and that is where the problem is, the connection between cartridge and the nozzles is dubious, whereas with the ink tank, the tank is integral to the machine and so they get a perfect connection. Also it allows much finer ink liquid, where with the cartridges that ink could leak out, so no they are not the same, but you havent used one so you are imagining they are the same, they are NOT the same.
just look at the cost, cartridges are some 10x more expensive than the ink tanks per page, if they were the same then your cartridges could use the same ink and be the same cost.
not only is it more ink, the ink per page is 10x cheaper.
the way cartridge printers make money is from the cartridges. they sell you the printer very cheaply, say £60, but then to print 6000 pages, you have to buy 30 cartridges which each cost say £40, ie total cost
30 x 40 + 60 = £1260
whereas with Ecotank, you buy one printer for say £200, and then you might need 3 bottle changes of £40 each,
total cost 3 x 40 + 200 = 320.
so the cartridge system is a false economy. in fact the manager of a staples told me this, he said: dont be fooled by the cheap prices of the inkjet printers, they make their money from the cartridges.
you are saying the nozzle is the same, I am not just looking at the nozzle but the entire architecture which is totally different. The cartridge is a very expensive bit of stuff, whereas with ink tanks it is a mere plastic bottle.
its like saying a tractor and a lorry both use wheels and an internal combustion engine, so a tractor is a lorry.
Moreover, "Ecotank" is just marketing on Epson part, to call inkjet printer with ink tanks as such.
its not just marketing, they call their cartridge based ones inkjets, the ink tanks have a different label because so radically different. your use of words is anti progress, where its like calling a steam engine an iron horse. Because you can only think of propulsion via horses.
A model name to say so. But Ecotank is not it's own dedicated printer type. Nor is Epson the only one who produces such printers. HP Smart Tank and Canon Maxify are also inkjet printers with ink tanks, like your Epson Ecotank is.
others do make the technology, and in your own words HP also call it a tank.
I have generally found Canon disappointing, I bought a Canon EOS 600D and my Samsung Ultra 24 photos are 10x as good. I bought a Canon laser printer once, the LBP 50-50 and the print quality was total garbage! later I got a Samsung colour laser and much better. Then I got talked into a huge HP inkjet, then online I saw an amazon reviewer saying its ok but not as good as his Epson. so I managed to cancel the purchase before it arrived, and when I went to look at Epsons, I was told about Ecotanks and they had some example prints which were so good I bought in, and no regrets, and have been using ecotanks ever since. if you use an ecotank you'll junk your cartridge based machine!
Inkjet is a printer that uses liquid ink. And that, everyone will understood. How the ink is stored (cartridges or tank), matters little.
wrong! it does matter, as you have the problem of the join between cartridge and printer which can never be perfect. whereas with the tank based printers it is all integral, there is no connect and disconnect action, where that is always problematic, whether for electrics or plumbing.
the way it affects print quality, is the integral system enables a much finer ink which would seep through the cartridge join, enabling 10x cheaper printing. my ET 16150 ink is super fine. when I say fine I mean like small radius, like fine gold.
As different as comparing jet to a propeller? 🤔 I guess you haven't seen a turboprop engine. Take a look at e.g Tu-95 and you'll see how turboprop engine looks like.
There are several variations: turbojet, turbofan, turboprop, turboshaft, ramjet, scramjet. But they all are still collectively known as jet engines. It is just a variation of the same fundamental operation of gas turbine engine.
yes, and they are all also known as "things". so you could also just refer to the ink tanks, laser printers, turbojets as things!
you seem to have this idea that language is an unchangeable monolith, that mere humans arent allowed to change. Maybe this is a soviet era problem, as the soviet use of language wasnt for communication, but to confuse and disempower. and eg the kremlin generally uses "opposite speak", where the truth is always the opposite of what they say. George Orwell's books looked at a lot of the misuse of language by the soviets. his book Animal Farm was banned in the soviet union, where the animal farm in the story is a parody of the soviet union. there is a fantastic animatronic version as a DVD
here In the story the animals have a revolution overthrowing the humans.
anyway the use of language in the soviet union was to oppress people, to obstruct them, I think you have inadvertently learnt this misuse.
what you overlook is that language evolution or devolution comes from incorrect uses of language eg from isolated groups who misunderstand usages and these misuses with time become the new standard for their group.
eg all the slavic languages originally were the same language, but from geographical isolation have become russian, serbian, czechish, polish etc. some words remain unchanged, eg the word for street is oolitsa in both polish and russian. but eg the russian language doesnt have the j sound, which must have been lost. whereas polish has the j sound eg jenkooye.
