Is Hulu that different from cable TV on demand? If not, then cable TV on demand is a substitute for Hulu and (to a lesser extent) for a DVR application.
2 reasons. The first is that most "Nettops" have terrible graphics cards. Even the aformentioned Ion setup with the GeForce 9400M is not a good gaming solution. If you want to play older stuff it may be OK, but Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 is going to run like crap. I'm fully aware that the GPU in a 360 is very dated at this point, but console games are designed to run on it. PC games can take advantage of better hardware and often won't run well on low-end cards.
Controllers are the second problem. Most PC games are set up to use a (superior IMHO) keyboard and mouse for controls. I know there are controllers for the PC and drivers for the xbox 360 controllers, but games that aren't set up to use them often need some pretty nasty hacks to get it to work right. With a 360 the games are designed with the controller in mind so this isn't a problem.
Assuming they can actually come up with the money to launch it, I wonder how long it will be up there before it "accidentally" gets hit with a "stray" surface-to-air or air-to-air missile. It'll either be that or incentive to clean up some space "junk." Maybe this is what it will take to get NASA a bigger budget.
just hunt on the net for w95.img, Google knows, add a few lines to the dosbox conf and it will boot win95, i have done this under linux both on my laptop and my Nokia 900. works fine on both;) just have a licence for it:D and happy old day gaming:D
That right there makes me want a Maemo/Meego phone. To bad they are all GSM only and GSM coverage/available bandwidth around her is awful.
You forgot to mention the suffixes marketing people love to slap on stuff. Slapping "-o-matic" on the end of everything from the 50's comes to mind right away.
Meanwhile people like me that live and breath code somehow manage to do just about everything with the iPad. It's hardly the devices fault if someone can't figure out the App Store. I know that search box and browse by category thing is totally new still after all these years of using the web. And given I've seen six month old children successfully navigate between apps, play games, etc it must be very difficult for some adults.
While it is true that it is easy to install apps from the app store you are either clearly missing the point of this discussion or are totally blinded by Steve's reality distortion field.
Apple does not allow software to be installed from someplace other than the app store. They restrict the languages that the software can be developed in. They restrict the machines that the code can be developed on. Sure you can do some "real things" with it, but there's a lot of stuff you can not do as well.
I'm amazed that various OSS projects are held to the same standards as their proprietary counterparts despite the huge disparity in cost. Photoshop may be better than GIMP but is is $658 better?
The spirit of volunteerism is in general a much weaker motivator of people than money.
Many open source projects (and arguably most successful ones) have some sort of corporate sponsorship. Some companies who use open-source projects do pay people to work on them full-time. Others provide support services for open-source products and use the money generated to hire programs to improve the product. Open source vs. Closed source isn't about amateur vs. professional anymore and hasn't been for quite some time.
VMware (player anyway) uses a.bundle file that runs as a loki-style or windows-looking installer. You run sudo sh downloadedfile.bundle and a gui installer runs.
Every commercial Linux app I've seen has a deb available for Ubuntu/debian these days or at the very least a loki-type installer. Installing is as simple as double clicking on the file and typing in your password. Less of a hassle than Windows IMHO.
It's also nice that the package manager in Linux keeps everything up to date. Having 5 or 6 updaters always running in the background is a waste of resources and a massive security hole. That's a non-starter.
Illegal immigrants are bankrolling your SS right now.
"Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.
That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said. "
SOURCE [washingtonpost.com].
If the 9.6% (Source) of Americans who are currently unemployed were doing these jobs instead of the illegal immigrants, they would be contributing an astounding 5.4-10.7% of our social security trust fund's assets. Since Americans generally get a higher wage, theoretically they would be contributing more to SS than illegal immigrants. My point is that there are plenty of American workers who are capable of doing the same work as illegal immigrants. If you replace every illegal immigrant with an unemployed American, the amount of money going in to SS would remain the same and the amount paid out in benefits (Health care, housing assistance, disability, etc...) would decrease.
While it's true that it would be optimal for citizens to be doing the jobs that the immigrants currently do, the fact is that the group of Americans who could be doing these jobs feel entitled to a higher standard of living that these jobs provide. Anger toward immigrants is misplaced. They are filling a market demand.
