No. We all know that movies/music are advertised in a manner that makes them appear better than they are. How many times I've heard people say, "The only good parts of the movie were in the ad. The rest was crap."
As in your previous example, it sort of makes me wonder how Uwe Boll manages to rake in any audiences. Is it possible people pay to see his movies simply because they felt pity upon him and wanted to throw him a bone?
I know of a few reviewers who would probably pay him to stop making movies.
If they only themselves would stick to the proper meanding of each word. Instead of proclaming that they been first to create life syntetically or similary we wouldn't have this problem. But these scientist exagurate the labeling of their findings, only to make a name in the comunity.
It's easy to see the allure of the Utopian view Star Trek gave each of us once with the introduction of replicators and the notion of "bulk matter" being converted into consumable goods. I certainly understand where you're coming from, and I agree to an extent.
There's just one problem: It will never work. No, really, it won't.
Think about it: Do you honestly think that thousands of companies across a multitude of industries are going to allow the average consumer to simply download a blueprint for something and "print" it out on their 3D printer (or nanoscale as you called it)? Of course not. Assuming such devices were to become affordable, it would represent a risk to the very core of their business. I can see this both ways; on the one hand, if I were producing a good, I'd want to be in control of the end product. Think about the control Apple has over its devices (and how vehement Slashdotters tend to defend Apple's rather closed nature with regards to hardware and the like)! I can't really blame them, because once the production line is out of your control you no longer have control over the end product's quality. Even assuming a perfect replication of a particular product, there'd still be issues with the operator (i.e. "end user") following the instructions carefully, putting together the device carefully, and so on. Hell, I remember doing technical support once upon a time and let me tell you--if something can go wrong, it will. Does the device have to be plugged in? Uh oh! There's another call to the service center claiming it's "not working."
On the other hand, our economic system relies exclusively on the economics of scarcity. What would happen should we be able to replicate common goods on the cheap--or, fancifully speaking--replicate just about anything from "bulk matter?" Chaos.
The problem is that we would need to undergo a significant change in the way we think and feel about resources and resource allocation, and I'm not so sure that would be successful.
Assuming some sort of 3D printing devices could be used to build just about anything (I'm aware William Shatner used one to recreate a part for a restoration project of an old vehicle which was then used by a machinist as a prototype to create the actual part to install), I suspect that it would a) be so expensive as to be unaffordable by the average user, b) "subscription" fees might be charged for users to upload their designs to a company which would then produce or print the part, and/or c) require payment of licensing fees to the companies that created the original product you're attempting to duplicate. Since such technology is unlikely to be made inexpensively, it takes little imagination to see where this leads.
I have a warning to you. We're committed to putting you out of business. Not you in person - your friends in the music and film industries. They are relying on broken, decaying business models, and no matter how much you try, you can't save them.
Even if it were feasible to have some sort of economic impact on the media industry, no matter what you do it'll never have any impact. Remember the "Drudge Tax" that the FTC was mulling over (now bear in mind, this was only a report and not something that is going into effect)? "Oh, but that's just Drudge" you say. "He's a right-wing lunatic."
Think about this carefully: the "Drudge Tax" was an idea concocted to make news aggregators (hi, Slashdot!) pay a small tax for linking to third party stories. Essentially, it would be in place to prop up an industry that is effectively in the process of dying. It sounds a lot like something Rupert Murdoch was proposing, too, doesn't it?
Remember, too, that every blank CD-ROM you purchase includes a small fee that goes straight into the coffers of the RIAA to help offset the costs of piracy. Sure, it's only a few cents, but during the peak of CD-ROM sales it was a figure undoubtedly rather high. Worst of all: most people have no idea they are paying what is effectively a tax.
So, no, I don't think that economically hurting the media industry is going to have any effect. Congress will simply levy taxes against the rest of us to keep their buddies afloat. If we truly professed to be a semi-capitalistic society, we would simply let these companies fail when they can no longer afford to keep their doors open. We're not; instead, we sink countless millions of dollars into failing industries simply because they have lobbyists.
You and I? Well, we're just taxpayers. We have no lobbyists. Plus, even if you could convince the vast majority of consumers to not purchase popular media (hint: won't happen), it'll never work. It'll instead be blamed on piracy, and you might just wind up paying a tax on every hardware component you purchase to build a computer, because--by golly--that device might just be used to pirate goods. In fact, I think there was a proposal of the sorts in the works.
I hate to sound so cynical. Instead, I'll end this on a positive note by welcoming you to serfdom.
if you take other people's lives from them why should you have any right to live?
That statement, in itself, is very scary. It denies the right to life to people defending themselves, to soldiers, to emergency room doctors who have to choose between one life and another and even to the very executioner who will be supposedly bringing this man to justice.
Talk about taking the poster's statement out of context just to prop up a strawman to somehow make yourself look righteous! Then again, it's this exact methodology that lends me to believe you're trolling. Your argument makes absolutely no sense when you take the original poster's statement in its full context, which is what you're clearly avoiding by quoting only a small snippet of his words. Troll? I think so. But let's continue:
Finally, I don't see why this man has any less right to life than other people. I realize that there is a public interest in keeping him away from society, and a public interest in deterrence, but life imprisonment is just as good, and I would argue even better - he might end up actually helping society with some manual labor.
Perhaps you missed the memo about how one of the murders he committed was when he was escaping from custody to be tried for murder. No offense, but someone like him is a danger to everyone around him and then some. And manual labor? Seriously? You'd actually give a tool to this guy to perform some sort of manual duty when he'd very likely use it to attempt another escape or murder someone else? Why this drivel spouted off by you and others would get tagged "insightful" is beyond me (and thankfully, as of this writing, the quoted section belongs to a comment that was not upvoted), particularly when there is obviously no effort made to learn why this guy was being executed in the first place. I'm all for being fair and just to people, but there's a point in time where you're simply advocating wasting taxpayers' money on someone who is an incredible danger to society.
Really: I wouldn't want some clown like him to be locked away somewhere for life, because it's simply a matter of time until he'd find a way to escape and likely kill more people in the process. Please, do some research before defending life imprisonment as some sort of silly good for society when this man is exactly the sort of individual for whom execution is the best and only solution. There are some people who simply cannot be interred because they are too dangerous to society at large.
I prefer the term "Artificial Stupidity" or "Artificial Stupidity in Software" (ASS), but I'm afraid much of Congress wouldn't even consider funding studies in this direction for fear that they'd finally have competition.
Joking aside, that's a pet peeve I don't fully understand partially because we've already lost the war on defining "hacker;" the mainstream press has managed to twist and desecrate the latter in spite of the campaigns on our side of the fence. There isn't much hope for AI "purists" in this particular case, specifically when you consider how generic the term "AI" has become. What better term is there, anyway? Would a "question and answer simulation system" be a better fit? Statistical fact-checking device? I think AI is suitable in this case.