One thing is how the word has molded over the years, while retaining it's meaning.
E.g old - middle - modern English;
oxa - oxe - ox
hnutu - nute - nut
sunu - sone - son
hringas - rynges - rings
drincan - drinken - drink
windas - windes - winds
bohton - boghten - bought
yes, but this is an example of selective quotation! you have selected examples which fit your theory. there are also examples which dont.
those examples you give have changed through misuses, mis-hearings, and also the fact that a non literate society leads to uncertainty about similar sounding words. up to about 1850, most people in the world were illiterate, it was only elite people who could read and write.
so eg drincan and drinken are very similar sounding, the a and the e are unstressed and thus so similar that they are the "same".
hringas sounds very similar to rings, also some people have difficulty making the h sound.
once a language is written with standardised spelling and the main population literate, the language changes more slowly also the structure improves, as people discern and fix structures that they observe.
a lot of british people mis-spell "their" as "there". eg they'll say "there kids" when they mean "their kids".
what happens with spoken language, is you get many things which are on the boundary of 2 things, where 2 different things sound so similar that they are essentially the same. this can cause a subtle change of the language. with time the subtle changes accumulate into a major change.
anyway, language evolution is mostly from misunderstood usages.
Completely different thing is when you erroneously, based (solely) on your personal feelings, state something with a different word which it is not.
no! most language evolution occurs exactly thus, that everyone uses language as they think correct based on personal feelings.
the classic example directly contradicting what you assert is to call an SSD a drive, namely solid state DRIVE
and eg even you talk of thumb drives, but the word drive means to physically force a person or object, eg to physically rotate something, hence to drive a car, and to drive some animals out of a field, and a disk drive, the disk drive physically rotates the disk. But now the word drive has metamorphosed to mean storage object.
to drive literally is to push something. there is no pushing with SSDs.
another metamorphosed word is "computer" and in fact the germans call a computer a "rechner" ie a calculator. but both words are incorrect. see eg
https://www.amazon.de/GMR-Ultra-Business-Office-WiFi-Bluetooth/dp/B0DL6PF28K and ensure you set language to german.
in the early days Turing envisioned computers as calculating devices, and the early uses of computers were to calculate. the early computer theorists construed computers as being mathematics,
but today's computers mostly dont calculate but mostly move data around. eg if you use a word processor, there isnt much of computation, but it is just to shunt data from mind to keyboard to file.
there is some calculation, but it is mostly very basic, eg calculating which character in the document is referenced when you click a document.
when you copy a file, that is data shunting, as is visiting a website: the server just shunts say an html file to your browser which the browser interprets as an image.
so the more accurate word is processor, where a CPU spends most of its time processing data, in particular a lot of what a CPU does is move data.
Few examples;
Ecotank - model of Epson inkjet printers, using ink tanks to store ink.
DIMM - modern DDR RAM used in PCs, which you called SIMM before i corrected you on that part (do you remember that?)
SIM card - small card inside the mobile phone to make calls. Which you also called as SIMM, since you thought it was worded as such. (Also had to correct you on that part.)
those latter 2 were ignorant uses, but so is calling an SSD a drive, its not a drive, you might as well call the DIMM a drive.
and then you write 10000 as 10.000 when that is OUTRIGHT WRONG for the anglophone world, and can lead to financial jeopardy!
the correct use is:
10000 = 10,000 1/1000 = 0.001 10001/10 = 1,000.1
so when I transfer euros from my eurozone bank account to the UK, and I select the english language, I dont know which system they use so I dont use either "." or ","
Most likely there are far more words that you use erroneously based on your personal feelings.
so do you! eg you said the PSU catched, when that should be "caught",
and eg you write "i" instead of "I", the word "I" is the most important word of the english language, and it is the only word you MUST capitalise. if you dont capitalise any other word, that is ok, but the word "I" is so fundamental that you must capitalise it. if someone spells "I" as "i" then I know their first language isnt english.