If the immigrants were not there either Americans would work for less or wages will go up. That's the way the free market works. Because illegal immigrants are willing to work for less it's driving wages down. That's the way the free market works.
Thanks. Did some digging and found this [wccf.org], and according to it my original assertion is correct. Outside of pre-natal care and benefits for children, (two things of which the state will ultimately pay for in one way or another) illegal immigrants do not qualify for any of the benefits afforded by Badger Care.
You listed two benefits (pre-natal care and emergency care) and then said illegals don't get any benefits. That's quite the contradiction. They may not qualify for the entire Badger Care program but they are still getting benefits. Since hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment, ultimately the citizens of the US are stuck with the bill. Illegal immigrants have also been known to use the identities of their US-born children or the children of others to qualify for benefits.
People need to realize that America is not here to provide charity to the rest of the world. While giving to charity is noble, it's irresponsible when you don't have enough to feed your own family.
$8-$10 per hour plus minimal benefits, employment tax, workers comp. and reasonable working conditions is *way* more than most farmers are paying illegal immigrants.
This was in 2004. I was making $6.50/hr. Minimum wage was $5.15. I had no benefits of any kind including workers comp as farm labor in Wisconsin was exempt at that time.
My question to you is: If farmers aren't paying employment taxes, how is illegal labor going to pay for my social security as you stated in your previous post?
The jobs you lost to illegals are still there, it just costs the farmer less to hire illegals than it costs to hire you, even at $8 per hour. The farmer is doing the natural, free-market thing and hiring the cheaper labor. The illegals are doing the natural free-market thing and taking the work. You could take the work too, but you'd have to lower your wage and expectations.
I didn't have a choice. Like I said in the previous post the farmer just cut my hours to nothing. I ended up taking the pay cut by getting a different job that only paid minimum wage. I would have preferred to continue doing the farm work for minimum wage. My friend who has been looking for farm (and other unskilled) work lately isn't even considered for minimum-wage jobs of this type because he's here legally.
We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal,
I like cheap clothing. Should we legalize slavery to produce the cotton more cheaply? Should we legalize child labor so the mills can make more of a profit? I bet it that would be even cheaper than outsourcing our textile production to China or somewhere else where labor is cheap and human life isn't valued. My point is that government regulation is there to keep the free market in check. This is a good thing for laborers and consumers.
instead of wasting effort criminalizing the very people providing the food we want for our families.
Americans and legal immigrants are perfectly capable of producing this food without illegal immigration. My solution is to criminalize those who deliberately hire illegal workers--I'm talking jail time, not little fines. If there wasn't work, we wouldn't have the immigration problem. Wages (and probably prices) would go up a bit and unemployment would go down.
Bullshit. With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants genreally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance. Regarding health care, studies have shown that illegal immigrants place a lower burden on our health care system than citizens of the same socioeconomic class. [reuters.com] Here is a second study [ama-assn.org] which came to the same conclusion. Here is a third [arizona.edu]. A fourth [healthaffairs.org].
You are the one being ignorant. I't obvious that illegal immigrants put less of a burden on our health care system. They don't want to risk deportation so they are less likely to go to a hospital or clinic when injured or sick. Simple logic dictates that if said illegal immigrants were not here in the first place their impact on our health care system would be zero. This would free up resources to help unemployed and underemployed Americans who cannot afford health care. It would also free up low paying (better than nothing) jobs for unemployed Americans.
I've never heard of a state giving illegals welfare-type benefits. I'd love a link to these programs in Wisconsin you speak of. Got one?
Sure. Look at Badger Care for health care. Check out this link has a pretty good description of available benefits.
They are the ones who will contribute most to our economy and pay for your and my social security when we retire
This is so ridiculous I am undoing moderation to reply.
First of all I'd rather my children be contributing to the economy and social security when I retire. There is no shortage of American workers in the US right now. In fact there is a surplus. Putting these people to work will do more for our economy than hiring illegals. Not only will unemployment be lower but the cost of unemployment, food stamps and other welfare benefits payed to currently unemployed or underemployed Americans will decrease. It could even help raise wages for low-paying jobs as Americans (or legal immigrants) aren't as likely to live in unsafe conditions just to save a few bucks.
