The Truth About Computer Printers and Ink Cartridges

Today's printers are heads and shoulders above their predecessors. Inkjet printers can produce stunning, photographic quality prints, while laser printers can spit out paper at a rate of 85 pages per minute or more. In fact, there are so many different kinds of printers on the market that's it's sometimes hard to keep track of them all. Here's a rundown of the major categories:

Color Inkjet Printers: While slower than laser printers, color inkjet printers are also a fraction of the price of a color laser printer. Inkjets can produce exquisite color documents and photos, as well as black and white prints.

Color LaserJet Printers: While more costly than color inkjet printers, laser printers are still a bargain, and often come with several paper trays to give you maximum printing flexibility.

Multifunction Printers: The latest trend is multifunction printers, which allow you to scan, copy, fax, and print with a single piece of equipment. This saves space, money, and time.

Photo Printers: Specialty photo printers give shutterbugs another great reason to snap pictures. These peripherals often allow you to print directly from your computer, digital camera, or mobile device.

Black and White Laser Printers: If you don't work with color, black and white lasers have never been more affordable. The emphasis is on speed, high print resolution, and multiple paper trays.

Mobile Printers: Mobile printers are gaining popularity among students and business people on the go. While they're slower than other types of printers, mobile printers have the advantage of printing from numerous sources and often have wireless connectivity capabilities.

What Manufacturers Don't Tell You

If you haven't browsed the printer aisle of your local office supply store recently, you'll be shocked to learn that you can buy high quality, brand name printers for as little as £38. Sound too good to be true? Well, in a sense, it is too good to be true. While the price of the printer is lower than the cost of manufacturing it, ink cartridges can cost as much or more than the purchase price. In other words, the manufacturers don't make money on the printers; they make money from the ink. It's as though every time you buy inkjet cartridges or toner cartridges, you're purchasing your printer all over again.

How do printer manufacturers get away with it? Most often by using scare tactics. They convince consumers that the only reliable printer cartridges are those made by the printer manufacturer. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Alternatives to OEM Ink Cartridges

If you don't want to buy expensive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) ink cartridges, what are your options? There are two choices: Compatible print cartridges and remanufactured ink cartridges. Compatible cartridges are made from brand new parts and meet or exceed OEM standards, but are a fraction of the price. Buying compatible cartridges is similar to buying a store brand of peaches, rather than a name brand.

Remanufactured cartridges are recycled cartridges that are taken apart, inspected, reassembled, and filled with high quality ink. These are even less expensive than compatible print cartridges.

It the world of printing, you can have your cake and eat it too, simply by taking advantage of low printer prices and pairing them with inexpensive compatible or remanufactured ink cartridges.

Chris Robertson is an author of Majon International, one of the worlds MOST popular internet marketing companies on the web. Learn more about Printers and Ink Cartridges or Majon's Business and Entrepreneurs directory

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Science, Philosophy, Religion and the Unity of Truth

Science has discovered that the universe is vastly more immense than we have ever imagined. It is now generally believed that our most advanced instruments cannot probe the ultimate depths of the cosmos. Moreover, when science examines the quantum levels of the very, very small to find the ultimate source of matter, its instruments fail again. With a straight face, scientists report back to us that matter comes into being from "nothing," and we had better get used to it.

However, to the philosopher, this idea is a self-evident fallacy. And the philosopher would argue that the domain of such speculation belongs to philosopher, not the scientist. The theologian also has a dog in this fight. To the theologian, matter comes from God, the first source and Creator of the universe.

Who are we to believe? And should there not be a unity to truth? Yes, it is the cardinal premise of this article that there is, indeed a unity to truth. What is true in science, must also be true in religion. And, what is true in religion, cannot be at odds with what is provable to the techniques of science. It is the task of the philosopher to synthesize and unify the valid findings of science and religion toward the task of finding more and more unity of truth.

All three of these disciplines, science, philosophy, and religion lay claim to truth. In broadest terms, science is the domain of material reality, the domain of what is. Religion is the domain of values, or what ought to be. And philosophy is the domain of getting from what is to what ought to be. Long ago Aristotle divided these three disciplines into logic tight compartments. This idea worked, or seemed to work, for two thousand years. But now these logic tight compartments retard progress.

As the legendary psychologist Abraham Maslow put it, "I [have] pointed out that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a mutually excluding dichotomy. This separation into Aristotelian aand not-ahas been almost perfect... Every question, every answer, every method, every jurisdiction, every task has been assigned to either one or the other, with practically no overlaps. One consequence is that they are both pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion."

Am I contending, then, that our advancing civilization has developed a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion? Yes, that is exactly what I am contending.

Science, unable to probe further into material reality, now speculates and postulates theories that are more bizarre than the religions it often contends with. For its part, evolutionary religion has often morphed pure, wholesome revelation into myriads of stultifying, man-made structures of ritual, fear and superstition.