But i'm not the one who is going to correct you on all aspects. I already opened your eyes regarding DIMM and SIM cards. And maybe on inkjet printers as well. That's enough for me. Feel free to use the words as you see fit, but don't be surprised when people don't understand you since you are using wrong words.
1st one i would give is a calculator. If a kid can not learn to use it, then there is no hope for anything more complex. 😆
well that was the sequence for me:
Casio non scientific calculator in 1977 with green leds, then casio lcd watch 1979, then other Casio lcd watches, and eventually Amiga 500 computer approx 1988. then Amiga 1200 approx 1993. HP Pavilion PC approx 2004.
Electronic Arts.... known on the days of old as EOA. In later years, as EA. One of the most hated companies in PC gaming industry due to their business plan of buying out smaller studios that do well, to reap from what they sow and after a while, close down the studio. Without no hope of getting any successor game in the series. Many great studios have closed down due to EA acquisition. To name the few: Westwood Studios, Bullfrog Productions, Maxis.
well they ditched the amiga scene as soon as the PC graphics outdid the Amiga's.
The Amiga could display 4096 colours in 1985 using 6 bit planes using their HAM graphics mode, HAM = "hold and modify", where each pixel could change one colour component relative to the pixel on the left, leading to photo realistic colours. where it could get to any colour of 4096 in 3 pixels. eg to get from (r,g,b) = (1000,100, 10) to (100,10,1) it could do: (1000,100,10), (100,100,10), (100,10,10), (100,10,1)
I bought some software at the time called Digipaint which could display photo realistic colours thus.
HAM mode wasnt suitable for games as slower to compute. for games people used a 5 bitplane image with an arbitrary palette of 32 colours from the 4096 available 12 bit colours.
this enabled very colourful games, and some arcade machines were based on Amigas, eg the Marble madness game.
the OS was pre-emptive multitasking way back in 1985, 10 years before Windows.
now where the Amiga totally outdoes the PC and Linux is for programming as its much easier to understand the entire system, its the only system where a lot of people understand the totality. eg I have an overall understanding of the entire AmigaOS system. So it was both sophisticated and yet also they simplified a lot of the concepts that Unix had, and its much simpler to understand than Windows.
That cube looking space ship is actually Borg Cube, from Star Trek.
But i used the two to convey my concept in terms of practical space ship design vs impractical one.
As of why current space ships are cylindrical, is due to the very limited cargo space in the space rocket. Which too is cylindrical in shape, because it has to fly through the atmosphere. But when space ship would be constructed in the space, then there is no restrictions of it's shape. It can be any, because there is no air in the space and space ship hull doesn't have to be aerodynamic.
although there is no air like on earth, there is a kind of air of ginormous particles, namely the debris, outer space is filled with rocks and stuff, that is how the planets keep growing: the planet gravity attracts debris, and if the debris gets too close the atmosphere slows it down by air resistance and it lands on the earth. just from this, eventually this planet will become a star.
a planet such as jupiter is well progressed towards becoming a star.
the rings of saturn are from debris, where its an accumulation zone of debris.
musks efforts in space are creating huge amounts of man made debris, space junk.
You could get lost on the sea as well. But you can navigate via the stars. Space ship would do the same.
I disagree, navigating by the stars is only possible because apart from the sun, the nearest star is so far away, namely alpha centauri 4.67 light years, ie 3 x 10^5km/s x 60s/min x 60min/hr x 24hr/day x 365.25day/yr x 4.67yrs= 44,212,197,600,000 km = 44 million million km = 44 trillion km away,
that even as the earth orbits the sun, the stars in the sky are "fixed". the only things which change in the night sky are the sun, the moon, the planets, and things such as halley's comet. the other stuff, the stars other than the sun are fixed, where its as if the sky is a sphere with dots on it. so if you know the arrangement of dots on that sphere, and have an accurate clock, you can navigate. now after huge amounts of time the night sky will change!
but once you travel say 1/3 of the way across just our own galaxy, the stars in the sky will be totally different, and also its tricky to compute and observe. from this planet they have mapped out a lot of the stars and galaxies but they use ginormous telescopes, which scan the sky every night, eg in south africa and in south america etc. its not viable to have such telescopes on your starship.
as an analogy, its a bit like if where you live, in the distance there is a tower 4km away, and to the right of it is a forest 2km away, then if you walk around in a 20m radius, the tower is always to the left of the forest.
