Well, hang on. Epsilons were bred to be epsilons, which was meant to be, and is, morally reprehensible.
People with autism exist already. Why shouldn't they have better jobs than sacking groceries? And why shouldn't those jobs be in line with their special abilities? The Politically Correct teach us to be "differently abled". If that's really true, then how could jobs in line with those special abilities be bad?
You know I was being somewhat facetious in my original message. The real message is that dye ink printers are generally cheap crap printers with expensive crap ink, and you'd be doing yourself a favor to stay far away from them.
You'll get much better and, long term, cheaper results taking your photos to the nearest Kodak kiosk to print. For term papers and such, you can "print" your paper directly to the nearest Kinkos. (Or whatever they're calling them these days. FedEx?) The biggest advantage of this is that if the print is flubbed, it's their problem and they have to fix it.
I agree completely with laser. I had a refurbished HP Laserjet when I went back to college that saw some pretty severe abuse (programming classes). In five years I had to fix a roller problem once and never once replaced the toner cartridge.
Now, I have a refurbished and surprisingly affordable Xerox color printer which does everything I'm likely to need at home. I do some photography, but I always take my finished images somewhere else to print. Unless you can afford a professional grade 8 cartridge pigment ink printer at home, the best and least expensive way to print your photographs is let Kodak do it.
The toner cartridges for the Xerox are about $80 apiece (it takes 4) so initial investment is significant. On the other hand, I've had the printer since 2006 and am still running on my first set of cartridges. Toner doesn't dry out and become nonfunctional over time, unlike liquid dye inks.
For high volume printing, like the yearly Christmas letter, I do my prototyping on the Xerox, and when I have a satisfactory document, I "print" it to the industrial grade printers at Kinkos that are designed for that kind of volume.
Use it until it stops working and then throw it away. It's the way the market is currently set up, for consumer dye ink printers.
If you're an occasional user, the next time you need it your $80 set of cartridges will probably be dried up anyway, or it'll be dried up at the print head, requiring cleaning that consumes a significant portion of the ink remaining in your cartridges. Or the print head may never come clean, leaving you with the choice of living with a streaky image or replacing the printer. It's best just to get another.
You know that dye ink printers are a loss leader to get you to buy overpriced ink cartridges. If you can't afford to switch to (more expensive) pigment ink or toner printers, the only reasonable choice from a financial standpoint is to buy a new printer when yours runs out of ink. Yeah I know it sucks for landfill, but what does one do? Fortunately most consumer dye ink printers fit conveniently in a typical garbage can, saving you a visit to the dump.
> The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.
I'm wondering whether they're using actual longevity measurements or theoretical numbers. The numbers above imply that CFLs last 10 times longer than incandescents, and being a consumer of both, I have not found that to be true. Moreover, although I have not invested in LED lighting yet, I note that it is rare to see an LED traffic light that doesn't have several LEDs blown out or flickering wildly.
I'm reminded by a novel from years back, I think it was called "Cat Karina". The entire world was converted to a religion that was strictly vegan. What was craved most was a very tasty product made from some obscure bio-engineered plant. The very carefully controlled secret was that the creature was not plant, but an animal that somewhat resembles a plant. The idea being that even though people claim to be vegan, given a choice they would still prefer meat if they can convince themselves it's really a plant. (Which in my opinion is more than a little offensive to real vegans.)
I figure, the product has a built-in following amongst the people who currently buy meat substitutes that are engineered to (somewhat) resemble the real thing.
I'm thinking that if lab grown meat could be carefully controlled to the point where it's superior to "real" meat in every way -- texture, flavor, color -- and could be (for the sake of argument) made more cheaply than the real thing, I suspect there would be gourmets who would immediately start selling "real" steaks at a premium. They'll make up some twaddle about how that tough, gamy taste and inconsistent quality makes it a culinary delight. Just think of it -- all the New York elite lining up for outrageously expensive steaks inferior in objective quality to those produced by Denny's. I could actually see that.
"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."
This is an increasing problem with vegetarians even before this development. Used to be, (speaking as a vegetarian) you could always tell you were eating meat substitutes, 'cause they look and taste like crap. But as time went on, and texture and flavor improved, it became more difficult to tell. (Depending on the product -- fake sausage is getting a lot better, but fake bacon still looks and tastes like christmas tree decorations, and don't get me started on Tofurky (shudder).) I guess I could see a time when meat substitutes tasted merely like poor cuts of meat, and not petroleum products.
Similarly, "artificial flesh" will initially not have the texture and flavor of real meat. But with proper exercise (which is a little... icky, don't you think?) and flavoring, I can see a time when a vat-grown pig tastes merely like a poor cut of pork, and not something out of the lab. I hope they figure out how to get that disinfectant taste out of the meat.
This topic has, of course, been covered extensively in SF.
I'm not sure the fire station analogy applies. Lawyer-person implies that we're only working when we get a call. Nothing could be further from the truth. As most admins know, you put in a good 45 to 70 hour week just doing regular work, trying desperately to get things to hold together reliably so you can get some sleep. Soooooo..... that work doesn't count?
In one job, we got a pay differential for being on call. In my previous job you just had to suck it up. In my current job, we get additional paid time off for being on call, which makes more sense to me -- you're paid back for your time with additional time, which is often more important to me than additional money. Of course, this assumes you have enough people in the department to pick up the slack. It's pointless to grant time off and then not allow it to be taken.
"Anonymous has harassed and attacked them with '8,139 threatening phone calls, 3.6 million e-mails, 141 million hits on its website, ten acts of vandalism against its property, 22 bomb threats, and eight death threats against Church leaders.'"
...I thought they were talking about Somali pirates, which, it seems to me, is a genuine problem that needs a genuine solution. Then I read the article. Oh, that. As usual, busybodies mucking about as the hard questions go unanswered.
The likelihood of valuable data being exploited is proportional to it's marketability. The more important the data, the more likely it will be stolen or otherwise exploited. It doesn't matter if it's a company, a utility or a government.
I don't want their goods, especially under those conditions. When you have a product that's getting progressively more mediocre, you're not in the position to make demands.
We see the latter headline often enough. I'm saying that issues like this put pressure on a company to do the wrong thing. What actual effect this has depends on a variety of factors.
What makes this particularly bad is that vendors can improve their scores by neglecting to patch their browsers. The less responsible they are, the better their marketing numbers.
> I wonder how verizon would fare if they were able to offer the iPhone with unlimited data as well...
I'd like to see that. I switched recently from at&t to verizon as a Blackberry user, and have seen no discernible difference in web response. Comparing my daughter's Blackberry (still on ATT) to mine, the response is pretty much the same -- crappy, dial-up-era throughput. Page rendering sometimes measured in minutes. I don't think iphone customers would see any better results on Verizon. I don't pretend to know the solution, but something is wrong with the whole cell phone data plan thing.
Since I got my first web-enabled phone (a Treo) in 2004, I've been using this test for wireless throughput: Sitting in some random restaurant, you look up the movie times in this area while I go outside and buy a newspaper. In 2004, I could stop for coffee and a chonga bagel. I have to move more quickly now, but I can still get to the movie section before you can. This is "broadband" only because the vendors say it is.
Reason one: Verizon bundles the land line with internet and cable TV. Not having the land line means buying the other two ala carte, which is about the same total price. The land line is essentially free.
Reason two: Cellular service sucks at our house. Even though I can see the pole from my front yard, (about two blocks away) I get barely one bar in the living room.
Reason two a: Since I'm on call 24/7 and often work from home, the lack of reliable voice communications is unacceptable.
Reason two b: If a member of my family calls 911 on the land line, the operator automatically gets our address. If they call on the cell phone, precise location depends on dodgy satellite reception.
Reason two c: Wife makes long calls to her friends and families, hates talking on cell phone.
There's actually a (minor) third reason: When we were allocated our phone number 20 years ago, we got a number ending in double zero, which in this area is usually reserved for businesses. I could transfer that number to a cell phone, but that inevitably starts an argument over whom is going to give up their current cell phone number.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, hang on. Epsilons were bred to be epsilons, which was meant to be, and is, morally reprehensible.
People with autism exist already. Why shouldn't they have better jobs than sacking groceries? And why shouldn't those jobs be in line with their special abilities? The Politically Correct teach us to be "differently abled". If that's really true, then how could jobs in line with those special abilities be bad?
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Yeah, ok. For example, for someone hiding out from a bad person, just continuing to exist is something you don't want them to know.
You know I was being somewhat facetious in my original message. The real message is that dye ink printers are generally cheap crap printers with expensive crap ink, and you'd be doing yourself a favor to stay far away from them.
You'll get much better and, long term, cheaper results taking your photos to the nearest Kodak kiosk to print. For term papers and such, you can "print" your paper directly to the nearest Kinkos. (Or whatever they're calling them these days. FedEx?) The biggest advantage of this is that if the print is flubbed, it's their problem and they have to fix it.
I agree completely with laser. I had a refurbished HP Laserjet when I went back to college that saw some pretty severe abuse (programming classes). In five years I had to fix a roller problem once and never once replaced the toner cartridge.
Now, I have a refurbished and surprisingly affordable Xerox color printer which does everything I'm likely to need at home. I do some photography, but I always take my finished images somewhere else to print. Unless you can afford a professional grade 8 cartridge pigment ink printer at home, the best and least expensive way to print your photographs is let Kodak do it.
The toner cartridges for the Xerox are about $80 apiece (it takes 4) so initial investment is significant. On the other hand, I've had the printer since 2006 and am still running on my first set of cartridges. Toner doesn't dry out and become nonfunctional over time, unlike liquid dye inks.
For high volume printing, like the yearly Christmas letter, I do my prototyping on the Xerox, and when I have a satisfactory document, I "print" it to the industrial grade printers at Kinkos that are designed for that kind of volume.
Just say "no" to consumer dye ink printers.
Kodak consumer printers use pigment inks? I'm impressed! I'll have to check that out.
Use it until it stops working and then throw it away. It's the way the market is currently set up, for consumer dye ink printers.
If you're an occasional user, the next time you need it your $80 set of cartridges will probably be dried up anyway, or it'll be dried up at the print head, requiring cleaning that consumes a significant portion of the ink remaining in your cartridges. Or the print head may never come clean, leaving you with the choice of living with a streaky image or replacing the printer. It's best just to get another.
You know that dye ink printers are a loss leader to get you to buy overpriced ink cartridges. If you can't afford to switch to (more expensive) pigment ink or toner printers, the only reasonable choice from a financial standpoint is to buy a new printer when yours runs out of ink. Yeah I know it sucks for landfill, but what does one do? Fortunately most consumer dye ink printers fit conveniently in a typical garbage can, saving you a visit to the dump.
> The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.
I'm wondering whether they're using actual longevity measurements or theoretical numbers. The numbers above imply that CFLs last 10 times longer than incandescents, and being a consumer of both, I have not found that to be true. Moreover, although I have not invested in LED lighting yet, I note that it is rare to see an LED traffic light that doesn't have several LEDs blown out or flickering wildly.
I'm reminded by a novel from years back, I think it was called "Cat Karina". The entire world was converted to a religion that was strictly vegan. What was craved most was a very tasty product made from some obscure bio-engineered plant. The very carefully controlled secret was that the creature was not plant, but an animal that somewhat resembles a plant. The idea being that even though people claim to be vegan, given a choice they would still prefer meat if they can convince themselves it's really a plant. (Which in my opinion is more than a little offensive to real vegans.)
I figure, the product has a built-in following amongst the people who currently buy meat substitutes that are engineered to (somewhat) resemble the real thing.
"Chicken Heart" -- Bill Cosby
I'm thinking that if lab grown meat could be carefully controlled to the point where it's superior to "real" meat in every way -- texture, flavor, color -- and could be (for the sake of argument) made more cheaply than the real thing, I suspect there would be gourmets who would immediately start selling "real" steaks at a premium. They'll make up some twaddle about how that tough, gamy taste and inconsistent quality makes it a culinary delight. Just think of it -- all the New York elite lining up for outrageously expensive steaks inferior in objective quality to those produced by Denny's. I could actually see that.
"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."
