Ah, I'm on Linux so that may be skewing my perspective. 9 and 10 on Linux were HORRIFIC. I have never *seen* a program become so unstable. Couldn't browse without Flashblock. The latest is just pretty obnoxious.
But yea, other than that bit, I couldn't agree with you more.
Hmm, interesting. I usually get mine refilled locally -- can get the cartridge back the next day, sometimes even the same day if I get it to them in the morning. I'll have to look into these printers that have a drum with the cartridge if I ever get a new one, but I'm a bit concerned about that for two reasons -- first, would that then limit the number of times you could get the cartridge refilled? Would you have to get a refill and a drum refurbishment of some sort (I'm honestly not even entirely sure what the drum does, so if that phrasing doesn't quite make sense, that's why...). And how much would that cost?
Usually I pay ~$30 to get a 2,500 page refill (which sometimes lasts longer)...though it looks like at the moment new cartridges are down around $10 each on Amazon.com. Can't really beat that!
ah crap, started with 'pretty much always Flash', then thought about it and realized it was 'ALWAYS Flash'...and ended up with 'pretty ALWAYS Flash'...my bad.
In my experience that's pretty ALWAYS Flash. Make sure yours is updated, as I haven't had many problems with that on recent versions, and maybe try Flashblock or something. Whatever they fixed might help as well, I don't really know.
I leave Firefox windows with dozens of tabs open for weeks and even months at a time, and haven't noticed any stability issues in a year or so...But I also don't use any add-ons except Firebug.
If your motorcycle is only getting 44MPG, I sure as hell hope it would smoke every car on the road! That thing HAD to be built purely for speed and power, completely ignoring fuel efficiency, if something that small is only getting 44MPG. Christ, you can get SUVs that get better mileage than that!
Not that I disagree with your sentiments -- I currently get around 24MPG in my 3.5L V6 Pontiac G6. LOVE when I pull into a stop light next to, say, that solid black Mustang the other day...the light turns green, and they rev their engine ALL the way up....and ten seconds later I'm a hundred feet ahead of them and my foot's not even halfway down.
That said, half the reason I got that car was because it was cheap. I got the V6 instead of the V4 because it was the same price (very slightly older I think, I was buying used), and very similar mileage, so why the hell not? But if the one at the lot hadn't smelled of smoke and if the layout of the controls wasn't the most obnoxious thing I had ever seen, I probably would have ended up with an Accord because of the fuel efficiency. If I could have both I would be a very happy man. Waiting for the day I can afford a Tesla. I'll settle for used if I can get the Roadster:)
Who's going to track how many accidents _don't happen_? Who should I have called to report that guy who _almost_ rear-ended me the other day?
One thing I can say for sure -- I have a relatively small and powerful car (The 3.5L V6 Pontiac G6) and I haven't been in an accident yet, but I HAVE been in a couple circumstances that were close, where it very well may have been avoided thanks to the maneuverability of either my car or theirs. But of course I can't say for certain, there's no possible way for me to know what would have happened had I been in, say, a Hummer.
There are plenty of people who believe God "used evolution as part of the creative process." In fact, pretty sure that's basically the official stance of the entire Catholic Church. But that IS NOT creationism! Creationism does not mean 'God created the universe'; it means 'God created all creatures as they currently exist'
creationism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
Check a dictionary. Creationism does NOT mean 'belief in God'. Faith is perfectly compatible with all science, really, if you reduce it to 'God created the initial conditions such that the universe evolved as he wanted it.' But that is not creationism, that's just religion. Creationism, BY DEFINITION, means you do not believe in evolution.
creationism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
Creationism does not mean what you think it means. You can believe in God and evolution, but not creationism and evolution.
creationism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
EXACTLY! It's not about this algorithm or that process being "inspired" by evolution or "modeled" on evolution. Evolution doesn't have to be a real thing to do that. It's about teaching evolution as a way to educate children to analyze and interpret and draw conclusions about evidence surrounding them...vs creationism teaching them to ignore evidence that counteracts their existing beliefs.
