Slashdot Mirror


The Laser Unprinter

MrSeb writes "You've heard of laser printers — and now a team of researchers from the University of Cambridge in England has created a laser unprinter that can remove ink without damaging the paper. Despite both methods using lasers, their (un)printing approaches are fundamentally very different. In a laser printer, a laser is used to give individual 'pixels' on a piece of paper a positive charge (a separate heat source is used to fuse toner). In the laser unprinter, picosecond pulses of green laser light are used to vaporize the toner, or ablate in scientific terms. The primary goal of unprinting is to cut down on the carbon footprint of the paper and printing industries. Manufacturing paper is incredibly messy business, with a huge carbon footprint. Recycling paper is a good step in the right direction, but it still pales in comparison to unprinting. In a worst-case scenario, The University of Cambridge unprinting method has half the carbon emissions of recycling; best-case, unprinting is almost 20 times as efficient."

168 comments

  1. Fraud by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what protections the banks will have to put in place to prevent fraud.
    And make sure you have a copy of any contracts you sign. Who knows what shenanigans someone can get up to by modifying the original.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is this any worse than high-precision scanners+photoshop+ high-precision printers?

    2. Re:Fraud by RyoShin · · Score: 2

      I can't see how this would be an issue. You can already modify stuff in Photoshop to change things like terms, this "unprinter" wouldn't change anything. It might be a bit easier to change the terms (assuming the original paper was printed with a laser printer in the first place--this won't work for ye standarde inkjet as far as I know; after actually RTFA, it provides no more or more accurate information than the /. synposis, and the full thing is behind a paywall), but the cost would be expensive even if they become mainstream (only groups that would need one would be offices that have a laser printer, so likely not something you'd just swing by Best Buy and grab), so a cracked copy of Photoshop it is.

      Even without this, people need to keep copies of contracts (banks do, after all.)

    3. Re:Fraud by geekoid · · Score: 1

      you mean, just like you have to now?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop using paper! Just as soon as a simple 8.5x11 epaper-pads is available at the right price that has wifi and nfc I'm going to either get fired or get those deployed. Paper is a horrible waste as is maintaining printers and storing the crap and all of that. We use paper for trivial bullshit that then gets thrown away. Paper and printing are costing us 12 million over the last 10 years though costs have decreased some it's leveled off and my prediction is it will cost 9 million for the next ten. I want us weened off paper for the trivial bullshit NOW. Hell I could by sixty thousand of the damn things for 150 each with 9 million. Several 'paper is god' dinosaurs will by gone soon so I may have a shot. Dunno.

    5. Re:Fraud by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's fairly easy to tell the difference between a signature that was printed with an inkjet and an actual pen being held by a human (forget using a laser, that's even more obvious). Quite aside from the ink having a different composition for a printer than it does for a pen, there's the actual physical indent on the paper caused by the pen.

      If they can take the paper you actually signed, and remove the original printing without affecting your signature, it becomes a lot harder to tell.

    6. Re:Fraud by DittoBox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Infinitely worse.

      Many companies buy check paper (complete with anti-fraud holographs, watermarks etc.), and then print on top of that using a regular laser printer. Being able to remove just the laser overprint.

      That having been said, it wouldn't take long for the check paper companies to begin making check paper that will fail upon being introduced to the green laser field.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    7. Re:Fraud by caitsith2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lots of cheques are commonly printed with a laser printer. If somehow the area to be unprinted could be selectively chosen, then one could modify the "pay to the order of" line, and possibly the amount to pay lines. Banks are going to have to add something that reacts to the high powered picosecond laser pulses, to show that the check has been tampered with in that manner.

    8. Re:Fraud by Nutria · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can already modify stuff in Photoshop to change things

      Except that you must scan in and then print back out your the document, in which signatures would instantly be detected as fraudulent.

      the cost would be expensive even if they become mainstream

      Like computing power and capacity (and laser printers, for that matter) are as expensive as they were 20 years ago?

      only groups that would need one would be offices that have a laser printer

      ROTFLMAO.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:Fraud by ahecht · · Score: 1

      It isn't actually regular laser toner, however. Checks are printed with Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) toner which allows the routing number to be detected by a magnetic scanner.

    10. Re:Fraud by profplump · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is this changes nothing with respect to the security of printed documents.

    11. Re:Fraud by miknix · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just stop using paper! Just as soon as a simple 8.5x11 epaper-pads is available at the right price that has wifi and nfc I'm going to either get fired or get those deployed. Paper is a horrible waste as is maintaining printers and storing the crap and all of that. We use paper for trivial bullshit that then gets thrown away. Paper and printing are costing us 12 million over the last 10 years though costs have decreased some it's leveled off and my prediction is it will cost 9 million for the next ten. I want us weened off paper for the trivial bullshit NOW. Hell I could by sixty thousand of the damn things for 150 each with 9 million. Several 'paper is god' dinosaurs will by gone soon so I may have a shot. Dunno.

      I don’t believe you, continue.

      Signed - Dwight Schrute

    12. Re:Fraud by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      He wasn't talking about the ink used to create the check, he was talking about the ink used to print the name and amount on the check. I'm sure you can see the potential issues with that...

