Trust everyone's doing alright. Which one of you lovely things wants to help me sort out my network printer? I just set it up on my Mac and now whenever I go to print, the bloody thing spews blank paper, and when it does manage to print something, it just prints what looks like code, overlaid over itself and hanging off the edge of the page.
What the fuck have I done to it?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:20, archived)
What else have I done to it? I thought HPs were meant to be reliable.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:22, archived)
Lesbianising is a much happier event. Catching dyke is all hairy and angry at men.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:24, archived)
Do not ask how the cartridges are mosturized. Just smile, nod and pretend that you understand.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:05, archived)
And then...this is the good bit...turning it on again?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:22, archived)
I haven't dared turn it off since.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:23, archived)
Have you go the HP software installed?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:24, archived)
Are the cartridges alright?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:24, archived)
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:25, archived)
Edit - oh, I didn't reply about the whole hydrogen power thing - when I was talking about the greenhouse potential of water, it was that it could become a major issue if the amount in the atmosphere changes massively (which would happen if you got a big increase in hydrogen cars), which is pretty much what that NS article you linked to said
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:43, archived)
It specifically says "This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2"
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:49, archived)
could have sworn it said that while water maintians a short atmospheric cycle, a significant change in emissions could still have major effect on climate...
Edit - I think it's symantics - It won't build up like CO2 because it's atmosnpheric period is only days, but major man-made emmissions could alter the equilibrium between atmospere and surface water, which could still have a major effect on climate.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:53, archived)
If the temperature increases (because of other greenhouse gases) then the amount of water in the atmosphere will increase. THE SEAS WILL BOIL.
Howd up a sec ...
environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652
edit: that's definitely not semantics ... it's an effect of global warning, not a cause. That's a pretty clear and important distinction. The steam that comes from hydrogen fuel cells is not a contributer to global warning, which is what the myth asserts.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:55, archived)
it made for interesting reading
www.seawatergreenhouse.com/
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:58, archived)
why didn't I think of that? innovative cunts.
I'll just stick my grump in by pointing out that they are re-introducing seawater into the sea at a much higher salinity, so any major exploitation of the technology would render areas of the sea biologically dead on a localised basis ;)
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:09, archived)
but what else are you going to do with it, particularly if it's exploited on a large scale?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:12, archived)
yeah, it's all about equilibrium. I'd still maintain that major water constant emissions would effect the atmosphere/surface equilibrium but I take your point about short life in the atmosphere. But since water vapour will rise with temp anyway, we're pretty much toast regardless.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:01, archived)
environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652
It mentions that the effect of water vapour in the atmosphere will be significant when there is more water vapour in the atmosphere because of rising temperatures, but it doesn't mention water emissions. If that's the right link.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:01, archived)
you're both right, the article maitains that human emissions won't matter. I still think it's wrong though. even at a basic thermodynamic level, temp isn't the only thing that effects a liquid/vapour equilibrium.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:04, archived)
It's a fairly simple diffusion model: an(effectively) infinite supply of water and a finite volume of gas in a (sort of) closed box. So temperature pretty much _is_ the only important thing.
edit: is that right? where's the back of an envelope when you need one?
edit edit: yes ... I think that's right ... god it's a good job I don't do much science for a living any more
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:10, archived)
because that assumes atmospheric temperature is the only cause of water vaporisation, which isn't really the case. The atmosphere is capable of holding more water for short periods on a localised basis .. I dunno, it's quite difficult for me to explain my reasoning behind this on the internet, so I'm not really expecting anyone to be convinced. It's something I've looked into a fair bit (one of my students is working on fuel cells)
one problem with the temp equilibrium argument around global warming though is that it opens a tiny door for the twats that say "ah but see, look at temp equilibriums and solubility, CO2 levels are actually rising BECAUSE of temp increases nernenerneneeeer .. and then I have to kill them.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:21, archived)
Water will evaporate at the surface (pretty much irrespective of temperature). The water vapour will diffuse into the rest of the volume of gas until it equalises. In an entirely closed system that would mean that eventually you'd get 100% saturation. But the actual equilibrium will be considerably below that because there are sinks of water vapor. The temperature dependence is not in how much water enters the system from evaporation, it's in the position of that equilibrium. Pumping additional water vapor into the system won't affect that equilibrium point, it will just affect how you reach it.
It'll have local effects on the weather of course ... you'll probably get much prettier clouds above cities.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:33, archived)
you greedy bastard.
Mind you don't set light to anything.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:27, archived)
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:40, archived)
Get your party hat ready!
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:45, archived)
I don't even want people to acknowledge it, because, lets face it... it's entirely meaningless.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:46, archived)
But hey ho, so's most of what goes on here. What's one more meaningless ingredient in the pot?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:48, archived)
delete the printer and reinstal the right ones
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:25, archived)
Is it plugged into a router with an ethernet cable, or into another computer with a USB and you're accessing it that way?
If its the former, we struggled to make our HP work and gave up, and changed to the latter and shared the printers over the network that way instead. It works.
That, or the wrong drivers, Gromit.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:28, archived)
It's the only way.
In a more helpful vein, I have no idea. Shit at this sort of stuff, me. Coffee?
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:28, archived)
Throw away the printer and try other ones till one works.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:30, archived)
The gobbledegook means something if you have combat trousers and stupid facial hair.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:34, archived)
A simple re-format of C: should do the trick.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:36, archived)
The printer management program might have a selection of checkboxes with options like "network printer [ ]" It may be worth going through them and checking that you have all the correct boxes ticked. Similarly did you specify network settings when installing the software? Sometimes it's better to enter settings like IP addresses manually rather than relying on the installation to do it properly.
(, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 9:36, archived)