A good color later printer can be found for between $300 and $500, often with multiple trays, network cards, and multi-thousand page life cycles. They're a bit bulky, and probably should be on their own small table not your desk, but they're MUCH better, and cheaper, than inkjet for everyday jobs, and you don't need to print photos at home...
Print in draft mode when you can, omit images and backgrounds printing websites when you can, and a good color laser system can go 7K-10K pages on a set of cartidges, which can be found online for $30-50 a piece.
They print great, are easy and cheap to have repaired, are quick, and last a decade or so.
For photos, between Snapfish,.Mac, and a few other similar services, you can have ridiculous quality dye-sub photos printed as opposed to ink for under $0.10 per image. Uploading them also means printing fewer on your own to give to family (upload and album, let them print what they want on their dime). When in a pinch, a walgreens or CVS is never far away and you can print images there from a memory card for less than you can print them at home (and often in better quality too).
We used to run through about 300 images a year, maybe more. now i don't even have an ink jet printer in the house. I get 40 or 50 good prints done per year, 5-8 at a time, from Snapfish, usually for free for re-opening an account as i use it so infrequently. We do calendars, Christmas cards, invitations, and other large prints through.Mac cheap and the quality is impressive.
Everything else gets printed on the laser, with the printer defaulted to black/greyscale only unless I need color for some reason. With my wife as a teacher, we run about 4K pages a year. I buy a $50 XL black cartridge about once every 18 months. I used to spend $50 on ink every 2-3 months easy, mostly just black. It was nearly 2 years before the starter color cartridges ran out, and with 5X the capacity in the replacements, the ink will likely outlast the printer at my pace, though with a big laser, and 150,000 page lifecycle, i might have a still-working printer without available cartridges first...
Screw injet, you don;t need it anymore. Times changed, getting professional prints doesn't cost $0.50 each anymore, it is NO LONGER CHEAPER AT HOME.
When the cartridge is a complete system, heads included, i can buy SOME of that, but when they sell me a tank today that 4 years ago included more in AND the heads, and it costs MORE today than it did then, something is very wrong.
When i can get a printer (with heads) for $99, including the "starter" (half full) ink, but i can't replace those cartridges for less than the cost of the printer, and the cartridges are just dumb ink tanks with a DRM chip to prevent refilling? I'm being robbed.
sitting right here on my work chair. Been asked about it about a dozen times thus far, really dissapointed that in an IT firm so few have read the book (let alone seen the movie).
Yes, and Microsoft LOST a case of infringement from a patent outside of MPEG-LA's H.264 pool. The pool provides NO protection from patents outside of it.
HD is the same price as non-HD on TWC. DVR is $7 and was included in the $48 i quoted. On Sattelite (like I have) HD is $10 more, but basic service is actually $15 less for more channels, so it's a better deal still. I Pay 478 including taxes for 4 rooms of TV, all on DVR, 2 in HD, and I get 2 movie tiers and HD... All my discounts have expired, i was paying less. This also included in-home warranty on tall the equipment so i never pay for onsite service and replacement hardware is free if it breaks down.
I have over 60 HD channels out of 200, of which, only 2 are available OTA in my area in HD. I only have 4 OTA channels at all, Fox and the WB are not one of them. Virtually none of the "crap" channels, or those that air infomercials large parts of the day, are in HD at all. Almost every channel in the "top 100" is in HD, including Comedy central, Toon, nick, noggin, Discovery, history, Spike, FX, SciFi, Food, the news and sports networks, and more. The basic tier is 120 channels... not 26 like it was years ago, and still is on some cable services, though for the bottom most "broadcast" tier on cable TWC only charges $24.95. (and $7 more for a DVR, though i agree, THAT package is poinless if you get all the AB-NBCS).
Even if i could get 50% of the programs I prefer (which includes none of the reality TV stuff, not any "popular" programming or sitcoms, we rarely watch the alphabet channels at all, aside from a few good dramas,) the monthly cost of a DVR (tivo) including service for just 1 room works out to near $25 a month including the cost of the device and routine replacement. There's no discount for having more than 1 in the house, and I'm on my own for repairs after a year. 4 rooms, 2 in HD, all with DVR would cost me more than satellite does! even 2 HD tivos replaced every 3 years, and including the monthly fee is not much better than i pay today, and I'd only get 4 channels?...and to get streaming TV on more than 1 PC or set-top, I;d need to bump my internet speed by more than the diference thats left. It is simply not yet a good enough deal without major saccrifice.
the DVR alone is the only thing i really care for, as it;s the enabler for me to pretty much be able to watch content at all. If all programs were available online with at least a 4 week back catalog of current episodes, published within a day of airing, even for a fee i could accept that, but WAY too much is simply not available that way, and without a DVR, i would not be able to see anything else.
I see your point. I also see that I pay $79 a month today through Dish network (1 less dumb receiver though, but that's only $4.95 more) for what you were paying $130 for... (and my discounts already expired, i was only paying $52). I get 200 base channels in HD, 2 HD DVRs with multiroom function in SD to 2 additional rooms, and in-home service.
My real issues basically beyond the DVR, is the core channels we watch outside of recorded programming were all either life streams not available online, or channels that were behind their own pay-walls or required series subscriptions in iTunes.
Me thinks suggesting a ridiculously priced and over-complex system that solves no more issues that a simpler system could solve is merely IBMs way of patenting something so it is never otherwise deployed.
However, other than a royalty, which honestly, would probably not be much per installation, IBM won't actually make these things, and would not see the bulk of profit anyway. There are certainly better systems IBM could have designed with an equal patent royalty that did not involve hackable and exploitable systems (I can think of several on my own).
The existing MPEG-LA contract explicitly forbids end-user fees. only codec makers, hardware manufacturers, and broadcasters pay anything. By putting it in writing, and guraanteeing no fees until 2016, they have essentially extended the royalyty free (with limited exception on existing specific businesses) until near 90% of the core patents expire.
between now and 2016, you don;t think there will be a viable alternative that will make MPEG-LA continue to offer it free??? (the fee schedule is locked in, even non-free, 90% of sites will STILL pay $0, since its based on number of PAYING subscribers, or advertising revenue over costs, and still can't go over $5M or the same price one would pay to broadcast to the same audience OTA.