An engineer who believes they already know the best way to do everything and ignore designs others show them that are better; ignores research into new materials or processes; ignores evidence that maybe his design might not be the best....that's an engineer that won't be employed very long.
In otherwords, you're totally and completely incapable of understanding the concept that teaching children that it's a bad idea to teach children that any science is wrong? Doesn't matter if you're telling them that evolution or physics or geology is wrong. Teaching them that any science is wrong will screw up their ability to be engineers or scientists in the future.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driven by conformists who are afraid to question widely accepted notions? Does the status of "a science" magically elevate ideas beyond the realm where mere mortals are allowed to question them? Do we have to believe in phrenology and phychoanalysis in order to preserve out ability to work as engineers?
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driving by non-conformists who throw out widely accepted notions for absolutely no reason?
Seriously, science is about constantly questioning things, but it's also about ACCEPTING WHAT WORKS. You don't reject something just because you feel like it, you reject it because either a) you find evidence of something better, or b) you find a serious flaw in it. Which are basically the same thing -- you reject ideas that no longer make sense. You don't get to say "I don't feel like believing in the Third Law of Thermodynamics today, let's just say that no longer exists." That isn't science.
I wouldn't necessarily jump to cheating. I know plenty of people like that as well, not all of them cheated, some were just very good at regurgitating statements and very bad at comprehending and applying them. In fact, I think the majority of the 4.00 students I knew were like that...
Forgot to mention the prices...my Brother HL-2040 was $70, my parents HP was probably around $50 or so, maybe a bit more. Point being that, at nearly the same price point, you can get a laser that can handle some abuse and is built to last, or you can get an inkjet that will slowly tear itself apart even without any abuse. Maybe I'm generalizing too much here, but hell, change your black ink once or twice and your cheap inkjet has probably become more expensive than a cheap laser.
Of course, the inkjet does also have a scanner (that they don't even know how to use) and color printing. Low volume color printing is the one area I would say inkjet may be a better choice, but if you don't need color, or if you're doing more than a couple pages a month, I feel like a laser is probably going to be a better choice. Other than niche markets of course -- others have mentioned inkjet being preferred for high quality photo printing, but that's a completely different discussion.
For me: at the time I bought my laser printer (in highschool), I didn't print photos (still have never had any need for color printing of anything, over five years later) and I was printing a hundred or so pages per month, so it made a ton of sense. Then during college I reached a point for a brief time where I would be printing nearly a thousand pages a month. Did not plan for that when I bought the printer, but I'm damn glad I had it. Would have cost me an arm and a leg in ink, not to mention probably a hundred hours of my time over a year. Or more likely hundreds of dollars at Kinkos. Now since graduating I rarely use it, but if something did happen to it I'd probably be buying the exact same model. Not worth the money to buy an expensive inkjet; not worth my time to screw with a cheap one. And who knows, next month I might need to run off two hundred pages, it's a nice bonus to know large print jobs will take minutes, not hours...
And yes, I'm fully aware my experience is far from typical, but the point is that if all you want to do is print text to a page, you can probably get a laser printer that will be cheaper, more versatile, and more durable than any inkjet.
So it was my understanding that part of the reason consumer CPUs didn't tend to go above 3-4GHz was that, at those speeds, the electrons can't actually move through the wires fast enough. Specifically for doing memory reads -- at 5.5GHz, I'm calculating about 4cm per clock cycle -- which may be further than the memory is physically located on a normal desktop PC. Meaning it would take not just two, but possibly three or four clock cycles to read a value from main memory.
Granted, on a server, main memory may be closer to the CPU, and the added cache will help as well. But I'm also mostly a software guy -- anyone with some more computer engineering knowledge have any information about this? Is the memory closer? Are they just taking longer to read? And if so is that likely to impact performance significantly (such that this wouldn't be as significant of a gain from 3GHz-5.5GHz as, say, 1GHz-2GHz?)