the problem is if you keep moving rightwards eventually the forest will be in line with the tower, and eventually the forest is on the left of the tower. this is the phenomenon of parallax. where from a train, nearer objects whizz by faster than further objects. the forest is nearer, so it "moves" leftwards faster than the tower, as you move rightwards.
so because all the stars other than the sun are so far away, no matter where you are on this planet, and no matter what hour or month, there is no discernible parallax, so you can navigate via charts of the night sky and a clock. but just our galaxy is 105700 light years, so is 105700/4.67 x 44 trillion miles = a million trillion miles, so just to trek across our galaxy the change in parallax is huge, and then add in the problem of time incoherence. basically the night sky is a collage of totally different eras.
the star you see from 400 light years away, is in 1625AD, the star you see from 4000 light years away is from 1975BC, etc. so the problem is when you travel 200 light years, the relative eras of those same stars has changed, so you have navigational chaos. here with a train journey you only get parallax of distance, but with travel to star systems you'll get parallax both of time and space, eg some of the stars you might be planning to visit might have already vanished! because a star at the other end of the milky way is some 105700 years ago, so its like seeing an advert in a newspaper from 1900 of a theatre performance, but when you go there it vanished in 1903.
Star trek is implausible whimsy, and is propaganda to get americans to accept the ginormous taxpayer cost of space ventures.
For normal person, yes. But for an astrologer, they can easily tell a diff between different stars/constellations.
only from this planet, once you go a huge distance, the image of stars changes because of time and distance parallax, and this solar system will become a dot, eventually our entire galaxy becomes a dot, then eventually a 1000 galaxies become a dot. how will you find your way back?
Deckhand has no business being helmsman or cartographer. Just like normal person wouldn't be put in charge to steer the space ship through the space.
Mutiny is concern in every place where there is a chain of command. But space ships can operate based on army structure. E.g aircraft carrier crew is 5000-6000 people, all working towards common goal and every person having their specific dedicated role.
With good training, where every person feels that their contribution is valued, there are little to no grounds for mutiny. Hence why US army is so effective. But the same can not be said about Russian army.
ah yes, but that is because with the russian army each commander makes his own decisions. so a commander can mutiny against the kremlin. this is what happened when they sent in the military against Yeltsin, that he persuaded the commanders to switch sides. the advantage of this system is they dont have to wait for orders to come from the Kremlin, or from incompetent generals. the disadvantage is it can lead to mayhem for the kremlin. where the commanders can mutiny, which they did by changing sides to Yeltsin, that was how communism ended in Russia.
I don't think the evolution of human life on Earth has been a great coincidence. I don't think it is a coincidence at all.
Human life evolution on Earth is as good of a coincidence as sheep life evolution on Faroe Islands.
the human part is a lot of coincidences, built upon the coincidences of primate evolution, built upon the coincidences of mammalian evolution, built upon the coincidences of vertebrate evolution, etc.
so eg it was maybe 1.8 million years ago that humanoids started controlling fire. but that requires hands that can deal with this, eg your doggo lacks the necessary hands. do you really think it is viable for your doggo to evolve the hands just to create fire? the amount of coincidences necessary is basically not plausible.
and our feet would be ineffective also. it also required the evolution of language which requires the evolution of vocal cords. the chimps only have rudimentary voices, and gorillas are mostly silent. birds can have sophisticated voice control eg parrots.
basically evolution to humans is such a ginormous timescale, some 3 billion years of landlife evolution, that it isnt even viable to comprehend. just the life of one person isnt viable to understand properly. the full set of things a person does over their life is generally too complicated to understand, and we have to generalise a bit.
history is a huge oversimplification.
so for me my money is that this planet is the only civilisation in the universe. But what I am prepared to accept is that there were advanced civilisations before us, eg in the ice age when the sea level was much lower, eg potentially atlantis. where eg the early civilisations such as Egypt, Indus and Sumer may have been colonies of civilisations such as atlantis. but with the end of the ice age, where the ice was 9km high, the sea level rose very fast obliterating those low altitude civilisations.
so there might have been more advanced primates than humans today, where they were mortal gods.
in your baltic region, there was a legendary civilisation of Vineta which vanished under the sea! But I dont know which era that is alleged to have been.
English has always been written with capitalized "e", even in the middle of the sentence.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram