Re:products did not end with a whimper
on
All Things iPhone
·
· Score: 1
No, the point was made because someone stated as matter of fact that the newton is still better than pda's that ship today, which is clearly bullshit no matter how you look at it.
Completely fair enough, and I did not every suggest that there are no bad inkjets, or that the market isn't geared around abusing less knowledgeable users. I did do a lot of research before I bought my i550, and if it hadn't performed the way I expected after that research, I may have given up as well.
HP is notorious for inkjet abuse, but that's a pretty well known fact these days. Some things never change.
No, you see the difference is that I'm not strutting around stating that spending 1k on a laser printer is the only sane thing to do, and anything else is stupid.
I did not suggest to anyone anywhere to go get an inkjet. I merely bring up my own use to counter those that are trying to shove laser printers down everyone's throats as the only solution.
I would never suggest ANY particular print solution to anyone unless I understood their needs. Thus why I have only anecdotally described my setup within the context of my own experience and needs.
See, I believe your problem is that you cry opinion when in fact you talk in terms of universal facts.
The cost per page for printing on an inkjet is insane. Most people need color only for sharing photos with stupid people who can't handle getting prints, which would be better anyway because they'd be in the size they actually wanted.
Not very opinion like. Actually, stated very factually and rather condemning I would add.
You have different needs than your average user, you are using a suitable solution for those needs. You have obviously justified the cost of your solution, which in your case certainly more than makes sense.
Some things never change. 20 years ago, professional photographers did the same, just with different tech. They printed their own photos. I certainly wouldn't expect that to change, just the tech.
Most people aren't professional photographers however and have no need to incur the expenses that make sense for you.
Contracts are merely written accounts of agreements between parties. As such, they can be changed. I have a contract right here that is a legal representation of an agreement between me and my former employer, which has been manually edited by both parties numerous times, and notarized thereafter.
Here's a hint the lawyers don't want you to know: Contracts aren't actually worth the paper they are written on. They can ALWAYS be contested. They can also always very easily be changed, in whole or in part. They can't be invalidated because they are never validated in the first place per se.
There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself.
Obviously your needs differed at the time you bought that, and you bought appropriately.
Your average home user has absolutely NO need for a laser printer whatsoever. Why people keep suggesting otherwise is well beyond me.
BTW, my current inkjet is 5 years old now and going strong, not one problem with it. I've only had to buy 2 refill kits in that time, ~25$ (CDN) each. (Multiple refills with each kit)
If I were a teacher and printing off b/w files all the time, of course I'd buy a laser printer. Most people aren't teachers and don't have those kind of printing needs at home.
What does this have to do with whether I print photos at home or not? That has nothing to do with this particular equation, as my needs are covered by my printer. I occasionally print photos on it, for short term low quality use. I do use professional printers for my digital photos. Partly why my printer fits my needs, as I KNOW there is no point in looking for ANY home printer to print all my photos on...the quality doesn't compare, and the expense is ludicrous even then.
Given that most people are stating that printing photos on a home printer is an expensive waste of money, and these same people are advocating laser printing for the rest of your needs...wtf? Doesn't make any sense!
Yes, what pisses me off is that so many people are stating that as The Way Things Are And Have To Be With All Inkjet Printers.
When in fact, that is simply bullshit.
HP is well known to be the worst abuser. Using them as an example does not mean that all things are that way. I'm just getting sick and tired of people trying to insist that spending 1k or more is the only reasonable thing to, even if there are many other completely viable alternatives.
People recreate films and emulsions etc that were in use well over 50 years ago already. As long as information is still available on these things, it will remain possible to do so yes.
Especially if there's actually a market, which there most certainly is currently and will be for the foreseeable future.
Here's an example for you: Gun collectors. There are HUGE numbers of people with VERY old guns that make their own ammo as it is not available anymore. People still make bread the traditional way even with the advent of bread makers. People still translate dead languages every day.
I'd predict that we will lose the knowledge to deal with a lot of early digital products way before we lose the ability to deal with old mechanical and chemical objects and recipes.
No, you're right, my Canon i550 with separated color cartridges that I easily refill a couple times a year, that including the original purchase cost and ALL ink I've bought for it was a total waste of money at ~500 at the very most since I've bought it. I'm a complete moron. What was I thinking? Good thing it was easy to get that 2nd and 3rd mortgage or I wouldn't be able to print.
I'm starting to think that there are a LOT of laser printer salesmen trolling this particular thread.