I seem to recall hearing that most inkjet companies sell the printers themselves at a loss -- the ink is so expensive because that's where they're actually making money. If they started charging more realistic prices for these things, the ink would be cheaper, but the printers would be comparable in price to lasers -- and I suspect many people would choose to go with a laser printer in that case. I mean the biggest complaint I hear about refilling inkjet cartridges is that it's an extremely messy process. With how cheap toner is, I doubt too many people would choose ink if the printer pricing was similar...
Really? I have a Brother HL-2040 laser printer, low-end (cheapest one I could find), and last I calculated I believe it was under half a cent per page for toner. And based on what others have been commenting here I was kind of starting to think I was paying WAY too much for that toner...
Same can be said for inkjet printers though, and in my experience they're a LOT more fragile. Christ, I've _dropped_ my Brother HL-2040 and it's still going just fine. My parents have an HP inkjet that hasn't been moved from under the desk since they bought it a couple years ago and it's already falling apart. Won't feed pages half the time, no longer prints color even with a fresh cartridge, the carriage jams...
If you don't need color, a laser is DEFINITELY the way to go, even for home. I bought one for $70 five years ago (Brother HL-2040). My parents have gone through two inkjet printers in that time and a cartridge or two, and they probably only print a few times a year. A laser printer is going to be a lot more durable than an ink jet, and the toner is so much cheaper. Replace the cartridges twice over the entire life of the printer and you probably would have saved money buying a laser printer...unless you just happen to have a stockpile of free inkjet printers (which does happen with how often they're offered for free with [x]...)
Yea, I was going to say -- I can't see COLOR laser printers being economical for average home use any time soon, but I bought a Brother HL-2040 black and white laser for $70 five years ago, and it's still working great. I love the thing. Never had a problem with it, even on Linux. Paid for itself more times than I can count too.
Of course, the problem with laser printers that cheap, is usually when anything more significant than a toner cartridge needs replaced, it's cheaper to just get a new printer. I found a refurbished drum that I bought a while back when the one it came with died, but even refurb I probably would have been better off just buying a whole new printer, especially considering that they come with some toner...of course I suppose you could say the same about inkjets, but they don't have any real expensive consumables like that (except the ink of course...sometimes I feel like you'd be better off getting a new inkjet that comes with some ink than new cartridges!)
I'm not sure that you're understanding me. By professors not caring, I'm talking about the guys who don't actually teach anything and then just post the entire exam -- along with the solutions -- on their website a week before the exam, call it a "study guide" (No, it wasn't 'similar' to the exam, it WAS the exam, he just printed that out and gave it to use for the test. And it was multiple choice and fill in the blank.) The professors who don't answer questions; who take 30 minutes out of a 70 minute class just getting the computer booted up; who do nothing more than read off of slides prepared by somebody else; and who refuse to accept obviously correct answers because they're not phrased in exactly the same way it was phrased on the answer sheet.
I've also had professors who would literally give the exact same lecture three times -- for example, one would start class on Wednesday by giving a "review" in which he went through all of the slides he had for Monday's lecture, explaining everything just as thoroughly (or not) as he had on Monday, then he'd go through the slides he prepared for Wednesday, then he'd give a "preview" by going through all of the slides he had for Friday. Basically he prepared 15 minutes of material for every class and covered it by doing it all three times in a row. This professor also gave in-class exams (exams -- the midterms and the final -- not quizzes) which I would literally finish in 10-15 minutes and score 100%.
That's what I mean by professors that don't care. I never encountered anything like that in lower level classes. The higher ones? It wasn't everyone, probably below 50%, but still fairly significant.
Oh god, don't even get me started on ANGEL. I basically rewrote half of it's functionality for a couple clubs I was in because nobody could stand using that piece of crap. I never saw it improving -- and I can't tell if it was actually getting worse or if that was just my perception due to finding a new bug nearly every time I logged into the damn thing. So glad I no longer have to deal with that, although my new employer's internal system almost makes me miss the days of ANGEL...
(Things like navigating to 'Employee Services > HR > HR > Employee Self Service > Global Employee Self Service')...and then getting logged out because you stopped to read an email and having to restart that twisted hierarchy...but at least most of it works in Chrome or Firefox!)
I think the problem you're describing is a bit more complex than you make it. I used to know this kid who, in elementary school, was doing DirectX 3D games in C++. Brilliant coder...but he knew nothing else about computers. He probably wouldn't have been able to install an operating system on his own. Universities are starting to divide things up a bit better, but it's still very vague.
The way I see it, you've got computer science, which really should be theoretical things -- not about how to program an application to do X, not about what SSH and VPN do, but how to do REALLY analyze a sorting algorithm, or devising a new cryptography system. Theoretical stuff. Then you've got software engineering, which is more about how to actually write code to do something useful. You still need to know something about analyzing algorithms and such, but just enough to avoid the common mistakes. If it's O(2n) when the best algorithm is O(1.7n), that's not a huge deal. But still, you may not know SSH and VPN, you may not know Linux administration, you just know coding. Then there's what Penn State was doing in their IST degrees -- basically that was comp sci for project managers, or tailored to some more niche needs (they had things on security, risk analysis, disaster recovery, etc...) -- and that's your more holistic approach. Those are the people who may not be able to write SSH, may not be able to design the crypto system behind SSH...but they know what it is and when to use it.
A lot of people on the comp sci side would make fun of the IST program, and it's my understanding that there were a lot of legitimate problems with it...but that is something that we probably do need. No one person can know how to develop and analyze various efficient and secure algorithms AND how to write quality code in multiple languages and which language is best for a particular task AND every enterprise level tool and how to use them and analyze them and combine them. There's just too much of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I'm on Linux so that may be skewing my perspective. 9 and 10 on Linux were HORRIFIC. I have never *seen* a program become so unstable. Couldn't browse without Flashblock. The latest is just pretty obnoxious.
But yea, other than that bit, I couldn't agree with you more.
Hmm, interesting. I usually get mine refilled locally -- can get the cartridge back the next day, sometimes even the same day if I get it to them in the morning. I'll have to look into these printers that have a drum with the cartridge if I ever get a new one, but I'm a bit concerned about that for two reasons -- first, would that then limit the number of times you could get the cartridge refilled? Would you have to get a refill and a drum refurbishment of some sort (I'm honestly not even entirely sure what the drum does, so if that phrasing doesn't quite make sense, that's why...). And how much would that cost?
Usually I pay ~$30 to get a 2,500 page refill (which sometimes lasts longer)...though it looks like at the moment new cartridges are down around $10 each on Amazon.com. Can't really beat that!
ah crap, started with 'pretty much always Flash', then thought about it and realized it was 'ALWAYS Flash'...and ended up with 'pretty ALWAYS Flash'...my bad.
In my experience that's pretty ALWAYS Flash. Make sure yours is updated, as I haven't had many problems with that on recent versions, and maybe try Flashblock or something. Whatever they fixed might help as well, I don't really know.
That's an Adobe issue, though I haven't seen any problems with it since Flash 11.
I leave Firefox windows with dozens of tabs open for weeks and even months at a time, and haven't noticed any stability issues in a year or so...But I also don't use any add-ons except Firebug.
If your motorcycle is only getting 44MPG, I sure as hell hope it would smoke every car on the road! That thing HAD to be built purely for speed and power, completely ignoring fuel efficiency, if something that small is only getting 44MPG. Christ, you can get SUVs that get better mileage than that!
Not that I disagree with your sentiments -- I currently get around 24MPG in my 3.5L V6 Pontiac G6. LOVE when I pull into a stop light next to, say, that solid black Mustang the other day...the light turns green, and they rev their engine ALL the way up....and ten seconds later I'm a hundred feet ahead of them and my foot's not even halfway down.
That said, half the reason I got that car was because it was cheap. I got the V6 instead of the V4 because it was the same price (very slightly older I think, I was buying used), and very similar mileage, so why the hell not? But if the one at the lot hadn't smelled of smoke and if the layout of the controls wasn't the most obnoxious thing I had ever seen, I probably would have ended up with an Accord because of the fuel efficiency. If I could have both I would be a very happy man. Waiting for the day I can afford a Tesla. I'll settle for used if I can get the Roadster :)
Who's going to track how many accidents _don't happen_? Who should I have called to report that guy who _almost_ rear-ended me the other day?
One thing I can say for sure -- I have a relatively small and powerful car (The 3.5L V6 Pontiac G6) and I haven't been in an accident yet, but I HAVE been in a couple circumstances that were close, where it very well may have been avoided thanks to the maneuverability of either my car or theirs. But of course I can't say for certain, there's no possible way for me to know what would have happened had I been in, say, a Hummer.
There are plenty of people who believe God "used evolution as part of the creative process." In fact, pretty sure that's basically the official stance of the entire Catholic Church. But that IS NOT creationism! Creationism does not mean 'God created the universe'; it means 'God created all creatures as they currently exist'
creationism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
Check a dictionary. Creationism does NOT mean 'belief in God'. Faith is perfectly compatible with all science, really, if you reduce it to 'God created the initial conditions such that the universe evolved as he wanted it.' But that is not creationism, that's just religion. Creationism, BY DEFINITION, means you do not believe in evolution.
creationism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
Creationism does not mean what you think it means. You can believe in God and evolution, but not creationism and evolution.
creationism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
EXACTLY! It's not about this algorithm or that process being "inspired" by evolution or "modeled" on evolution. Evolution doesn't have to be a real thing to do that. It's about teaching evolution as a way to educate children to analyze and interpret and draw conclusions about evidence surrounding them...vs creationism teaching them to ignore evidence that counteracts their existing beliefs.
An engineer who believes they already know the best way to do everything and ignore designs others show them that are better; ignores research into new materials or processes; ignores evidence that maybe his design might not be the best....that's an engineer that won't be employed very long.
In otherwords, you're totally and completely incapable of understanding the concept that teaching children that it's a bad idea to teach children that any science is wrong? Doesn't matter if you're telling them that evolution or physics or geology is wrong. Teaching them that any science is wrong will screw up their ability to be engineers or scientists in the future.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driven by conformists who are afraid to question widely accepted notions? Does the status of "a science" magically elevate ideas beyond the realm where mere mortals are allowed to question them? Do we have to believe in phrenology and phychoanalysis in order to preserve out ability to work as engineers?
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driving by non-conformists who throw out widely accepted notions for absolutely no reason?
Seriously, science is about constantly questioning things, but it's also about ACCEPTING WHAT WORKS. You don't reject something just because you feel like it, you reject it because either a) you find evidence of something better, or b) you find a serious flaw in it. Which are basically the same thing -- you reject ideas that no longer make sense. You don't get to say "I don't feel like believing in the Third Law of Thermodynamics today, let's just say that no longer exists." That isn't science.
I wouldn't necessarily jump to cheating. I know plenty of people like that as well, not all of them cheated, some were just very good at regurgitating statements and very bad at comprehending and applying them. In fact, I think the majority of the 4.00 students I knew were like that...
Forgot to mention the prices...my Brother HL-2040 was $70, my parents HP was probably around $50 or so, maybe a bit more. Point being that, at nearly the same price point, you can get a laser that can handle some abuse and is built to last, or you can get an inkjet that will slowly tear itself apart even without any abuse. Maybe I'm generalizing too much here, but hell, change your black ink once or twice and your cheap inkjet has probably become more expensive than a cheap laser.
Of course, the inkjet does also have a scanner (that they don't even know how to use) and color printing. Low volume color printing is the one area I would say inkjet may be a better choice, but if you don't need color, or if you're doing more than a couple pages a month, I feel like a laser is probably going to be a better choice. Other than niche markets of course -- others have mentioned inkjet being preferred for high quality photo printing, but that's a completely different discussion.
For me: at the time I bought my laser printer (in highschool), I didn't print photos (still have never had any need for color printing of anything, over five years later) and I was printing a hundred or so pages per month, so it made a ton of sense. Then during college I reached a point for a brief time where I would be printing nearly a thousand pages a month. Did not plan for that when I bought the printer, but I'm damn glad I had it. Would have cost me an arm and a leg in ink, not to mention probably a hundred hours of my time over a year. Or more likely hundreds of dollars at Kinkos. Now since graduating I rarely use it, but if something did happen to it I'd probably be buying the exact same model. Not worth the money to buy an expensive inkjet; not worth my time to screw with a cheap one. And who knows, next month I might need to run off two hundred pages, it's a nice bonus to know large print jobs will take minutes, not hours...
And yes, I'm fully aware my experience is far from typical, but the point is that if all you want to do is print text to a page, you can probably get a laser printer that will be cheaper, more versatile, and more durable than any inkjet.
So it was my understanding that part of the reason consumer CPUs didn't tend to go above 3-4GHz was that, at those speeds, the electrons can't actually move through the wires fast enough. Specifically for doing memory reads -- at 5.5GHz, I'm calculating about 4cm per clock cycle -- which may be further than the memory is physically located on a normal desktop PC. Meaning it would take not just two, but possibly three or four clock cycles to read a value from main memory.
Granted, on a server, main memory may be closer to the CPU, and the added cache will help as well. But I'm also mostly a software guy -- anyone with some more computer engineering knowledge have any information about this? Is the memory closer? Are they just taking longer to read? And if so is that likely to impact performance significantly (such that this wouldn't be as significant of a gain from 3GHz-5.5GHz as, say, 1GHz-2GHz?)
I seem to recall hearing that most inkjet companies sell the printers themselves at a loss -- the ink is so expensive because that's where they're actually making money. If they started charging more realistic prices for these things, the ink would be cheaper, but the printers would be comparable in price to lasers -- and I suspect many people would choose to go with a laser printer in that case. I mean the biggest complaint I hear about refilling inkjet cartridges is that it's an extremely messy process. With how cheap toner is, I doubt too many people would choose ink if the printer pricing was similar...
Really? I have a Brother HL-2040 laser printer, low-end (cheapest one I could find), and last I calculated I believe it was under half a cent per page for toner. And based on what others have been commenting here I was kind of starting to think I was paying WAY too much for that toner...
Same can be said for inkjet printers though, and in my experience they're a LOT more fragile. Christ, I've _dropped_ my Brother HL-2040 and it's still going just fine. My parents have an HP inkjet that hasn't been moved from under the desk since they bought it a couple years ago and it's already falling apart. Won't feed pages half the time, no longer prints color even with a fresh cartridge, the carriage jams...
If you don't need color, a laser is DEFINITELY the way to go, even for home. I bought one for $70 five years ago (Brother HL-2040). My parents have gone through two inkjet printers in that time and a cartridge or two, and they probably only print a few times a year. A laser printer is going to be a lot more durable than an ink jet, and the toner is so much cheaper. Replace the cartridges twice over the entire life of the printer and you probably would have saved money buying a laser printer...unless you just happen to have a stockpile of free inkjet printers (which does happen with how often they're offered for free with [x]...)
Yea, I was going to say -- I can't see COLOR laser printers being economical for average home use any time soon, but I bought a Brother HL-2040 black and white laser for $70 five years ago, and it's still working great. I love the thing. Never had a problem with it, even on Linux. Paid for itself more times than I can count too.
Of course, the problem with laser printers that cheap, is usually when anything more significant than a toner cartridge needs replaced, it's cheaper to just get a new printer. I found a refurbished drum that I bought a while back when the one it came with died, but even refurb I probably would have been better off just buying a whole new printer, especially considering that they come with some toner...of course I suppose you could say the same about inkjets, but they don't have any real expensive consumables like that (except the ink of course...sometimes I feel like you'd be better off getting a new inkjet that comes with some ink than new cartridges!)
...Is it just me, or is this story posted every year or two? I thought this was a very well phenomenon by this point...
I'm not sure that you're understanding me. By professors not caring, I'm talking about the guys who don't actually teach anything and then just post the entire exam -- along with the solutions -- on their website a week before the exam, call it a "study guide" (No, it wasn't 'similar' to the exam, it WAS the exam, he just printed that out and gave it to use for the test. And it was multiple choice and fill in the blank.) The professors who don't answer questions; who take 30 minutes out of a 70 minute class just getting the computer booted up; who do nothing more than read off of slides prepared by somebody else; and who refuse to accept obviously correct answers because they're not phrased in exactly the same way it was phrased on the answer sheet.
I've also had professors who would literally give the exact same lecture three times -- for example, one would start class on Wednesday by giving a "review" in which he went through all of the slides he had for Monday's lecture, explaining everything just as thoroughly (or not) as he had on Monday, then he'd go through the slides he prepared for Wednesday, then he'd give a "preview" by going through all of the slides he had for Friday. Basically he prepared 15 minutes of material for every class and covered it by doing it all three times in a row. This professor also gave in-class exams (exams -- the midterms and the final -- not quizzes) which I would literally finish in 10-15 minutes and score 100%.
That's what I mean by professors that don't care. I never encountered anything like that in lower level classes. The higher ones? It wasn't everyone, probably below 50%, but still fairly significant.
Oh god, don't even get me started on ANGEL. I basically rewrote half of it's functionality for a couple clubs I was in because nobody could stand using that piece of crap. I never saw it improving -- and I can't tell if it was actually getting worse or if that was just my perception due to finding a new bug nearly every time I logged into the damn thing. So glad I no longer have to deal with that, although my new employer's internal system almost makes me miss the days of ANGEL...
(Things like navigating to 'Employee Services > HR > HR > Employee Self Service > Global Employee Self Service')...and then getting logged out because you stopped to read an email and having to restart that twisted hierarchy...but at least most of it works in Chrome or Firefox!)
I think the problem you're describing is a bit more complex than you make it. I used to know this kid who, in elementary school, was doing DirectX 3D games in C++. Brilliant coder...but he knew nothing else about computers. He probably wouldn't have been able to install an operating system on his own. Universities are starting to divide things up a bit better, but it's still very vague.
The way I see it, you've got computer science, which really should be theoretical things -- not about how to program an application to do X, not about what SSH and VPN do, but how to do REALLY analyze a sorting algorithm, or devising a new cryptography system. Theoretical stuff. Then you've got software engineering, which is more about how to actually write code to do something useful. You still need to know something about analyzing algorithms and such, but just enough to avoid the common mistakes. If it's O(2n) when the best algorithm is O(1.7n), that's not a huge deal. But still, you may not know SSH and VPN, you may not know Linux administration, you just know coding. Then there's what Penn State was doing in their IST degrees -- basically that was comp sci for project managers, or tailored to some more niche needs (they had things on security, risk analysis, disaster recovery, etc...) -- and that's your more holistic approach. Those are the people who may not be able to write SSH, may not be able to design the crypto system behind SSH...but they know what it is and when to use it.
A lot of people on the comp sci side would make fun of the IST program, and it's my understanding that there were a lot of legitimate problems with it...but that is something that we probably do need. No one person can know how to develop and analyze various efficient and secure algorithms AND how to write quality code in multiple languages and which language is best for a particular task AND every enterprise level tool and how to use them and analyze them and combine them. There's just too much of it.