Post by thread:[AD]: Project offer any one interested?

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[AD]: Project offer any one interested?'
2005\02\15@122538 by Andre Abelian

Hi to all engineers, I Like to know if any one who worked on magnetic stripe card reader or has experience with it like to work on this project. Requirement: 1. experience with 18f452 2. must be Written in ANSI Hi-Tech C 3. the propose of the code is to read each track and save data in registers that later we can move them to EEPROM if needed. If any one is interested please e-mail me at spam_OUTandreTakeThisOuTditechnology.com Then I can explain more detail. Andre

2005\02\15@130131 by Thomas C. Sefranek

Ahhh yes, I see... Read the card, ask for the pin, save data, declare malfunction. (Steal ATM card info.) Well it's a possibility, right? * | __O Thomas C. Sefranek .....tcsKILLspam@spam@cmcorp.com |_-\<,_ Amateur Radio Operator: WA1RHP (*)/ (*) Bicycle mobile on 145.41MHz PL74.4 ARRL Instructor, Technical Specialist, VE Contact. hamradio.cmcorp.com/inventory/Inventory.html http://www.harvardrepeater.org {Original Message removed}

2005\02\15@192124 by Robert Rolf

Seems quite probable given that he is promoting a product he obviously does NOT yet have in production. And what a rough home page. "Sorry No right click!" "this page is not ready yet" (for nearly half the links) http://www.ditechnology.com/ "We make 3 Tracks Magnetic Stripe manual swipe ISO7811 Card Reader" Just my OPINION, but I'd stay well clear of this project. Robert Thomas C. Sefranek wrote: {Quote hidden}> Ahhh yes, I see... > Read the card, ask for the pin, save data, declare malfunction. > (Steal ATM card info.) > > Well it's a possibility, right? > > * > | __O Thomas C. Sefranek tcsKILLspamcmcorp.com > |_-\<,_ Amateur Radio Operator: WA1RHP > (*)/ (*) Bicycle mobile on 145.41MHz PL74.4 > > ARRL Instructor, Technical Specialist, VE Contact. > hamradio.cmcorp.com/inventory/Inventory.html > http://www.harvardrepeater.org > > {Original Message removed}

2005\02\15@194543 by Jake Anderson

it always pisses me off when people try to take controll of my browser. looks like firefox niceley avoids this with its default settings. and do you think they realise just how stupid they seem when they put a "no right click" script onto a web page? especially when they are trying to sell something > {Original Message removed}

2005\02\15@215047 by Andre Abelian

Hi to all, I worked on my web site about 3 years ago and I do not even remember what script I added maybe right click I added to protect pictures but now there is better way of protecting pictures then right click block what do you do with right click any way except "Add to favorite" and saving images. No body is trying to take control of your browser I am just trying to Protect pictures. If you spend 1 hour to prepare one picture and next day you see some one else took it and added their name on it what would you do? I never ask any one to visit my web site or put my web site as e-mail attachment that is because of it is not ready yet. I do not do or make any thing illegal!! Think positive Thank you and sorry about my unfinished web site. I am going to add pic project page to help others. Including schematic, pcb layout and code. Andre Abelian {Original Message removed}

2005\02\16@043546 by Alan B. Pearce

>No body is trying to take control of your browser I am >just trying to Protect pictures. The number of times I have wanted to save a picture, only to find the "save picture" is blocked, so I go probing in the cache to find it, and save from there, makes me very amused at this attitude. As with most things, there is a way around it ...

2005\02\16@050808 by Wouter van Ooijen

> >No body is trying to take control of your browser I am > >just trying to Protect pictures. > > The number of times I have wanted to save a picture, only to > find the "save > picture" is blocked, so I go probing in the cache to find it, > and save from > there, makes me very amused at this attitude. Or rip (download) the whole page, or do a prinscreen/paste, one of the many other options. If you want to prevent that people can download your stuff, don't put it on the internet.... Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2005\02\16@050855 by Russell McMahon