    13. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      offices that have a laser printer, so likely not something you'd just swing by Best Buy and grab

      I take it you haven't swung by a Best Buy lately to check out laser printer prices. I bought one for 100 bucks. I get a scanner and copy machine at no extra cost. If you don't need color, go laser.

    14. Re:Fraud by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't actually regular laser toner, however. Checks are printed with Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) toner which allows the routing number to be detected by a magnetic scanner.

      I think you mist the GP's point... most companies don't print the MICR -- that's done by their bank. They use a regular laser printer to print the date, value and the recipient. If the unprinter doesn't scrub the magnetic toner, that increases the risk of being able to just re-use someone else's cheques with a new date, value and recipient, but keep the signatures and MICR.

    15. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not only the indent, but under a half decent magnifying glass you can spot several tell tale signs. Ballpoint pens have a ridiculous amount of bleed compared to an inkjet. Most of the time with a ballpoint signature, you can spot hook shapes caused by a piece of hair, and sometimes the piece of hair is dried into the ink (talking small hairs off the back of your hand or even eyebrowls/lashes).

    16. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't see how this would be an issue.

      Then you've never heard of check washing.

    17. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, generally the check stock is pre-printed with the MICR codes using MICR ink, as well as check numbers, etc.

      Most normal companies sending out checks like this also send to the bank a "positive pay" file - has check numbers and the amounts for the checks in the file. If a check number is presented to the bank with a different amount than they received in the positive pay file, the check is not honored by the bank (and the company is not on the hook for the amount).

    18. Re:Fraud by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just stop using paper! Just as soon as a simple 8.5x11 epaper-pads is available at the right price that has wifi and nfc I'm going to either get fired or get those deployed. Paper is a horrible waste as is maintaining printers and storing the crap and all of that. We use paper for trivial bullshit that then gets thrown away. Paper and printing are costing us 12 million over the last 10 years though costs have decreased some it's leveled off and my prediction is it will cost 9 million for the next ten. I want us weened off paper for the trivial bullshit NOW. Hell I could by sixty thousand of the damn things for 150 each with 9 million. Several 'paper is god' dinosaurs will by gone soon so I may have a shot. Dunno.

      I truly believe 2012 will be the year of the paperless office. That and the Linux Desktop.

      In other news at some point we DID get the year of the Linux(ish) Mobile.

    19. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signatures have been imitable for centuries. It is time that cryptographic signing becomes the norm...

    20. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you almost have command of the English grammar. Sadly, almost is not nearly enough.

    21. Re:Fraud by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 2

      It's fairly easy to tell the difference between a signature that was printed with an inkjet and an actual pen being held by a human (forget using a laser, that's even more obvious).

      At this point, the signature on paper is just symbolic.

      On May 27, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama became the first president to use an autopen to sign a bill into law.[4] While visiting France, he authorized the use of an autopen to create his signature which signed into law an extension of three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    22. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you put an extraneous "the" into your comment and I couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

    23. Re:Fraud by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Who knows what shenanigans someone can get up to by modifying the original.

      This happens now. And before. The technology doesn't matter.
      Two perfectly modified copies to both appear authentic won't do either of you much good in court. If nothing else it's another great way for lawyers to get rich and get you out of a contract.

    24. Re:Fraud by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > It might be a bit easier to change the terms
      Well photoshopping (and printing back on the original, i guess?) can only add, this can subtract, it's a huge step forward. I guess the ablated portions will be detectable though.

      The big thing will be intelligent toner nanoparticles :)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    25. Re:Fraud by russotto · · Score: 1

      I wonder what protections the banks will have to put in place to prevent fraud.

      Check paper will likely be pre-printed with ink (not toner) which turns black when hit with the green laser. In fact, things like cashiers checks may already have it -- removing the toner might be an attack known to security people (and criminals)

      And make sure you have a copy of any contracts you sign. Who knows what shenanigans someone can get up to by modifying the original.

      You should always have a copy of any contract you sign. If this becomes common, I imagine it will also become common for legal documents to be printed on paper with anti-unprinting properties.

    26. Re:Fraud by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Okay but seriously, forging a signature really isn't that hard.

      In fact I'm 99.9999% certain you could put together a simple ink plotter style arm that would copy a signature exactly for cheap.

      There's a reason you've *always* been supposed to keep copies of this stuff

    27. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have just printed this out to show my wife. She will throw it out with the regular trash because the damn paper shredder is jammed again. I would have emailed it to her (and 10 of her friends) but they have put me on their spam lists.
      This whole thing is a ploy by HP to generate more printer maintenance kits sales.

    28. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check washing is already a problem and most current methods are presumably cheaper than an unprinter. If you're printing checks of any significant amount it may already be worth using a MICR cartridge in house. We use our own MICR cartridges where I work (they're basically Lexmark T630 and T640 cartridges with magnetic ink.)

    29. Re:Fraud by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A signed document that's been faxed is legal, so if you're relying on a signature....

      An unprinted page probably has all sorts of traces left. The hardest part about photoshopping a fax is making it look bad enough.

    30. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And make sure you have a copy of any contracts you sign. Who knows what shenanigans someone can get up to by modifying the original.

      Holy crap it's the tyranny of Liquid Paper all over again!! Won't somebody think of the children??

