Harry Potter's take on this one
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Dec 04, 2010 5:59 PM EDT |
I couldn't resist the subject heading.......since it's more or less one of the "flavours of the month" in the film world at the moment. You see, there is a very relevant statement made by Hermione in one of the Harry Potter books which goes like this: "Oh Harry, don't you see ? If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview [in the newspaper], it was banning it !" One suspects the Beez felt the same way. I've known for ages that Ghostscript will circumvent the "forbidden to print" command in PDF files, but Hans' method of then disseminating an open to print version is new to me. I also suspect that WWF would have been far better advised to put a note in bold type at the bottom of the article or pages that said words to the effect of "To conserve paper and forests, be sure you really need a hard copy before you print it !" I agree with their desire to conserve, if not the heavy handed way they went about it......As the HP quote implies, it's almost an open invitation to defy or ignore their wishes. I have always felt that a polite request generally has more impact than an attempt to take away a person's right to decide for themselves. I'm one of the people who often really does need a hard copy. I find it much easier to digest/understand complex material in printed form, but in any event, I am also one of those people who try to use both sides of printer paper whenever I can and store "one side printed paper" for later use in drafts. Oh yes, and for the HP fans, the quote comes from "The Order of the Phoenix" Chapter 26, Seen and Unforeseen. |
| hkwint Dec 04, 2010 6:08 PM EDT |
Currently, I'm a WWF member, but I think this initiative is pretty stupid. They'd better try switching people / industry from 80gr/m2 to 70gr/m2 or something. Because, when printing lots of pages (like say 80 of them), the resulting pile of papers is really a waste and unnecessary thick; books aren't printed on 80gr paper either! So I went looking for 'lighter' paper, but I can't find it anywhere. |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2010 7:26 PM EDT |
> I have always felt that a polite request generally has more impact than an attempt to take away a person's right to decide for themselves. Isn't that what the F in FOSS is all about: Freedom? It's a shame more organizations don't understand the concept. |
| hkwint Dec 04, 2010 9:35 PM EDT |
WWF is not concerned about your "freedom to cut down the rainforest" I'm afraid. |
| bigg Dec 04, 2010 10:02 PM EDT |
I don't know anything about WWF, but if you don't want people to print, put it in epub format, not pdf. PDF is best for printing. I have in the past had to print things out due to difficulty reading on a computer screen. Now that I have my ereader, I convert any long html or text document to epub and read it there. PDF is horrible unless you like things exactly the way the designer of the PDF likes them. For me, that usually means the font is too small. |
| gus3 Dec 04, 2010 10:03 PM EDT |
Not to mention, Free Software leaves more of the rainforest to cut down! |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2010 10:09 PM EDT |
> WWF is not concerned about your "freedom to cut down the rainforest" I'm afraid. Sigh. And since when does the paper I use come from the rain forest? As I understand it, rain forest timber isn't even particularly suited to making paper. The paper I use is mostly made from trees grown for that particular purpose, and the remainder comes from land owners who willingly sell their timber to the pulp mills (family members being among them). The WWF doesn't have any clue what it's talking about. |
| hkwint Dec 05, 2010 10:13 AM EDT |
What I thought; hence the remark about better alternatives. BTW: WWF didn't say rain forest, but there's not much purpose in protecting 'production forests' which wouldn't exist without demand for paper. bigg is right, PDF was invented for the purpose of printing! They'd better support PixelQi, and ask OEM's to use transflective displays. Saves both energy and wood. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2010 10:47 AM EDT |
> What I thought; hence the remark about better alternatives. Yeah, I didn't think it was your personal opinion, Hans. > WWF didn't say rain forest I understand that too. But they might as well have. :) But as I noted above, it's a simple case of "our ideals are more important than your freedom" syndrome. Some people always think they can make your decisions better than you can. :( |
| hkwint Dec 05, 2010 5:31 PM EDT |
Something interesting to note: I'm a WWF member, and pay them €2 per month. Even though I've never asked for it, I receive their printed monthly magazine. OK, it's printed on thin paper and such, but I never asked for it. Maybe more paper could be saved by asking their own members if they want to receive the printed version instead of doing it by default. Last week, the post was on a strike in our country. One weekly (technical) newspaper I'm subscribed to, delivered the paper to my e-mail inbox because the post didn't deliver in time. However, with the "Panda" (WWF's monthly) I didn't receive an option to deliver it electronically yet. I've never been a fan of Greenpeace, because sometimes they persist when they know they're wrong; they have a pretty bad track record. I used to feel much better about WWF than about Greenpeace, but I just started doubting... |
| Ridcully Dec 05, 2010 5:59 PM EDT |
At least some organisations are opting for electronic release. I belong to a study group which sends its 6 monthly newsletters via pdf and the internet. You print it if you want/need a hard copy, but it saves paper, postage and effort. Much better way, I think. Perhaps WWF should contemplate using the same idea ? Hkwint, I am intrigued by the idea of thinner paper (70gsm instead of 80gsm). I am pretty sure the old tractor fed, fan-fold paper supplied to those dear old early printers was much thinner than the single sheet paper feeds that are used now. Perhaps the reason we use this heavier paper is a combination of printing needs of inkjet and laser printers and successful feed through the printers themselves. If anyone knows about these aspects, I'd be very interested because I think hkwint has definitely suggested a move which could cut down paper pulp usage and hence help conservation. |
| tracyanne Dec 05, 2010 6:41 PM EDT |
I sent the following email to WWF. I don't expect a reply, nor do I actually expect they will do anything, because they are right and they know it. However it might be useful if other WWF supporters did the same thing. To whom it may concern. With regard to your WWF file format. You need to be aware that this "file format" is in fact merely an encrypted .PDF file, with the print flag set to false (so the document can't be printed). What you should also be aware of is that any documents saved in this document "format" are trivially printable. Yes, trivially printable. All one needs do is open the document use The Free Open Source Software application GhostScript on Linux, and print the document. GhostScript by default ignores the Print Flag, and allows all documents opened with it to be printed. You should also e aware that most of the free (as in no cost) PDF viewers for Mac and Windows, use the Free Open Source GhostScript back end, so they too will ignore the Print Flag. Because your so called file format is in actuality simply a PDF document with a different file extension it is also trivially easy to create documents that look like your so called document format, but which don't function in the same way (ie the print flag not being set to false), which could lead to further degrading of your good name... as if this bit of silliness, and gross waste of your supporters money has not already done so, at least among myself and my friends, who have up until now been strong supporters of WWF If you really want to make a strong statement about conserving trees, reducing landfill (with toxic waste, like old computer parts) etc. Start promoting strongly the use of Free Software (FOSS) and the Linux Operating System for personal Computers. Free Open Source Software and particularly Linux based Operating Systems (such as Fedora, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Mandriva, openSuSe, PCLinuxOS, etc) are exceptionally Eco Friendly, because unlike their proprietary counterparts they do not arbitrarily change in ways that require, for example; the purchase of a new computer, thus making the old on redundant, and no longer usable (and eventually having it scrapped, and the parts sent to landfills), because Linux based Operating Systems will still function well, often exceptionally, on computer hardware that is 5 or 10, or even more, years old - that's a lot of computer hardware that would otherwise have ended up in landfills, and it's a lot of computer hardware that doesn't need to be manufactured. Our (myself and my friends) support of WWF is now, in light of your wastage, and frankly, quite silly solution to reducing deforestation, contingent on your actually doing and recommending sustainable, and effective means of reducing deforestation and toxic landfill. Please consider this letter carefully. You might also find the following useful and informative http://stop.zona-m.net/2010/12/save-as-wwf-no-thanks/ http://thebeezspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-wildlife-fun... regards |
| gus3 Dec 05, 2010 7:24 PM EDT |
Well-put, ta. Plus, I just realized: Has the WWF given credit to Adobe's PDF as the basis of their .wwf format? If not, could they get into trouble for mis-representing what the format really is? |
| cr Dec 06, 2010 8:27 AM EDT |
Maybe they should start calling themselves the World Treeline Fund. That makes for a more accurate filetype. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2010 9:06 AM EDT |
Did you watching the Penn and Teller bit? Recycling paper is bad for the environment. The original reason for recycling paper was to save landfill space, not to make the world a better place. Landfill space is no longer at a premium thanks to a slew of new landfill technologies, but we keep recycling that paper anyway. Dig this: If we use a lot of paper, we bury a lot of tree trunks and plant a lot more trees. Tree trunks are, for all intents and purposes, a big old collection of carbon drawn from the air in the form of carbon dioxied. Taking those puppies and sequestering them in the ground fights global warming, especially if we begin fueling the equipment with renewable fuel. |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2010 9:50 AM EDT |
> Recycling paper is bad for the environment. Perhaps, but as I understand it, it's far cheaper than making paper from pulp. So there's a trade off involved no matter which choice you make. |
| jsusanka Dec 06, 2010 2:05 PM EDT |
I wouldn't doubt it if they are funded from the gates foundation. |
| tracyanne Dec 06, 2010 7:07 PM EDT |
The WWF is quite lierally an organisation that "can't see the forest for the trees". |
| pavan_kumar09 Dec 08, 2010 1:52 AM EDT |
good morning friends |
| tracyanne Dec 08, 2010 4:29 AM EDT |
we got a good morning spam |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!