Really, does it matter? Our brains may be massively parallel analog devices, but when you strip away culture, creativity, insight, and all the other things that separates us from other organisms, you're really just left with a machine that responds to input (stimuli) and generates output. I guess that begs the question: What is your definition of "intelligence," and what should intelligence of the artificial sort look like?
... and as I understand it, he's admitted to it. What he doesn't deserve is some show trial and 70+ years in a US jail for it because he's apparently a threat to the US's security.
While I don't condone his actions, it's sad to consider that he may face a harsher sentence than a murderer/rapist otherwise would, isn't it?
Now, before anyone calls me out on the statement I quoted above jesting about the length of imprisonment: yes, I know he's unlikely to face that many years. In fact, he probably won't face much time at all, if he's even extradited. However, given the ridiculous state of the US judicial system, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
National security is important, but I'm afraid that there may be more interest in making an example of him than actually doling out justice. Besides, I'd be inclined to suggest that the person who ought to be up on charges is the idiot who thought up such a simple (and obvious) password, if that is indeed true.
New Mexico has an Alien problem, Arizona will profile and interrogate any little green men, or Grays they find wandering around, and believe to be in the country illegally.
Yes, but at least if they come here to NM, we'll give them driver's licenses!
If thats the case for an errant mistake of judgment, what is are the biblical ramifications of immoral activities? By your standards all politicians and murderers should have already spontaneously combusted and turned into piles of dog turds that are succinctly eaten by a pack of rabid grues. If only...
Perhaps the politicians are our punishment for voting for them.
This guarantees a significant level of unlicensed, uninsured drivers on the streets. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy: Oh nos, all these illegal aliens are driving around crazy and uninsured! We have to catch them any way we can and get rid of them!
I live in a state (New Mexico) that issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It has no effect on the number of uninsured drivers; in fact, our premiums are generally much higher here than anywhere else precisely because you're more likely to get into an accident with an uninsured driver. We're also a border state.
I think the rate of uninsured drivers has far more to do with the fact that we're one of the poorest states in the union than it does with whether we issue driver licenses to immigrants or not. That we're a border state means we're more likely to have uninsured immigrants (hint: not surprising). It doesn't mean there's a correlation, so I think your point is moot. Issuing driver licenses to illegals has absolutely no net change on the number of insured drivers. It only guarantees that they're more likely to be licensed (which doesn't really matter if they rear-end you and they're uninsured, because your insurance has to foot the bill anyway, and as a result everyone's premiums keep going up).
If I say that I'm glad that this happened so close to the US, I mean that for US policy, the main interest is self interest. That is my perception of it. This hits the US badly, and that motivates US politicians to make laws to prevent this, and it motivates US companies to invent or fund solutions for this kind of problem.
I should reiterate that part of my motivation for more or less blowing up on you was due in no small part to the shear number of posts that have been largely critical of the US oil consumption and generally echoed the sentiment that a disaster near the US is a good thing. You happened to make a convenient target since my frustrations mounted about a third of the way down the discussions, but I appreciate that you're much more level-headed than the others. I understand your motives, I think they're wrong, but I am at least appreciative that your intentions aren't malicious.
I don't live near the Gulf, I'm not affected directly by it (though that remains to be seen--this will certainly hurt the US economy and most definitely hurt BP which may hurt all of us in terms of energy costs), and I don't personally know anyone who works in and around the Gulf. I suppose it's really an issue of how we see disasters; I see them as exactly that, and I would never dream of exploiting them as a method of affecting policy changes. Some people do--and it's certainly an effective method to say the least--but I don't agree with it. I suppose my pragmatism is tempered by what little empathy I do have, and it's most certainly bothered by the shear devastation Gulf communities are liable to face. That's to say nothing about the environmental devastation. (Add to this the proximity of Gulf stream, and it might be worthwhile to consider that at least some oil might make its way to the East Coast of the US and possibly toward other nations across the Pond.)
For the people in Louisiana and other states across the coast, that's a different matter, and I'm not glad that this happened to them, as a kind of punishment. That would be pointless and wouldn't help at all. Punishment is not the way to go.
I'm glad that at least you agree there and were willing to make clear your intentions. I appreciate that.
Please do understand that much of my frustration comes from the perception of the US abroad. I suppose it's enlightening--it gives me a glimpse into how the French must feel whenever someone brands them as cowards.
Fortunately, not everyone in the US matches one-to-one with the perceptions held abroad. The stereotypical "loud, obnoxious, rude" American is just as annoying to us here in the 'States! Not all of us drive SUVs (though I admit I do--I live in the backwoods, more or less, in a rough part of the country where roads are often unimproved and snowfall makes travel by other means difficult). Not all of us are wasteful. And some of us are actually mindful of what our impact on the world around us is.
Perhaps, though, my perceptions are influenced by where I live. I live in a mixed juniper/pinyon pine forest where water is something of a scarce resource. I was raised to be mindful of wastage, and to conserve whenever possible. It is therefore interesting to observe those who have moved here from California and other nearby regions. They aren't quite so careful with our resources because they have often never had to conserve. It's a lesson in irony in a way; in spite of California's environmental laws and that many of its citizens are quite left-leaning politically, they're among the most wasteful bunch I've seen short of Texans. Then again, city dwellers don't often understand the concept of conservation here in the US, and I suppose that's where much of the negative stereotypes are generated from.
I also have a theory about this type. I suspect the reason they support stricter environmental laws is precisely correlated with the fact that they cannot conserve. Thus, many of them rationalize it
I've got some karma to burn, and this is probably going to get me down modded...
I'm very glad that this accident happened in the Mexican Gulf, and that the US is the one suffering the most. That's the only way the American people start to realise that something should change, even though they don't want to pay for it. Europe and Asia are simply not powerful enough to make a real change.
You were doing fine until you hit this part (which negates your earlier comment, by the way). But, since you and several other commentators decided to go down this road of reasoning, I feel compelled to answer (so this isn't necessarily directed exclusively at you but at other non-Americans who feel similarly to you):
This attitude is the problem. It's pretty thoughtless of you to sit high atop your ivory tower, pleased that hard working men and women in communities supported by the Gulf have been affected most in the hopes that they affect change by having their livelihoods destroyed by a single careless entity (though I feel TransOcean shares much of the blame, too). You realize that the majority of them are going to blame 1) the US government or 2) BP. They're going to consider this disaster more the fault of those drilling for oil and less the reliance on it. I'm pretty disgusted by this philosophy. Harming a population to teach them a lesson is really no different than what feudal lords of old accomplished whenever nearby villagers pissed them off.
Many of the alternatives aren't working out all that well, and it's not because we don't want them or they don't work. I live in an area where they were planning to build a molten salt plant for power generation. The plans were scrapped because of environmental impact studies, regardless of the fact that we'd have a clean energy facility right in our back yard. The environmentalists are their own worst enemies, so I certainly don't want to hear a comment related to US states not trying--some of us are, and some of us are suffering as a result of it.