The way out of this morass is to first realize that science and religion need each other. Second, we must recognize that we need not be helpless victims of the opinions and assumptions of so-called experts. As laypersons, we have access, within ourselves, to a resource of uncommon sense. By wise and prudent use of this resource, we can demonstrate our own inner reality-response to what we recognize as either viable or nonsense. If we are in touch with, and trust in, the authenticity of our inner feelings, we can reasonably consider expert opinions, but not be intimidated or overwhelmed by them.

But, aren't these learned experts in science and religion smarter than us? They well may be, in a sense. But their conclusions are too often warped and hidebound to fit into the logic-tight compartments that were artificially created by Aristotle so long ago.

For example, one of the foremost thinkers of our time, Louis J. Halle, fully supported the Aristotelian precept that science must restrict itself to explain reality by using only the observed operations of the laws of nature. Then he goes on to say that the origin and development of life on earth is explained by science as a "haphazard collection of coincidences" that "gradually assume an ever more compelling direction." How likely is this to happen without the invisible hand of a Creator? Halle concludes it would be as if a mass of various shaped stones rolled down a mountain in a landslide and formed themselves into a duplicate of the Parthenon. But, he admonishes us that science must attempt to explain this "by the operation of natural laws alone." Halle never really tells us why science must be so restricted. Is it simply because Aristotle said so?

Another esteemed scientific mind, Stephen Hawking, claims that matter emerged into the universe from "nothing." Carl Sagan agreed. (When Hawking and Sagan speculate such things they are not doing science they are attempting philosophy. And no philosopher would agree that matter emerging from nothing is possible.) Finally, Sagan once wrote that, according to quantum theory: "Once in a very great while your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning in the street." He went further, stating sternly that if you refuse to believe that, "you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the universe."

Certainly these gentlemen are smarter than I will ever be, but my "reality-response" meter goes off when they conclude what seems to me to be nonsense. So, how would I explain the mysterious way the very small quantum world has been proven to defy time, space and logic? My theory is that we are looking into timeless, spaceless, outermost fringes of the Creator's mind from which measurable time and space emerge. A pretty far out idea, perhaps, but in my judgment less so than the conclusions reached above.

Larry Mullins is the author of The MetaValues Breakthrough. This book challenges the conventional wisdom that self-actualizers are super-people who live on sustained peak levels of productivity and consciousness unattainable by the average person. Brushing aside modern ideas that confuse platitudes with the highest values, The MetaValues Breakthrough brings what Abraham Maslow called his most important findings back to life. Virtually any individual can access the inexhaustible power of MetaValues. Knowing how to do this, aspiring actualizers no longer be the helpless victims of the volatile ebb and flow of ordinary motivation. Although most of us may have been underestimated and sold short, it is not too late. Even a meaningless life of stultifying boredom can be swiftly converted into a quest toward actualizing some personal mission... a worthy vision or dream... that is not yet a material reality, but ought to be. http://LarryMullins.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Make a Truth Meter

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar? You don’t need to go down to the police station to make the suspects take a polygraph test. If you hook up this truth meter circuit, you can find the culprit by measuring their galvanic skin response.

Galvanic skin response (GSR), which is actually a main component of traditional polygraph tests, is basically skin conductance. When you get hopped up on adrenaline or similar hormones, your skin releases micro-beads of sweat. The sweat raises your skin’s electrical conductance, which can be measured... and used to tell if someone’s not quite truthful, in case you’re in the mood for a game of good cop/bad cop.

This article is part of a wiki anyone can edit. If you have advice to add, please log in and contribute.

Insulated 18 gauge wire, cut into two 10-inch pieces 1-inch wide, .005-inch thin copper or brass foil, 6-inches long ¾-inch Velcro tape, 7-inches long 1/4W resistors: 220 Ohm, 10 kOhm, 100kOhm, 1MOhm, 3.3MOhm (2) Capacitors: 10 nF, .1micro F (2)

Cut the soft (loop) side of the Velcro in half, and cut two ¾-inch squares of the rough Velcro. Cut the brass foil in half. Strip about half an inch off of one end of each piece of wire.

Remove the backing from the Velcro pieces. Stick the rough Velcro square back-to-back onto one end of the smooth strip. Lay the wire about ¾-inches from the opposite end of the smooth Velcro so that the stripped section is poking out the top. Peel the backing off the copper foil and lay it on top of the smooth velcro’s sticky backing, cutting to remove any excess.

After you’ve created these two sensors, you can strip about ¼-inch off the other ends of the wires and either tin them or solder them to the 2-pin headers.

Assemble the circuit in the diagram.

For the op-amp’s pin assignments, check out the data sheet under “Helpful Links.”

Before hooking up your assembled circuit to your battery power supply, be sure to double check your circuit -- it can be easy to accidentally use one resistor in place of another, or leave out an important connection. Once you’ve got everything correctly in place, you can snip off the extra wire on your components so your finished circuit looks cleaner.

Wrap each velcro sensor around a finger, and start trying your circuit out! The LED should light up one to two seconds after you lie, laugh, or experience another emotional stimulus.