    31. Re:Fraud by afidel · · Score: 1

      MICR doesn't really matter these days since the checks are just scanned and sent to the electronic clearinghouse (that's why you can snap a picture of a check with Chase to deposit it, they no longer need the physical check, just an image). For any check in an amount that matters there's already the parallel deposit ledger system in place to void any non-authorized transactions.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    32. Re:Fraud by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It's harder to forge if you sign the stuff with PGP/GPG and print the entire thing out (including the PGP/GPG signature). Make sure you have time and date as part of the document to defend against replay attacks.

      But nobody really cares that much about security AND it isn't a big enough problem in real life. Otherwise a system for creating and checking such documents reliably and efficiently would be more common.

      A possible problem with the PGP/GPG method is if one day your private key is compromised, you're really screwed - you'd have a harder time convincing the courts you didn't sign certain stuff. Whereas since everyone including the judge knows that credit card transactions are insecure they are more inclined to believe you when you say you didn't buy something. In fact quite often the card company believes you.

      --
    33. Re:Fraud by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      The paper used for Student Transcripts (the record of achievement) at universities is closely guarded. Even access to live student data is less restricted than access to the paper.

      "Hi Mom and Dad, look, I got straight A's. Can I have that new car now?"

      And the dude on the dorm that offers the unprinting service will be rolling in money. Well, relative to other students anyway.

    34. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android isn't the Linux(ish) Mobile in any useful sense. RMS was proved right: take the kernel and put horrible un-unixy crap on it and you get a horrible un-unixy operating system with no redeeming features.

    35. Re:Fraud by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Time to go digital with documents PGP signed (or similar). Hell my digital signature would be a hell of a lot more fraud proof than the scrawl that is my real signature.

    36. Re:Fraud by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      signatures are shit crap useless for authentication.

      look, that's the reason why you have witnesses on contracts that are worth a lot. and then, if all the other witnesses want to fraud you then you're fucked anyhow.

      I couldn't tell my signature from a fake anyhow.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    37. Re:Fraud by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      THIS. If you changed my Linux PC's kernel for a BSD kernel I might not even notice. Take away the GNU toolset & desktop apps and it's changed beyond recognition.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    38. Re:Fraud by ryanov · · Score: 2

      Hell, if you DO need color, go laser. Even used color laser printers are worth it (I have a discarded Color LaserJet 2500 -- had a common problem that was relatively easily fixed). I used to have inkjets -- every time I went to print, the ink was dried out.

    39. Re:Fraud by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The hardest part about photoshopping a fax is making it look bad enough.

      Print it and FAX it?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    40. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fairly easy to tell the difference between a signature that was printed with an inkjet (...)

      You've nearly got the solution. Just get anything you don't want to be unprinted printed in an inkjet printer.

    41. Re:Fraud by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Pretty much what I said after I hit post and realized I'd mist the typo....

    42. Re:Fraud by galanom · · Score: 1

      I would like to inform you, in case you haven't heard, that not all humans are Americans.

  2. Even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is avoiding paper in the first place, and instead using digital methods to distribute information.

    1. Re:Even more efficient by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I doubt that this is always the case. It's not like digital distribution methods have no carbon footprint -- they often have much greater power requirements.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the day man first put stylus to papyrus our environment was almost doomed. Thank heavens for the industrial and electronic revolutions, bringing us lower energy usage than ever.

    3. Re:Even more efficient by TarMil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why both parties receive a copy of the contract...

    4. Re:Even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine that the process is not 100% perfect, and there would be some forensic method to tell if this process had been used on a piece of paper..maybe not what the original content was, just that the process was used - that should be enough to cast doubt on the contents of a contract if it were ever disputed.

    5. Re:Even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it will be fairly easy to tell that something has been unprinted if it is examined under an electron microscope.

    6. Re:Even more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless every contract is printed on "fresh" paper, one could argue that the contract they recieved was printed on unprinted paper and that there was no foul play on their part.

    7. Re:Even more efficient by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      ...but the entire idea with the unprinter is that you can reuse the paper. Can an electron microscope tell if the paper has been unprinted 12 times instead of just 11? Can it tell the date that the paper was unprinted?

    8. Re:Even more efficient by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      Which means it becomes a case of one printed, signed and dated document and another printed, signed and dated document. It is just like having two differing files with the same checksum and same digital signature. But I bet buying an unprinter won't require as smart a crook as producing a good MD5 hash collision.

      Unless there is a clear way to tell which has been unprinted and then reprinted it simply devolves into a case of who has more lawyers on speed dial.

      And to build on another poster's reply to my first comment, with a little malice aforethought, the unscrupulous could print the originals on paper that has already been unprinted a few times as an 'eco-friendly' feature. If this tech really works as summarized then the only truly safe document is one that can't be unprinted cleanly.

    9. Re:Even more efficient by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      If any kind of unprinting can be detected, I suppose we could make a deal that unprinted documents are void as contracts.

      Or, maybe we can develop a discrete paper type which cannot be unprinted, which can be used for contracts.

    10. Re:Even more efficient by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      When you sign the document, make sure you cross over the printed line. If toner underneath the ink is vaporised, it will affect what you wrote. If it isn't, then it will be there underneath what you wrote, visible to forensic examination.

  3. Carbon footprint of green laser? by ard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So what is the carbon footprint for powering the laser?

    Ah, electricity from nuclear power. Zero emissions. Unless for the Germans, who are dismantling their nuclear power stations and burn coal instead.