You are also forgetting the burden illegal immigrants put on our welfare system. Since they often work for low wages and live below the poverty line they qualify for all sorts of benefits. In Wisconsin they get excellent health care (better than my current employment benefits and they pay nothing for it), housing assistance, heating assistance, food stamps, etc... all on the American taxpayer's dime. Interestingly it seems that these programs were tailored for illegal immigrants as you do not need a social security number to qualify--meaning you don't have to be paying taxes to get the benefits.
As someone whose job was displaced by illegal immigrants I don't believe that Americans would not do the same work as illegals. I was paying my way through school by working on a farm on weekends and over the summers. Pretty soon the farmer hired a few illegal immigrants to work week nights. Within 6 months he had hired 4 more and my hours went from 30/week to about 4. Why? The illegals were willing to work for minimum wage and I couldn't. I have a few unemployed friends who would be more than willing to work on a farm or something similar for $8-$10 an hour just so they can get by. None of them can find work because all the farms around are only hiring illegals these days.
Seriously, you take 250 bucks and buy a computer that'll do Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 at 1080p and act as a slick BluRay player.
I'm assuming that since you are posting on Slashdot you own a PC. I would be willing to bet that if you added an additional $250 worth of parts to your existing computer (or added that $250 to your budget for the next one) you would have a machine that is more than capable of both of those requirements.
having to chase an upgrade path every 2 to 3 years versus 5 to 6 to play games
I have to admit you are a little closer to correct than most console advocates (I've seen people say upgrades were required every 6 months to a year) but you are still a bit off. I was recently browsing my newegg purchase history and I accidentally discovered that it's been a full two years since I built my current gaming rig. I was shocked to discover it's been that long. I can still play any modern game pretty much maxed out so I have no desire to upgrade any time soon. If I really wanted to I could probably stretch the life of that machine another 3 years or so but I wouldn't be playing anything maxed out. On the other hand, every console fanboy I know will readily admit that CODMW2 looks better at 1080p on the PC than it does on a console due to better/more flexible hardware. In 2 years when the xbox 360 is EOL even the newest games will look like crap compared to their PC counterparts. With a PC you could easily spend $150 half way through the 5 year life cycle for a video card upgrade and still have beautiful graphics if you want. Of course you could still run the game on lower settings and it will be comparable to the console's.
Re:The originals really are something else
on
Homebrew Cray-1
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've lived within a 2 hour drive of Chippewa Falls for many years and still have not visited the museum. I should look it up next time I'm passing through. In case you are ever in the area again, the Leinenkugals brewery gives excellent tours (with samples) as well and is IMHO worth a visit.
Are we really OK when there are only two major manufacturers of processors and graphics hardware?
They are apparently OK with Intel making graphics hardware. Even though Intel's integrated graphics processors suck, they probably outsell both ATI and NVIDIA in the low-end consumer desktop and laptop markets.
I'm sure you will still be able to buy CPUs without a GPU on die. Based on your logic, you won't be able to buy Intel CPUs either because some of Intel's chipsets include crappy onboard Intel GPUs.
Next up, why does my web server stop working every time my router reboots? Taking the 5 extra minutes to set a static IP is worth it considering the hassles these "higher level networking protocols" provide along with their functionality. Seriously, what are the disadvantages of a static IP that make the hassles of Avahi worth it?
Protocols like Avahi, Bonjour, or whatever your platform of choice uses are great for initially discovering the printer, but to use this to dynamically generate a port every time the driver is loaded or every time a print job is sent is an insane waste of resources. This woule be especially apparent if you have several printers of the same model on the network and have not changed the unique ID. By the time you go in through the printer's interface to set the hostname, you may as well set a static IP. Setting the port to the printer's hostname would be a better solution if the IP must be dynamic.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Hulu that different from cable TV on demand? If not, then cable TV on demand is a substitute for Hulu and (to a lesser extent) for a DVR application.
Yes. Hulu doesn't send me a monthly bill.
