He was talking about wanting people to change from using inkjets. That IS a home use. So most of your list is unnecessary. As your sibling post points out colour laser printers have come down to 120$. 5ppm is fine for home use. Poster printers or anything much bigger than legal/letter will cost a fuckton and not for home use or even office use. 35,000pages per month is plenty for small business use. Hooking it up to your computer(home) or a secretaries negates the networking need. If you NEEDED it you could spend 15$ extra on a router and get something that supports a printer.
And lastly for #6, cost comes into play here. The cost of maintenance, even if it is only a few hours a year will be more than the cost of a whole new cheap printer. Reliability is replaced by the fact that you can buy 10 of them for the same price.
Say they only last 2 years each (Seriously I haven't had a printer die on me ever... even my inkjet which i think is in the basement still probably works, though I am not a heavy user)... And you buy 5 of them. That results in pretty huge savings. Even if the big ones are uber reliable they will need maintenance over those 10years, add 150$ minimum. Also the tinier printers get constant upgrades or get cheaper so they are flexible.
Honestly unless you run a big office with tons of people on the same printer it makes NO sense to spend 1000$ on a printer. And even then it might make more sense for there to be a few smaller printers.
Woah people use inkjets in offices? Pretty sure we were talking about individual use. By that I mean, we are talking about home use. Inkjets haven't been used in offices/schools/libraries in years.
For major office use then yes I can see spending more. For regular people an 80$ laser printer will last 5years of normal use. Unless the 1000$ printer is supposed to last 50years... which I'm sure I'd replace before then anyways. My tray only fits 200~300ish sheets but that should be plenty for a home user. And depending on the type of workplace they are probably the cheapest/best choice available in many corporate situations.
Agreed on laser. Still I can get a laser printer for 60$ and get huge savings per page. The rest I doubt the average consumer needs. I guess I'd be happy to see people make the jump for the extra 60$ to go laser and end up saving money after a thousand pages.
One's that would effect the average consumer? DPI on 'loss leaders' is high enough to not be an issue. The only thing left is doodads. My printer was honestly likely 80$, and also has a good flatbed scanner, can fax, decent display, and plenty of buttons for fast photocopying.
GP suggested that people generally should buy 1000$ printers which I thought was pretty hilarious. I agree with him generally. In fact if he said 100$ I would have 100% agreed with him... could have been me saying it. 0$ inkjet printers are pretty common here (comes with something else). Pretty sure my local staples gave a printer with every 4000 sheets of paper you bought (or something equally stupid). Having people step up to a cheap 50$ printer would be good. Less wasteful and the cheapest solution available for printing. Like I said elsewhere cheap laser printers pay for themselves in 6months vs a free inkjet.
I agree if you just did it freely it could work out that way. I put that bit in brackets because it is unreasonable to normally assume that. It was needed to have a direct comparison to the cheating-neutral site. Feel free to have disagreements with carbon trading in general but using deception to switch people to your side is sophistry at its worst.
With deceptions out of the way and people focusing on the real issues such as ones you've laid out we are more likely to solve problems or discard ideas.
My 100$ b/w laser printer came w/ full cartridge. I bet yours doesn't print 10x as fast... or w/e metric you may have thought made that a valuable purchase. (Colour can be had for less than 10x the price I'm guessing)
Make her buy a laser printer. They are much MUCH cheaper than inkjets. Cost per print is fantastically cheaper. And unless you only do a few prints a year it makes perfectly good sense. For a student they pay themselves off in 6months.
Point to one instance of a Google ToS getting worse. We are talking about a DNS server. Only/. types know what that is nvm would be willing to change theirs. Were Google to change their policy it would be pretty widespread news in the tiny group of people that use it. I don't know what you think they'd have to gain from annoying a bunch of nerds (re: people that support and build their whole business). More likely they made something for internal/personal use and just decided to release it because... well it's Google, they can.
Foss is terribly coded, who are you kidding. With the structure in which it is generally made it is likely unavoidable. It has the advantage of being free. But saying it is well coded is kinda odd.
Papal indulgences went to the pope. Carbon/code would be going to fix other wrongs. Think of it on a more personal scale:
I eat a cake, cake is bad for me. To make things even I go for a jog.
Is this evil? Of course not, it makes perfectly good friggen sense.
How about a more corporate version.
I run a logging company, I cut down a new growth forest that was grown for this purpose. To offset that I plant a new forest, one I will probably cut down in 10years.
If you don't think it counts because it is one company I can do this:
I run a logging company, I cut down a new growth forest I just bought.
To offset this I pay a planting company to plant a new forest.
I completely fail to see why this is bad. It is odd that people that seem to believe in the market and competition don't want us to create a framework in which a market/competition would thrive to reduce CO2 emissions. Ohhhh it isn't about the power of the market, it is about hating government involvement, my bad.
The site is a joke but it does not invalidate the idea of offsetting. And it is NOT properly analagous to carbon offsetting. The whole site is a 'false analogy'.
Cheat offsetting does not work because cheating is a personal thing. Imagine peoples ABCD. A cheats on B then pays in to a offset scheme, this goes to person C who then does not cheat on person D (pretty sure relationships also don't work this way, further breaking the analogy). In the end person B is still heartbroken, while person D is saved.
Compare this to carbon offsets. Company A pollutes, then pays company C to not pollute (assume that C would have otherwise polluted). In the end there is no one is effected by the scheme and there are no unfairly discriminated against members unlike in the cheat neutral scheme. (For CO2 pollution only. Dumping into rivers and such would be different as it hits local populace).
As well the schemes lend themselves to negative values even, you could be carbon-negative for example. This seems pretty useful.
I don't know if the owners of cheat neutral are aware that their joke is quite a sly deception. It appears the idea made it to parliament and the sentiment is fairly common. (I'm not a fan of deception:/)
"The CAN-SPAM Act is commonly referred to by anti-spam activists as the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act because the bill does not require e-mailers to get permission before they send marketing messages.[3] It also prevents states from enacting stronger anti-spam protections, and prohibits individuals who receive spam from suing spammers. The Act has been largely unenforced,[4] despite a letter to the FTC from Senator Burns, who noted that "Enforcement is key regarding the CAN-SPAM legislation." In 2004 less than 1% of spam complied with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003."
Spam is legally permissible according to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 provided it follows certain criteria: a truthful subject line, no false information in the technical headers or sender address, and other minor requirements.
It just bans people trying to trick you into clicking on the emails. Doesn't ban “unsolicited business e-mail”.
I read this differently than/.... I don't think they are arrogant. Nor are they being generous to the IT world. The second one is closer but... I picture it more like this.
"Excellent~~ peons work WORK! All you are doing is further building my Empire. When you ripen we shall pluck you harvest you and enjoy your labour fully. MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!"
Seriously, anything beneficial to the tech world is good for google. More computers, more screens, more eyes on them, more integration. All good for Google. And if you think of it that way you can still be negative towards Google for doing something that is probably good for the IT sector generally.
That seems pretty fucking minor even ignoring that the case went nowhere. As in it may have effected dozens of people whoopedeedoo. I'm pretty sure if they shrunk the logo on the homepage by 1 pixel it would have more of an impact on the world. They are better than other companies where it has an impact.
[citation needed] pretty sure most spam is not illegal. I mean using viruses to create spam bot nets is. And you will generally get black listed if you spam from your own address... But spam is probably not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
He was talking about wanting people to change from using inkjets. That IS a home use. So most of your list is unnecessary. As your sibling post points out colour laser printers have come down to 120$. 5ppm is fine for home use. Poster printers or anything much bigger than legal/letter will cost a fuckton and not for home use or even office use. 35,000pages per month is plenty for small business use. Hooking it up to your computer(home) or a secretaries negates the networking need. If you NEEDED it you could spend 15$ extra on a router and get something that supports a printer.
And lastly for #6, cost comes into play here. The cost of maintenance, even if it is only a few hours a year will be more than the cost of a whole new cheap printer. Reliability is replaced by the fact that you can buy 10 of them for the same price.
Say they only last 2 years each (Seriously I haven't had a printer die on me ever... even my inkjet which i think is in the basement still probably works, though I am not a heavy user)... And you buy 5 of them. That results in pretty huge savings. Even if the big ones are uber reliable they will need maintenance over those 10years, add 150$ minimum. Also the tinier printers get constant upgrades or get cheaper so they are flexible.
Honestly unless you run a big office with tons of people on the same printer it makes NO sense to spend 1000$ on a printer. And even then it might make more sense for there to be a few smaller printers.
"The ink cartrides that come with the printeres are never 100% full, they are only about 25% full. It's just starter ink, to get you to buy more in."
Pretty sure that when you say green fashion you really mean: All forms of new technology and products
Woah people use inkjets in offices? Pretty sure we were talking about individual use. By that I mean, we are talking about home use. Inkjets haven't been used in offices/schools/libraries in years.
... which I'm sure I'd replace before then anyways. My tray only fits 200~300ish sheets but that should be plenty for a home user. And depending on the type of workplace they are probably the cheapest/best choice available in many corporate situations.
For major office use then yes I can see spending more. For regular people an 80$ laser printer will last 5years of normal use. Unless the 1000$ printer is supposed to last 50years
Agreed on laser. Still I can get a laser printer for 60$ and get huge savings per page. The rest I doubt the average consumer needs. I guess I'd be happy to see people make the jump for the extra 60$ to go laser and end up saving money after a thousand pages.
One's that would effect the average consumer? DPI on 'loss leaders' is high enough to not be an issue. The only thing left is doodads. My printer was honestly likely 80$, and also has a good flatbed scanner, can fax, decent display, and plenty of buttons for fast photocopying.
GP suggested that people generally should buy 1000$ printers which I thought was pretty hilarious. I agree with him generally. In fact if he said 100$ I would have 100% agreed with him... could have been me saying it. 0$ inkjet printers are pretty common here (comes with something else). Pretty sure my local staples gave a printer with every 4000 sheets of paper you bought (or something equally stupid). Having people step up to a cheap 50$ printer would be good. Less wasteful and the cheapest solution available for printing. Like I said elsewhere cheap laser printers pay for themselves in 6months vs a free inkjet.
