| 1 |
Willie Wong wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the original object a image of a |
| 4 |
> signature? If they used MODI (whose point I thought was so that you |
| 5 |
> have OCR on the scanned document) for an illegible scrawl, I think |
| 6 |
> this should be nominated for the DailyWTF.... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Cheers, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> W |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm somewhat clueless about this software issue but wonder about this |
| 14 |
way of seeing things. Since it appears there is a signature, as in what |
| 15 |
is at the bottom of a letter or a bank check, wouldn't they want to make |
| 16 |
it so that is not able to be extracted at all? If I had a digital |
| 17 |
signature, I wouldn't want to put it somewhere that it could be used by |
| 18 |
someone that I wouldn't want it to be used by. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm not saying you would do this, because I don't think you would, but |
| 21 |
if you could grab that image, then someone who did have bad intentions |
| 22 |
could do the same thing. This would not be good. My reason for |
| 23 |
mentioning this, it may be done in such a way that is intended to |
| 24 |
prevent you from doing what you want to do. Therefore, it may not be |
| 25 |
"doable" by design. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Just a thought. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
Archives