> >No body is trying to take control of your browser I am >>just trying to Protect pictures. > The number of times I have wanted to save a picture, only to find > the "save > picture" is blocked, so I go probing in the cache to find it, and > save from > there, makes me very amused at this attitude. > As with most things, there is a way around it ... Best approach is probably to place copyright notices on one's site and material (even if the Berne Copyright Convention makes this technically unnecessary). If people copy the photos for their private use one cannot tell and there is relatively little harm done - and odds are that this does constitute "fair use" which is explicitly allowed by law. If however the pictures appear on the web or elsewhere without permission this is in contravention of moral and legal rights and action of one sort or another can be taken. If you cared enough about it you could probably make things uncomfortable for the thief, no matter how big or small they were. Whether it is worth doing so is up to you. If you care enough, it is possible to easily save text or other data within your actual pictures which prove that they are yours. This does degrade image quality somewhat and may not survive rescaling etc, depending on the method used. . RM Copyright 2005 by Russell McMahon :-)

2005\02\16@052923 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

> > >No body is trying to take control of your browser I am > > >just trying to Protect pictures. Another way of "copying" a picture (often seen on eBay) is to simply link to it. You don't have to have local/private storage. The "solution" in those cases are to copy the picture to another name (keeping both files on-line), then change the URL to the picture in your "own" auction so it points to the new file. Finely replace the old picture (still linked to by the "thief") with something that he definitly don't want in *his* auction... :-) But, "watemarking" is the usual protection used. There are simple tools available that put a text in relief on a picture. Jan-Erik.

2005\02\16@053126 by Hulatt, Jon

If you want to "protect" pictures, then watermark them. {Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu > [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon > Sent: 16 February 2005 10:09 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [AD]: Project offer any one interested? > > > >No body is trying to take control of your browser I am > >>just trying to Protect pictures. > > > The number of times I have wanted to save a picture, only > to find the > > "save picture" is blocked, so I go probing in the cache to find it, > > and save from there, makes me very amused at this attitude. > > > As with most things, there is a way around it ... > > Best approach is probably to place copyright notices on one's > site and material (even if the Berne Copyright Convention > makes this technically unnecessary). If people copy the > photos for their private use one cannot tell and there is > relatively little harm done - and odds are that this does > constitute "fair use" which is explicitly allowed by law. If > however the pictures appear on the web or elsewhere without > permission this is in contravention of moral and legal rights > and action of one sort or another can be taken. If you cared > enough about it you could probably make things uncomfortable > for the thief, no matter how big or small they were. Whether > it is worth doing so is up to you. > > If you care enough, it is possible to easily save text or > other data within your actual pictures which prove that they > are yours. This does degrade image quality somewhat and may > not survive rescaling etc, depending on the method used. . > > > RM > > Copyright 2005 by > Russell McMahon > > > :-) > > --

2005\02\16@053305 by Alan B. Pearce

>If you care enough, it is possible to easily save text or >other data within your actual pictures which prove that >they are yours. Using Steganography is probably the best way to do it, I would agree, possibly along with visible copyright notice in another area of the picture. >This does degrade image quality somewhat and may not >survive rescaling etc, depending on the method used. I suspect that this is why some of the pictures used in ebay ads are so horrible - to remove the desire to rip them off to use for something else.

2005\02\16@053541 by Dave Smith

here is a much simpler way: screen print...........open paint.............open new.............paste...........save as. Dave Smith Cape Town South Africa {Original Message removed}

2005\02\16@054606 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

Dave Smith wrote : > here is a much simpler way: > > screen print...........open paint.............open > new.............paste...........save as. Simpler than what ? I can't see the connection to what I wrote below that you qouted in full in your post. Never mind... Jan-Erik. > > > > Dave Smith > Cape Town > South Africa > > {Original Message removed}

2005\02\16@062247 by Alan B. Pearce

> here is a much simpler way: > > screen print...........open paint.............open > new.............paste...........save as. That is fine if you can deal with it as a BMP picture, but if one wants it as a JPG, or (perish the thought) an animated GIF that you want, then that removes a heap of the compression and animation.