    1. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess power from those coal plants is the worst case that produces 50% less CO2 than produciong new paper.

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by HyperQuantum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about the environmental impact of vaporizing toner? Isn't that some kind of air pollution?

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    3. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's the wrong question.

      This is the correct question:

      So what is the carbon footprint for powering the laser compared to recycling or throwing out the paper?

      And it will be less.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use polish coal because we get it at half the price thanks to our people in polish government. And our government wants to use as much of it as it can, that's why we are closing nuclear power stations. If not the current unstable political situation in poland, we would have already closed down all of them.

    5. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by jd · · Score: 1

      Fission does generate emissions, although most are indirect. (Moving fuel rods in and out, for example.) Fusion would not, but governments are adverse to funding real power systems.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I can already tell you that picosecond flashes of a green laser that could be used in household appliances takes less power than the heavy duty recycling machines required for taking the paper, removing the ink and recreating new recycled paper from it. The environmental impact should also be lower since you're not using rather dangerous chemicals to remove the ink from the paper paste.

      Remember, you'd need one trillion pulses lasting one picosecond each from a 1W laser to expend one Joule.

    7. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does that include the carbon footprint of building and maintaining the laser unprinters?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      I imagine the laser's carbon footprint is going to be larger than burying the paper in a landfill. Everyone knows the cycle - tree absorbs CO2, gets turned into paper, doesn't get recycled/burned/composted, goes into a landfill, and in a few million years turns into fossil fuel.

    9. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Still has to be less than transporting waste paper, recycling (large cities will have multiple plants; unprinters may mean fewer plants), transporting to a store, then delivery to the office.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    10. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Your mileage may vary, but there is an effort at my company to capture non-private documents and print on the other side. I wonder how that enters into the equation.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The part many people like you are not understanding is that within a century or two, the landfills will all be stripped and their contents re-used. Landfill land right now is low-value, but eventually we'll have our act together enough that there will be 'valuable' landfills from before all the recycling crap, with plastic and copper and aluminum, and the 'shit' landfills with the automotive parts made out of pressed corn-starch. They may curse the fucks who came out with 'biodegradable' and facilitated more/most of the oil being burned and not stored in landfills.

      Also, the 'save a tree' meme is garbage. The way to increase the number of trees growing is to use more paper and wood products. Trees are a renewable resource and land doesn't get planted with trees unless their wood is being harvested and utilized. It will be wasted for something else.

    12. Re:Carbon footprint of green laser? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      THIS! Aerosolizing carbon black sounds like a really, really bad idea since it's a known carcinogen (HP got sued by workers in toner plants over exposure). Not to mention I can only imagine the paper jams from trying to use randomly handled paper (brand new reams cause enough problems).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. may work well for office paper by sgrover · · Score: 1

    This may work well for office paper. What about the spam mail I get in the mailbox every day? If it works for that, AND it becomes expected that we 'unprint' all paper, what do we do with all the excess household paper? (no, did not RTFA)

    1. Re:may work well for office paper by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      This may work well for office paper. What about the spam mail I get in the mailbox every day? If it works for that, AND it becomes expected that we 'unprint' all paper, what do we do with all the excess household paper?

      This question is based on an absurd assumption. Why would you need to unprint everything? If you have no use for your junk mail just recycle it. Same as always.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:may work well for office paper by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This question is based on an absurd assumption. Why would you need to unprint everything? If you have no use for your junk mail just recycle it. Same as always.

      The absurd question is why would you want to unprint anything? If you've already got to deal with recycling junk mail that is printed using any of a number of different processes that aren't laser printing, why not just throw in the laser printed sheets?

  5. Wow by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    No more damn toner! Just change the paper. And, presumably, any paper that is standard size would work in one of these printers, there wouldn't be any propriatary paper. You'd be able to keep using the same printer until it mechanically fails, could probably keep using the same printer for a decade.

    1. Re:Wow by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      I've been using the same printer for a decade. It's not that hard as long as you don't buy an Ink Jet. My previous printer, a laserjet 6L, also lasted 10 years.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:Wow by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my dad's company uses some ~20 year old LJ 4's. You can still get refurb kits and toner for them so for the jobs where the slower print speed isn't an issue why not?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. Even more efficient by theycallmeB · · Score: 2

    Unless they also developed a way to make paper that can not be unprinted without damage, I imagine that unprinting a signed contract that is just a little too fair and replacing everything but the signature with something more to your liking will be far more efficient than regular forgery.

  7. Only if you're not printing in green... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the laser is green, green ink will reflect the laser and render the device useless. If this were a corporation rather than a university, I'd fully expect them to raise the price on green ink as it's now unerasable/more secure/whatever.
     
    And back to work I go to make some green of my own...
     
    Captcha: Overly

    1. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by meow27 · · Score: 0

      the standard printer colors are Red, Yellow and Blue

      the pigment world is different than the active light world

    2. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK, actually.
      If you're going to be pedantic, you have to be right too.

    3. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The standard printer colors are cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. CMYK. CRT/LCD colors are RGB -- red, green, blue.

      The standard laser printer does not put a charge on paper, it puts a charge on a transfer roller that then transfers the toner to the paper. That toner is then melted onto the paper.

