3 ms·

He's right: Chanel No. 5 perfume costs $38 per ounce, while the equivalent amount of Hewlett-Packard printer ink can cost up to $75. Most offices that I've see

by 300bps 13y ago

He's right: Chanel No. 5 perfume costs $38 per ounce, while the equivalent amount of Hewlett-Packard printer ink can cost up to $75. Most offices that I've seen use laser printers. Toner isn't cheap but it's cheaper by several orders of magnitude over the ink in an inkjet printer they're using for the comparison here. the GPO's efforts to become more environmentally sustainable were focused on shifting content to the Web. This is the right answer. It's a permanent solution to a long-term problem. Teen to government: Change your typeface, save millions What he's really saying is: "Spend millions changing your typeface, maybe save millions." There are laws that dictate how forms and paper must appear. Changing the font could have many unintended consequences that will need to be studied and tested for, probably by high-priced consultants. And of course you'll have to test if the new forms are as readable by low-vision citizens and people with other disabilities. But have to hand it to a 14 year old at least thinking about this stuff.

icantthinkofone 13y ago
It's a silly comparison anyway. If that's what it costs to produce ink then that's what it costs. However, I'm sure there's a premium price put on ink no matter what it cost.
Herald_MJ 13y ago
> Toner isn't cheap but it's cheaper by several orders of magnitude over the ink in an inkjet printer True, but this doesn't actually matter. A lot of toner will still be being bought by schools & governments, and that toner could be used more efficiently by the font switch this student describes. Additionally, if you take the annual budget a school spends on toner, and take the % less ink used by Garamond than Times New Roman (which could have been calculated using inkjets), you'll end up with the real saving figure, which we can safely assume will be non-trivial.
evanb 13y ago
Also, 38*2 = 76 > 75. So... he's wrong, as far as this particular comparison goes. I know that's not the point---that the point is the order-of-magnitude comparison. But _someone_ at CNN needs to be checking this kind of thing, right?
- saalweachter 13y ago
  You're thinking like a computer scientist, with infinite precision. "twice" is only one significant figure; 38 * 2 = 80; round 75 to one significant figure to compare, and you've got 80 = 80. </bs>
yalogin 13y ago
I would not trivialize it. Isn't there another way to look at this? If this kind of information becomes common knowledge and everyone picks the correct font wouldn't the overall ink savings for the whole world be even more significant? I know I am stretching it a little but I hope you see what I am trying to say.
Kequc 13y ago
Wait a minute his school is using ink? I didn't think people at home even still used ink printers. Pay the extra $30 and get a laser printer you cheap bastards! It prints way faster and you'll save $30 within weeks.
dpcan 13y ago
He may have used the federal government in the U.S. as an example of the amount of ink that would be saved, and the money it would save, but really, it's just a data point. However, a school or small business may read this and save thousands this year.
jccooper 13y ago
Saving printing pigments (ink/toner/latex/whatever) makes more sense as printing systems get more "professional". It's almost useless on a cartridge-based inkjet printer, because those generally track something like "pages printed" to determine when they're "empty". Usually, they're not empty at all: the manufacturer wants to make sure you have a good experience rather than wring out every last drop. Some laser systems will track actual toner usage, and thus could benefit from cheaper fonts; some won't, since they estimate like the cheap inkjets. As you get bigger, and load your ink in bulk, then actual usage savings starts to really work. So generally: Mass-printed forms you can save ink based on font. Office printing, maybe. And, yes, ink does get much much cheaper in bulk. If the savings calculations are based on consumer inkjet prices, they're way inflated.

by 300bps 13y ago

icantthinkofone 13y ago

It's a silly comparison anyway. If that's what it costs to produce ink then that's what it costs. However, I'm sure there's a premium price put on ink no matter what it cost.

Herald_MJ 13y ago

> Toner isn't cheap but it's cheaper by several orders of magnitude over the ink in an inkjet printer True, but this doesn't actually matter. A lot of toner will still be being bought by schools & governments, and that toner could be used more efficiently by the font switch this student describes. Additionally, if you take the annual budget a school spends on toner, and take the % less ink used by Garamond than Times New Roman (which could have been calculated using inkjets), you'll end up with the real saving figure, which we can safely assume will be non-trivial.

evanb 13y ago

Also, 38*2 = 76 > 75. So... he's wrong, as far as this particular comparison goes. I know that's not the point---that the point is the order-of-magnitude comparison. But _someone_ at CNN needs to be checking this kind of thing, right?

saalweachter 13y ago
You're thinking like a computer scientist, with infinite precision. "twice" is only one significant figure; 38 * 2 = 80; round 75 to one significant figure to compare, and you've got 80 = 80. </bs>

yalogin 13y ago

I would not trivialize it. Isn't there another way to look at this? If this kind of information becomes common knowledge and everyone picks the correct font wouldn't the overall ink savings for the whole world be even more significant? I know I am stretching it a little but I hope you see what I am trying to say.

Kequc 13y ago

Wait a minute his school is using ink? I didn't think people at home even still used ink printers. Pay the extra $30 and get a laser printer you cheap bastards! It prints way faster and you'll save $30 within weeks.

dpcan 13y ago

He may have used the federal government in the U.S. as an example of the amount of ink that would be saved, and the money it would save, but really, it's just a data point. However, a school or small business may read this and save thousands this year.

jccooper 13y ago

Saving printing pigments (ink/toner/latex/whatever) makes more sense as printing systems get more "professional". It's almost useless on a cartridge-based inkjet printer, because those generally track something like "pages printed" to determine when they're "empty". Usually, they're not empty at all: the manufacturer wants to make sure you have a good experience rather than wring out every last drop. Some laser systems will track actual toner usage, and thus could benefit from cheaper fonts; some won't, since they estimate like the cheap inkjets. As you get bigger, and load your ink in bulk, then actual usage savings starts to really work. So generally: Mass-printed forms you can save ink based on font. Office printing, maybe. And, yes, ink does get much much cheaper in bulk. If the savings calculations are based on consumer inkjet prices, they're way inflated.