It's also ironic that you blame the "American system" (in this case, I can only assume you're implying our hunger for oil and thus cheap energy) for the world's woes--never mind that cheap energy has given us cheaper, easier access to mass production, increased the quality of life for many, and even the Internet. Let's not even get into the notion of modern medicine and other fields that wouldn't exist without cheap, plentiful energy! So, until you dispense with every plastic item in your household, every product produced by a factory (hint: almost everything), and turned off your computer, then you too are drinking of the "American system" fountain.
Still, being happy that something so tragic has hit the Gulf absolutely disgusts me. There are better ways to educate people than to wish ill of them. Never mind that this is only the tip of the ice berg--there's plenty of other nations surrounding the Gulf that might be impacted as well. But I suppose destroying a small fishing village here and there is justification enough for your ilk if it means that the evil American empire is hurt in the process.
"Ah, yes, but they wouldn't be affected if it weren't for the US oil hunger!" you say.
How about we do something more productive than bicker about world wide oil consumption and the evils of American society? Really, I'm sick and tired of it. Saying something akin to "Hah! I'm glad that happened to those damned Americans! Serves 'em right!" isn't going to accomplish anything. Believe me: Some of us are trying to affect change, but ridiculous environmental policies here in the States are putting a real kink in things. That's to say nothing about the government and industry, either.
The biggest advantage for me since I don't print often, no ink to dry out. My last inkjet I got ONE use out of it, then had to buy a new print cartridge because the printhead was clogged.
That's disgusting! It's also not really all that surprising.
My father bought an HP 2000c (I think?) years and years ago. It was a fairly new model at the time, quite expensive, and came with separate print heads for each color (CMYK). It also had separate ink cartridges for all four colors, so if something wasn't working, you'd likely have to replace at least two components: a print head plus the ink cartridge.
In the end, I think my folks boxed it up and packed it away somewhere. During my high school years, I vaguely remember that it worked reasonably well, but the print heads would need replacing over the summer because no one had much need to use it. Given the price of the components, it definitely wasn't worth it. As a consequence, we did most of our printing from a laser combo printer (also HP) at their business.
The cheap laser printer I have has been abused with a lot of pages having been churned through it, and I'm really amazed at how well it's held up considering it was probably about the same price as a slightly more advanced inkjet. Plus it's not nearly as noisy and doesn't rattle the desk like an earthquake's going off whenever it's running. Though, the warming up cycle and roller motion does still tend to scare the cat. (He hates printers.)
I think it's interesting just how many Slashdotters have posted related to my slight digs at inkjets about how much they'd rather use a laser printer. It doesn't surprise me given my experiences, and I certainly agree: Printing in volume with an inkjet is almost financial suicide. Yet, almost ironically, so is not using it frequently!
What does a network port have to do with Linux and Samba? I use both, and since my printer has it's own network port I can either print through the server or directly from the desktop. I paid $50 for the network print server that attached to the parallel port on my printer, but if I bought a new printer now the network capable printers are only about $20 higher. And I can save that much by not having to power a PC print server. Also, I'm not limited by the number of parallel ports on my server, just by the number of ports on my switch.
I think the poster was just alluding to one of many use cases.
My situation is similar to his: I have a box I leave on all the time that I use as a development machine, file server, and so forth. My laser jet's plugged into it from which I run CUPS + Samba. Granted, I purchased the printer well before network capabilities were really all that common, and while I do vaguely remember the various pluggable print servers--even some routers with that capability--it wasn't something I considered. It works fine for what I've needed it for, though, and I could have printed stuff when I was away from home, at the university (assuming I could upload it to my box at the house--not that I ever had the need, but I certainly knew that option was available).
Your solution does sound optimal, and I might even go that route if I buy a new printer or decide to stop running my file server for whatever reason. I can't really say that using existing hardware (existing box running some version of *nix plus a few hours of my time) and CUPS + Samba was a terrible decision, though. It's worked out great!
The price I cited isn't exactly correct. Serves me right for looking at Amazon when I'm half-asleep.
It's the price quoted for the used versions of the printer. There is a newer model, though, that's about $150. I'm pretty certain I didn't pay any more than about $120 for mine back 4-5 years ago. Either way, it doesn't really change the point--laser printers are pretty cheap if you're willing to settle for something that might not have a bunch of features or necessarily print the fastest.
You don't even have to spend that much for a decent home printer. I got a Brother laser printer 4 years ago for about $200 and have run several thousand pages through it with no problems and only one new cartridge. It's fast and does a nice job printing. I'd highly recommend the Brother printer - but as someone else said, the HP Laserjets are the gold standard.
Agreed. I think my post is now the grandparent post to yours, and I certainly don't want to disparage your recommendations. The laser printer I settled on was sort of a spur of the moment "I need a printer for my classes, and I'm at the store" buy. (Well, I did some research and had a vague idea of what'd work with CUPS, but it was mostly spur of the moment.) IIRC, the HP was ~$100-120 (HP Laserjet 1020)--Amazon has it listed at around $114, so I guess it hasn't really changed much.
But you're absolutely right, there's no need to spend an arm and a leg on a laser printer. Hence why inkjets are a stupid idea, especially for high volume printing!
Inkjets (especially the cheap ones) have higher running costs than most other printer types but that isn't the worst thing about them. The worst thing about them is if you leave them unused for a while they clog up. With a HP this means new cartridges. With an epson it generally means a new printer.
Gah, tell me about it. I believe I mentioned in my original post an inkjet my folks had many years ago. It cost a small fortune, had separate print heads, and separate individual cartridges for each of the 4 colors. If you didn't print something at least once every two weeks, the print heads would be rendered useless. Worse, they weren't cheap.
As you alluded to, though, being as it was an HP it did have replacement capabilities. The quality was fantastic, though. Not that I'd ever buy one again--I've grown to hate inkjets.
Another thing i've found is that the cost of inkjet cartridges tends to go up significantly over a printers lifetime. Especially if you want the genunine ink.
I still don't know what happened to that printer. I think my parents have it boxed up in storage somewhere--I know I don't have it. Regardless, I vaguely remember being unable to find replacement parts period! It seems to me that toner cartridges are generally fairly standard for a number of printer models and typically much easier to find (correct me if I'm wrong). Sure, they're more expensive than ink, but they last longer.
Lasers on the other hand you can put in a cuboard for a long time (longest i've tried is about a year but I don't see any reason it wouldn't go on almost indefinately) and they come out printing as good as when they went in. Not sure about laser cartridges since i've never been responsible for one that needed a replacement.
Judging by some of the comments I've read and my own personal anecdotes from friends, I should think you're right. After all, toner is little more than little beads with dye in/on them (hence why you never want to wash it off with warm water--heat sets the ink and melts the beads).
Unfortunately colour laser printers are still rather expensive and bulky. Especially if you want a network port on them (i've decided that every printer I buy from now on should have a network port and support at least one out of postscript or pcl).
I know this is going to sound ridiculous, and it probably wouldn't work in a high volume environment at all, but I've found that CUPS on a simple *nix box works perfectly fine, even if you have a USB printer. Yeah, it probably isn't an optimal solution for anything more than casual printing, but I can print to it from anywhere in the house on any system. It works fantastic for my needs, and it might even do well for a (very) small office environment, too. Depending on your own needs, this solution is definitely worth exploring.
Be warned, though. The laser printer I've got is one of HPs somewhat more recent models (late 2005 vintage/early 2006) that requires the driver to load the firmware. I couldn't get it working under FreeBSD back then--I'd imagine it'd work great now--and it took some effort under Gentoo to get some of the associated start-up scripts working. If I knew then what I know now, I probably would've shelled out a bit more to save myself the couple days' worth of headaches trying to get it to do precisely what I wanted.
On the other hand, for a ~$100 printer, I can't really complain. Especially when I abused it as much as I did and it still works fine.
HP laser printers are workhorses and IMO the gold standard in affordable printing. I remember one ancient Laserjet 4 that was still chugging along after a decade of use and this is by no means atypical. Most people would rather buy a cheap $50 inkjet then spend $500 on a decent laser model, even though the lifetime costs are far, far less.
What surprises me is that the laser printer I purchased was relatively cheap. It works great with CUPS (setting it up was slightly painful, but it does great over the network), and--as I said--it was CHEAP! I can't understand why anyone would want to purchase an inkjet over something like this HP laser printer I've got for general purpose printing. Color photos would be the only valid reason, but gosh, I can't imagine NOT having had this printer while I was in uni. Required purchases of replacement cartridges every few months? No thanks! (To be fair, it was about $20 more than the inkjet sitting next to it, but I considered getting a laser printer for that price a steal.)
But you're right on the money, and I think maintaining this little guy is going to be FAR cheaper than any terrible inkjet I've ever had. Even if it dies this year, I'll have more than gotten my share of usage out of it.
My only gripe though is that the cheap HP laser printers follow in line with their inkjets: The printer firmware is loaded by the driver. I don't really have any expectations of how long it might last, but judging by your experiences it might just surprise me!
The thermonuclear device in the sky is 100 million miles away. The nearest nuclear power station is 8 miles away. Guess which one I'm more concerned about.
Honestly, I think you're worrying a little needlessly and probably have very little idea how modern reactor designs work.
But let's put this in perspective: If the device in the sky blows up, all of humanity is wiped out in a fleeting instant. If the one 8 miles away has a worst-case scenario accident (loss of coolent, blowing out steam, maybe even melting down), the disaster area is going to be relatively confined. Humanity won't go extinct.
I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but the release from Three Mile Island was a very small plume of slightly radioactive material that was estimated to be something on the order of a half mile wide and 20 miles long (maybe a little bigger--but not by much). TMI, in spite of the screw ups, was a success in reactor design. It didn't explode like the one in Chernobyl. It didn't melt its way through layers of cement. It didn't cause a steam plume that spread across much of Europe. Modern designs are really quite safe. I think I'd rather live near a reactor than a wind farm. The noise generated by the latter would drive me bat shit insane.
Anyway, this is entirely moot. I'm guessing you didn't read the moderation on my post. I was intending to be funny. You didn't get the memo. It helps to laugh sometimes.:)
You and the parent both have pretty good points (though I find RenderSeven's sharing of experience more interesting--regardless of what you feel about his opinion and experiences).
I also agree that HP is sort of not telling the complete truth; on the other hand, I can explain the cost of ink cartridges in a way that their PR department wouldn't be too thrilled with: It's to recoup costs for developing the printers. Remember, it wasn't that many years ago when HP and Lexmark both started selling their low end inkjets at a loss, expecting that the cartridges would not just offset the costs but also bring in some additional profits. Presumably they were both in fierce competition for the low-end market. As the GP rightfully pointed out: No one wants to buy expensive printers with cartridges that are refillable (or cheaper). A sibling post in this part of the thread also reminds us that HP's business model isn't new. This is something that Gillette found out a long time ago. Really, it's just consumerism at its best. Consumers generally feel they're getting a fantastic deal if they only paid $75-$100 bucks for a printer with all sorts of nifty features. It doesn't matter if they wind up spending 2 or 3 times that amount in ink cartridges over the lifetime of the device, because--by golly--the printer was dirt cheap. Sad? Yeah, but it's true.
Anyway, to the subject of my post: If you're printing out pages and pages of black and white reports with an inkjet, you're doing it wrong (color is justifiable). I have a cheapo HP laser printer that I got for around $100 back in 2005, and it got me through the rest of my excursion back to university. I must've cranked out somewhere between 1000-1500 pages of paper through that poor little thing, and oddly the toner cartridge still works fine even though I'm sure it was only rated for a maximum of 800 pages total. (Yeah, I'm running with the original that shipped with the printer.) 'Course, now that I've said that, it'll probably crap out--but it's performed leaps and bounds better than any crummy inkjet I've owned, including a much more expensive inkjet my father purchased back when I was in high school (which came with separate print heads).
I hate printers, I really do, but I think I hate inkjets far more than any other design.
Ok, I admit, it was just a (fairly weak, admittedly) attempt to be witty rather than a reference to an earlier post of mine.
It did make me chuckle. I apologize I didn't catch that, however.
I think it will. I don't want to dismiss it yet just because we weren't the great revolutionary generation just because we were the first generation to have easy and ubiquitous access to the 'net. I don't know how old you are, I'm 35. I was already an adult when the internet "took off" in Europe, and so did my peers. Many of them still don't understand it, use it only as a tool to find partners on dating pages or look up things in Wikipedia. In my generation, aside of these functions, the net is mostly seen as a "geek toy". They rarely use IM and they'd rather make phone calls than write a message. No, not even text (and, bluntly, I hate texting. And yes, even I haven't figured out yet how to use an IM on my N97).
Lengthy rant ahead: if you can't be bothered reading it, scroll to the last 3 paragraphs. Your story brought a huge tidal wave of memories to mind, and I feel I ought to share them...
I'm 28, and it's interesting to compare the similarities--and differences--between our life experiences with a meager difference of approximately 7 years.
First, the similarities: In my very early teens and preadolescence, I vaguely remember going to the store to browse through CDs and such. DVDs didn't really exist quite yet, and most home video was still largely available on VHS. Video CDs (or even the dual format types) were something of a novelty, but by the time I ran across any of them, I don't think I had access to a computer capable enough to actually view them, and much less did I have an understanding of codecs or anything of the sort. Still, going to the record store was the only way to get music. It wasn't until I was about 18 or 19 when ordering CDs online became a possibility. (In fact, I remember it pretty clearly: The first album of a sort that I ordered online was the Quake 3 Arena soundtrack by Sonic Mayhem--I knew I couldn't find it anywhere here locally. I don't remember the online retailer I purchased it from, but I'm almost certain they went out of business as Amazon's empire began to rise.)
My attitudes differ slightly from others in my own generation. I have a cell phone, but it's not even capable of checking e-mail--and I don't want it to. Some of my peers love their fancy gadgets and such that keep them connected 24/7. I'm not network-phobic of near-constant connectivity, but it's something that never appealed to me. I use IM and e-mail extensively (my rationale is probably outrageous, but it works best for me), but dislike texting. And, unless I'm expecting an important call, my cell phone is usually off when I travel to avoid the temptation and distraction. Absurd? Maybe, but I live in New Mexico, a sprawling southwester state of the US. Some parts of this vast landscape have terrible cell reception anyway, and one those occasions I drive long distances, I'd rather lose myself in the stark beauty of the near-barren desert. Maybe I'm a little crazy, but I think my generation was among the first to lose themselves in the connected world--I like to take a step back from that (very rarely, as I don't always have the opportunities to enjoy myself in the natural world) and reflect on things. But, I certainly agree: Texting? No. Call me or send me an e-mail. I type far faster than I can do much else (even think, sometimes), and there's no way I'm going to waste my time pressing about 15 buttons trying to sort out words.
Oh, and the whole "single- or dual-letter phonetic equivalency" that's so popular these days, such as "u" for "you," annoys the living daylights out of me. It takes me far longer to parse and looks absolutely dreadful.
One significant difference, though, is that when I was in my very early teens (about 14), my parents established one of the first ISPs in our town. Thus, th
Not quite, IIRC it was me going on a tirade about how the president of Sony/BMG (and Sony/BMG as a result) has never done anything good for society and is destructive to the economy.
I found it. I was wrong--it wasn't Sony/BMG. It was Sony Pictures. Media industry spokescritters usually says so many inane things it's difficult for me to keep track of who said what. It also wasn't along the lines of "the Internet is destructive" but rather "nothing good ever came from the Internet."
Regardless, I'm sure I may have confused it with your statement. Since you're on my friends list, I keep track of your posts pretty closely since they're invariably an entertaining read, educational, and in the case of Sony, sadly very true.
Slashdot Mirror
As in your previous example, it sort of makes me wonder how Uwe Boll manages to rake in any audiences. Is it possible people pay to see his movies simply because they felt pity upon him and wanted to throw him a bone?
I know of a few reviewers who would probably pay him to stop making movies.
That's a very good point.
It pains me to admit that you are 100% correct.
It's easy to see the allure of the Utopian view Star Trek gave each of us once with the introduction of replicators and the notion of "bulk matter" being converted into consumable goods. I certainly understand where you're coming from, and I agree to an extent.
There's just one problem: It will never work. No, really, it won't.
Think about it: Do you honestly think that thousands of companies across a multitude of industries are going to allow the average consumer to simply download a blueprint for something and "print" it out on their 3D printer (or nanoscale as you called it)? Of course not. Assuming such devices were to become affordable, it would represent a risk to the very core of their business. I can see this both ways; on the one hand, if I were producing a good, I'd want to be in control of the end product. Think about the control Apple has over its devices (and how vehement Slashdotters tend to defend Apple's rather closed nature with regards to hardware and the like)! I can't really blame them, because once the production line is out of your control you no longer have control over the end product's quality. Even assuming a perfect replication of a particular product, there'd still be issues with the operator (i.e. "end user") following the instructions carefully, putting together the device carefully, and so on. Hell, I remember doing technical support once upon a time and let me tell you--if something can go wrong, it will. Does the device have to be plugged in? Uh oh! There's another call to the service center claiming it's "not working."
On the other hand, our economic system relies exclusively on the economics of scarcity. What would happen should we be able to replicate common goods on the cheap--or, fancifully speaking--replicate just about anything from "bulk matter?" Chaos.
The problem is that we would need to undergo a significant change in the way we think and feel about resources and resource allocation, and I'm not so sure that would be successful.
Assuming some sort of 3D printing devices could be used to build just about anything (I'm aware William Shatner used one to recreate a part for a restoration project of an old vehicle which was then used by a machinist as a prototype to create the actual part to install), I suspect that it would a) be so expensive as to be unaffordable by the average user, b) "subscription" fees might be charged for users to upload their designs to a company which would then produce or print the part, and/or c) require payment of licensing fees to the companies that created the original product you're attempting to duplicate. Since such technology is unlikely to be made inexpensively, it takes little imagination to see where this leads.
I appreciate your optimism, though.
Even if it were feasible to have some sort of economic impact on the media industry, no matter what you do it'll never have any impact. Remember the "Drudge Tax" that the FTC was mulling over (now bear in mind, this was only a report and not something that is going into effect)? "Oh, but that's just Drudge" you say. "He's a right-wing lunatic."
Think about this carefully: the "Drudge Tax" was an idea concocted to make news aggregators (hi, Slashdot!) pay a small tax for linking to third party stories. Essentially, it would be in place to prop up an industry that is effectively in the process of dying. It sounds a lot like something Rupert Murdoch was proposing, too, doesn't it?
Remember, too, that every blank CD-ROM you purchase includes a small fee that goes straight into the coffers of the RIAA to help offset the costs of piracy. Sure, it's only a few cents, but during the peak of CD-ROM sales it was a figure undoubtedly rather high. Worst of all: most people have no idea they are paying what is effectively a tax.
So, no, I don't think that economically hurting the media industry is going to have any effect. Congress will simply levy taxes against the rest of us to keep their buddies afloat. If we truly professed to be a semi-capitalistic society, we would simply let these companies fail when they can no longer afford to keep their doors open. We're not; instead, we sink countless millions of dollars into failing industries simply because they have lobbyists.
You and I? Well, we're just taxpayers. We have no lobbyists. Plus, even if you could convince the vast majority of consumers to not purchase popular media (hint: won't happen), it'll never work. It'll instead be blamed on piracy, and you might just wind up paying a tax on every hardware component you purchase to build a computer, because--by golly--that device might just be used to pirate goods. In fact, I think there was a proposal of the sorts in the works.
I hate to sound so cynical. Instead, I'll end this on a positive note by welcoming you to serfdom.
Well, there'd be dark meat, white meat, and yellow meat. I think the Irish would be considered "green" meat.
It's definitely Something Posing as Meat.
(There's also a bunch more on the Wikipedia page for Spam.)