See, the big issue for MPEG-LA is there ARE other codecs, and they're becoming more mature every day. Also, there's some basic law (i don't know exactly which) that in a nutshell means that if it was free the day I implemented it, with a defined end date for free, and a defined fee schedule, then those terms have to be honored. only new people signing on could have different terms applied if they're changed (its not retroactive).
The starter load on an already hot engine isn't doing a whole lot of work, it's not any where near the effort of starting cold. Also, in cars designed to do this, the starter itself is a bit beefier. Yes, in new cars, this should be implemented, but a self stop-start system can be added to almost any existing car with ease and a couple hundred bucks.
IBMs system, as the first posted covered, also doesn't help at stop signs, in general traffic, waiting for someone to hop in-out of the car, in parking lots waiting on other cars, and many other cases.
Further, IBMs system requires investments in the tens of billions (if not hundreds), to augment all the lights, and cross cooperation with every single car manufacturer, which simpler systems do not require, not to mention powering IBMs solution 24x7x365 which is likely (VERY likely) a loss loser in CO2 vs even an unoptimized starter system.
Ok, this can be bad in SO many ways: 1) a remote signal that can disable your car's engine? I can thing of dozens of ways this could be used to cause fatalities. it going to be really easy to hack... 2) This can't be used to prevent cars from going through intersections, it would only work for cars already stopped, so this is a lot of technology and risk to only save gas, not lives. 3) if the car is stopped, it can simply cut off it's own engine, and when you press on the gas, start it again. The Prius already does this, and most regular cars can be augmented with a $100-200 kit to do it as well. The only drawback to adding it is other vehicle electronics are effected every time the engine turns over, but on brand new cars being made, this is a simple system to implement, easy to accomodate, and if it has no external control access, it can't be hacked easily (requires physical access) either.
Basic cable is $48 including a DVR (37 without it)....but, I get 4 OTA channels reliably and FOX isn't one of them. Basic cable has 38 channels. I'd have to subsidize the lack of basic cable with a combination of Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes purchases to replace just a handful of the shows we actually care to watch other than news. If I deployed my own DVR (which is essentially required for me to be able to watch what i want that isn't broadcast between 9PM and 10PM on weeknights) my costs for OTA would actually exceed basic cable... I checked, did all the math, and came to that conclusion. in most places in this country, ditching your service provider simply isn't worth it. The hassle and costs outweigh the benefit of sticking with one.
OTA is nice, and if I could seamlessly integrate that into a DVR at a good price I would, but that's not cheap or easy. Watching TV when its actualy being broadcast is both difficult when you have a family, and more often, not age appropriate viewing. Lack of at least 1 DVR in the house and we might as well not have TV at all.
As for net based viewing, best i can get here is 8dn/384up, and that's $50 a month, and I've never reached over 4.5dn on it anyway, and if the wife tries uploading anything (or my backups kick in) the upstream is so saturated even loading web pages fails more than it succeeds. Fios and uVerse are not available, and AT&T is actually marginally better than TWC. Technically, i can get a faster speed from TWC, but not for less than $100 a month, and at that price, satellite is actualyl the cheaper (and superior) option...
This is why the FCC needs to become SO much more invested in ensuring open competition and regulation in TV distribution and Internet roll out. They ALSO need to get personally involved in HOAs that block new services from deploying, especially when the HOA is subsidized by a provider in that provider's best interest...
1 night at a sports bar is the same cost as a monthly cable bill to get the sports channels... too many nights at a sports bar while the wife is home with the kids and it costs half what you own and the kids too (divorce).
and no, in SC, very few games are on local TV, more than half the Olympics were on cable or dish exclusive channels, the super bowl is supposed to be on ESPN this year, and that's just sports.... Nickelodeon and other similar channels, national news, food network, there's a LOT you loose going "free" (which is far from free if you still intend to have a DVR).
If we could do without, we would. I went nearly 2 years without even having a TV hooked up. I got a lot of books read, and a lot of games played. However, with kids, and with family that come to visit, plus trying to entertain other company, certain levels of TV are simply expected to be available, and local only doesn't cut it, unless you can claim poverty. I make more than my dad and grandpa combined, and when they come for Sunday meals, the availability of the golf channel is simply assumed.
Great, but loosing the sports channels, kids channels, national news feeds, and the food network is simply not an option. I looked into it, but after covering the cost of the antenna, cabling, netFlix, and an upgraded internet connection to handle more than 1 concurrent video stream, and throwing in $15 a month to subscribe to TV shows only available for a fee (legally), the difference in price was basically a wash, and that didn't include the storage drives and backups I'd need to handle offline TV viewing and DVRing of TV shows, and the computer equipment for recording. A lot of hassle and the wife simply couldn't pick up a remote and watch TV. Too much hassle for virtually no savings. We pay $54 a month for Dish including 2 HD rooms and 2 SD rooms, all 4 on DVR... what the hell service did you have that was over $130 a month? (assuming $100 bill going away included the cost of your replacement subscriptions)
Really? TWC in SC has essentially given up in the last 2 years. No new hardware, virtually no new services, they stopped even trying to price match sattelite service, they're the most expensive ISP and internet phone period around here, most of their field techs are essentially outsourced lowest bidder crackpots who can't install anything properly or cleanly and never get the job specs and special notes clarified on their work orders, and tech support over the phone simply sucks. If they can convince you that bringing your hardware to them is what's required (even though they have in home service) they will, there's rampant mis-billing issues and problems with packages and discounts, spotty Internet bandwidth and heavy packet loss issues, and just general misinformation.