2005\02\16@063235 by Dave Smith

Yes I think win98 only allows u to save in bmp. Xp gives u the option to save in jpg / tiff and a few others. Dave Smith Cape Town South Africa {Original Message removed}

2005\02\16@075710 by Jake Anderson

or just turn the scripting off for a little while and copy it as per usual ;-> or view source and find the actual picture source there pop it into the browser you used to look at the page (so referer is correct if its looked at) and there is the picture on its lonesome for you to download > {Original Message removed}

2005\02\16@082213 by Russell McMahon

OK. I'd say that about settles it then. Andre won't be placing any more of his photos where you lot can get at them :-) RM

2005\02\16@084656 by olin_piclist

Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > Or rip (download) the whole page, or do a prinscreen/paste, one of the > many other options. If you want to prevent that people can download your > stuff, don't put it on the internet.... In other words, if it's on my screen, there is nothing you can do to prevent me from putting it on my disk with a known file name. ***************************************************************** Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\02\16@104105 by William Chops Westfield

On Feb 16, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > That is fine if you can deal with it as a BMP picture, but > if one wants it as a JPG, or an animated GIF that you want, > then that removes a heap of the compression and animation If your web browser can download the image, display it on the screen and set your browser to not be able to right-click, then clearly some other application, or a more primitive web browser, can download the file and save it to disk instead... BillW

2005\02\16@141111 by Bradley Ferguson

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:32:17 +0200, Dave Smith <davespam_OUTdavesmith.za.net> wrote: > Yes I think win98 only allows u to save in bmp. Xp gives u the option to save in jpg / tiff and a few others. That still is not optimal as you take bitmap image of the jpeg displayed on the screen and then reapply the JPEG compression (which is lossy)--in other words the quality degrades. Much easier to just copy it out of the cache or disable javascript or copy the image location out of the page source or ... Bradley

2005\02\16@141452 by Bradley Ferguson

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:57:08 +1100, Jake Anderson <@spam@grooveeeKILLspamoptushome.com.au> wrote: > or just turn the scripting off for a little while and copy it as per usual > ;-> > or view source and find the actual picture source there > pop it into the browser you used to look at the page (so referer is correct > if its looked at) > and there is the picture on its lonesome for you to download The referrer would not be correct. It would be blank. The referrer is only filled in when you click on a link, not when you enter something in the address bar. It would be bad if that were not the case. Bradley

2005\02\17@041225 by Michael Rigby-Jones

>-----Original Message----- >From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu] >Sent: 16 February 2005 19:11 >To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >Subject: Re: [AD]: Project offer any one interested? > > >On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:32:17 +0200, Dave Smith ><spamBeGonedavespamBeGonedavesmith.za.net> wrote: >> Yes I think win98 only allows u to save in bmp. Xp gives u >the option >> to save in jpg / tiff and a few others. > >That still is not optimal as you take bitmap image of the jpeg >displayed on the screen and then reapply the JPEG compression >(which is lossy)--in other words the quality degrades. > >Much easier to just copy it out of the cache or disable >javascript or copy the image location out of the page source or ... There are several filtering web proxy's that have filters to remove all sorts of nasty stuff including right click scripts e.g. the excellent (and sadly no longer supported) Proxomitron (http://www.proxomitron.info/) Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

2005\02\20@203041 by James Burkart

Alan B. Pearce wrote: {Quote hidden}>>If you care enough, it is possible to easily save text or >>other data within your actual pictures which prove that >>they are yours. >> >> > >Using Steganography is probably the best way to do it, I would agree, >possibly along with visible copyright notice in another area of the picture. > > > >>This does degrade image quality somewhat and may not >>survive rescaling etc, depending on the method used. >> >> > >I suspect that this is why some of the pictures used in ebay ads are so >horrible - to remove the desire to rip them off to use for something else. > > > This seems like it should be an [OT] now.

2005\02\20@203542 by James Burkart

This poor guy just wanted to know if someone was interested in doing a job for him and look what it turned in to! James Michael Rigby-Jones wrote: > > >>{Original Message removed}

2005\02\20@213634 by Russell McMahon

> This poor guy just wanted to know if someone was interested in doing > a job for him and look what it turned in to! Indeed. And I don't think there was a single comment that was actually pertinent to his requirement. Hopefully SOMEBODY replied offlist as requested. Andre has been a list member for years. The trouble began when someone (you know who you are :-) ) "helpfully" looked up his website, which wasn't mentioned in his post AFAIK, and started drawing conclusions which were not necessarily well founded. Andre then made comments about people ripping off his IP (not his words) and others "helpfully" (again) leaped in to point out ways that this could be done. While (some of) the comments were informative and hopefully useful, they probably didn't do much to help Andre feel good. RM