Talk about taking the poster's statement out of context just to prop up a strawman to somehow make yourself look righteous! Then again, it's this exact methodology that lends me to believe you're trolling. Your argument makes absolutely no sense when you take the original poster's statement in its full context, which is what you're clearly avoiding by quoting only a small snippet of his words. Troll? I think so. But let's continue:
Perhaps you missed the memo about how one of the murders he committed was when he was escaping from custody to be tried for murder. No offense, but someone like him is a danger to everyone around him and then some. And manual labor? Seriously? You'd actually give a tool to this guy to perform some sort of manual duty when he'd very likely use it to attempt another escape or murder someone else? Why this drivel spouted off by you and others would get tagged "insightful" is beyond me (and thankfully, as of this writing, the quoted section belongs to a comment that was not upvoted), particularly when there is obviously no effort made to learn why this guy was being executed in the first place. I'm all for being fair and just to people, but there's a point in time where you're simply advocating wasting taxpayers' money on someone who is an incredible danger to society.
Really: I wouldn't want some clown like him to be locked away somewhere for life, because it's simply a matter of time until he'd find a way to escape and likely kill more people in the process. Please, do some research before defending life imprisonment as some sort of silly good for society when this man is exactly the sort of individual for whom execution is the best and only solution. There are some people who simply cannot be interred because they are too dangerous to society at large.
I prefer the term "Artificial Stupidity" or "Artificial Stupidity in Software" (ASS), but I'm afraid much of Congress wouldn't even consider funding studies in this direction for fear that they'd finally have competition.
Joking aside, that's a pet peeve I don't fully understand partially because we've already lost the war on defining "hacker;" the mainstream press has managed to twist and desecrate the latter in spite of the campaigns on our side of the fence. There isn't much hope for AI "purists" in this particular case, specifically when you consider how generic the term "AI" has become. What better term is there, anyway? Would a "question and answer simulation system" be a better fit? Statistical fact-checking device? I think AI is suitable in this case.
Really, does it matter? Our brains may be massively parallel analog devices, but when you strip away culture, creativity, insight, and all the other things that separates us from other organisms, you're really just left with a machine that responds to input (stimuli) and generates output. I guess that begs the question: What is your definition of "intelligence," and what should intelligence of the artificial sort look like?
While I don't condone his actions, it's sad to consider that he may face a harsher sentence than a murderer/rapist otherwise would, isn't it?
Now, before anyone calls me out on the statement I quoted above jesting about the length of imprisonment: yes, I know he's unlikely to face that many years. In fact, he probably won't face much time at all, if he's even extradited. However, given the ridiculous state of the US judicial system, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
National security is important, but I'm afraid that there may be more interest in making an example of him than actually doling out justice. Besides, I'd be inclined to suggest that the person who ought to be up on charges is the idiot who thought up such a simple (and obvious) password, if that is indeed true.
Yes, but at least if they come here to NM, we'll give them driver's licenses!
Perhaps the politicians are our punishment for voting for them.
I live in a state (New Mexico) that issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It has no effect on the number of uninsured drivers; in fact, our premiums are generally much higher here than anywhere else precisely because you're more likely to get into an accident with an uninsured driver. We're also a border state.
I think the rate of uninsured drivers has far more to do with the fact that we're one of the poorest states in the union than it does with whether we issue driver licenses to immigrants or not. That we're a border state means we're more likely to have uninsured immigrants (hint: not surprising). It doesn't mean there's a correlation, so I think your point is moot. Issuing driver licenses to illegals has absolutely no net change on the number of insured drivers. It only guarantees that they're more likely to be licensed (which doesn't really matter if they rear-end you and they're uninsured, because your insurance has to foot the bill anyway, and as a result everyone's premiums keep going up).
I should reiterate that part of my motivation for more or less blowing up on you was due in no small part to the shear number of posts that have been largely critical of the US oil consumption and generally echoed the sentiment that a disaster near the US is a good thing. You happened to make a convenient target since my frustrations mounted about a third of the way down the discussions, but I appreciate that you're much more level-headed than the others. I understand your motives, I think they're wrong, but I am at least appreciative that your intentions aren't malicious.
I don't live near the Gulf, I'm not affected directly by it (though that remains to be seen--this will certainly hurt the US economy and most definitely hurt BP which may hurt all of us in terms of energy costs), and I don't personally know anyone who works in and around the Gulf. I suppose it's really an issue of how we see disasters; I see them as exactly that, and I would never dream of exploiting them as a method of affecting policy changes. Some people do--and it's certainly an effective method to say the least--but I don't agree with it. I suppose my pragmatism is tempered by what little empathy I do have, and it's most certainly bothered by the shear devastation Gulf communities are liable to face. That's to say nothing about the environmental devastation. (Add to this the proximity of Gulf stream, and it might be worthwhile to consider that at least some oil might make its way to the East Coast of the US and possibly toward other nations across the Pond.)
I'm glad that at least you agree there and were willing to make clear your intentions. I appreciate that.
Please do understand that much of my frustration comes from the perception of the US abroad. I suppose it's enlightening--it gives me a glimpse into how the French must feel whenever someone brands them as cowards.
Fortunately, not everyone in the US matches one-to-one with the perceptions held abroad. The stereotypical "loud, obnoxious, rude" American is just as annoying to us here in the 'States! Not all of us drive SUVs (though I admit I do--I live in the backwoods, more or less, in a rough part of the country where roads are often unimproved and snowfall makes travel by other means difficult). Not all of us are wasteful. And some of us are actually mindful of what our impact on the world around us is.
Perhaps, though, my perceptions are influenced by where I live. I live in a mixed juniper/pinyon pine forest where water is something of a scarce resource. I was raised to be mindful of wastage, and to conserve whenever possible. It is therefore interesting to observe those who have moved here from California and other nearby regions. They aren't quite so careful with our resources because they have often never had to conserve. It's a lesson in irony in a way; in spite of California's environmental laws and that many of its citizens are quite left-leaning politically, they're among the most wasteful bunch I've seen short of Texans. Then again, city dwellers don't often understand the concept of conservation here in the US, and I suppose that's where much of the negative stereotypes are generated from.
I also have a theory about this type. I suspect the reason they support stricter environmental laws is precisely correlated with the fact that they cannot conserve. Thus, many of them rationalize it
I've got some karma to burn, and this is probably going to get me down modded...
You were doing fine until you hit this part (which negates your earlier comment, by the way). But, since you and several other commentators decided to go down this road of reasoning, I feel compelled to answer (so this isn't necessarily directed exclusively at you but at other non-Americans who feel similarly to you):
This attitude is the problem. It's pretty thoughtless of you to sit high atop your ivory tower, pleased that hard working men and women in communities supported by the Gulf have been affected most in the hopes that they affect change by having their livelihoods destroyed by a single careless entity (though I feel TransOcean shares much of the blame, too). You realize that the majority of them are going to blame 1) the US government or 2) BP. They're going to consider this disaster more the fault of those drilling for oil and less the reliance on it. I'm pretty disgusted by this philosophy. Harming a population to teach them a lesson is really no different than what feudal lords of old accomplished whenever nearby villagers pissed them off.