I got pretty good service from TWC during a period from 2000 - 2006. After that prices went up, discounts went away, equipment became spotty, internet prices went up without improvements in service, and eventually my complaints fell on deaf ears. Finally someone told me quite litterally "if you can get better service from Dish and AT&T at a lower price, you should switch. We no longer price match our competitors offers" so i left. I get much faster internet from AT&T for $5 less per month, got $350 for switching, combined my mobile bill and added generic home phone (with no options for only $11/month) and now get calls to all AT&T subscribers (not just mobiles) without using minutes. I swtched to Dish and instead of having 1 DVR and 2 boxes I now have DVR in 4 rooms (2 in HD), the ability to watch a recorded show in another room, more channels, and i pay $30 less per month. The only time i see image break-up is during REALLY heavy storms, and I'd still call it generally watchable with the exception of 2 local stations who's upstream satellites have issues (which also cut out on TWC btw). I simply switch over to a traditional HD antenna when its bad, but I've only done that 2 times in a year, and I only do that when something I'm trying to record is not also available on netfix, hulu, or another website.
I initially had some billing issues with Dish due to some discounts not applying properly, but they not only fixed it, they gave me a month's service free. i also had 2 installation issues they had to come back to resolve, and i got additional free time added without complaint (one case, the didn't have a ladder big enough to get to my 3rd floor, the other was a failed dish installation, a bad cable). They were on time within 20 minutes of schedule all 4 time's I've seen an engineer. TWC has shown up 4-5 hours late on more than 1 occasion, and all i can get out of them is 1 week of basic cable (not my entire bill, a whopping $9 and some change) free when that happens, and it takes an hour long phone call to do even that...
OK. So, MPEG-LA's (and Apple, and Microsoft, and others) opinion that VP8 is a literal MINEFIELD of possible competing patents, and their inquiry into whether or not a patent pool should be provided up front (allowing anyone with a potential conflicting patent easy opportunity to come forward, as well as all those willing to leverage those patents, even if for free), thereby establishing legitimacy and some level of protection around that codec is a BAD thing?
Look, Google may own the patents it THINKS are valid, and may open source it to try to avoid H.264 royalties (which can not exceed 5M per year for any sized company, nor can it exceed certain profit margins on use fees or advertising revenue, and is generally considered a moderate of small license cost in terms of other licenses) does not mean this has held up in court, nor is the patent pool sanitized and safe. Anyone using VP8 without significant due diligence, and without backing guarantees of legal protection from googl e (which there are not, and it is ODD that there is not) is putting themselves up to be potentially (and likely) sued, to avoid a very small fee for a more powerful codec? Stupid.
The MPEG-LA is essentially throwing down the gauntlet to TRY to find those competing patents, this is a marketed plan to get them in the open and guarantee SOME level of legitimacy. If no one comes forward now, but does 5 years from now, then they'll have a VERY weak case in court, and that ALONE provides some protection for VP8, and actually makes it a safer codec and a stronger competitor. The MPEG-LA would only charge a fee for the pool if other in it (other than google) insisted, and if google agreed, otherwise VP8 will be challenged, and fail as a codec anyway. This is a VERY good idea, and anyone considering including VP8 in a product should love this. It could very well legitimize VP8 and cost MPEG-LA a lot of (possible, since they're not collecting it now) future revenue. Why would they do that if profit was their only motivation? There's already HEAVY suspicion that parts of H.264 already challenge VP8, and if they felt it did, they'd directly challenge VP8 instead of opening the door to potentially validate it....
More so, the core patents in H.264 expire in 2017-2021. only some of the obscure, and optional, parts of H.264 stretch that far. There are something like 50 or 100 patents in H.264's pool, some of which have already expired...
By 2020, you'll almost certainly be able to make an H.264 equivalent codec and bypass any of the small patents easily. This is why most of us suspect that come 2015, the MPEG-LA will once again (as they have already done twice) extent the royalty free window on H.264.
Kids here get 10 absences per semester, 20 per year. only 5 of these 20 may be "unexcused" Hurricane, flu closings (doors shut because too many kids are sick), and snow days don't count as absences, they simply cut out of the available 182 days planned out of the 180 the school doors must be open. They cut a few odd holidays first, then spring break days, then extend the school year as necessary. generally, when the school year gets extended, the bulk of the kids don't show up if they have available absences.
Here however, the "labor day" cutoff, absences are not counted before the "end of registration" which is usually around labor day. lots of kids don;t come the first few weeks. Every year they have a big parent conference before school starts and clearly show nearly ALL the kids who skip the first few weeks are the the bottom of their class yet since there is not state law against it, a lot of parents skip this time. I don't know why...
Another thing they did here: Sick says are "unexcused" absences. However, absences ordered by a doctor don;t count against that provided the kid does makeup assignments as required by the principals office (which vary school to school in the same district, just to infuriate me I think), and vacations to "educational locations" also don;t count as absences, again, if missed assignments are made up.
Sorry your kid (and you) are migraine sufferers, but glad you had it checked out.
Oh, btw, there's really no such thing as "left back" here.... Missing the number of days at worst might make the kid do 1 day a week of summer school, but usually just some make-up work. only kids who DRAMATICALLY fail the grade year (as a whole, not only having an F average, but actually failing below 50 in more than half the classes), or missing school AND failing overall gets you into summer school. If you;re more than 1 calendar year in age behind your class, they'll move you forward anyway, and the rest more forward in remedial education, not the same grade repeated. it sucks because there's no good threats a school can leverage against either parents or kids anymore unless the kids are really violent (and even then, it takes a LOT, like getting in fights not less than 10 times in a year that involve blood drawn, or getting suspended more than 10 times) and still that might only get you an escalated probation after a suspension. There are some BAD kids in school here, and it is DAMNED hard to get rid of them, and the can't be suspended for non-violent actions anymore either. They can say "fuck you" to a teacher all day long and get nothing more than detention.
namely, the power production industry, and large manufacturing, which independently can be regulated by the government, or just the EPA, without burdening the entire economy across the board with the additional taxes on companies that already implemented such savings measures.
Both tokyo and russia have SEVERAL TIMES the population of LA, and at the same time are significantly smaller cities in terms of land mass, further increasing population density to near 10 times that of LA. Other successful cities in the world have even higher densities.
