  And, eliminates some of
>> the "bezel" issues...
>>
>> Anyone been down this road with firsthand comments?  Note I don't
>> use these machines for "entertainment" (I don't watch movies, etc.).
>> And, ideally, I'd like to leverage existing kit instead of making
>> new investments (at a time when I am trying to get *rid* of kit!)
>
> I'm using a 40" 4K (well, UHD 3840x2160) TV for doing CAD.  It's great - I
> can have a CAD app open, plus a datasheet, plus a browser window, plus a
> terminal, all on the same screen.  It's like 2x2 of full-HD monitors without
> the bezels.

But the top of that has got to be ~24 inches off your worksurface?
I'm fidgetty about the ~18" that I'm thinking of adopting... I don't
like looking up.  (My seat is already about as high as my leg length
will tolerate, comfortably)

How far from your nose to the display?  Up/down and left/center/right?

The problem I see with "more dots" is putting them somewhere that you
can (comfortably) *see* them!

> CAD apps are often terrible for not doing zoom properly - they
> do it in chunks, and if you zoom out one chunk the fine grid disappears -
> really awkward when you're trying to align things.  At 40" UHD the pixel
> density is about the same as the 30" 2560x1600 I had previously, just with
> more real estate - which makes seeing the detail so much easier.
>
> UHD TVs are about $500/GBP500 now, so if you do have to spend anything on
> kit I recommend having a look.

I'm not worried about the cost -- I can always find a home for the
current monitors, etc.  I'm just not sure how useful it will be
given my "vision capabilities".

> Downsides are: this particular TV only does HDMI 2.0 so I'm currently
> running it at 30Hz 4:2:2 chroma over a HDMI 1.4 link - that makes the colour
> rendering a bit fuzzy.  I don't care about 30Hz as I don't play games or
> watch videos on it.

I don't use my machines for "entertainment".  Though I do use them for
"print-ready" artwork (I have my monitors/printers/scanners all color
calibrated so I know what to expect from the print bureau).

> I'm hoping better GPUs will turn up later in the year
> to drive it properly.  Some of the other models (eg there's a 39" Seiki for
> $339 on Amazon US) have Displayport which works better with some graphics
> cards.  And don't forgot to budget for a GPU if yours can't cope.

I'll have to think about this.  Maybe I'll drag one of the LCD TV's
into the office and set it in "mock" place just to see what it would
be like...

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:09:04 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>In the past, I've configured each *pair* of workstations
>in my work area to support a pair of 4:3 monitors, side by
>side -- using the A/B switches in the monitors themselves
>to select between which of the workstations' displays is
>presented on that monitor (e.g., Workstation A displays
>1 and 2 on the two monitors; Workstation B displays 1 and 2
>on the two monitors; WS A 1 on monitor 1 with WS B 2 on
>monitor 2; etc.).  This has made it easy for me to consult
>one machine while working on another -- as well as having
>bigger "desktops" on either.
>
>I've been shedding equipment lately and figure I can get
>rid of some of the workstations I've had to hold onto in order
>to support past clients.  Every pair of workstations I can
>discard frees up a pair of monitors!  And, *space* for them!
>
>So, I am looking into adding another pair of monitors to my
>primary pair of workstations (again, using A/B switches to
>decide how the monitors are used, dynamically).
>
>But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it
>seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there".
>(Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be
>constant and relatively short).
>
>If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am
>watching a tennis match!  :-/  And, the "far" monitors start
>to tax my near vision...
>
>I'm thinking that a compromise might be to rotate the displays
>(portrait orientation) and possibly downsize to 21" monitors.
>This puts the top of the visible display area at about the limit
>of a comfortable "look up" and narrows the cumulative display
>(less "tennis court-ish") width.  Say 4800x1600?  But, with lots
>of bezels chopping up the field of view (this isn't as big a
>problem in landscape mode as you have a fair bit of "width" on
>each monitor to work with!)
>
>Alternatively, buy a pair of wide 30" monitors -- I suspect that
>gives me roughly the same "desktop" (?).  And, eliminates some of
>the "bezel" issues...
>
>Anyone been down this road with firsthand comments?  Note I don't
>use these machines for "entertainment" (I don't watch movies, etc.).
>And, ideally, I'd like to leverage existing kit instead of making
>new investments (at a time when I am trying to get *rid* of kit!)
>
>Thx,
>--don

Seriously consider super-resolution monitors e.g. 2560 by 1440 pixels and
higher.  I am experimenting with one and i like it.

?-)
 

On 8/26/2014 8:11 PM, Don Y wrote:
> Hi Spehro,
>
> On 8/26/2014 5:08 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:12:49 -0700, the renowned Don Y
>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>
>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>>>
>>> There are, of course, "other" methods for achieving similar goals!
>>>
>>> (something about "locks" comes to mind... :>  )
>>
>> http://freemypdf.com/
>
> "YOU MAY NOT USE THIS SERVICE FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES"  <grin>
>
> I'm not real keen on letting some third party know which
> "locked documents" I am trying to access...

I don't think there is anything illegal about bypassing the locks on 
copying text to the paste buffer in a PDF.  The web site makes this 
pretty clear.  They won't unlock a password protected document which 
would be illegal in the US under the DCMA I believe.

-- 

Rick

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:19:08 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>The problem I see with "more dots" is putting them somewhere that you
>can (comfortably) *see* them!

You'll be thrilled to know that the industry is (as usual) going in
the wrong direction.  Instead of adding more vertical dots, it's
adding more of them horizontally.  
<http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-29UM65-P-ultrawide-monitor>
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005624>
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
29" diagonal, 2560x1080 dots.  21:9  $380 at Best Buy.
I guess for long and thin schematics, it might make some sense.  If
you have limited desk space, it's not a great idea.  

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Hi Rick,

On 8/26/2014 8:45 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 8:11 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/26/2014 5:08 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:12:49 -0700, the renowned Don Y
>>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>>
>>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>>>>
>>>> There are, of course, "other" methods for achieving similar goals!
>>>>
>>>> (something about "locks" comes to mind... :> )
>>>
>>> http://freemypdf.com/
>>
>> "YOU MAY NOT USE THIS SERVICE FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES" <grin>
>>
>> I'm not real keen on letting some third party know which
>> "locked documents" I am trying to access...
>
> I don't think there is anything illegal about bypassing the locks on
> copying text to the paste buffer in a PDF. The web site makes this
> pretty clear. They won't unlock a password protected document which
> would be illegal in the US under the DCMA I believe.

IANAL.  However, I don't want to give anyone an *opportunity* to
decide that I have "done something I oughtn't".  I suspect a
publisher would be "concerned" if you were wholesale downloading
their "secured" documents and then passing them, visibly, on to
a service that "unsecures" them.

[Note that there can be some value to doing this -- BEFORE the
documents become "uncopyable" in their current form (i.e., if
the text is eventually rendered as an image to further discourage
such "unsecuring services", you would be well served to grab and
convert all documents that you might ever need!)]

Personally, I don't worry about (my) PDF's being copied as it is
their intent to propagate the information within.  What's the point
of communicating information if you don't really want to communicate it?

There are things you can do to make such a document (effectively)
useless -- even "unsecured".  For example, use simple substitution
ciphers vigorously in the text -- mapping (Font1,character0x44) to
the glyph 'A' instead of 'D'.  So, every time the document wants to
portray a grapheme with an 'A' in it, it embeds a 'D' in the text.
Cut and paste gives you a 'D' even though your eyes *perceive* an 'A'.

Add more than one such visibly identical "font" with different
substitutions and copying the "text" becomes more work than it is
worth -- you have to *visually* decode each glyph and map it to the
associated underlying "text" (font,character).  I.e., if you can
OCR the glyph, then why bother looking to see what (font,character)
is is encoded as IN THAT INSTANCE?

You can also interactively synthesize the content that is displayed.
So, the document has to be "executed" to render it in a readable form.

Or, encode the information in a different "channel" (e.g., spoken word).

Etc.

"Locks keep honest people honest"

In comp.arch.embedded Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> You'll be thrilled to know that the industry is (as usual) going in
> the wrong direction.  Instead of adding more vertical dots, it's
> adding more of them horizontally.  
> <http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-29UM65-P-ultrawide-monitor>
> <http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005624>
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
> 29" diagonal, 2560x1080 dots.  21:9  $380 at Best Buy.
> I guess for long and thin schematics, it might make some sense.  If
> you have limited desk space, it's not a great idea.  

One of my colleagues has one of those.  He says it's great for coding - just
has it rotated so it runs vertically.  He has a second 4:3 monitor next door
for email, web browsing, etc.

Theo