Good to know that my solution apparently does not work for me. Thanks for informing me of that.
Oh, wait, it DOES work for me. I HAVE been using the same printer for over 5 years. I HAVE printed thousands of pages in that time. I HAVEN'T spent even CLOSE to 1k total in that time period.
Just because you haven't been able to figure it out, or made bad choices in the past yourself, does NOT invalidate other peoples solutions.
Sheesh. Bitching about the costs and money involved, and trying to convince others to spend MORE. wtf?
What, billions of unborn, not-as-of-yet-even-thought-of, potential humans now have a god given right to come into existence?
wtf?
I personally would rather hope that we can use our intelligence to a better end, to ensure that our legacy is not simply that of a parasite. You do realize that that is what you are suggesting right? That is the definition of a parasite plain and simple.
Um, dude, you're obviously talking to a photographer here. Photographers generally prize their cameras above just about all else. There are a LOT of cameras out there with ZERO digital parts, and that won't change any time soon. I'm not even really a photographer, but I do have a nikon that is already about 30 years old and takes WAY better pictures than any digital I have owned. I guarantee you I'll still have it in 30 more years, and will still be using it.
Note that everything that exists wasn't necessarily made within your short lifetime, thank god. Things weren't always made to be disposable or dependent on short-lifespan technologies.
Glad I'm not the only one that latched on to canon for these reasons.
Separated cartridges. No microchips. Easily refillable.
I just don't get this whole bitch session really, it's a non issue if you have half a brain. Remember, you get what you pay for. It is really that simple, and this whole 'ripoff' argument is old hat. People are ripping themselves off, certain companies are just glad to let you. Personally, I'm quite tired of hearing people cry about it.
Why aren't more people buying printers that have separated refillable color cartridges? I have been for over 5 years. VERY cost effective.
Even if you aren't into refilling, most of the separated cartridges have no microchips, can be replaced with generic cartridges, and are again way more cost effective.
Seriously, how many people do you think spend over 1k on a printer and ink over a reasonable period of time? Say 5 years?
That is a LOT of ink refills on an inkjet.
That's more than most people pay for a new rig these days, including a tower, monitor AND printer.
If you actually print that much, you already know all this and have already moved up to a more professional printing solution. If you're just a home user, that's just a total waste of money.
Never mind that I can EASILY print over 5k pages on an inkjet with separated and refillable cartridges, WAY more than that actually.
Look, inkjets sell as they are because they are cost effective for most people. If they weren't, they wouldn't sell. Period. Those that are a bit smarter also know that they can reduce the cost by buying a half decent inkjet with separated color cartridges, and by refilling said cartridges themselves. Not all inkjets use microchip locked cartridges you know.
As well, more and more people ARE taking their pictures to walmart ow wherever to get their pictures printed. I know virtually no one that prints off lots of pictures at home as it does use a lot of ink, doesn't look nearly as good, and fades noticeably over short periods of time.
At home I print what I'd deem to be a fairly average amount. My costs for operating my printer are negligible. What would be a waste of money is to throw out what works for no good reason. I'd need a VERY good reason to replace my printer, let alone drop 1k on a laser printer.
Re:Emphasis on the light, please.
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
Just a note on the allergy thing...something like this could drastically reduce allergies in our society. People that are regularly exposed to allergens from birth are WAY less likely to develop allergies later in life.
People that grow up in bubbles tend to have big allergy problems.
Re:Emphasis on the light, please.
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hydroponic is most certainly not sustainable in the way you suggest. In hydroponics, water is merely the medium. Nutrients must be added to the system for anything to grow at all. Not even remotely holistic. Read up a bit and you'll find this out. There is no growing method that requires more nutrients to work.
I have to ask, and hope that you've asked yourself this, why?
Why should unrestricted population growth be our goal? What good can come of it?
Where is the upper limit? Should there not be one?
Here's a clue: If WE don't limit our population ourselves, mother nature most assuredly WILL do it for us. And it won't be pretty.
Do you not realize that many MANY studies have been done on this kind of thing? It's not hard. Put a population of a particular species in a controlled space, starting with sustainable resources for that population level, but remove all population growth controls. (predators, disease etc) See what happens when growth gets out of control. Invariably, catastrophe ensues.
Why would you want that? Especially when we CAN prevent it. What possible justification have you got for that?
Slashdot Mirror
No, the point was made because someone stated as matter of fact that the newton is still better than pda's that ship today, which is clearly bullshit no matter how you look at it.