My own city, who's public transportation system costs $2 per ride was using old, under repaired busses to save costs, and is taxpayer subsidized on top, just went bankrupt.
Moving from $3/gallon to $5/gallon would impact me about $55/month if I continued to drive as I do today. I commute in a minivan 20 minutes each way, and do a lot of traveling around town, pretty much right at 1K miles per month total. I'm in a highly developed residential community, not 10 miles from city center. If I was to take a bus, first I'd either have a 1.4 mile walk to a bus stop or have to drive there (requiring a parking lot where there is not one) to be anywhere near our community entrance (hundreds of homes, 3 schools, businesses and more inside this community). The bus could not come through our community with multiple stops due the the roads, so we'd have to go to it. The bus could then not likely go from my community directly towards my office, likely it would take a different route to a local major commerce center where I'd have to change busses for one that headed towards the freeway and to our corporate tower. instead of 20 minutes to work, I'd be looking at well in excess of an hour, losing 80 minutes of my time with family each day in exchange for about $4 in savings per workday in fuel costs (assume bus would be $3 each way after fuel surcharge, since it already went bankrupt now at $2, and I would onyl spend $5 in gas per trip on my own). $3/hour is not worth my time to ride the bus, i could work 30 minutes overtime per week and make that up vs the 8 HOURS of personal time I'd lose for the savings.
I'd still need the car as well for any trips to lowes, the mall, weekly grocery shopping, and more. A trip to target on a bus would be quite the pain in the ass as we normally don't leave there without 10 bags of crap. Changing my weekly grocery routine, and monthly meat buying in bulk into daily shopping to be able to carry it on the bus would actually cost me by itself more than i save by buying in bulk with the car. Travel to family could theoretically be replaced by renting a car occasionally, as could other shopping trips, but the rental costs don;t end, and my car payment does, and not having my own car would increase my insurance costs as well. Its simply not an economically viable plan.
For people who can walk to most services, and live in places where parking costs money, and where living outside of the city costs more than living in it, it;s a good deal. For those of us in cities not in the top 30 in population, living in the outskirts means a MUCH bigger house/apartment and some grass for the same price as living downtown, and little real inconvenience. Busses and trains can not economically survive here (as is evidence by the fact that after 15 years, and multiple contracts, and tax subsidies, it failed. Now that it HAS failed, I'll be getting a nice $30 tax break too.
I don't care how "robust" your PT system is, it costs FORTUNES to run, and in rural and less developed cities (including the capitol city of my own state) it can not be financially sustained even WITH taxation to cover it. (our system just went bankrupt and is pending shutdown, and that's a tax supplemented system in a city of over 300,000 people).
People require cars, even if not daily. Goods require trucks (which use more fuel than cars). The cost of a public transit system that could eliminate even half our fuel use would cost significantly more than investemtns in alternative energy sources, including both electric cars and chemical fuel manufacture (RFTS hydrocarbon manufacture, see https://www.dotyenergy.com/,its a 50 year old technology, not vaprware).
They ALREADY have a great incentive to be efficient, PROFIT!
For JUST this reason, shipping companies already use complex computer systems to plan shipping routes that involve a maximum number of right turns and a minimum of lefts, because it actually does save tens of millions of dollars annually in fuel costs, reduces engine run time through more efficient delivery, and more.
A small increase in costs, even a moderate one, does NOT encourage them to replace their fleet with new trucks, those costs are amortized over decades and can not be spent out of cycle without massive costs. As we saw previously with the fuel cost spike, once UPS charges more to account for an issue, that cost does not ever go away. the fuel surcharge persisted for more than a year after fuel prices dropped to BELOW where they started, and eventually the shipping cost just went up when the fuel cost went away. If you hit industry with a cost the CAN NOT AVOID, we all suffer, such that they will not raise prices to exactly the cost, but HIGHER than the cost, and persist the cost longer. This spirals into each other industry raising additional prices in excess of the costs incurred, turning more profit for those impacted and taking money out of my pocket.
If you;re going to take that money from me, TAKE IT DIRECTLY, without rippling trickle down of increases. it's simpler, more efficient, and costs me less overall, and the money can be explicitly earmarked and spent on replacing the fossil fuel use instead of just taxing it (since if after adjusting for cost they're making MORE money).
The only way to convince the industry to do something is to either a) directly mandate/regulate compliance, b) make compliance somehow cheaper than not complying, and c) benefit the competition who does comply making non-compliance a competition disadvantage. The only way to gain public acceptance is to enforce regulation over time, not immediately, allowing business to adapt and plan instead of react and raise prices.
Oh, btw, rail IS more efficient, but only between major distro and regional warehouse. Rail also has shipping limits. The environmental impacts of building enough rail to significantly augment this system, inclusive of route augmentation, bridges, tunnels, and more to avoid rail having further negative impact on vehicles (delays, crossings, etc) and the cost to do so, greatly exceeds the cost to build out a wind infrastructure to make fuel using RFTS and direct electricity. Wires on poles are cheap an unobtrusive. Rail is problematic, requires land, easements, and only one vehicle at a time... It also only solves long haul shipments that do not require less than 3 day ship times.
FireFox can filter a file name, but LimeWire actually could identify much, much more, and it still was not used. Also, LimeWire has no control over what browser you do/don't use, nor can anyone distributing content know on the open Internet if it is filtered or not, a legal bye, but limeWire was an aggregator and search system and could ENFOREC the filtering, and bothered to write it but only make it "optional" while concurently advertizing in various circles you could get copywritten works on their service.
For or against file sharing, they were stupid, and got burned for it. All they had to do was enable the filtering by default, and let it be easy to "bypass" without making it obvious that was the case... Well, that and not advertize on college campuses the way they did, and have more general content filters like "rock" instead of "top 40 rock" and they would likely have been absolved...
Slashdot Mirror
Great, now I might actually be able to tell my Dad he really is allergic to technology :)
Funny it's cheaper to use that, including shipping, than it is to print on their own devices...