This is an increasing problem with vegetarians even before this development. Used to be, (speaking as a vegetarian) you could always tell you were eating meat substitutes, 'cause they look and taste like crap. But as time went on, and texture and flavor improved, it became more difficult to tell. (Depending on the product -- fake sausage is getting a lot better, but fake bacon still looks and tastes like christmas tree decorations, and don't get me started on Tofurky (shudder).) I guess I could see a time when meat substitutes tasted merely like poor cuts of meat, and not petroleum products.
Similarly, "artificial flesh" will initially not have the texture and flavor of real meat. But with proper exercise (which is a little... icky, don't you think?) and flavoring, I can see a time when a vat-grown pig tastes merely like a poor cut of pork, and not something out of the lab. I hope they figure out how to get that disinfectant taste out of the meat.
This topic has, of course, been covered extensively in SF.
I'm not sure the fire station analogy applies. Lawyer-person implies that we're only working when we get a call. Nothing could be further from the truth. As most admins know, you put in a good 45 to 70 hour week just doing regular work, trying desperately to get things to hold together reliably so you can get some sleep. Soooooo..... that work doesn't count?
In one job, we got a pay differential for being on call. In my previous job you just had to suck it up. In my current job, we get additional paid time off for being on call, which makes more sense to me -- you're paid back for your time with additional time, which is often more important to me than additional money. Of course, this assumes you have enough people in the department to pick up the slack. It's pointless to grant time off and then not allow it to be taken.
"Anonymous has harassed and attacked them with '8,139 threatening phone calls, 3.6 million e-mails, 141 million hits on its website, ten acts of vandalism against its property, 22 bomb threats, and eight death threats against Church leaders.'"
They always say that.
If you leave off sensing people allergic to cats for 800, it ought to be doable with quite simple hardware.
The likelihood of valuable data being exploited is proportional to it's marketability. The more important the data, the more likely it will be stolen or otherwise exploited. It doesn't matter if it's a company, a utility or a government.
That's what they would say even if there were a planet ...what the hell was it called... ...Nibiru... about to collide with Earth.
I don't want their goods, especially under those conditions. When you have a product that's getting progressively more mediocre, you're not in the position to make demands.
We see the latter headline often enough. I'm saying that issues like this put pressure on a company to do the wrong thing. What actual effect this has depends on a variety of factors.
What makes this particularly bad is that vendors can improve their scores by neglecting to patch their browsers. The less responsible they are, the better their marketing numbers.
> I wonder how verizon would fare if they were able to offer the iPhone with unlimited data as well...
I'd like to see that. I switched recently from at&t to verizon as a Blackberry user, and have seen no discernible difference in web response. Comparing my daughter's Blackberry (still on ATT) to mine, the response is pretty much the same -- crappy, dial-up-era throughput. Page rendering sometimes measured in minutes. I don't think iphone customers would see any better results on Verizon. I don't pretend to know the solution, but something is wrong with the whole cell phone data plan thing.
Since I got my first web-enabled phone (a Treo) in 2004, I've been using this test for wireless throughput: Sitting in some random restaurant, you look up the movie times in this area while I go outside and buy a newspaper. In 2004, I could stop for coffee and a chonga bagel. I have to move more quickly now, but I can still get to the movie section before you can. This is "broadband" only because the vendors say it is.
Well, yeah, we do, for two reasons.
Reason one: Verizon bundles the land line with internet and cable TV. Not having the land line means buying the other two ala carte, which is about the same total price. The land line is essentially free.
Reason two: Cellular service sucks at our house. Even though I can see the pole from my front yard, (about two blocks away) I get barely one bar in the living room.
Reason two a: Since I'm on call 24/7 and often work from home, the lack of reliable voice communications is unacceptable.
Reason two b: If a member of my family calls 911 on the land line, the operator automatically gets our address. If they call on the cell phone, precise location depends on dodgy satellite reception.
Reason two c: Wife makes long calls to her friends and families, hates talking on cell phone.
There's actually a (minor) third reason: When we were allocated our phone number 20 years ago, we got a number ending in double zero, which in this area is usually reserved for businesses. I could transfer that number to a cell phone, but that inevitably starts an argument over whom is going to give up their current cell phone number.
My wife is terrified of flying. Now I have to allocate another hour for the anal exam. Maybe we'll just drive.
> next question.
Ok, I'll bite. Does this seem like a business opportunity to anyone?