This should help:
Bologna Sausage
Completely fair enough, and I did not every suggest that there are no bad inkjets, or that the market isn't geared around abusing less knowledgeable users. I did do a lot of research before I bought my i550, and if it hadn't performed the way I expected after that research, I may have given up as well.
HP is notorious for inkjet abuse, but that's a pretty well known fact these days. Some things never change.
No, you see the difference is that I'm not strutting around stating that spending 1k on a laser printer is the only sane thing to do, and anything else is stupid.
I did not suggest to anyone anywhere to go get an inkjet. I merely bring up my own use to counter those that are trying to shove laser printers down everyone's throats as the only solution.
I would never suggest ANY particular print solution to anyone unless I understood their needs. Thus why I have only anecdotally described my setup within the context of my own experience and needs.
Not very opinion like. Actually, stated very factually and rather condemning I would add.
Um, why are you arguing with me?
You have different needs than your average user, you are using a suitable solution for those needs. You have obviously justified the cost of your solution, which in your case certainly more than makes sense.
Some things never change. 20 years ago, professional photographers did the same, just with different tech. They printed their own photos. I certainly wouldn't expect that to change, just the tech.
Most people aren't professional photographers however and have no need to incur the expenses that make sense for you.
But you knew that. What was your point?
That is not true at all, not even close.
Contracts are merely written accounts of agreements between parties. As such, they can be changed. I have a contract right here that is a legal representation of an agreement between me and my former employer, which has been manually edited by both parties numerous times, and notarized thereafter.
Here's a hint the lawyers don't want you to know: Contracts aren't actually worth the paper they are written on. They can ALWAYS be contested. They can also always very easily be changed, in whole or in part. They can't be invalidated because they are never validated in the first place per se.
There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself.
Obviously your needs differed at the time you bought that, and you bought appropriately.
Your average home user has absolutely NO need for a laser printer whatsoever. Why people keep suggesting otherwise is well beyond me.
BTW, my current inkjet is 5 years old now and going strong, not one problem with it. I've only had to buy 2 refill kits in that time, ~25$ (CDN) each. (Multiple refills with each kit)
If I were a teacher and printing off b/w files all the time, of course I'd buy a laser printer. Most people aren't teachers and don't have those kind of printing needs at home.
?
What does this have to do with whether I print photos at home or not? That has nothing to do with this particular equation, as my needs are covered by my printer. I occasionally print photos on it, for short term low quality use. I do use professional printers for my digital photos. Partly why my printer fits my needs, as I KNOW there is no point in looking for ANY home printer to print all my photos on...the quality doesn't compare, and the expense is ludicrous even then.
Given that most people are stating that printing photos on a home printer is an expensive waste of money, and these same people are advocating laser printing for the rest of your needs...wtf?
Doesn't make any sense!
Yes, what pisses me off is that so many people are stating that as The Way Things Are And Have To Be With All Inkjet Printers.
When in fact, that is simply bullshit.
HP is well known to be the worst abuser. Using them as an example does not mean that all things are that way. I'm just getting sick and tired of people trying to insist that spending 1k or more is the only reasonable thing to, even if there are many other completely viable alternatives.
People recreate films and emulsions etc that were in use well over 50 years ago already.
As long as information is still available on these things, it will remain possible to do so yes.
Especially if there's actually a market, which there most certainly is currently and will be for the foreseeable future.
Here's an example for you: Gun collectors. There are HUGE numbers of people with VERY old guns that make their own ammo as it is not available anymore. People still make bread the traditional way even with the advent of bread makers. People still translate dead languages every day.
I'd predict that we will lose the knowledge to deal with a lot of early digital products way before we lose the ability to deal with old mechanical and chemical objects and recipes.
Canon i550 for starters, and a lot of other canon models.
I merely mention the i550 as that is what I currently use and have ZERO complaints with for my needs.
Glad I'm not the only one that isn't a laser printer salesman and has half a brain here ;)
And that'll really happen with your way of moving forward. Moron.
My printer tells me to buy new ink every 6 months even if I haven't used it?
I guess I have that feature turned off.
Why are people making shit up as if it's the defacto state of the union with inkjet printers?
No, you're right, my Canon i550 with separated color cartridges that I easily refill a couple times a year, that including the original purchase cost and ALL ink I've bought for it was a total waste of money at ~500 at the very most since I've bought it. I'm a complete moron. What was I thinking? Good thing it was easy to get that 2nd and 3rd mortgage or I wouldn't be able to print.