2 reasons. The first is that most "Nettops" have terrible graphics cards. Even the aformentioned Ion setup with the GeForce 9400M is not a good gaming solution. If you want to play older stuff it may be OK, but Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 is going to run like crap. I'm fully aware that the GPU in a 360 is very dated at this point, but console games are designed to run on it. PC games can take advantage of better hardware and often won't run well on low-end cards.
Controllers are the second problem. Most PC games are set up to use a (superior IMHO) keyboard and mouse for controls. I know there are controllers for the PC and drivers for the xbox 360 controllers, but games that aren't set up to use them often need some pretty nasty hacks to get it to work right. With a 360 the games are designed with the controller in mind so this isn't a problem.
No, not directly. The US Government seems to be a RIAA/MPAA subsidiary and they control NASA'a purse strings.
Assuming they can actually come up with the money to launch it, I wonder how long it will be up there before it "accidentally" gets hit with a "stray" surface-to-air or air-to-air missile. It'll either be that or incentive to clean up some space "junk." Maybe this is what it will take to get NASA a bigger budget.
just hunt on the net for w95.img, Google knows, add a few lines to the dosbox conf and it will boot win95, i have done this under linux both on my laptop and my Nokia 900. works fine on both ;) just have a licence for it :D and happy old day gaming :D
That right there makes me want a Maemo/Meego phone. To bad they are all GSM only and GSM coverage/available bandwidth around her is awful.
You forgot to mention the suffixes marketing people love to slap on stuff. Slapping "-o-matic" on the end of everything from the 50's comes to mind right away.
I clicked through the Mini 10 option and it didn't change it to Windows only.
Dell is still shipping PCs with Ubuntu preloaded. You can find them here.
Meanwhile people like me that live and breath code somehow manage to do just about everything with the iPad. It's hardly the devices fault if someone can't figure out the App Store. I know that search box and browse by category thing is totally new still after all these years of using the web. And given I've seen six month old children successfully navigate between apps, play games, etc it must be very difficult for some adults.
While it is true that it is easy to install apps from the app store you are either clearly missing the point of this discussion or are totally blinded by Steve's reality distortion field.
Apple does not allow software to be installed from someplace other than the app store. They restrict the languages that the software can be developed in. They restrict the machines that the code can be developed on. Sure you can do some "real things" with it, but there's a lot of stuff you can not do as well.
I'm amazed that various OSS projects are held to the same standards as their proprietary counterparts despite the huge disparity in cost. Photoshop may be better than GIMP but is is $658 better?
The spirit of volunteerism is in general a much weaker motivator of people than money.
Many open source projects (and arguably most successful ones) have some sort of corporate sponsorship. Some companies who use open-source projects do pay people to work on them full-time. Others provide support services for open-source products and use the money generated to hire programs to improve the product. Open source vs. Closed source isn't about amateur vs. professional anymore and hasn't been for quite some time.
VMware (player anyway) uses a .bundle file that runs as a loki-style or windows-looking installer. You run sudo sh downloadedfile.bundle and a gui installer runs.
Every commercial Linux app I've seen has a deb available for Ubuntu/debian these days or at the very least a loki-type installer. Installing is as simple as double clicking on the file and typing in your password. Less of a hassle than Windows IMHO.
It's also nice that the package manager in Linux keeps everything up to date. Having 5 or 6 updaters always running in the background is a waste of resources and a massive security hole. That's a non-starter.
Illegal immigrants are bankrolling your SS right now. "Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants. That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said. " SOURCE [washingtonpost.com].
If the 9.6% (Source) of Americans who are currently unemployed were doing these jobs instead of the illegal immigrants, they would be contributing an astounding 5.4-10.7% of our social security trust fund's assets. Since Americans generally get a higher wage, theoretically they would be contributing more to SS than illegal immigrants. My point is that there are plenty of American workers who are capable of doing the same work as illegal immigrants. If you replace every illegal immigrant with an unemployed American, the amount of money going in to SS would remain the same and the amount paid out in benefits (Health care, housing assistance, disability, etc...) would decrease.
While it's true that it would be optimal for citizens to be doing the jobs that the immigrants currently do, the fact is that the group of Americans who could be doing these jobs feel entitled to a higher standard of living that these jobs provide. Anger toward immigrants is misplaced. They are filling a market demand.