Many of the alternatives aren't working out all that well, and it's not because we don't want them or they don't work. I live in an area where they were planning to build a molten salt plant for power generation. The plans were scrapped because of environmental impact studies, regardless of the fact that we'd have a clean energy facility right in our back yard. The environmentalists are their own worst enemies, so I certainly don't want to hear a comment related to US states not trying--some of us are, and some of us are suffering as a result of it.
It's also ironic that you blame the "American system" (in this case, I can only assume you're implying our hunger for oil and thus cheap energy) for the world's woes--never mind that cheap energy has given us cheaper, easier access to mass production, increased the quality of life for many, and even the Internet. Let's not even get into the notion of modern medicine and other fields that wouldn't exist without cheap, plentiful energy! So, until you dispense with every plastic item in your household, every product produced by a factory (hint: almost everything), and turned off your computer, then you too are drinking of the "American system" fountain.
Still, being happy that something so tragic has hit the Gulf absolutely disgusts me. There are better ways to educate people than to wish ill of them. Never mind that this is only the tip of the ice berg--there's plenty of other nations surrounding the Gulf that might be impacted as well. But I suppose destroying a small fishing village here and there is justification enough for your ilk if it means that the evil American empire is hurt in the process.
"Ah, yes, but they wouldn't be affected if it weren't for the US oil hunger!" you say.
How about we do something more productive than bicker about world wide oil consumption and the evils of American society? Really, I'm sick and tired of it. Saying something akin to "Hah! I'm glad that happened to those damned Americans! Serves 'em right!" isn't going to accomplish anything. Believe me: Some of us are trying to affect change, but ridiculous environmental policies here in the States are putting a real kink in things. That's to say nothing about the government and industry, either.
That's disgusting! It's also not really all that surprising.
My father bought an HP 2000c (I think?) years and years ago. It was a fairly new model at the time, quite expensive, and came with separate print heads for each color (CMYK). It also had separate ink cartridges for all four colors, so if something wasn't working, you'd likely have to replace at least two components: a print head plus the ink cartridge.
In the end, I think my folks boxed it up and packed it away somewhere. During my high school years, I vaguely remember that it worked reasonably well, but the print heads would need replacing over the summer because no one had much need to use it. Given the price of the components, it definitely wasn't worth it. As a consequence, we did most of our printing from a laser combo printer (also HP) at their business.
The cheap laser printer I have has been abused with a lot of pages having been churned through it, and I'm really amazed at how well it's held up considering it was probably about the same price as a slightly more advanced inkjet. Plus it's not nearly as noisy and doesn't rattle the desk like an earthquake's going off whenever it's running. Though, the warming up cycle and roller motion does still tend to scare the cat. (He hates printers.)
I think it's interesting just how many Slashdotters have posted related to my slight digs at inkjets about how much they'd rather use a laser printer. It doesn't surprise me given my experiences, and I certainly agree: Printing in volume with an inkjet is almost financial suicide. Yet, almost ironically, so is not using it frequently!
I think the poster was just alluding to one of many use cases.
My situation is similar to his: I have a box I leave on all the time that I use as a development machine, file server, and so forth. My laser jet's plugged into it from which I run CUPS + Samba. Granted, I purchased the printer well before network capabilities were really all that common, and while I do vaguely remember the various pluggable print servers--even some routers with that capability--it wasn't something I considered. It works fine for what I've needed it for, though, and I could have printed stuff when I was away from home, at the university (assuming I could upload it to my box at the house--not that I ever had the need, but I certainly knew that option was available).
Your solution does sound optimal, and I might even go that route if I buy a new printer or decide to stop running my file server for whatever reason. I can't really say that using existing hardware (existing box running some version of *nix plus a few hours of my time) and CUPS + Samba was a terrible decision, though. It's worked out great!
Brief addendum:
The price I cited isn't exactly correct. Serves me right for looking at Amazon when I'm half-asleep.
It's the price quoted for the used versions of the printer. There is a newer model, though, that's about $150. I'm pretty certain I didn't pay any more than about $120 for mine back 4-5 years ago. Either way, it doesn't really change the point--laser printers are pretty cheap if you're willing to settle for something that might not have a bunch of features or necessarily print the fastest.
Agreed. I think my post is now the grandparent post to yours, and I certainly don't want to disparage your recommendations. The laser printer I settled on was sort of a spur of the moment "I need a printer for my classes, and I'm at the store" buy. (Well, I did some research and had a vague idea of what'd work with CUPS, but it was mostly spur of the moment.) IIRC, the HP was ~$100-120 (HP Laserjet 1020)--Amazon has it listed at around $114, so I guess it hasn't really changed much.
But you're absolutely right, there's no need to spend an arm and a leg on a laser printer. Hence why inkjets are a stupid idea, especially for high volume printing!
Gah, tell me about it. I believe I mentioned in my original post an inkjet my folks had many years ago. It cost a small fortune, had separate print heads, and separate individual cartridges for each of the 4 colors. If you didn't print something at least once every two weeks, the print heads would be rendered useless. Worse, they weren't cheap.
As you alluded to, though, being as it was an HP it did have replacement capabilities. The quality was fantastic, though. Not that I'd ever buy one again--I've grown to hate inkjets.
I still don't know what happened to that printer. I think my parents have it boxed up in storage somewhere--I know I don't have it. Regardless, I vaguely remember being unable to find replacement parts period! It seems to me that toner cartridges are generally fairly standard for a number of printer models and typically much easier to find (correct me if I'm wrong). Sure, they're more expensive than ink, but they last longer.
Judging by some of the comments I've read and my own personal anecdotes from friends, I should think you're right. After all, toner is little more than little beads with dye in/on them (hence why you never want to wash it off with warm water--heat sets the ink and melts the beads).
I know this is going to sound ridiculous, and it probably wouldn't work in a high volume environment at all, but I've found that CUPS on a simple *nix box works perfectly fine, even if you have a USB printer. Yeah, it probably isn't an optimal solution for anything more than casual printing, but I can print to it from anywhere in the house on any system. It works fantastic for my needs, and it might even do well for a (very) small office environment, too. Depending on your own needs, this solution is definitely worth exploring.
Be warned, though. The laser printer I've got is one of HPs somewhat more recent models (late 2005 vintage/early 2006) that requires the driver to load the firmware. I couldn't get it working under FreeBSD back then--I'd imagine it'd work great now--and it took some effort under Gentoo to get some of the associated start-up scripts working. If I knew then what I know now, I probably would've shelled out a bit more to save myself the couple days' worth of headaches trying to get it to do precisely what I wanted.
On the other hand, for a ~$100 printer, I can't really complain. Especially when I abused it as much as I did and it still works fine.