I only used Snapfish as an example, because I knew the name. We also use .Mac, oPhoto, and some others, whoever has the good deal of the day.
A good color later printer can be found for between $300 and $500, often with multiple trays, network cards, and multi-thousand page life cycles. They're a bit bulky, and probably should be on their own small table not your desk, but they're MUCH better, and cheaper, than inkjet for everyday jobs, and you don't need to print photos at home...
Print in draft mode when you can, omit images and backgrounds printing websites when you can, and a good color laser system can go 7K-10K pages on a set of cartidges, which can be found online for $30-50 a piece.
They print great, are easy and cheap to have repaired, are quick, and last a decade or so.
For photos, between Snapfish, .Mac, and a few other similar services, you can have ridiculous quality dye-sub photos printed as opposed to ink for under $0.10 per image. Uploading them also means printing fewer on your own to give to family (upload and album, let them print what they want on their dime). When in a pinch, a walgreens or CVS is never far away and you can print images there from a memory card for less than you can print them at home (and often in better quality too).
We used to run through about 300 images a year, maybe more. now i don't even have an ink jet printer in the house. I get 40 or 50 good prints done per year, 5-8 at a time, from Snapfish, usually for free for re-opening an account as i use it so infrequently. We do calendars, Christmas cards, invitations, and other large prints through .Mac cheap and the quality is impressive.
Everything else gets printed on the laser, with the printer defaulted to black/greyscale only unless I need color for some reason. With my wife as a teacher, we run about 4K pages a year. I buy a $50 XL black cartridge about once every 18 months. I used to spend $50 on ink every 2-3 months easy, mostly just black. It was nearly 2 years before the starter color cartridges ran out, and with 5X the capacity in the replacements, the ink will likely outlast the printer at my pace, though with a big laser, and 150,000 page lifecycle, i might have a still-working printer without available cartridges first...
Screw injet, you don;t need it anymore. Times changed, getting professional prints doesn't cost $0.50 each anymore, it is NO LONGER CHEAPER AT HOME.
When the cartridge is a complete system, heads included, i can buy SOME of that, but when they sell me a tank today that 4 years ago included more in AND the heads, and it costs MORE today than it did then, something is very wrong.
When i can get a printer (with heads) for $99, including the "starter" (half full) ink, but i can't replace those cartridges for less than the cost of the printer, and the cartridges are just dumb ink tanks with a DRM chip to prevent refilling? I'm being robbed.
sitting right here on my work chair. Been asked about it about a dozen times thus far, really dissapointed that in an IT firm so few have read the book (let alone seen the movie).
Yes, and Microsoft LOST a case of infringement from a patent outside of MPEG-LA's H.264 pool. The pool provides NO protection from patents outside of it.
HD is the same price as non-HD on TWC. DVR is $7 and was included in the $48 i quoted. On Sattelite (like I have) HD is $10 more, but basic service is actually $15 less for more channels, so it's a better deal still. I Pay 478 including taxes for 4 rooms of TV, all on DVR, 2 in HD, and I get 2 movie tiers and HD... All my discounts have expired, i was paying less. This also included in-home warranty on tall the equipment so i never pay for onsite service and replacement hardware is free if it breaks down.
I have over 60 HD channels out of 200, of which, only 2 are available OTA in my area in HD. I only have 4 OTA channels at all, Fox and the WB are not one of them. Virtually none of the "crap" channels, or those that air infomercials large parts of the day, are in HD at all. Almost every channel in the "top 100" is in HD, including Comedy central, Toon, nick, noggin, Discovery, history, Spike, FX, SciFi, Food, the news and sports networks, and more. The basic tier is 120 channels... not 26 like it was years ago, and still is on some cable services, though for the bottom most "broadcast" tier on cable TWC only charges $24.95. (and $7 more for a DVR, though i agree, THAT package is poinless if you get all the AB-NBCS).
Even if i could get 50% of the programs I prefer (which includes none of the reality TV stuff, not any "popular" programming or sitcoms, we rarely watch the alphabet channels at all, aside from a few good dramas,) the monthly cost of a DVR (tivo) including service for just 1 room works out to near $25 a month including the cost of the device and routine replacement. There's no discount for having more than 1 in the house, and I'm on my own for repairs after a year. 4 rooms, 2 in HD, all with DVR would cost me more than satellite does! even 2 HD tivos replaced every 3 years, and including the monthly fee is not much better than i pay today, and I'd only get 4 channels? ...and to get streaming TV on more than 1 PC or set-top, I;d need to bump my internet speed by more than the diference thats left. It is simply not yet a good enough deal without major saccrifice.
This is not true everywhere, but it IS true here.
the DVR alone is the only thing i really care for, as it;s the enabler for me to pretty much be able to watch content at all. If all programs were available online with at least a 4 week back catalog of current episodes, published within a day of airing, even for a fee i could accept that, but WAY too much is simply not available that way, and without a DVR, i would not be able to see anything else.
I see your point. I also see that I pay $79 a month today through Dish network (1 less dumb receiver though, but that's only $4.95 more) for what you were paying $130 for... (and my discounts already expired, i was only paying $52). I get 200 base channels in HD, 2 HD DVRs with multiroom function in SD to 2 additional rooms, and in-home service.
My real issues basically beyond the DVR, is the core channels we watch outside of recorded programming were all either life streams not available online, or channels that were behind their own pay-walls or required series subscriptions in iTunes.
Me thinks suggesting a ridiculously priced and over-complex system that solves no more issues that a simpler system could solve is merely IBMs way of patenting something so it is never otherwise deployed.
However, other than a royalty, which honestly, would probably not be much per installation, IBM won't actually make these things, and would not see the bulk of profit anyway. There are certainly better systems IBM could have designed with an equal patent royalty that did not involve hackable and exploitable systems (I can think of several on my own).