2005\02\20@222835 by Robert Rolf

Russell McMahon wrote: >> This poor guy just wanted to know if someone was interested in doing a >> job for him and look what it turned in to! > > Indeed. > And I don't think there was a single comment that was actually pertinent > to his requirement. > Hopefully SOMEBODY replied offlist as requested. Hopefully not. Unless they know EXACTLY what the application is, how illegal application of the technology will be prevented, and if they don't mind gambling on whether they'll be paid. > Andre has been a list member for years. > The trouble began when someone It's hardly 'trouble' to question the ethics of a site promoting the sale of a product which does not YET exist. >(you know who you are :-) ) So do the archives <G>. > "helpfully" > looked up his website, which wasn't mentioned in his post AFAIK, It was easily derived from his email address. > and > started drawing conclusions which were not necessarily well founded. It' is called doing "due diligence". If I am going to consider doing work for someone I know nothing about, it is my responsibly to find out as much as I can about them before entering into a contract with them. What I found disturbed me, and I said as much. Having worked on card reader and data logging applications in my past, it looked like an easy project to help with, but what I found warned me off. Given the other thread on what royalty rates to charge for work already done, it seemed like a good idea to provoke some discussion on the list. Forewarned is forearmed, etc. > Andre then made comments about people ripping off his IP (not his words) That's the nature of life on the web. Live with it. The other posts on the thread were most informative and will probably help others, INCLUDING Andre. > and others "helpfully" (again) leaped in to point out ways that this > could be done. While (some of) the comments were informative and > hopefully useful, they probably didn't do much to help Andre feel good. Well, the quality of his web pages, and the short leap from task description to possible application as a credit card skimmer didn't make me feel good either. Given that debit card & identity theft is a rapidly growing crime, and given that there doesn't seem to be any good reason to have a portable THREE track card reader/storage device (most uses require only need ONE track) I expressed my OPINION on the project. Someone else did as much as suggest that the application looked like a card skimmer. My apologies to Andre if I offended him, but the project itself looked offensive since nearly all applications I could think of would be 'real time'. Andre Abelian wrote: > I Like to know if any one who worked on magnetic stripe card > reader or has experience with it like to work on this project. ... > 3. the propose of the code is to read each track and save data in > registers > that later we can move them to EEPROM if needed. Robert

2005\02\20@224510 by Dave VanHorn

> >Well, the quality of his web pages, and the short leap from >task description to possible application as a credit card skimmer >didn't make me feel good either. You know of course, that your pin does not live on any of the three tracks, right?

2005\02\21@040404 by John Maud

Well, yes. Additionally, would it not be fair to EXPECT an answer when one took the trouble in responding to him offlist! John At 04:35 2005/02/21, Russell wrote: >>This poor guy just wanted to know if someone was interested in doing a >>job for him and look what it turned in to! > >Indeed. >And I don't think there was a single comment that was actually pertinent >to his requirement. >Hopefully SOMEBODY replied offlist as requested.

2005\02\21@045846 by Russell McMahon

> Additionally, would it not be fair to EXPECT an answer when one took > the trouble in responding to him offlist! Who can tell? :-) Such things are imponderable, in much the same way as is the state of Schrödinger's fortunate or unfortunate cat, as they lie outside the scope of netiquette, and are best left there, uncommented on onlist. RM

2005\02\21@054402 by John Maud

Point taken, apologies. John At 11:50 2005/02/21, you wrote: >>Additionally, would it not be fair to EXPECT an answer when one took the >>trouble in responding to him offlist! > >Who can tell? :-) >Such things are imponderable, in much the same way as is the state of >Schrödinger's fortunate or unfortunate cat, as they lie outside the scope >of netiquette, and are best left there, uncommented on onlist. > > > RM

2005\02\24@001450 by James Burkart

John Maud wrote: > Point taken, apologies. > > John > > At 11:50 2005/02/21, you wrote: > >>> Additionally, would it not be fair to EXPECT an answer when one took >>> the trouble in responding to him offlist! >> >> >> Who can tell? :-) >> Such things are imponderable, in much the same way as is the state of >> Schrödinger's fortunate or unfortunate cat, as they lie outside the >> scope of netiquette, and are best left there, uncommented on onlist. >> >> >> RM > > > Wow, I think I missed something in this post. Maybe it's geographical. JB

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...