Is this kid right? Could changing the font result in significant savings on ink and toner?

[MandaJo]

@thelurkinghorror

I oppose this because Garamond is one of my preferred fonts and I don’t want to find a new one if it goes the way of Comic Sans.

No kidding! I use Garamond for all my classroom handouts/worksheets/etc. so that it looks like mine for my kids. I also really like it because the italics really stand out, which is good with kids–they are not sensitized to italics.

I really don’t want it to become super-generic!

[sparky_1]

@Musicat

If HP ink costs $75 per ounce, we need to find out why, since it’s mostly water. My guess is profit, not costly raw materials.

Underpants!

[j666]

You dogear pages?! You are either a heathen or a philistine - let me google that - philistine.

I have a nook, but I use it only for fiction; the find functionality is good enough for my use. Reference material I generally access directly on line; frequently used stuff I keep on my hard drive, critical but less frequently accessed stuff on a jack drive.

I do need to print a lot of records, primarily because my company does not have a policy for electronic records & signatures. The hard copy immediately gets filed, and I keep a personal electronic backup in case I need to reference it. I think the trickiest issue with electronic records is maintaining the obsolete hardware necessary to read them.

All new technologies should be adopted slowly, so the disadvantages can be identified and mitiated. I grew up with paper and I love it, but I am sure people sneered at that new-fangled papyrus because it wasn’t as durable as stone. Given the predominance of electronic communication, we really should switch to electronic records.

And I have a set of Brittanica.

@aceplace57

I’ve been hearing that tune sung for 15 years. I use a Kindle and it’s fine for books that I’m reading straight through.

But for something I’m actually using as a reference? Or studying? You just can’t beat paper. Dogear a page that you need to reference. Or just fan through the pages until you find the chapter you need.

Trying searching a reference book with a Kindle. It’s agonizingly clumsy and slow. Kindle supports bookmarks but I find them lacking. I can grab a paper book and it just falls open to my dogeared page. Or I use colored index tabs to quickly identify the section I need. Finding that page with a Kindle might take several key strokes and a minute or two. Even worse, I have to think about using the Kindle. I want my attention entirely focused on what I’m studying. I want to grab a reference book without breaking my concentration. I can’t do that screwing around with a Kindle.

For anything serious, paper copy will be around for many years to come.

[Digital_is_the_new_Analog]

@Mangetout

That’s 19ml of ink, not 1.9 ounces. 19ml is a little more than a teaspoonful.

ETA 1.9 ounces is the weight including the cartridge, I think.

:smack:
My bad. Let me try again…

@thelurkinghorror

Yes.
Supposedly, at least in 2009 it was worth more than oil, or precious, precious blood.

That chart shows $.70/mL.
Bing tells me there are 1 ounce is roughly 29.5mL. So an ounce would be roughly $20.

Pricey, but not the $75 mentioned in the article.
(ok…what did I get confused this time?)

[Mangetout]

@Digital_is_the_new_Analog

:smack:
My bad. Let me try again…

That chart shows $.70/mL.
Bing tells me there are 1 ounce is roughly 29.5mL. So an ounce would be roughly $20.

Pricey, but not the $75 mentioned in the article.
(ok…what did I get confused this time?)

I’m not sure why you converted to ounces.

The cartridge you linked to contains 19ml of ink. It’s priced $21.85 from where I’m sitting, which would be $1.15 per ml but that price may be engineered to include ‘free’ shipping to me in the uk. Using the price you stated earlier: $13.50/19ml is $0.71 per ml - which is pretty much what that graph claims.

ETA: oops, yes, $75 per ounce is wildly inaccurate.