Deactivate browser's print function

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:19:28 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:

Use another browser or type view:http://url into
your address bar.

Huh? What's that supposed to do?

In Mozilla, I get "view is not a registered protocol".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Jul 28 '07 #11

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:45:36 -0500 from Ben C <sp******@spam.eggs>:

When I saw aw-soft I thought is this Albert Wiersch again

"'Name him not!' said Gandalf, and for a moment it seemed that a
cloud of pain passed over his face, and he sat silent, looking old as
death."

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Jul 28 '07 #12

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:19:28 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:

>Use another browser or type view:http://url into
your address bar.

Huh? What's that supposed to do?

In Mozilla, I get "view is not a registered protocol".

view-source:

--
Richard.

Jul 29 '07 #13

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

rf wrote:

"Stan Brown" wrote:
>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:19:28 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:
>>Use another browser or type view:http://url into your address bar.

Huh? What's that supposed to do?

In Mozilla, I get "view is not a registered protocol".

view-source:

...and that just displays the encrypted source (in Firefox and
SeaMonkey). <g>

view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Jul 29 '07 #14

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:CK*****************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

rf wrote:

>"Stan Brown" wrote:
>>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:19:28 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:
Use another browser or type view:http://url into your address bar.

Huh? What's that supposed to do?

In Mozilla, I get "view is not a registered protocol".

view-source:

..and that just displays the encrypted source (in Firefox and
SeaMonkey). <g>

view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

The view-source comment was directed at snake oil point 5, the "block text
selection" option, to point out how silly it is to disable only one of the
many ways to achieve copy/paste. Like locking the door on your convertible
but leaving the top down.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Jul 29 '07 #15

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Neredbojias wrote:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:06:42
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

I just got a blank screen with the above (-yes, in Moz/ff.)

You have to scroll down. There are many linefeeds preceding the source,
another amateur way to "conceal source".

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Jul 29 '07 #16

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:CK*****************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

rf wrote:

>"Stan Brown" wrote:
>>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:19:28 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:
Use another browser or type view:http://url into your address bar.

Huh? What's that supposed to do?

In Mozilla, I get "view is not a registered protocol".

view-source:

..and that just displays the encrypted source (in Firefox and
SeaMonkey). <g>

view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

<looks at sampleInteresting.

You are correct. view-source is not the right tool here. <tinkers>

Click the little firebug tick, click html, click edit, copy/past HTML to my
editor. Tidy up with tidy. Save. Elapsed time fourteen seconds.

That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine invisible. A
laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that* rubbish?
:-)

--
Richard.

Jul 29 '07 #17

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 04:44:10 GMT
Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

Neredbojias wrote:

>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:06:42
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>>view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

I just got a blank screen with the above (-yes, in Moz/ff.)

You have to scroll down. There are many linefeeds preceding the source,
another amateur way to "conceal source".

Ah, I might have missed that. The glaring white screen gave me vertigo.
:)

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Jul 29 '07 #18

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:16:37
GMT Cartoper scribed:

On Jul 28, 10:45 am, Sherm Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:

>I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of
out- right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which
they simply cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact
that most people do not realize this, and believe the claims.

Sadly, there's a sucker born every minute, so these frauds manage to
stay in business.

First off, I don't disagree that all these types of things are easy to
get around, IF YOU KNOW HOW. Being a professional software developer
I understand that it isn't a matter of if your code is stolen, but
when is it stolen.

On the other hand I think it is foolish not to put basic measures in
place to "keep the honest people honest". I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images. In the end I will leave it to
their congest (how do you spell this work? I spend 10 minutes trying
to figure it out and I cannot, please enlighten this poor fool that
cannot smell!) as to go around my basic measures or not;)

Cartoper

Here's the definitive way to protect source code. Yes, it can be done.
Many an aspiring hacker has left pages like this a lesser person than he or
she was before.

http://tinyurl.com/2vwa7k

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Jul 29 '07 #19

Ben C

On 2007-07-29, rf <rf@invalid.comwrote:

>
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:CK*****************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

[...]

>view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

<looks at sampleInteresting.

You are correct. view-source is not the right tool here. <tinkers>

Click the little firebug tick, click html, click edit, copy/past HTML to my
editor. Tidy up with tidy. Save. Elapsed time fourteen seconds.

Yes it took me about that long as well.

That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine
invisible. [...]

No wonder they "encrypted" it.

Jul 29 '07 #20

29 Jul 2007 04:19:11 GMT from Neredbojias
<mo*************@yahoo.com>:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:06:42
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

I just got a blank screen with the above (-yes, in Moz/ff.)