If the immigrants were not there either Americans would work for less or wages will go up. That's the way the free market works. Because illegal immigrants are willing to work for less it's driving wages down. That's the way the free market works.
Thanks. Did some digging and found this [wccf.org], and according to it my original assertion is correct. Outside of pre-natal care and benefits for children, (two things of which the state will ultimately pay for in one way or another) illegal immigrants do not qualify for any of the benefits afforded by Badger Care.
You listed two benefits (pre-natal care and emergency care) and then said illegals don't get any benefits. That's quite the contradiction. They may not qualify for the entire Badger Care program but they are still getting benefits. Since hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment, ultimately the citizens of the US are stuck with the bill. Illegal immigrants have also been known to use the identities of their US-born children or the children of others to qualify for benefits.
People need to realize that America is not here to provide charity to the rest of the world. While giving to charity is noble, it's irresponsible when you don't have enough to feed your own family.
$8-$10 per hour plus minimal benefits, employment tax, workers comp. and reasonable working conditions is *way* more than most farmers are paying illegal immigrants.
This was in 2004. I was making $6.50/hr. Minimum wage was $5.15. I had no benefits of any kind including workers comp as farm labor in Wisconsin was exempt at that time.
My question to you is: If farmers aren't paying employment taxes, how is illegal labor going to pay for my social security as you stated in your previous post?
The jobs you lost to illegals are still there, it just costs the farmer less to hire illegals than it costs to hire you, even at $8 per hour. The farmer is doing the natural, free-market thing and hiring the cheaper labor. The illegals are doing the natural free-market thing and taking the work. You could take the work too, but you'd have to lower your wage and expectations.
I didn't have a choice. Like I said in the previous post the farmer just cut my hours to nothing. I ended up taking the pay cut by getting a different job that only paid minimum wage. I would have preferred to continue doing the farm work for minimum wage. My friend who has been looking for farm (and other unskilled) work lately isn't even considered for minimum-wage jobs of this type because he's here legally.
We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal,
I like cheap clothing. Should we legalize slavery to produce the cotton more cheaply? Should we legalize child labor so the mills can make more of a profit? I bet it that would be even cheaper than outsourcing our textile production to China or somewhere else where labor is cheap and human life isn't valued. My point is that government regulation is there to keep the free market in check. This is a good thing for laborers and consumers.
instead of wasting effort criminalizing the very people providing the food we want for our families.
Americans and legal immigrants are perfectly capable of producing this food without illegal immigration. My solution is to criminalize those who deliberately hire illegal workers--I'm talking jail time, not little fines. If there wasn't work, we wouldn't have the immigration problem. Wages (and probably prices) would go up a bit and unemployment would go down.
Bullshit. With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants genreally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance. Regarding health care, studies have shown that illegal immigrants place a lower burden on our health care system than citizens of the same socioeconomic class. [reuters.com] Here is a second study [ama-assn.org] which came to the same conclusion. Here is a third [arizona.edu]. A fourth [healthaffairs.org].
You are the one being ignorant. I't obvious that illegal immigrants put less of a burden on our health care system. They don't want to risk deportation so they are less likely to go to a hospital or clinic when injured or sick. Simple logic dictates that if said illegal immigrants were not here in the first place their impact on our health care system would be zero. This would free up resources to help unemployed and underemployed Americans who cannot afford health care. It would also free up low paying (better than nothing) jobs for unemployed Americans.
I've never heard of a state giving illegals welfare-type benefits. I'd love a link to these programs in Wisconsin you speak of. Got one?
Sure. Look at Badger Care for health care. Check out this link has a pretty good description of available benefits.
They are the ones who will contribute most to our economy and pay for your and my social security when we retire
This is so ridiculous I am undoing moderation to reply.
First of all I'd rather my children be contributing to the economy and social security when I retire. There is no shortage of American workers in the US right now. In fact there is a surplus. Putting these people to work will do more for our economy than hiring illegals. Not only will unemployment be lower but the cost of unemployment, food stamps and other welfare benefits payed to currently unemployed or underemployed Americans will decrease. It could even help raise wages for low-paying jobs as Americans (or legal immigrants) aren't as likely to live in unsafe conditions just to save a few bucks.
