It's too bad there's not more independent, reliable info out there. Have you heard of tests being performed that are more objective?
One point you've missed is that not all inket "ink" is dye. The Epson Ultrachrome inks are made with pigment. Some third party manufacturers use pigment as well, but the range of colors they reproduce is more limited. Ultrachrome is Epson's way of somehow using polymer coatings to give them a dye-like color range, while offering the supposed long life of pigment.
If you have links to more information, I would be interested to have a look.
But that is a long story, full of technical details that are irrelevant to the original question.
It may well be relevant. The poster was asking about what printer to buy and what inks. If the poster is thinking of purchasing archival inks, you might be able to talk him out of it.
At the minimum, I'm interested to hear why you think archival inks are useless. Of course there are no guarantees, but do you completely reject the accelerated aging tests conducted by Wilhelm Research?
One thing about archival inks is they don't seem more expensive than the standard brand-name inks--it's really the printer that will cost more.
I found them on VolunteerMatch. They were asking for computer help. Turns out, all they really needed were data entry monkeys. But then they asked about doing a one time gig, so I went in for that.
Another thing to consider is what you expect in terms of quality. Do you want your prints to last a long time? Do you want to be able to use color profiles to make the color closely match your intent?
A really good place to do some reading, especially for people going for extra high-quality output is inkjetart.com.
Personally, I have two Epson printers. One is a $600 Epson 2200 using Epson's own UltraChrome inks, which can go for 150 years without fading if you use the right paper. The other is an Epson c82, which I got for $30 as a display model on clearance. I bought third-party ink for it on sale, probably $25 for two full sets of black and color inks. When I first put it in, I had to run a flew ink cleaning cycles, but it has performed well since then.
Perhaps you could post here and say more about what you are looking for.
I was helping them install some digital camera software.
The system was running horribly slow. When I opened a web browser to Google and got a pop-up, I knew exactly what was up. Ad-aware (Not to be confused with Ada-ware, which also claims to be an anti-spyware program) found about 6 different spyware apps. Once I had cleaned those off, the system ran 3 or 4 times as fast. Those apps had really cloggled up its limited RAM.
This was a fairly busy non-profit helping clients pretty much continuously throughout the day.
* The Earth is less than 6,000 years old. * Dinosaur bones and the trillions of other fossils showing various evolving species throughout history were put there by God to challenge our faith that evolution is a Satanic principle. * Gay people don't exist, plus they don't deserve any rights in this Flag-loving nation of ours, unless of course they're lesbians who are willing to let me watch. * Global warming is helping to speed up the end times so we can get Jesus to come back sooner.
I like your ideas. The fewer voters there are, the more my vote counts:)
If only they could get a proportional set of people not to vote. Unfortunately, it will be the younger voters who would mostly listen, people who already vote in small numbers. The older set seems to be quite comfortable checking in to the polls every couple of years to fulfill their civic duty.
For the rest of us, the response is more like, "Does that mean I gotta get up from this chair? But Quake 4 just came out!"
If you're skeptical, look at our press release!
on
WiMax: When, Not If
·
· Score: 3, Funny
So maybe it's preaching to the choir, but it's always a good idea to have concrete facts in hand when your neighbor starts singing the gospel praises of the Bushies.
"Stealing the election" has nothing to do with the electoral college, which as the agreed upon system for the election. Bush stole the election largely through the actions Jeb Bush and his employees in Florida who undertook a number of actions to keep Gore-friendly populations from having a fair shot at voting.
And it was also stolen because of the actions of the Supreme Court. First it was, "well, ok, stop the recount, because if the recount shows Gore won, then that will certainly damage Bush's mandate to govern. Then a few days later it was, "well we've just plum run out of time to do a recount now. Maybe if we had started a few days ago, hehe." A one-justice majority voted in these two decisions--a majority that included Dick Cheney's duck hunting buddy who somehow didn't see the need to recuse himself.
The funny thing about it was I actually voted for Bush (a mistake I won't repeat). But even as a Bush voter, the Supreme Court's way of deciding things made no sense to me.
Take all the UN delegates and let them telecommute. Send them to the UN wiki sight, and let them go at it. Resolutions, pronouncements, the whole bit all resolved through wiki edit wars.