Make: The Truth Meter

Skin conductance

How Lie Detectors Work

Biosensor Array Galvanic Skin Response

This page was last modified 08:13, 22 July 2011 by howto_admin.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Religion, Science, and Truth

Organized religion and the hard sciences add to our stash of knowledge. Unfortunately, part of this knowledge is only religious fervor or junk science; in other words, human knowledge-information twisted by politics, personal ideologies, or money. Basically, human information is not scientific; therefore, humanity can get bogged down by the fervor and junk until we realize truth is not defined by human knowledge. By it's own authority, scientific knowledge reveals itself.

When human knowledge is passed off as scientific knowledge, we cram our heads full of data without coming to a practical truth. We search out specialists who have few answers. Or, we prime experts whose expertise is obsolete within days, or centuries. However, in the middle of all this questionable fuss, scientific knowledge surfaces and becomes undeniable, because it is self-revealed. Take the example of progress.

Many of us have figured out that real progress is not measured by material assets, worldly power, or status. Although we sometimes are reluctant to admit it, a powerful knowledgeable human being is not progress, but is an exclusive, unsatisfied, and sometimes disastrous mortal life experience. It becomes apparent that progress is greater than something measurable-greater than human knowledge. So, we get the courage to develop and practice the immeasurable traits of honesty, wisdom, fairness, industriousness, etc., and scientific progress is felt. Substantially. We will not trade holistic health, or a peace of mind, for a new faster car.

A theologian or a scientist recognizes scientific knowledge by means of practice, not because of religions or the hard sciences. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have the divide and conquer attitude which pits religion and science against each other. Demonstration excels above words, no matter who is demonstrating. One methodology is not better than the other as a source of information. Jeffery Kluger wrote in Time magazine article The Biology of Belief, "It's the result, not the source, that counts the most." (2/23/09 edition)

If we boil religions and sciences down to the sludge, we find they both are looking for a scientific cause. Call the cause, God, or call it a physical law, however, neither cause is understood scientifically by human beings. So, neither have a right to proclaim to be an authority on the Science of Truth.

We still need answers, and we need dynamic answers. Modern religion and science can aid in discovering answers. However, if they dig in their heels and insist that human knowledge is scientific truth: then one answer is exchanged for 3 more questions; accusations of damnation get thrown around; divisive fear is instigated; and an association between religion and science is regarded as dangerous.

The only danger is going along with the hype. The egocentric human mind wastes colossal time and effort believing the unbelievable; theorizing; being pious; performing intellectual studies or ceremonies; and accumulating a bulk of statistics. Has all this human knowledge brought heaven on earth? Not really. Do human facts offer proof that life or nature is really understood? Not really.

So, the pursuit for more knowledge continues.

It has been accepted by some people that religion and science can work together in this pursuit of better knowledge. This is fine as long as both systems aim to move forward in logical and inspired thought, instead of amassing all their human convictions and information as though now the human knowledge will be scientific. Scientific knowledge can't be stuffed into human knowledge, no matter how large the stash of information. Human knowledge never has been and never will be scientific. However, through reason and insight, human knowledge, put to the test, expands out of itself and we glimpse scientific knowing. This advancement in true knowledge can be accomplished in religion and the hard sciences.

The western scientific method is a useful technique, developed by the hard sciences. Dr. Richard Sloan, Ph.D. describes science in his book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, "Simply put, science is an organized, systematic approach to acquiring knowledge about natural phenomena." Well, religion can also be an organized, systematic approach to acquiring knowledge about the natural phenomena of existence. Basically, the hard sciences have no monopoly on the use of a logical scientific method. Consequently, religion has no monopoly on the use of insight or inspiration. The problem is when we start acquiring knowledge about unnatural phenomena.

The way I see it is: religion has been so closely identified with endorsing human ethics to be truth that it can hardly sense its practical scientific potential. And, the hard sciences have been so repeatedly identified with variable physical laws that it can scarcely receive constantly self-revealing truth.

Truth is not confined to religious beliefs. Scientific knowledge isn't defined by physical facts. Textbook, 21st Century Science and Health, originally written by religious leader, and scientist of truth, Mary Baker Eddy, in the 19th century, says, "For centuries-yes, always-natural science has not really been considered a part of any religion, Christianity not an exception. Even now many people consider science to have no proper connection with faith and spirituality. However, mystery does not insulate Christ's teachings. Truth's instructions are not theoretical and fragmentary, but are predisposed to the scientific method, are practical, and complete; and being practical and complete, they are not deprived of their essential vitality."

Human knowledge is useful only when it is allowed to expand out of itself through demonstration. Religions and the hard sciences, in a reasonable and perceptive fashion, can participate in demonstration, because scientific truth is self-revealed to the logical and open minded theologian and scientist. And, since scientific knowledge can't be monopolized, it is also revealed to the child care provider, child, ditch digger, garbage collector, clown, technician, roof repairer, weatherperson, counselor, hiker, etc.

Cheryl Petersen advocates spiritual thought before action. Her website http://www.HealingScienceToday.com offers "21st Century Science and Health," an eBook that explains a practical metaphysical approach to everyday human situations.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.