The existing MPEG-LA contract explicitly forbids end-user fees. only codec makers, hardware manufacturers, and broadcasters pay anything. By putting it in writing, and guraanteeing no fees until 2016, they have essentially extended the royalyty free (with limited exception on existing specific businesses) until near 90% of the core patents expire.
between now and 2016, you don;t think there will be a viable alternative that will make MPEG-LA continue to offer it free??? (the fee schedule is locked in, even non-free, 90% of sites will STILL pay $0, since its based on number of PAYING subscribers, or advertising revenue over costs, and still can't go over $5M or the same price one would pay to broadcast to the same audience OTA.
See, the big issue for MPEG-LA is there ARE other codecs, and they're becoming more mature every day. Also, there's some basic law (i don't know exactly which) that in a nutshell means that if it was free the day I implemented it, with a defined end date for free, and a defined fee schedule, then those terms have to be honored. only new people signing on could have different terms applied if they're changed (its not retroactive).
The starter load on an already hot engine isn't doing a whole lot of work, it's not any where near the effort of starting cold. Also, in cars designed to do this, the starter itself is a bit beefier. Yes, in new cars, this should be implemented, but a self stop-start system can be added to almost any existing car with ease and a couple hundred bucks.
IBMs system, as the first posted covered, also doesn't help at stop signs, in general traffic, waiting for someone to hop in-out of the car, in parking lots waiting on other cars, and many other cases.
Further, IBMs system requires investments in the tens of billions (if not hundreds), to augment all the lights, and cross cooperation with every single car manufacturer, which simpler systems do not require, not to mention powering IBMs solution 24x7x365 which is likely (VERY likely) a loss loser in CO2 vs even an unoptimized starter system.
Ok, this can be bad in SO many ways:
1) a remote signal that can disable your car's engine? I can thing of dozens of ways this could be used to cause fatalities. it going to be really easy to hack...
2) This can't be used to prevent cars from going through intersections, it would only work for cars already stopped, so this is a lot of technology and risk to only save gas, not lives.
3) if the car is stopped, it can simply cut off it's own engine, and when you press on the gas, start it again. The Prius already does this, and most regular cars can be augmented with a $100-200 kit to do it as well. The only drawback to adding it is other vehicle electronics are effected every time the engine turns over, but on brand new cars being made, this is a simple system to implement, easy to accomodate, and if it has no external control access, it can't be hacked easily (requires physical access) either.
Basic cable is $48 including a DVR (37 without it). ...but, I get 4 OTA channels reliably and FOX isn't one of them. Basic cable has 38 channels. I'd have to subsidize the lack of basic cable with a combination of Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes purchases to replace just a handful of the shows we actually care to watch other than news. If I deployed my own DVR (which is essentially required for me to be able to watch what i want that isn't broadcast between 9PM and 10PM on weeknights) my costs for OTA would actually exceed basic cable... I checked, did all the math, and came to that conclusion. in most places in this country, ditching your service provider simply isn't worth it. The hassle and costs outweigh the benefit of sticking with one.
OTA is nice, and if I could seamlessly integrate that into a DVR at a good price I would, but that's not cheap or easy. Watching TV when its actualy being broadcast is both difficult when you have a family, and more often, not age appropriate viewing. Lack of at least 1 DVR in the house and we might as well not have TV at all.
As for net based viewing, best i can get here is 8dn/384up, and that's $50 a month, and I've never reached over 4.5dn on it anyway, and if the wife tries uploading anything (or my backups kick in) the upstream is so saturated even loading web pages fails more than it succeeds. Fios and uVerse are not available, and AT&T is actually marginally better than TWC. Technically, i can get a faster speed from TWC, but not for less than $100 a month, and at that price, satellite is actualyl the cheaper (and superior) option...
This is why the FCC needs to become SO much more invested in ensuring open competition and regulation in TV distribution and Internet roll out. They ALSO need to get personally involved in HOAs that block new services from deploying, especially when the HOA is subsidized by a provider in that provider's best interest...
1 night at a sports bar is the same cost as a monthly cable bill to get the sports channels... too many nights at a sports bar while the wife is home with the kids and it costs half what you own and the kids too (divorce).
and no, in SC, very few games are on local TV, more than half the Olympics were on cable or dish exclusive channels, the super bowl is supposed to be on ESPN this year, and that's just sports.... Nickelodeon and other similar channels, national news, food network, there's a LOT you loose going "free" (which is far from free if you still intend to have a DVR).
If we could do without, we would. I went nearly 2 years without even having a TV hooked up. I got a lot of books read, and a lot of games played. However, with kids, and with family that come to visit, plus trying to entertain other company, certain levels of TV are simply expected to be available, and local only doesn't cut it, unless you can claim poverty. I make more than my dad and grandpa combined, and when they come for Sunday meals, the availability of the golf channel is simply assumed.
Great, but loosing the sports channels, kids channels, national news feeds, and the food network is simply not an option. I looked into it, but after covering the cost of the antenna, cabling, netFlix, and an upgraded internet connection to handle more than 1 concurrent video stream, and throwing in $15 a month to subscribe to TV shows only available for a fee (legally), the difference in price was basically a wash, and that didn't include the storage drives and backups I'd need to handle offline TV viewing and DVRing of TV shows, and the computer equipment for recording. A lot of hassle and the wife simply couldn't pick up a remote and watch TV. Too much hassle for virtually no savings. We pay $54 a month for Dish including 2 HD rooms and 2 SD rooms, all 4 on DVR... what the hell service did you have that was over $130 a month? (assuming $100 bill going away included the cost of your replacement subscriptions)
Really? TWC in SC has essentially given up in the last 2 years. No new hardware, virtually no new services, they stopped even trying to price match sattelite service, they're the most expensive ISP and internet phone period around here, most of their field techs are essentially outsourced lowest bidder crackpots who can't install anything properly or cleanly and never get the job specs and special notes clarified on their work orders, and tech support over the phone simply sucks. If they can convince you that bringing your hardware to them is what's required (even though they have in home service) they will, there's rampant mis-billing issues and problems with packages and discounts, spotty Internet bandwidth and heavy packet loss issues, and just general misinformation.