You are also forgetting the burden illegal immigrants put on our welfare system. Since they often work for low wages and live below the poverty line they qualify for all sorts of benefits. In Wisconsin they get excellent health care (better than my current employment benefits and they pay nothing for it), housing assistance, heating assistance, food stamps, etc... all on the American taxpayer's dime. Interestingly it seems that these programs were tailored for illegal immigrants as you do not need a social security number to qualify--meaning you don't have to be paying taxes to get the benefits.
As someone whose job was displaced by illegal immigrants I don't believe that Americans would not do the same work as illegals. I was paying my way through school by working on a farm on weekends and over the summers. Pretty soon the farmer hired a few illegal immigrants to work week nights. Within 6 months he had hired 4 more and my hours went from 30/week to about 4. Why? The illegals were willing to work for minimum wage and I couldn't. I have a few unemployed friends who would be more than willing to work on a farm or something similar for $8-$10 an hour just so they can get by. None of them can find work because all the farms around are only hiring illegals these days.
Seriously, you take 250 bucks and buy a computer that'll do Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 at 1080p and act as a slick BluRay player.
I'm assuming that since you are posting on Slashdot you own a PC. I would be willing to bet that if you added an additional $250 worth of parts to your existing computer (or added that $250 to your budget for the next one) you would have a machine that is more than capable of both of those requirements.
having to chase an upgrade path every 2 to 3 years versus 5 to 6 to play games
I have to admit you are a little closer to correct than most console advocates (I've seen people say upgrades were required every 6 months to a year) but you are still a bit off. I was recently browsing my newegg purchase history and I accidentally discovered that it's been a full two years since I built my current gaming rig. I was shocked to discover it's been that long. I can still play any modern game pretty much maxed out so I have no desire to upgrade any time soon. If I really wanted to I could probably stretch the life of that machine another 3 years or so but I wouldn't be playing anything maxed out. On the other hand, every console fanboy I know will readily admit that CODMW2 looks better at 1080p on the PC than it does on a console due to better/more flexible hardware. In 2 years when the xbox 360 is EOL even the newest games will look like crap compared to their PC counterparts. With a PC you could easily spend $150 half way through the 5 year life cycle for a video card upgrade and still have beautiful graphics if you want. Of course you could still run the game on lower settings and it will be comparable to the console's.
I've lived within a 2 hour drive of Chippewa Falls for many years and still have not visited the museum. I should look it up next time I'm passing through. In case you are ever in the area again, the Leinenkugals brewery gives excellent tours (with samples) as well and is IMHO worth a visit.
Are we really OK when there are only two major manufacturers of processors and graphics hardware?
They are apparently OK with Intel making graphics hardware. Even though Intel's integrated graphics processors suck, they probably outsell both ATI and NVIDIA in the low-end consumer desktop and laptop markets.
I'm sure you will still be able to buy CPUs without a GPU on die. Based on your logic, you won't be able to buy Intel CPUs either because some of Intel's chipsets include crappy onboard Intel GPUs.
Pumas and Panthers are the same thing. A Warthog is something entirely different.
as opposed to rev.eng. ones? Then I'd believe. Too many NTFS removable drives floating around, and FAT barfs on 4G files.
FAT also is a good way to end up at the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. It would be nice to see some sort of patent agreement from MS.
Next up, why does my web server stop working every time my router reboots? Taking the 5 extra minutes to set a static IP is worth it considering the hassles these "higher level networking protocols" provide along with their functionality. Seriously, what are the disadvantages of a static IP that make the hassles of Avahi worth it?
Protocols like Avahi, Bonjour, or whatever your platform of choice uses are great for initially discovering the printer, but to use this to dynamically generate a port every time the driver is loaded or every time a print job is sent is an insane waste of resources. This woule be especially apparent if you have several printers of the same model on the network and have not changed the unique ID. By the time you go in through the printer's interface to set the hostname, you may as well set a static IP. Setting the port to the printer's hostname would be a better solution if the IP must be dynamic.