I'm starting to think that there are a LOT of laser printer salesmen trolling this particular thread.
Good to know that my solution apparently does not work for me. Thanks for informing me of that.
Oh, wait, it DOES work for me. I HAVE been using the same printer for over 5 years. I HAVE printed thousands of pages in that time. I HAVEN'T spent even CLOSE to 1k total in that time period.
Just because you haven't been able to figure it out, or made bad choices in the past yourself, does NOT invalidate other peoples solutions.
Sheesh. Bitching about the costs and money involved, and trying to convince others to spend MORE. wtf?
You're fucking insane.
What, billions of unborn, not-as-of-yet-even-thought-of, potential humans now have a god given right to come into existence?
wtf?
I personally would rather hope that we can use our intelligence to a better end, to ensure that our legacy is not simply that of a parasite. You do realize that that is what you are suggesting right? That is the definition of a parasite plain and simple.
Um, dude, you're obviously talking to a photographer here. Photographers generally prize their cameras above just about all else. There are a LOT of cameras out there with ZERO digital parts, and that won't change any time soon. I'm not even really a photographer, but I do have a nikon that is already about 30 years old and takes WAY better pictures than any digital I have owned. I guarantee you I'll still have it in 30 more years, and will still be using it.
Note that everything that exists wasn't necessarily made within your short lifetime, thank god.
Things weren't always made to be disposable or dependent on short-lifespan technologies.
Yay Digital! Lol.
Glad I'm not the only one that latched on to canon for these reasons.
Separated cartridges.
No microchips.
Easily refillable.
I just don't get this whole bitch session really, it's a non issue if you have half a brain. Remember, you get what you pay for. It is really that simple, and this whole 'ripoff' argument is old hat. People are ripping themselves off, certain companies are just glad to let you. Personally, I'm quite tired of hearing people cry about it.
Why aren't more people buying printers that have separated refillable color cartridges? I have been for over 5 years. VERY cost effective.
Even if you aren't into refilling, most of the separated cartridges have no microchips, can be replaced with generic cartridges, and are again way more cost effective.
Seriously, how many people do you think spend over 1k on a printer and ink over a reasonable period of time? Say 5 years?
That is a LOT of ink refills on an inkjet.
That's more than most people pay for a new rig these days, including a tower, monitor AND printer.
If you actually print that much, you already know all this and have already moved up to a more professional printing solution. If you're just a home user, that's just a total waste of money.
Never mind that I can EASILY print over 5k pages on an inkjet with separated and refillable cartridges, WAY more than that actually.
Look, inkjets sell as they are because they are cost effective for most people. If they weren't, they wouldn't sell. Period. Those that are a bit smarter also know that they can reduce the cost by buying a half decent inkjet with separated color cartridges, and by refilling said cartridges themselves. Not all inkjets use microchip locked cartridges you know.
As well, more and more people ARE taking their pictures to walmart ow wherever to get their pictures printed. I know virtually no one that prints off lots of pictures at home as it does use a lot of ink, doesn't look nearly as good, and fades noticeably over short periods of time.
At home I print what I'd deem to be a fairly average amount. My costs for operating my printer are negligible. What would be a waste of money is to throw out what works for no good reason. I'd need a VERY good reason to replace my printer, let alone drop 1k on a laser printer.
Just a note on the allergy thing...something like this could drastically reduce allergies in our society. People that are regularly exposed to allergens from birth are WAY less likely to develop allergies later in life.
People that grow up in bubbles tend to have big allergy problems.
Hydroponic is most certainly not sustainable in the way you suggest. In hydroponics, water is merely the medium. Nutrients must be added to the system for anything to grow at all. Not even remotely holistic. Read up a bit and you'll find this out. There is no growing method that requires more nutrients to work.
I have to ask, and hope that you've asked yourself this, why?
Why should unrestricted population growth be our goal? What good can come of it?
Where is the upper limit? Should there not be one?
Here's a clue: If WE don't limit our population ourselves, mother nature most assuredly WILL do it for us. And it won't be pretty.
Do you not realize that many MANY studies have been done on this kind of thing? It's not hard. Put a population of a particular species in a controlled space, starting with sustainable resources for that population level, but remove all population growth controls. (predators, disease etc) See what happens when growth gets out of control. Invariably, catastrophe ensues.
Why would you want that? Especially when we CAN prevent it. What possible justification have you got for that?