My point is that when people print photographs, or pages with large graphics, this font is saving 0% of 90% page coverage. So my logic is that his contribution to saving actual ink is very small. Plus most of the ink I lose (personally) is because the cartridge dries out over time.

Besides that, the font ONLY makes sense on a printed page, where it looks like a normal font after ink bleeding, etc. On screen, it looks like shit. And can't take advantage of sub-pixel-font-rendering employed by every modern OS on LCD displays.

Sad man doesn't understand the problem... There are plenty of ways to save ink and use less packaging, but it doesn't matter because the ink/printer companies would just put less in the cartridge. He'd be far better off telling people about toner sensor hacks and refills than creating a hard to read font that strokes his own ego.

Naw, I think his bubble is still intact; check out 1:15 where they briefly compare using less ink on a standard font. I can't imagine someone that knowledgeable would be completely ignorant of all the existing ways to save ink.

Maybe this new approach of trying to create small ink channels rather than dithering could be farmed out to an algorithm, but who knows if it would create something pretty as well as functional.

Of course, I don't know if he succeeded, they kept showing what it looks like on a computer screen, not the intended look once the lines bleed together.

So, let's all download it and see what we think compared to draft quality. It's free.

http://rymaneco.co.uk/


P.S. Good point about continuous ink systems and refillable cartridges. Fuck proprietary disposable ones.

I recall a group in a music video doing the same thing a decade or more ago, digging up the dumped ET cartridges. Now the big question....WHY?

....on target on all counts.

It did and has occurred to me that the .50 cal cartridge helped. Mach 3 and 600+ gr. projectile with high sectional density. The design of the M107, too.

Taking nothing away from the shooter.

I never heard of rand-net modem cartridge, nor the video capture cartridge, but did know about most of the other factoids. I was sad that they never released Mega Drive in the US, but with only 6 titles I don't miss it.

It's crazy to think smartphones have way more graphics power and at least 60x as much ram. But what iOS or Android game comes close to Mario 64, DK64, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, or Conker's Bad Fur Day ?

That's great! Using a famicon cartridge for the casing is a nice touch

I also feel that way about hired NPCs in video games.

They have NO CHOICE but to follow you around. And then they are doomed to a near eternity of no movement on a digital save that you play *maybe* once 10 years from now because you're feeling nostalgic.

But you don't remember how to play at the save point from 10 years ago because it's too hard and the last thing he does is die unmercifully before you eject the cartridge and toss the game back in storage.

What sort of hell is that, man? Much worse than injured carpenter bee land.

I still have my "Journey: Escape" cartridge for the Atari 2600, but alas no Atari.

No, I don't need to research "properly cleared" firearm. You do.

By definition if it is properly cleared then it has no cartridge in the chamber and is safe.

If a person makes a mistake and assumes a firearm is cleared when it is not - then they have not - by definition - properly cleared the firearm.

If a person is shot by a firearm they assumed was cleared or they did not clear properly then by definition they have not cleared it properly.

"not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel" is usually caused by a squib load. It is easily detected both when it happens and visually by looking for light down the chamber end of the barrel (no light = projectile stuck in barrel). If you mean to say that you had a cartridge in the chamber and 30 people familiar with cleaning firearms didn't see it then you have 30 people in need of reeducation.

A self discharing firearm is not common but yes it does happen. That's why we practice muzzle safety at all times with a loaded firearm.

"Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself."
I don't know where you got this from. I never wrote any sentiment similar to this. I wrote about the difference between design and use. A firearms first use was for killing animals (people included). This is now outnumbered by sports shooters by an order of magnitude.

I think it is pretty obvious I'm familiar with firearms and you don't need to describe a 22lr Hammerli, 22lr Anschutz, etc. sports pistol or rifle to me. These are not nearly as common as other multi-use sporting firearms. Sporting includes all the disciplines in my link a few posts back and hunting game animals.

"if you truly truly deep down in your gun loving heart believe an AR-15 was invented for sport . . . well, there's nothing anyone can ever say to make you see reason."
I never suggested I did.

"If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world."
I never suggested I did. They're for expansion upon contact with body fluids to help bring about hydrostatic shock and give a larger hole with expansion of the bullet. They may have been intended for hunting (which is a sport) by its designer - I don't know and I doubt it's recorded in the history books.

"If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport"
This is getting boring.

Look it's pretty obvious you're confusing "intent of design/invention", with "design", and "purpose of use". They are three different things.