      Kodak (and others), used to make dye sublimation printers, where a sheet of plastic with dye on it was whacked with a laser to sublimate the dye directly onto the paper. This had the advantage of being something more than the typical "yes/no" "is there toner there" question, and thus resulted in much better color reproductions. No dithering was required. The major downside, besides cost of supplies, was that you were left with a negative image on the dye sheet, just like the old plastic film typewriters had.

      This system sounds like an incredibly wasteful and complicated process. You have to scan the paper to determine where there is toner and sublimate only those spots. If you miss by just that much, you'll char the paper and miss toner. If you put in a sheet of inkjet-printed paper, you'll burn the paper anyway.

      Making/recycling paper isn't that hard. This is silly.

    4. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      the standard printer colors are Red, Yellow and Blue

      Actually they are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (the latter because mixing black from the other colors tends to give suboptimal results).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Since the laser is green, green ink will reflect the laser and render the device useless.

      Seriously, have you ever seen a table of reflectivity of common materials and pigments? Did any green pigment you have ever seen look like a perfect mirror or what?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      if the laser could burn naked white reflective paper, it would also definitely char the paper under the toner, which it doesn't.

      the inkjet print is a good point though (i suspect it wouldn't actually burn, but it definitely wouldn't "unprint"); also, highlighting and pencil/ballpoint annotations, the use of which is a major reason for printing a doc out in the first place. this is not to mention the issues with feeding used paper in high volumes. the laser printer in my office jams several times a day even on pristine stock.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making/recycling paper isn't that hard.

      [citation needed]

    8. Re:Only if you're not printing in green... by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

      Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK, actually.
      If you're going to be pedantic, you have to be right too.

      The K in CMYK stands for Key, not black.
      If you're going to be pedantic, you also have to be correct as well.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

  8. Re:Comparisons by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would bet that if you compared the carbon foot print of "Laser the sh*t out of it" with "Stuff it in a vat and let the microbes have a party", the current technology would win... it doesn't need much (if any) electricity.

    If you care about which particular microbes party, and that they party the way you want, I'm curious how you accomplish this without the electricity usually required to create and maintain the required controlled environment. I suspect you're vastly underestimating the effort required to do this, as well as vastly overestimating the power requirements of your typical laser.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  9. Toxic vapor? by jimshatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, how unhealthy would the vaporized toner be? I really don't know. Somebody care to enlighten me?

    1. Re:Toxic vapor? by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      So, how unhealthy would the vaporized toner be? I really don't know. Somebody care to enlighten me?

      Probably just as safe/toxic as the ozone made when the original was laser printed...

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    2. Re:Toxic vapor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could cause cancer, aids, or even cause a pollution into the system. On the bright side, we have created a weapon that causes these kinds..oh happy days!

    3. Re:Toxic vapor? by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 2

      If it can be collected an put back into a toner cartridge - not terribly

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    4. Re:Toxic vapor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      active charcoal filter and a fan. On the other hand: "the US National Toxicology Program has described styrene as `reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'"

  10. I'm a buttnude. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's true.

    Use Gamemaker.

    1. Re:I'm a buttnude. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, contrary to what every business pushes (which is recycling), there are two other "R"s which have a MUCH greater impact

      1. Reduce. Don't print it out in the first place!
      2. Re-use. Print on backside. Or now, unprint and then print again, only if you have to.
      3. Recycle. The worst of the three Rs. Varies from slightly better than nothing to slightly worse than re-use.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  11. great idea, stupid article. by HBI · · Score: 0

    The process sounds interesting but the writer is an idiot.

    "we could cut down on electricity usage, CO2 output, and most importantly fresh water, which is growing more scarce by the year."

    We're just shooting it all into space, right? It's not the water getting more scarce. It's TOO MANY PEOPLE vying for the same water that causes the issue. Instead of citing the actual problem, overpopulation, writers like this one refer to one of its symptoms, water shortage. As if conservation would do anything but encourage more overpopulation.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:great idea, stupid article. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No, the problem clearly is that all the non-nerds are so obsessed with cleanness. If all people just stopped bathing and showering, the water consumption would go down considerably! :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:great idea, stupid article. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The process sounds interesting but the writer is an idiot.

      "we could cut down on electricity usage, CO2 output, and most importantly fresh water, which is growing more scarce by the year."

      We're just shooting it all into space, right? It's not the water getting more scarce. It's TOO MANY PEOPLE vying for the same water that causes the issue. Instead of citing the actual problem, overpopulation, writers like this one refer to one of its symptoms, water shortage. As if conservation would do anything but encourage more overpopulation.

      Actually, the problem is just like the writer says... fresh water is growing more scarce by the year. Polluted water (water mixed with stuff that's not potable) is increasing by the year. Added to this, we're also space shifting our water reserves from aquifers to rivers and oceans, draining them faster than they can replenish.

      We've got a long way to go before the world is overpopulated; however, the current population is doing a great job of making the resources available harder to access. Conservation allows for a HIGHER population; it's not overpopulation unless the population can no longer live within its means (eg, conservation measures can't keep up with demand).

      Unless you're really saying that you want to destroy the current ecostructure and get rid of all but a few people, who, even with their machines, are too few to have a lasting impact on the environment.

  12. I can not by geekoid · · Score: 2

    wait for this to be built into printers. It detected text, zaps it, then prints.

    The real issue is wrinkled papers.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:I can not by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      I can, actually.

      The big supposed value behind this is supposed to be that it will cut down on paper use. But it would be far more efficient to use e-paper for that. Not to mention less time-consuming, and regular paper suffers from wear and tear.

      It's nice to see people researching conservation technologies, but unless this has other applications as well I really can't see much value in it compared to what we already have. Perhaps it could be used to scan-and-remove graffiti? (amusing visual of someone with a portable device scanning an advertisement QR code... and removing it)

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    2. Re:I can not by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I just recently went through a license contract negotiation, which went back and forth with many different versions of the contract before we got one we could sign.

      I can't wait for this to be built into printers either. No need to negotiate ahead of time, we could alter the contract *after* we signed it.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:I can not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like a new way to avoid the paper shredder. Perhaps unprinting before shredding is the best way to avoid document security problems.

    4. Re:I can not by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      [b]we could alter the contract *after* we signed it.[/b]

      This is done now. Take page 23 from the final copy with signatures and a modified page 21 from an earlier copy when you submit it to the judge.

      Having watched this, I've become much better at ensuring my files are complete and keep offsite copies when warranted.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    5. Re:I can not by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Right, but the counter-argument might be that with malice aforethought, you altered *your* copy before putting it in offsite storage.

      I wonder if we eventually see some kind of sealed (either electronic or physical) container approach, overseen by a notary.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:I can not by Whibla · · Score: 1

      This is done now. Take page 23 from the final copy with signatures and a modified page 21 from an earlier copy when you submit it to the judge.

      Nice to see that your people have worked out how to fully utilise the marvels of headers and footers and version numbering in your important documentation...

    7. Re:I can not by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's called a signed pdf, I did all of the paperwork for my refi using them except the final loan documents that the archaic process in my state still requires be done on paper using a notary.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  13. Re:Comparisons by MLCT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the current technology would win... it doesn't need much (if any) electricity

    Electricity isn't the major factor - total energy is what matters.

    Collecting tonnes of paper and transporting it to recycling centres, pulping, cleaning, processing, re-bleaching (we don't like blue-brown paper, we want white paper) and then transporting the finished paper back to where it is used. Calculate the energy in that.

    At work we almost exclusively use reams of recycled paper. Print something on it and then sometime later (occasionally minutes later) it goes into a recycling bin. That bin is emptied once a week and the paper will travel 20 miles to a local depot. Where it is recycled and turned into new paper I don't know - but what I do know is that the reams of recycled paper we buy will come from at least 400 miles away (and will have travelled that via a circuitous route involving suppliers, buyers and distribution warehouses). Taking the same bit of paper and running it through a unprinter for 20 seconds and then reuse. Energy wise I don't think there will be any contest, but the numbers would have to be crunched to prove it.

  14. any paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they unprint used toilet paper?

  15. Re:Comparisons by geekoid · · Score: 1

    ITs a lot more then that, especially in by any practical measure.

    It's not just dumping in the vat. You have pt process it again, you need equipment to move it around, some of the chemicals are nasty, you need to ship the paper to and from the plant.

    "I would bet that if you compared the carbon foot print of "Laser the sh*t out of it" with "Stuff it in a vat and let the microbes have a party", the current technology would win... it doesn't need much (if any) electricity."

    And I would bet you never worked in recycling plant, not read the article or no how much energy this laser would use.

    I would also bet you can' look at anything but the most simplest of diagrams without getting a head ache.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Money by NEDHead · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unprint $1 bills, print $100's

    1. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget unprinting the $1... just use a normal printer to print two 0's.

    2. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why 5 Euro bills are smaller than 100 Euro bills.

  17. *hands in 20 stapled blank pages* by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Professor, I totally had my paper finished but I accidentally unprinted it!

  18. Ablation by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

    picosecond pulses of green laser light are used to vaporize the toner, or ablate in scientific terms

    So all that toner gets vaporized and is now floating around in the air of your office? What could go wrong?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    1. Re:Ablation by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now they need a charged drum that collects the vaporized toner and puts it in cartridges....

    2. Re:Ablation by nprz · · Score: 1

      It isn't as if all that toner makes it to the page when you are printing either.
      I'd refuse to be in an office anywhere close to where a printer is frequently used

    3. Re:Ablation by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I worked in a cubicle right next to a big laser printer for about a year :-(

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  19. Re:Comparisons by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Taking the same bit of paper and running it through a unprinter for 20 seconds and then reuse. Energy wise I don't think there will be any contest,

    Cost of making laser. Cost of maintenance on unprinter to keep the optical system aligned. Cost of "that unprinted paper looks like crap, I want this document reprinted on fresh paper". Cost of recycling entire unprinter when it wears out. Cost of eyepatches for office staff that try to unjam the unprinter. Cost of disability payments to retired office staff who tried to unjam it twice. Cost of fire department that shows up when someone tries to unprint an inkjet page and paper bursts into flame. Cost of disposing of unprinted toner (you can't just let the vapor out into the room, you know.)

  20. watch out fingers by lopaka1998 · · Score: 1

    What happens if you get your fingers stuck in the machine when it's "unprinting"! I can imagine it now. office employee: "Hey xerox guy... I was taking care of this paper jam when all of a sudden half my finger disappeared! What do I do?" The xerox guy raises his three fingered hand. "yep, been there - done that. next time unplug it and wait 20 minutes... I found this out the hard way." office employee: "are you giving me the finger?" zeros guy: does a half grin, and unplugs the printer.

  21. Except it's based on... by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    one major flawed assumption: that the "unprinted' paper will be used in printers instead of recycled paper. As a professional laser printer repair tech, I can tell you right now that won't happen. Even paper that has just been run through the printer once and left on a neat pile is significantly more likely to cause printer jams than fresh paper that's never been used. Any "savings" (whether carbon footprint, money, or otherwise) over using recyled paper will be quickly consumed by the extra repair trips.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    1. Re:Except it's based on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, their "unprinter" includes a process to treat paper for re-use. A printed page will likely jam due to the fact it has gone through a heating process which causes curling. To avoid curl, high-end printers can usually avail of "de-curlers" - eg http://www.support.xerox.com/docu/NuveraEA_cd/ugta/english/wdtbd_70.htm

      A de-curled page would be easier to print, but there are still many other factors to consider.

    2. Re:Except it's based on... by galanom · · Score: 1

      Actually this would be good news for a repairman like you!

  22. If Enron had those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine the entire forests that could have been saved ; )

  23. Shrinters are better than unprinters, however. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shrinters are even more efficient than unprinters at reducing carbon footpoints
    Thinkgeek even sells them.
      http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/shrinter.shtml

  24. Paper is not robust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will not work because plain paper is not robust. To be twice or even twenty times more efficient each sheet of paper must last several printing and unprinting cycles. How effectively will unprinters handle ink that is on creased paper, miscellanious stains, staple/binder holes and tears etc? Not well I'd wager.

  25. Carbon footprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Spouse in the forest sciences here,

    A minor point, but the huge carbon footprint of paper manufacturing is (at least in Scandinavia) deceptive. While paper factories do burn large amounts of wood to boil the fibres into pulp, the emitted carbon is a part of the natural cycle: it gets picked up again by the trees in the mandatory-by-law reforesting step. As long as the forest is kept at a constant size, the net carbon emission is pretty much zero.

    (The sulphite and nitrogen emissions are another story, however.)

    1. Re:Carbon footprint by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we're talking about recycling paper, which is an entirely different furnace.

  26. Generic spelling Nazi complaint by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

    "Unprint" violates the phonotactic constraints of Latin. Unpossible! Clearly, the antonym of "print" should be "imprint". (Wait. Oh noooooo...)

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    1. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Just burn it. I hear paper is very... inflammable.

    2. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Well, since the opposite of wind, is rewind, then they can reprint.

    3. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by selven · · Score: 1

      Your phonotactic complaints are very umproductive.

    4. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      ...actually, the opposite of wind is unwind, but thanks for playing.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Perhaps—but they're certainly conductive!

      (Also, I looked it up. 'improduco' is totally a Latin word. As weird as it may sound, we actually should be saying improductive. Obviously that's not the case, but reality has never diminished the appeal of idealistic purism, and it's not about to start!)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I'm never lending you a video cassette.

    7. Re:Generic spelling Nazi complaint by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I think the 'winding' action that magnetic tape does under normal usage might be properly described as 'transwinding'. One spool is unwinding and the other is winding up at the same time, after all.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  27. Does it work on toilet paper? by retroworks · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Just wondering, maybe it will pay for itself in avoided sewage costs.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Does it work on toilet paper? by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      Because yeah, that's the stuff you'd want to vaporize in your home.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  28. The paper ususally IS charged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to nitpick, but in copiers at least, there's a corona wire to place a stronger charge on the paper than there is on the drum, thus transferring the toner from the drum to the paper before it's fused. The higher-end laser printers use a transfer roller on the back-side of the paper to accomplish the same thing.

  29. positive charge left by original printer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long does the "positive charge" from the original printing last?

    or to put it another way, can an unprinted document still be read by looking for the charge patterns left by the original laser printing process? or is the positive charge applied by the laser printer transitory in nature, or likely to obliterated as a side effect of the unprinting process?

  30. Yellow dot pattern by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Can these be used to "unprint" those pesky yellow dot patterns in colour laser printers?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  31. Just print on the other side by Relayman · · Score: 1

    I bought a second paper tray for my laser printer ($50) and print on the back side of pages already printed for another purpose. It seems I get enough paper heading for the trash or recycling to have enough to print on the second side. It works better than the proposed solution although not as exciting.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  32. Was the neologism really necessary ? by madbrain · · Score: 2

    Why was a laser "eraser" not a perfectly adequate word for it ?

    --
    -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
  33. Fountain pen ink that is laser resistant by Takehiko · · Score: 1

    Noodler's Ink makes a line of fountain pen inks that are specifically resistant to this kind of laser tampering. Great for signing checks and other important documents that you need remain secure from fraud.

    http://noodlersink.com/whats-new/wardens-inks/

  34. This misunderstanding is common by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Thermal power stations use vast amounts of water, as fresh as available, for cooling. However none of it is actually "destroyed", not much is evaporated, and what is used either goes back through a loop again or goes downstream to be used again for something else.