I agree if you just did it freely it could work out that way. I put that bit in brackets because it is unreasonable to normally assume that. It was needed to have a direct comparison to the cheating-neutral site. Feel free to have disagreements with carbon trading in general but using deception to switch people to your side is sophistry at its worst.
With deceptions out of the way and people focusing on the real issues such as ones you've laid out we are more likely to solve problems or discard ideas.
My 100$ b/w laser printer came w/ full cartridge. I bet yours doesn't print 10x as fast... or w/e metric you may have thought made that a valuable purchase. (Colour can be had for less than 10x the price I'm guessing)
Make her buy a laser printer. They are much MUCH cheaper than inkjets. Cost per print is fantastically cheaper. And unless you only do a few prints a year it makes perfectly good sense. For a student they pay themselves off in 6months.
http://www.cygwin.com/ ?
Point to one instance of a Google ToS getting worse. We are talking about a DNS server. Only /. types know what that is nvm would be willing to change theirs. Were Google to change their policy it would be pretty widespread news in the tiny group of people that use it. I don't know what you think they'd have to gain from annoying a bunch of nerds (re: people that support and build their whole business). More likely they made something for internal/personal use and just decided to release it because... well it's Google, they can.
Foss is terribly coded, who are you kidding. With the structure in which it is generally made it is likely unavoidable. It has the advantage of being free. But saying it is well coded is kinda odd.
Is this evil? Of course not, it makes perfectly good friggen sense.
How about a more corporate version.
If you don't think it counts because it is one company I can do this:
I completely fail to see why this is bad. It is odd that people that seem to believe in the market and competition don't want us to create a framework in which a market/competition would thrive to reduce CO2 emissions. Ohhhh it isn't about the power of the market, it is about hating government involvement, my bad.
The site is a joke but it does not invalidate the idea of offsetting. And it is NOT properly analagous to carbon offsetting. The whole site is a 'false analogy'.
:/)
Cheat offsetting does not work because cheating is a personal thing. Imagine peoples ABCD. A cheats on B then pays in to a offset scheme, this goes to person C who then does not cheat on person D (pretty sure relationships also don't work this way, further breaking the analogy). In the end person B is still heartbroken, while person D is saved.
Compare this to carbon offsets. Company A pollutes, then pays company C to not pollute (assume that C would have otherwise polluted). In the end there is no one is effected by the scheme and there are no unfairly discriminated against members unlike in the cheat neutral scheme. (For CO2 pollution only. Dumping into rivers and such would be different as it hits local populace).
As well the schemes lend themselves to negative values even, you could be carbon-negative for example. This seems pretty useful.
I don't know if the owners of cheat neutral are aware that their joke is quite a sly deception. It appears the idea made it to parliament and the sentiment is fairly common. (I'm not a fan of deception
Its a wierdo music group not an app?
From the 3rd paragraph of your link:
"The CAN-SPAM Act is commonly referred to by anti-spam activists as the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act because the bill does not require e-mailers to get permission before they send marketing messages.[3] It also prevents states from enacting stronger anti-spam protections, and prohibits individuals who receive spam from suing spammers. The Act has been largely unenforced,[4] despite a letter to the FTC from Senator Burns, who noted that "Enforcement is key regarding the CAN-SPAM legislation." In 2004 less than 1% of spam complied with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003."
I'm not convinced that is the best citation.
Spam is legally permissible according to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 provided it follows certain criteria: a truthful subject line, no false information in the technical headers or sender address, and other minor requirements.
It just bans people trying to trick you into clicking on the emails. Doesn't ban “unsolicited business e-mail”.
I read this differently than /. ... I don't think they are arrogant. Nor are they being generous to the IT world. The second one is closer but... I picture it more like this.
"Excellent~~ peons work WORK! All you are doing is further building my Empire. When you ripen we shall pluck you harvest you and enjoy your labour fully. MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!"
Seriously, anything beneficial to the tech world is good for google. More computers, more screens, more eyes on them, more integration. All good for Google. And if you think of it that way you can still be negative towards Google for doing something that is probably good for the IT sector generally.
Note: I imagine it would look like this
Maybe recognition? http://xkcd.com/664/
That seems pretty fucking minor even ignoring that the case went nowhere. As in it may have effected dozens of people whoopedeedoo. I'm pretty sure if they shrunk the logo on the homepage by 1 pixel it would have more of an impact on the world. They are better than other companies where it has an impact.
lovely spam, wonderful spa-a-m,
lovely spam, wonderful s spam,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
lovely spam, lovely spam,
lovely spam, lovely spam,
lovely spa-a-a-a-am...
spa-am, spa-am, spa-am, spa-a-a-am!
- The origin of the term spam (Monty python's flying circus)
1
[citation needed] pretty sure most spam is not illegal. I mean using viruses to create spam bot nets is. And you will generally get black listed if you spam from your own address... But spam is probably not illegal.
I prefer spam spam spam and spam with my spam.
Sticking a battery in new phones doesn't seem horrifically complicated.