Look again -- check the scroll bars.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Jul 29 '07 #21

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:47:29 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:

That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine invisible. A
laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that* rubbish?

This was Brown's Corollary to Flavell's Law: the people who are most
concerned with protecting "source code" in HTML have the "code" least
worth protecting.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Jul 29 '07 #22

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:47:29 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:

>That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine
invisible. A
laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that*
rubbish?

This was Brown's Corollary to Flavell's Law: the people who are most
concerned with protecting "source code" in HTML have the "code" least
worth protecting.

Yep. That was in one of my prior posts. Didn't know it was a corollary to a
law from Mr Flavell (RIP).

I think Ben has it right. Best hidden in a deep hole out in the backyard.
Along with the snake oil :-)

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

Hmm. Upstate NY, nice part of the planet. Visited there a few years ago,
friends in Utica. Went for a ski on the surrounding hills, Finger lakes
area, Lake Placid (two feet of champagne powder each day) and all between,
before proceeding over to Vermont. Like the beer they make in Utica :-)

--
Richard.

Jul 29 '07 #23

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:13:22 GMT
Stan Brown scribed:

Look again -- check the scroll bars.

Yep, -must be the encoded stuff as somebody said.

I did the web-developer thing.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Jul 29 '07 #24

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <MPG.211632a0211dc8c398af
07@news.individual.net>, Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:14:43, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fmposted:

>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:47:29 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com>:
>That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine invisible. A
laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that* rubbish?

This was Brown's Corollary to Flavell's Law: the people who are most
concerned with protecting "source code" in HTML have the "code" least
worth protecting.

But that depends on the purpose of attempted protection. Much code is
so bad that its authors really should protect the public from seeing it,
if only to protect their own jobs.

I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...seconds are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not matter *at
present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year. And,
for the purpose in question, none of that is needed anyway; the code is
far longer than needed.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/- see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Jul 29 '07 #25

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:14:48
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...seconds are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear.

Granted, that does not matter *at

present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year.
And, for the purpose in question, none of that is needed anyway; the
code is far longer than needed.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Jul 30 '07 #26

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:14:48
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...seconds are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not matter *at
present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year.

Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is appled to?
You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

And, for the purpose in question, none of that is needed anyway; the
code is far longer than needed.

NASA has to protect their budget.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Jul 30 '07 #27

Andy Dingley

On 28 Jul, 14:16, Cartoper <carto...@gmail.comwrote:

I hear it is possible to disable the web browsers print function, does
anyone know how to do that?

If you apply snake oil techniques to a web page, then you can prevent
the ignorant from reading or printing your source, you can annoy the
semi-skilled who want to but no longer can, and you can give a
valuable coffee-sipping break to those skilled enough to walk straight
through your protection in a few moments. You're a speedbump, not a
wall.

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Where would you like us to mail the printouts of any of their
protected pages?

The web isn't designed around DRM, for either source protection or
print denial. If you try to bolt such things on top of it, then
they're unreliable and fragile. The worst case is if you try to limit
access to _some_ users, because you're likely to have more false
negatives (where it just breaks and goes wrong) than valid positives
(of people who were locked out when they ought to have been).

All such measures are fragile. They're trivially easily defeated by
those who want to and have moderate skills. _All_ of them.

If you want a crude (but reliable) prevention of printing, then place
this in your CSS.

@print { body, * { display: none; } }

It's not robust to stop anyone who wants to bypass it, but at least
it's most unlikely to go wrong and lock someone out unintentionally.

If you want robust protection of content, then don't use HTML. PDF has
good features for limiting access, although even those aren't
especially strong.

Jul 30 '07 #28

Andy Dingley

On 28 Jul, 18:16, Cartoper <carto...@gmail.comwrote:

I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images.

Personally (having built very high-ticket photography sites) I'd
suggest that you _encourage_ them to take your images away. You can't
stop them, so encourage them instead -- and make your images into
something else that it's benefical for them to distribute for you.

Have three images:

* Originals. Top resolution, top quality. These don't even go on the
web server! If they do (maybe there's an upload facility), then
they're kept separate from the "published" images and security is kept
tight.

* Comping images. These are small ("big web" size, but not good enough
for print) and they're visibly watermarked. Licensing of these is a CC-
by-sa, CC-by-nc-sa, CC-by-nd-sa or the like. You _want_ these
distributed as far as possible, they're your advertising fliers.

No-one spends money on buying web quality images ( read this <http://
adverlab.blogspot.com/2007/07/can-you-use-flickr-pics-in-ads.html),
so making them freely available isn't losing you any business.

Invisible watermarking too, with a static ownership identifier.

That visible watermark needs to be non-removable, yet not totally
annoying. Lots of techniques for this, mainly you need to position it
carefully so it's not too easy to crop off. Also semi-transparency is
hard to do, without making something that's maskable and reversible
(make it transparent if you want, but also flatten the colours beneath
in a non-reversible way)

* Images for sale (print quality). These are the valuable ones you
need to protect!

Invisible watermarking, with a dynamically generated sales or customer
identifier embedded.

Don't let them on the web in general. Unless you've paid, you don't
even get to see them at this quality.

You're still exposed to theft here, but only by your identified
customers. That's a _lot_ simpler problem then an open shop window
with the goodies on display.

Jul 30 '07 #29

mbstevens

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:19:04 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

All such measures are fragile. They're trivially easily defeated by
those who want to and have moderate skills. _All_ of them.

For instance, with
web developer toolbar/
view/generated source/print

Those kinds of hiding tools are getting easier and easier to break.

Jul 30 '07 #30

Hans-Peter Diettrich

Andy Dingley wrote:

No-one spends money on buying web quality images ( read this <http://
adverlab.blogspot.com/2007/07/can-you-use-flickr-pics-in-ads.html),
so making them freely available isn't losing you any business.

This is not true. Almost nobody is *willing* to spend money for
pictures, but unallowed use is illegal and can become quite expensive.
Searching for (unallowed) uses can be more profitable than licensing
pictures in the usual way.

Don't let them on the web in general. Unless you've paid, you don't
even get to see them at this quality.

You're still exposed to theft here, but only by your identified
customers. That's a _lot_ simpler problem then an open shop window
with the goodies on display.

ACK.

Not to forget professionals, like Getty Images, which are experienced
and successful in collecting compensation for illegal use of their
pictures, worldwide! As mentioned above, prosecution of unallowed use of
pictures can pay back more than it costs - at least when left to
according professionals.

DoDi

Jul 30 '07 #31

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <Xns997CE3397F29Fnanopand
an**********@198.186.190.165>, Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:20:14, Neredbojias
<mo*************@yahoo.composted:

>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:14:48
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

>I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...seconds are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not matter *at
present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year.

Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is appled to?
You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

It is the current date and time; new Date() .

As we use GMT in winter here, I shall never see any effect from that
error. But, just before they enter 2008, those in the USA will see
results appropriate for early 2007 Jan 1; and, shortly after they have
entered 2008, Koreans will see results for late 2008 Dec 31. Unless
they fix it.

That code should certainly be hidden, preferably also from browsers.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htmjscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

Jul 30 '07 #32

Andy Dingley

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:43:43 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fmwrote:

>"'Name him not!' said Gandalf,

Yes, but _which_ particular Voldemort are we not naming?
Luigi? Richard The Stupid? Andkon?

Jul 30 '07 #33

andrew

On 2007-07-30, Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:43:43 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fmwrote:

>>"'Name him not!' said Gandalf,

Yes, but _which_ particular Voldemort are we not naming?
Luigi? Richard The Stupid? Andkon?

When you say 'Voldemort' of course you _actually_ are referring to
the Balrog that dragged Gandalf from Durin's Bridge?

Andrew

--
Andrew's Corner
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html

Jul 30 '07 #34

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:07:59 +0100 from Andy Dingley
<di*****@codesmiths.com>:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:43:43 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fmwrote:

"'Name him not!' said Gandalf,

Yes, but _which_ particular Voldemort are we not naming?
Luigi? Richard The Stupid? Andkon?

The one whose name appeared right before my Tolkien quote.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Jul 30 '07 #35

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:32:46
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

>>I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US
space work some code in which months...seconds are obtained by UTC
methods, but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not
matter *at present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of
the year.

Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is
appled to? You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

It is the current date and time; new Date() .

Yup. That's a mismatch.

As we use GMT in winter here, I shall never see any effect from that
error. But, just before they enter 2008, those in the USA will see
results appropriate for early 2007 Jan 1; and, shortly after they have
entered 2008, Koreans will see results for late 2008 Dec 31. Unless
they fix it.

That code should certainly be hidden, preferably also from browsers.

Kind of hard to perfectly conceal the code from everyone.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Jul 31 '07 #36

"Neredbojias" <mo*************@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@198.186. 190.161...

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:32:46
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

>That code should certainly be hidden, preferably also from browsers.

Kind of hard to perfectly conceal the code from everyone.

You would start by deactivating the browsers print function.

--
Richard.

Jul 31 '07 #37

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <Xns997DBF58650B8nanopand
an**********@198.186.190.161>, Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:48:34, Neredbojias
<mo*************@yahoo.composted:

>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:32:46
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

>>>I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US
space work some code in which months...seconds are obtained by UTC
methods, but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not
matter *at present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of
the year.

Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is
appled to? You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

It is the current date and time; new Date() .

Yup. That's a mismatch.

You cannot tell from that response. They read the local Y and the UTC
MDhms, and apply those more or less directly to get another Date, or so
it seems to me.

>As we use GMT in winter here, I shall never see any effect from that
error. But, just before they enter 2008, those in the USA will see
results appropriate for early 2007 Jan 1; and, shortly after they have
entered 2008, Koreans will see results for late 2008 Dec 31. Unless
they fix it.

That code should certainly be hidden, preferably also from browsers.

Kind of hard to perfectly conceal the code from everyone.

In this case, assuming a Windows-like GUI, select-delete will be best.
Much better code is now on my site, and, if they answer my Web-form,
I'll tell them where.
It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htmjscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

Jul 31 '07 #38

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:24:13 GMT
Dr J R Stockton scribed:

>>>>Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is
appled to? You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

It is the current date and time; new Date() .

Yup. That's a mismatch.

You cannot tell from that response. They read the local Y and the UTC
MDhms, and apply those more or less directly to get another Date, or so
it seems to me.

That's wierd. Almost governmental, one might say. :)

>>As we use GMT in winter here, I shall never see any effect from that
error. But, just before they enter 2008, those in the USA will see
results appropriate for early 2007 Jan 1; and, shortly after they have
entered 2008, Koreans will see results for late 2008 Dec 31. Unless
they fix it.

That code should certainly be hidden, preferably also from browsers.

Kind of hard to perfectly conceal the code from everyone.

In this case, assuming a Windows-like GUI, select-delete will be best.
Much better code is now on my site, and, if they answer my Web-form,
I'll tell them where.
It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.

A few years ago I used to drift by there occasionally, but they yelled at
me. And...some of the people are really pedantic. And...can I help it if
I was born obnoxious?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Aug 1 '07 #39

Mark Shroyer

On 2007-07-28, Cartoper <ca******@gmail.comwrote:

On Jul 28, 10:45 am, Sherm Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:

First off, I don't disagree that all these types of things are easy to
get around, IF YOU KNOW HOW. Being a professional software developer
I understand that it isn't a matter of if your code is stolen, but
when is it stolen.

On the other hand I think it is foolish not to put basic measures in
place to "keep the honest people honest". I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images. In the end I will leave it to
their congest (how do you spell this work? I spend 10 minutes trying
to figure it out and I cannot, please enlighten this poor fool that
cannot smell!) as to go around my basic measures or not;)

I'm only correcting you because you explicitly asked for it (in
other words, not just to be a jerk):

congest -conscience (?)
spend -spent
smell -spell (I think; can you smell?)

I wouldn't encourage trying to use client-side obfuscation to
prevent people from obtaining your images and HTML source code. The
people who want to get your images will get them one way or another,
and trying to put (highly ineffective) road blocks in their way will
only anger them, and may even cause them to increase their efforts
out of spite. It will also drive away potential visitors -- plenty
of people still browse without JavaScript, and I'm personally not
likely to turn off NoScript for any particular site unless I know
beforehand that it's going to be worthwhile.

As for this "HTML Guard" thing, it's absolutely worthless. After
disabling NoScript I was still able to right-click on and save the
image on the sample site, simply because I have the "Allow scripts
to disable or replace context menus" Firefox option disabled. And
as another author already mentioned, the Web Developer plugin is
happy to show you the JavaScript-generated HTML.

This stuff is snake oil, pure and simple. Don't break your web site
in a misguided implementation of absolutely ineffectual copy
protection.

Mark

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

Aug 1 '07 #40

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <Xns997ED5CC623D1nanopand
an**********@198.186.190.161>, Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:01:00, Neredbojias
<mo*************@yahoo.composted:

>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:24:13 GMT
Dr J R Stockton scribed:

>>>>>Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is
>appled to? You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

It is the current date and time; new Date() .

Yup. That's a mismatch.

You cannot tell from that response. They read the local Y and the UTC
MDhms, and apply those more or less directly to get another Date, or so
it seems to me.

That's wierd. Almost governmental, one might say. :)

Rem acu tetigisti - it's a .gov site.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/- see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Aug 1 '07 #41