The intent of the original design for firearms was for it to be used as a weapon to kill animals (again people are animals). No two ways about that.

A firearm is designed to accelerate a projectile down the barrel.

A firearm is used for more than it's original intention. So nowadays we use it more for sports using paper, cardboard or clay targets than hunting (which is also a sport) or killing other people.

"Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there."
Now that you've finished your embarrassing diatribe could you try to be a little nicer and pay attention to what I write - not what you imagine I wrote.

Smurf Adventure was the original ragequit game. JUMP OVER THE FUCKING FENCE YOU LITTLE BLUE SHIT. That cartridge got chucked across the room once or twice.

Other nostalgic titles I loved that were in there:
Space Fury
Venture
Antarctic Adventure

Like a lot of these types of videos, I want them to be true.
However, my brain immediately starts screaming the there is something wrong here. And yes, the first thought I had was how precise those pieces of cardboard needed to be, mainly because of weight. also how hitting the center for the axle had to be absolutely precise to guarantee balance. (Precision I don't think you can get from cardboard.)

As far as the wight of lifting each of those flaps back up, I wouldn't think that the swinging flap would have enough energy to keep it going. Visually I see it happening in the video but I immediately question it. Again I want it to be true - think of the possibilities - but the skeptic in me tells me something else is at play here, even if I can't see it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Hi, don't know if you're satisfied about this video yet but;

If you accept purely gravitational motion, then the kinetic energy gained from lowering any individual card segment must be paid back in full when you raise it back up on the other side. Now factor in resistances (the pen cartridge axle, air resistance, and it's making noise which is a form of energy) and you quickly realise that for the whole thing to spin there must be an external application of energy.

Even consider how accurately he would have had to cut all those cardboard pieces to make them the exact same weight so that heavier ones didn't cause the contraption to slow. I can attest that i've made these types of things as a kid, as soon as you start building one you start to feel why it can't work; you can kinda feel the principle of conservation of energy yourself.

I have references if you need :
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Comments on YouTube claim that this is somehow fake - that there is a fan somehow blowing on it.

I see no fan in the one direction they show and his body blocks it from any wind on the other side while he is filming so..

Any takers...?

Like a lot of these types of videos, I want them to be true.
However, my brain immediately starts screaming the there is something wrong here. And yes, the first thought I had was how precise those pieces of cardboard needed to be, mainly because of weight. also how hitting the center for the axle had to be absolutely precise to guarantee balance. (Precision I don't think you can get from cardboard.)

As far as the wight of lifting each of those flaps back up, I wouldn't think that the swinging flap would have enough energy to keep it going. Visually I see it happening in the video but I immediately question it. Again I want it to be true - think of the possibilities - but the skeptic in me tells me something else is at play here, even if I can't see it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Hi, don't know if you're satisfied about this video yet but;

If you accept purely gravitational motion, then the kinetic energy gained from lowering any individual card segment must be paid back in full when you raise it back up on the other side. Now factor in resistances (the pen cartridge axle, air resistance, and it's making noise which is a form of energy) and you quickly realise that for the whole thing to spin there must be an external application of energy.

Even consider how accurately he would have had to cut all those cardboard pieces to make them the exact same weight so that heavier ones didn't cause the contraption to slow. I can attest that i've made these types of things as a kid, as soon as you start building one you start to feel why it can't work; you can kinda feel the principle of conservation of energy yourself.

I have references if you need :
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Comments on YouTube claim that this is somehow fake - that there is a fan somehow blowing on it.

I see no fan in the one direction they show and his body blocks it from any wind on the other side while he is filming so..

Any takers...?

Hi, don't know if you're satisfied about this video yet but;

If you accept purely gravitational motion, then the kinetic energy gained from lowering any individual card segment must be paid back in full when you raise it back up on the other side. Now factor in resistances (the pen cartridge axle, air resistance, and it's making noise which is a form of energy) and you quickly realise that for the whole thing to spin there must be an external application of energy.

Even consider how accurately he would have had to cut all those cardboard pieces to make them the exact same weight so that heavier ones didn't cause the contraption to slow. I can attest that i've made these types of things as a kid, as soon as you start building one you start to feel why it can't work; you can kinda feel the principle of conservation of energy yourself.

I have references if you need
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Comments on YouTube claim that this is somehow fake - that there is a fan somehow blowing on it.

I see no fan in the one direction they show and his body blocks it from any wind on the other side while he is filming so..

Any takers...?