All the world's problems would be solved instantly. Or at least it would be entertaining to watch.
I like the idea of one person, one vote, but I think the small state problem pales next to the swing state problem, and a bigger house of representatives would do little to solve that.
If you live in a very left or very right state, your vote counts for effectively nothing.
The fact that people in Alaska (like me) or Wyoming have a voting power that is disproportionatly large compared to that of a Californian or a New Yorker means that presidential candidates can't get away with just pandering to a few urban centers on the East and West coasts, and ignore everything else.
No. The current system is even more screwed up. Instead of pandering to places that have the majority of Americans, they spend all their time in the top few swing states, promising them the world while pretty much ignoring everyone else. This is, for instance, why Kerry isn't taking a very progressive stance on energy policy--Ohio has coal mines. But what is good for Ohio is not necessarily good for our country.
I love how they describe their favorite voting method, while making sure to say things like, "unless that's too complicated for public acceptance," then we would pick method B, but if you're not equipped for that, then method C, which is certainly better than method D. ..
Which of course leads me to wonder. When you have a whole bunch of experts in a room choosing a voting method, and they can't quite agree, and they say, "OK, we'll vote on it," and someone says, "yeah, but what kind of vote?", does time just freeze up at that point?
My brain seems to be intercepting a hidden message...
In general I like your post and its well intended, but I can't help but think this somewhat incomplete;
"Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes."
Would you say that democracy works as intended when powerful media corporations use well tested, well developed advertising-like techniques (which border on hypnosis) to sway public opinion and thereby influence voting patterns?
(Because I believe that this is exactly what happens; human beings are, on the whole, remarkably suggestible (otherwise advertising of products or brands wouldn't be worth the billions that get spent on it)).
Slashdot Mirror
It's too bad there's not more independent, reliable info out there. Have you heard of tests being performed that are more objective?
One point you've missed is that not all inket "ink" is dye. The Epson Ultrachrome inks are made with pigment. Some third party manufacturers use pigment as well, but the range of colors they reproduce is more limited. Ultrachrome is Epson's way of somehow using polymer coatings to give them a dye-like color range, while offering the supposed long life of pigment.
If you have links to more information, I would be interested to have a look.
Thanks for the info you have already provided.
But that is a long story, full of technical details that are irrelevant to the original question.
It may well be relevant. The poster was asking about what printer to buy and what inks. If the poster is thinking of purchasing archival inks, you might be able to talk him out of it.
At the minimum, I'm interested to hear why you think archival inks are useless. Of course there are no guarantees, but do you completely reject the accelerated aging tests conducted by Wilhelm Research?
One thing about archival inks is they don't seem more expensive than the standard brand-name inks--it's really the printer that will cost more.
I found them on VolunteerMatch. They were asking for computer help. Turns out, all they really needed were data entry monkeys. But then they asked about doing a one time gig, so I went in for that.
I'll have to second this.
Another thing to consider is what you expect in terms of quality. Do you want your prints to last a long time? Do you want to be able to use color profiles to make the color closely match your intent?
A really good place to do some reading, especially for people going for extra high-quality output is inkjetart.com.
Personally, I have two Epson printers. One is a $600 Epson 2200 using Epson's own UltraChrome inks, which can go for 150 years without fading if you use the right paper. The other is an Epson c82, which I got for $30 as a display model on clearance. I bought third-party ink for it on sale, probably $25 for two full sets of black and color inks. When I first put it in, I had to run a flew ink cleaning cycles, but it has performed well since then.
Perhaps you could post here and say more about what you are looking for.
I was helping them install some digital camera software.
The system was running horribly slow. When I opened a web browser to Google and got a pop-up, I knew exactly what was up. Ad-aware (Not to be confused with Ada-ware, which also claims to be an anti-spyware program) found about 6 different spyware apps. Once I had cleaned those off, the system ran 3 or 4 times as fast. Those apps had really cloggled up its limited RAM.
This was a fairly busy non-profit helping clients pretty much continuously throughout the day.
If they were up-front with the truth, people wouldn't listen.
* The Earth is less than 6,000 years old.