  35. In Soviet Russia by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Laser erase YOU!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  36. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we only have to deal with the carbon footprint of unwrinkle, unshred, antear, uncrease and uncoffee-ring before we have a viable solution. Unstaple, unholepunch and unbind may be tricky.

  37. Extra layer of obfuscation for paper shredders... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While all of you feeble minded humans are busy arguing about the paper being too crumpled to go back through the printer, or this being used to commit fraud such as rewriting contracts or blanking $1 bills to make $100 bills, THIS GUY just came up with the idea to make paper shredders that un-print before shredding.

    If you don't like that, here's a stupid homage to Office Space (someone else already claimed the "The Office" punchline, because I don't think the real Dwight Shrute actually reads this website.)

    "PC UN-LOAD LETTER?! What the fuck does THAT un-mean?"

    If you don't like that, you should unprint your face first chance you get. I hear this product is coming to market Real Soon Now.

  38. it's not about ozone. by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    It's not about ozone. However unhealthy ozone may be if you inhale it, it's easily dealt with. It's about micro-particles containing cancerous substances. As anybody in the toner-industry can tell you, it's incredibly unhealthy to breath in toner dust. Laser printers come with a plethora of particle filters (at least the professional ones do) so you can actually use them in an office without being exposed to levels of danger anywhere near the average tobacco smoking addict or worse. As long as the proper procedure is followed when doing maintenance and exchanging toner, you don't get a lot of exposure, but if you shoot up the toner particles so fine that they become air born, there may be a whole new problem. It's already proven that micro particles from diesel engines, brake pads and tires near roads are very bad for your health, regardless of the carcinogenic qualities of said particles.

    Once you start blasting significant amounts of micro size particles containing known carcinogenics in to the air of the average office, you'll be in major trouble as a manufacturer. This means that a laser-unprinter would probably have to have a very elaborate filtering system set up and special (think asbestos style) removal crews come to do service and maintenance on them.

    How many pieces of paper would still look good after the toner would be blasted off? Finger prints, coffee stains and creases would probably still be visible. I doubt you could recycle more than 25% or so of all printed paper. Even worse, for quite a lot of paper it wouldn't be obvious that it doesn't look good enough for re-use until after you've un-printed it.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  39. Do they make one that works on un-printed objects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such as people, or places?

    If so, you can reach me at Dr. Evil Inc. You know my number.

  40. Sure you can remove the ink, but... by destruk · · Score: 0

    How do you un-fold, un-burn, un-crumple, and un-tear the paper?

  41. That is not how a laser printer works by fearofcarpet · · Score: 2

    Laser printers don't use lasers to charge paper, they use them to selectively discharge an image transfer drum, which is then covered in toner and pressed against a piece of paper. The toner and paper are on opposite ends of the triboelectric series and spontaneously develop opposite charges when brought into contact with each other.

    As for the toxicity of the toner vapor, the composition is of course proprietary, but black toner historically has comprised mainly oxides of selenium. In small quantities it's probably harmless, but long-term exposure is almost certainly bad for you.

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  42. Hemp paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't we make paper out of hemp?

  43. Netcraft confirms "backspace key is dying" by laejoh · · Score: 1

    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The backspace key is dying.

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered keyboard community when IDC confirmed that the backspace key market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all keyboards. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the backspace key has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The backspace key market is collapsing in complete disarray.

  44. Tattoo removal? by hairyfish · · Score: 1

    If this works on tattoos, then there's a hundred of million dollar industry about to erupt. The tattoo industry is exploding right now, which means that in about 5-10 years, tattoo removal will be almost as big. Where can I license this technology?

    1. Re:Tattoo removal? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      you think grandma's tired of her tramp stamp?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  45. This is an OLD idea by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

    By the inventors of the laser no less. Check http://www.youtube.com/v/CoGsoH2UtMM at 17:18.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
  46. A new way for criminals to get your information. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what happens when sensitive documents are recycled? What you get is tomorrows news stating that it is easier than pie to add-back the erased toner.

  47. The Laser Eraser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Laser Eraser is a much better term then The Laser Unprinter.

  48. Carbon, carbon, carbon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.climatedepot.com

    Why do they keep going on about 'carbon' when there is no such thing as man made global warming?

  49. Laser don't give charge to paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as a side remark: "to give individual 'pixels' on a piece of paper a positive charge" is not correct. The laser in a laser printer is used to depolarize a previously charged imaging drum.

  50. Doubleplusgood by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Please send me a quote for 10,000 of your unprinting Machines ASAP

    Fraternally Yours
    Big Brother

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  51. Orwell says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unprinting is doubleplusgood

  52. Lovely. by moondo · · Score: 1

    You laugh now, but wait till they find a way to charge you for them un-cartridges...

  53. I did this in grad school in the early 70's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really inefficient though. I was using a ruby pulsed laser for measuring particulates in the air. As part of testing our setup we were firing the laser in the lab. I used graph paper as a target thinking it would probably set it on fire. It didn't but did blow the ink off of the page in a ~1 cm spot. Move the target, run the next test, repeat. I think we finally cleaned off the entire page except right around the edges.

    1. Re:I did this in grad school in the early 70's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot a detail. It blew the ink off of the BACK side of the paper. It was burned off of the FRONT side.

  54. Walmart hijinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totally used to go into walmart and ask then for this very product. They would spend sometimes the better part of an hour actually looking for it. Fun times...