I got pretty good service from TWC during a period from 2000 - 2006. After that prices went up, discounts went away, equipment became spotty, internet prices went up without improvements in service, and eventually my complaints fell on deaf ears. Finally someone told me quite litterally "if you can get better service from Dish and AT&T at a lower price, you should switch. We no longer price match our competitors offers" so i left. I get much faster internet from AT&T for $5 less per month, got $350 for switching, combined my mobile bill and added generic home phone (with no options for only $11/month) and now get calls to all AT&T subscribers (not just mobiles) without using minutes. I swtched to Dish and instead of having 1 DVR and 2 boxes I now have DVR in 4 rooms (2 in HD), the ability to watch a recorded show in another room, more channels, and i pay $30 less per month. The only time i see image break-up is during REALLY heavy storms, and I'd still call it generally watchable with the exception of 2 local stations who's upstream satellites have issues (which also cut out on TWC btw). I simply switch over to a traditional HD antenna when its bad, but I've only done that 2 times in a year, and I only do that when something I'm trying to record is not also available on netfix, hulu, or another website.
I initially had some billing issues with Dish due to some discounts not applying properly, but they not only fixed it, they gave me a month's service free. i also had 2 installation issues they had to come back to resolve, and i got additional free time added without complaint (one case, the didn't have a ladder big enough to get to my 3rd floor, the other was a failed dish installation, a bad cable). They were on time within 20 minutes of schedule all 4 time's I've seen an engineer. TWC has shown up 4-5 hours late on more than 1 occasion, and all i can get out of them is 1 week of basic cable (not my entire bill, a whopping $9 and some change) free when that happens, and it takes an hour long phone call to do even that...
OK. So, MPEG-LA's (and Apple, and Microsoft, and others) opinion that VP8 is a literal MINEFIELD of possible competing patents, and their inquiry into whether or not a patent pool should be provided up front (allowing anyone with a potential conflicting patent easy opportunity to come forward, as well as all those willing to leverage those patents, even if for free), thereby establishing legitimacy and some level of protection around that codec is a BAD thing?
Look, Google may own the patents it THINKS are valid, and may open source it to try to avoid H.264 royalties (which can not exceed 5M per year for any sized company, nor can it exceed certain profit margins on use fees or advertising revenue, and is generally considered a moderate of small license cost in terms of other licenses) does not mean this has held up in court, nor is the patent pool sanitized and safe. Anyone using VP8 without significant due diligence, and without backing guarantees of legal protection from googl e (which there are not, and it is ODD that there is not) is putting themselves up to be potentially (and likely) sued, to avoid a very small fee for a more powerful codec? Stupid.
The MPEG-LA is essentially throwing down the gauntlet to TRY to find those competing patents, this is a marketed plan to get them in the open and guarantee SOME level of legitimacy. If no one comes forward now, but does 5 years from now, then they'll have a VERY weak case in court, and that ALONE provides some protection for VP8, and actually makes it a safer codec and a stronger competitor. The MPEG-LA would only charge a fee for the pool if other in it (other than google) insisted, and if google agreed, otherwise VP8 will be challenged, and fail as a codec anyway. This is a VERY good idea, and anyone considering including VP8 in a product should love this. It could very well legitimize VP8 and cost MPEG-LA a lot of (possible, since they're not collecting it now) future revenue. Why would they do that if profit was their only motivation? There's already HEAVY suspicion that parts of H.264 already challenge VP8, and if they felt it did, they'd directly challenge VP8 instead of opening the door to potentially validate it....
More so, the core patents in H.264 expire in 2017-2021. only some of the obscure, and optional, parts of H.264 stretch that far. There are something like 50 or 100 patents in H.264's pool, some of which have already expired...
By 2020, you'll almost certainly be able to make an H.264 equivalent codec and bypass any of the small patents easily. This is why most of us suspect that come 2015, the MPEG-LA will once again (as they have already done twice) extent the royalty free window on H.264.
Kids here get 10 absences per semester, 20 per year. only 5 of these 20 may be "unexcused" Hurricane, flu closings (doors shut because too many kids are sick), and snow days don't count as absences, they simply cut out of the available 182 days planned out of the 180 the school doors must be open. They cut a few odd holidays first, then spring break days, then extend the school year as necessary. generally, when the school year gets extended, the bulk of the kids don't show up if they have available absences.
Here however, the "labor day" cutoff, absences are not counted before the "end of registration" which is usually around labor day. lots of kids don;t come the first few weeks. Every year they have a big parent conference before school starts and clearly show nearly ALL the kids who skip the first few weeks are the the bottom of their class yet since there is not state law against it, a lot of parents skip this time. I don't know why...
Another thing they did here: Sick says are "unexcused" absences. However, absences ordered by a doctor don;t count against that provided the kid does makeup assignments as required by the principals office (which vary school to school in the same district, just to infuriate me I think), and vacations to "educational locations" also don;t count as absences, again, if missed assignments are made up.
Sorry your kid (and you) are migraine sufferers, but glad you had it checked out.
Oh, btw, there's really no such thing as "left back" here.... Missing the number of days at worst might make the kid do 1 day a week of summer school, but usually just some make-up work. only kids who DRAMATICALLY fail the grade year (as a whole, not only having an F average, but actually failing below 50 in more than half the classes), or missing school AND failing overall gets you into summer school. If you;re more than 1 calendar year in age behind your class, they'll move you forward anyway, and the rest more forward in remedial education, not the same grade repeated. it sucks because there's no good threats a school can leverage against either parents or kids anymore unless the kids are really violent (and even then, it takes a LOT, like getting in fights not less than 10 times in a year that involve blood drawn, or getting suspended more than 10 times) and still that might only get you an escalated probation after a suspension. There are some BAD kids in school here, and it is DAMNED hard to get rid of them, and the can't be suspended for non-violent actions anymore either. They can say "fuck you" to a teacher all day long and get nothing more than detention.
namely, the power production industry, and large manufacturing, which independently can be regulated by the government, or just the EPA, without burdening the entire economy across the board with the additional taxes on companies that already implemented such savings measures.
Both tokyo and russia have SEVERAL TIMES the population of LA, and at the same time are significantly smaller cities in terms of land mass, further increasing population density to near 10 times that of LA. Other successful cities in the world have even higher densities.
My own city, who's public transportation system costs $2 per ride was using old, under repaired busses to save costs, and is taxpayer subsidized on top, just went bankrupt.
Moving from $3/gallon to $5/gallon would impact me about $55/month if I continued to drive as I do today. I commute in a minivan 20 minutes each way, and do a lot of traveling around town, pretty much right at 1K miles per month total. I'm in a highly developed residential community, not 10 miles from city center. If I was to take a bus, first I'd either have a 1.4 mile walk to a bus stop or have to drive there (requiring a parking lot where there is not one) to be anywhere near our community entrance (hundreds of homes, 3 schools, businesses and more inside this community). The bus could not come through our community with multiple stops due the the roads, so we'd have to go to it. The bus could then not likely go from my community directly towards my office, likely it would take a different route to a local major commerce center where I'd have to change busses for one that headed towards the freeway and to our corporate tower. instead of 20 minutes to work, I'd be looking at well in excess of an hour, losing 80 minutes of my time with family each day in exchange for about $4 in savings per workday in fuel costs (assume bus would be $3 each way after fuel surcharge, since it already went bankrupt now at $2, and I would onyl spend $5 in gas per trip on my own). $3/hour is not worth my time to ride the bus, i could work 30 minutes overtime per week and make that up vs the 8 HOURS of personal time I'd lose for the savings.
I'd still need the car as well for any trips to lowes, the mall, weekly grocery shopping, and more. A trip to target on a bus would be quite the pain in the ass as we normally don't leave there without 10 bags of crap. Changing my weekly grocery routine, and monthly meat buying in bulk into daily shopping to be able to carry it on the bus would actually cost me by itself more than i save by buying in bulk with the car. Travel to family could theoretically be replaced by renting a car occasionally, as could other shopping trips, but the rental costs don;t end, and my car payment does, and not having my own car would increase my insurance costs as well. Its simply not an economically viable plan.
For people who can walk to most services, and live in places where parking costs money, and where living outside of the city costs more than living in it, it;s a good deal. For those of us in cities not in the top 30 in population, living in the outskirts means a MUCH bigger house/apartment and some grass for the same price as living downtown, and little real inconvenience. Busses and trains can not economically survive here (as is evidence by the fact that after 15 years, and multiple contracts, and tax subsidies, it failed. Now that it HAS failed, I'll be getting a nice $30 tax break too.
I don't care how "robust" your PT system is, it costs FORTUNES to run, and in rural and less developed cities (including the capitol city of my own state) it can not be financially sustained even WITH taxation to cover it. (our system just went bankrupt and is pending shutdown, and that's a tax supplemented system in a city of over 300,000 people).
People require cars, even if not daily. Goods require trucks (which use more fuel than cars). The cost of a public transit system that could eliminate even half our fuel use would cost significantly more than investemtns in alternative energy sources, including both electric cars and chemical fuel manufacture (RFTS hydrocarbon manufacture, see https://www.dotyenergy.com/ ,its a 50 year old technology, not vaprware).
They ALREADY have a great incentive to be efficient, PROFIT!
For JUST this reason, shipping companies already use complex computer systems to plan shipping routes that involve a maximum number of right turns and a minimum of lefts, because it actually does save tens of millions of dollars annually in fuel costs, reduces engine run time through more efficient delivery, and more.
A small increase in costs, even a moderate one, does NOT encourage them to replace their fleet with new trucks, those costs are amortized over decades and can not be spent out of cycle without massive costs. As we saw previously with the fuel cost spike, once UPS charges more to account for an issue, that cost does not ever go away. the fuel surcharge persisted for more than a year after fuel prices dropped to BELOW where they started, and eventually the shipping cost just went up when the fuel cost went away. If you hit industry with a cost the CAN NOT AVOID, we all suffer, such that they will not raise prices to exactly the cost, but HIGHER than the cost, and persist the cost longer. This spirals into each other industry raising additional prices in excess of the costs incurred, turning more profit for those impacted and taking money out of my pocket.
If you;re going to take that money from me, TAKE IT DIRECTLY, without rippling trickle down of increases. it's simpler, more efficient, and costs me less overall, and the money can be explicitly earmarked and spent on replacing the fossil fuel use instead of just taxing it (since if after adjusting for cost they're making MORE money).
The only way to convince the industry to do something is to either a) directly mandate/regulate compliance, b) make compliance somehow cheaper than not complying, and c) benefit the competition who does comply making non-compliance a competition disadvantage. The only way to gain public acceptance is to enforce regulation over time, not immediately, allowing business to adapt and plan instead of react and raise prices.
Oh, btw, rail IS more efficient, but only between major distro and regional warehouse. Rail also has shipping limits. The environmental impacts of building enough rail to significantly augment this system, inclusive of route augmentation, bridges, tunnels, and more to avoid rail having further negative impact on vehicles (delays, crossings, etc) and the cost to do so, greatly exceeds the cost to build out a wind infrastructure to make fuel using RFTS and direct electricity. Wires on poles are cheap an unobtrusive. Rail is problematic, requires land, easements, and only one vehicle at a time... It also only solves long haul shipments that do not require less than 3 day ship times.
FireFox can filter a file name, but LimeWire actually could identify much, much more, and it still was not used. Also, LimeWire has no control over what browser you do/don't use, nor can anyone distributing content know on the open Internet if it is filtered or not, a legal bye, but limeWire was an aggregator and search system and could ENFOREC the filtering, and bothered to write it but only make it "optional" while concurently advertizing in various circles you could get copywritten works on their service.
For or against file sharing, they were stupid, and got burned for it. All they had to do was enable the filtering by default, and let it be easy to "bypass" without making it obvious that was the case... Well, that and not advertize on college campuses the way they did, and have more general content filters like "rock" instead of "top 40 rock" and they would likely have been absolved...