What surprises me is that the laser printer I purchased was relatively cheap. It works great with CUPS (setting it up was slightly painful, but it does great over the network), and--as I said--it was CHEAP! I can't understand why anyone would want to purchase an inkjet over something like this HP laser printer I've got for general purpose printing. Color photos would be the only valid reason, but gosh, I can't imagine NOT having had this printer while I was in uni. Required purchases of replacement cartridges every few months? No thanks! (To be fair, it was about $20 more than the inkjet sitting next to it, but I considered getting a laser printer for that price a steal.)
But you're right on the money, and I think maintaining this little guy is going to be FAR cheaper than any terrible inkjet I've ever had. Even if it dies this year, I'll have more than gotten my share of usage out of it.
My only gripe though is that the cheap HP laser printers follow in line with their inkjets: The printer firmware is loaded by the driver. I don't really have any expectations of how long it might last, but judging by your experiences it might just surprise me!
Thanks for sharing!
Honestly, I think you're worrying a little needlessly and probably have very little idea how modern reactor designs work.
But let's put this in perspective: If the device in the sky blows up, all of humanity is wiped out in a fleeting instant. If the one 8 miles away has a worst-case scenario accident (loss of coolent, blowing out steam, maybe even melting down), the disaster area is going to be relatively confined. Humanity won't go extinct.
I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but the release from Three Mile Island was a very small plume of slightly radioactive material that was estimated to be something on the order of a half mile wide and 20 miles long (maybe a little bigger--but not by much). TMI, in spite of the screw ups, was a success in reactor design. It didn't explode like the one in Chernobyl. It didn't melt its way through layers of cement. It didn't cause a steam plume that spread across much of Europe. Modern designs are really quite safe. I think I'd rather live near a reactor than a wind farm. The noise generated by the latter would drive me bat shit insane.
Anyway, this is entirely moot. I'm guessing you didn't read the moderation on my post. I was intending to be funny. You didn't get the memo. It helps to laugh sometimes. :)
You and the parent both have pretty good points (though I find RenderSeven's sharing of experience more interesting--regardless of what you feel about his opinion and experiences).
I also agree that HP is sort of not telling the complete truth; on the other hand, I can explain the cost of ink cartridges in a way that their PR department wouldn't be too thrilled with: It's to recoup costs for developing the printers. Remember, it wasn't that many years ago when HP and Lexmark both started selling their low end inkjets at a loss, expecting that the cartridges would not just offset the costs but also bring in some additional profits. Presumably they were both in fierce competition for the low-end market. As the GP rightfully pointed out: No one wants to buy expensive printers with cartridges that are refillable (or cheaper). A sibling post in this part of the thread also reminds us that HP's business model isn't new. This is something that Gillette found out a long time ago. Really, it's just consumerism at its best. Consumers generally feel they're getting a fantastic deal if they only paid $75-$100 bucks for a printer with all sorts of nifty features. It doesn't matter if they wind up spending 2 or 3 times that amount in ink cartridges over the lifetime of the device, because--by golly--the printer was dirt cheap. Sad? Yeah, but it's true.
Anyway, to the subject of my post: If you're printing out pages and pages of black and white reports with an inkjet, you're doing it wrong (color is justifiable). I have a cheapo HP laser printer that I got for around $100 back in 2005, and it got me through the rest of my excursion back to university. I must've cranked out somewhere between 1000-1500 pages of paper through that poor little thing, and oddly the toner cartridge still works fine even though I'm sure it was only rated for a maximum of 800 pages total. (Yeah, I'm running with the original that shipped with the printer.) 'Course, now that I've said that, it'll probably crap out--but it's performed leaps and bounds better than any crummy inkjet I've owned, including a much more expensive inkjet my father purchased back when I was in high school (which came with separate print heads).
I hate printers, I really do, but I think I hate inkjets far more than any other design.
It did make me chuckle. I apologize I didn't catch that, however.
Lengthy rant ahead: if you can't be bothered reading it, scroll to the last 3 paragraphs. Your story brought a huge tidal wave of memories to mind, and I feel I ought to share them...
I'm 28, and it's interesting to compare the similarities--and differences--between our life experiences with a meager difference of approximately 7 years.
First, the similarities: In my very early teens and preadolescence, I vaguely remember going to the store to browse through CDs and such. DVDs didn't really exist quite yet, and most home video was still largely available on VHS. Video CDs (or even the dual format types) were something of a novelty, but by the time I ran across any of them, I don't think I had access to a computer capable enough to actually view them, and much less did I have an understanding of codecs or anything of the sort. Still, going to the record store was the only way to get music. It wasn't until I was about 18 or 19 when ordering CDs online became a possibility. (In fact, I remember it pretty clearly: The first album of a sort that I ordered online was the Quake 3 Arena soundtrack by Sonic Mayhem--I knew I couldn't find it anywhere here locally. I don't remember the online retailer I purchased it from, but I'm almost certain they went out of business as Amazon's empire began to rise.)
My attitudes differ slightly from others in my own generation. I have a cell phone, but it's not even capable of checking e-mail--and I don't want it to. Some of my peers love their fancy gadgets and such that keep them connected 24/7. I'm not network-phobic of near-constant connectivity, but it's something that never appealed to me. I use IM and e-mail extensively (my rationale is probably outrageous, but it works best for me), but dislike texting. And, unless I'm expecting an important call, my cell phone is usually off when I travel to avoid the temptation and distraction. Absurd? Maybe, but I live in New Mexico, a sprawling southwester state of the US. Some parts of this vast landscape have terrible cell reception anyway, and one those occasions I drive long distances, I'd rather lose myself in the stark beauty of the near-barren desert. Maybe I'm a little crazy, but I think my generation was among the first to lose themselves in the connected world--I like to take a step back from that (very rarely, as I don't always have the opportunities to enjoy myself in the natural world) and reflect on things. But, I certainly agree: Texting? No. Call me or send me an e-mail. I type far faster than I can do much else (even think, sometimes), and there's no way I'm going to waste my time pressing about 15 buttons trying to sort out words.
Oh, and the whole "single- or dual-letter phonetic equivalency" that's so popular these days, such as "u" for "you," annoys the living daylights out of me. It takes me far longer to parse and looks absolutely dreadful.
One significant difference, though, is that when I was in my very early teens (about 14), my parents established one of the first ISPs in our town. Thus, th
I found it. I was wrong--it wasn't Sony/BMG. It was Sony Pictures. Media industry spokescritters usually says so many inane things it's difficult for me to keep track of who said what. It also wasn't along the lines of "the Internet is destructive" but rather "nothing good ever came from the Internet."
Regardless, I'm sure I may have confused it with your statement. Since you're on my friends list, I keep track of your posts pretty closely since they're invariably an entertaining read, educational, and in the case of Sony, sadly very true.