* Dinosaur bones and the trillions of other fossils showing various evolving species throughout history were put there by God to challenge our faith that evolution is a Satanic principle.
* Gay people don't exist, plus they don't deserve any rights in this Flag-loving nation of ours, unless of course they're lesbians who are willing to let me watch.
* Global warming is helping to speed up the end times so we can get Jesus to come back sooner.
Most people, yes. Fortunately, there are still many of us who assimilate information and process it to form new conclusions.
I like your ideas. The fewer voters there are, the more my vote counts :)
If only they could get a proportional set of people not to vote. Unfortunately, it will be the younger voters who would mostly listen, people who already vote in small numbers. The older set seems to be quite comfortable checking in to the polls every couple of years to fulfill their civic duty.
For the rest of us, the response is more like, "Does that mean I gotta get up from this chair? But Quake 4 just came out!"
I smell hype.
So maybe it's preaching to the choir, but it's always a good idea to have concrete facts in hand when your neighbor starts singing the gospel praises of the Bushies.
"Stealing the election" has nothing to do with the electoral college, which as the agreed upon system for the election. Bush stole the election largely through the actions Jeb Bush and his employees in Florida who undertook a number of actions to keep Gore-friendly populations from having a fair shot at voting.
And it was also stolen because of the actions of the Supreme Court. First it was, "well, ok, stop the recount, because if the recount shows Gore won, then that will certainly damage Bush's mandate to govern. Then a few days later it was, "well we've just plum run out of time to do a recount now. Maybe if we had started a few days ago, hehe." A one-justice majority voted in these two decisions--a majority that included Dick Cheney's duck hunting buddy who somehow didn't see the need to recuse himself.
The funny thing about it was I actually voted for Bush (a mistake I won't repeat). But even as a Bush voter, the Supreme Court's way of deciding things made no sense to me.
Take all the UN delegates and let them telecommute. Send them to the UN wiki sight, and let them go at it. Resolutions, pronouncements, the whole bit all resolved through wiki edit wars.
All the world's problems would be solved instantly. Or at least it would be entertaining to watch.
Denial is not just a park in Alaska.
It's also a river in Egypt.
I like the idea of one person, one vote, but I think the small state problem pales next to the swing state problem, and a bigger house of representatives would do little to solve that.
If you live in a very left or very right state, your vote counts for effectively nothing.
Did they model the tourists on kangaroos?
The fact that people in Alaska (like me) or Wyoming have a voting power that is disproportionatly large compared to that of a Californian or a New Yorker means that presidential candidates can't get away with just pandering to a few urban centers on the East and West coasts, and ignore everything else.
No. The current system is even more screwed up. Instead of pandering to places that have the majority of Americans, they spend all their time in the top few swing states, promising them the world while pretty much ignoring everyone else. This is, for instance, why Kerry isn't taking a very progressive stance on energy policy--Ohio has coal mines. But what is good for Ohio is not necessarily good for our country.
Look at this.
There is something really fishy about the whole thing. Have a look at this.
On the other hand, the break-in doesn't quite have the Rovian flair. I think it was just one of those freak crimes by some anarchist.
Or does the room break out in a brawl?
I love how they describe their favorite voting method, while making sure to say things like, "unless that's too complicated for public acceptance," then we would pick method B, but if you're not equipped for that, then method C, which is certainly better than method D. . .
Which of course leads me to wonder. When you have a whole bunch of experts in a room choosing a voting method, and they can't quite agree, and they say, "OK, we'll vote on it," and someone says, "yeah, but what kind of vote?", does time just freeze up at that point?
It seems they're using bad grammar to make a really bad pun
My brain seems to be intercepting a hidden message...
In general I like your post and its well intended, but I can't help but think this somewhat incomplete;
"Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes."
Would you say that democracy works as intended when powerful media corporations use well tested, well developed advertising-like techniques (which border on hypnosis) to sway public opinion and thereby influence voting patterns?
(Because I believe that this is exactly what happens; human beings are, on the whole, remarkably suggestible (otherwise advertising of products or brands wouldn't be worth the billions that get spent on it)).
Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less. . .
That way, the candidates will know which issues they can safely ignore.
It's not a slap in anything. It's third party observers showing up to make sure people don't try to cheat the voters out of their votes.