I think we can all agree to that.

The moving by hand bit is odd, but could just be a gimmie to simplify the design and also increase the odds of winning this competition. The coffee grounds for printing part is what's interesting, and on the extreme off-chance that it can actually be used for real printing, it won't be long before someone puts it into an automatic printer and sells it.

As far as unreadable and short lived text, the thing doesn't actually exist yet, but you're telling me it's completely impossible that it will ever work right? Did I miss something, the coffee ink doesn't have to move faster than the speed of light to be readable, does it? I'll agree it PROBABLY won't ever make good printing, but don't act like it's impossible, because you have as much proof of that as the designers do that it will work great: none.

I too had a chilling sense of proving my own point unintentionally. Weird huh? Wonder where that was coming from.

Oops, forgot to make a 1, 2, ??? profit joke.

In other words: don't hire idiots.

In other words: hire idiots.

Which runs on espresso grinds?

Something tells me that if this actually works, their next model will not be hand-powered, and you'll have forgotten you called it stupid. And jumping the shark? Please. If in 5 years they come out with a real one, and it both saves me the hassle of buying ink cartridges AND does something usefull with the coffee grounds, it really shouldn't matter if it comes from misplaced environmentalism.

Anyway, what's wrong with the "green frenzy"? It's better than, say, the "What is brittney going to do next" frenzy.

Disclaimer: I doubt that this will actually work, so you're probably safe.

Kind of like these stupid Wright bros who have the ridiculous notion that they can build a flying machine. Claptrap I say!

Semi-serious point: While I am not going to be putting up any venture capital for this project, and all technology/ science must be met with skepticism, calling it completely impractial and stupid at this point is calling it too early. Lets wait until the tech either peters or pans out. If no further proof of concept is forthcoming, we can ignore it. If we call it stupid now, and several months later they make a laserprinter with it and the only difference is that one has a faint aroma of coffee, then you've basically called yourself completely stupid.

A thousand times no, there's fewer good puns with that than "bit." Quit is okay as far as the pun test goes.

Quata (from quaternary data) also works, though it is of course less accurate. Small price to pay though, you can get puns off of "quarter" and/or "water."

I think we need to establish from the get-go that no matter what we call it, the most important thing is that computer teachers in high schools can make lame puns for their students to groan about.

Why didn't I think of that? Tornadoes, in retrospect, seem like the PERFECT place to put my ordered data.

Annoyed creationists for the purposes of... well, humor mostly.

For what? Being in charge when the government decided we needed better bandwidth? For having not already taken steps to put this type of bandwidth in on the company's own dime?

I could see similar arguments made before vaccinations became commonplace: "injecting bits of viruses into people is not eliminating viruses." Of course, they do work. Similarly, vaccinating spam might work.

While it could increase burden on servers, if it cuts down on the amount of people responding to spam, there will inevitably be less spammers and less spam.

I don't think an ethics class and ethics advertising is going to make spamming unprofitable, nor is it going to make people any less greedy.

Sounds to ME like there's a testable hypothesis here, which someone should think about testing rather than just saying it SOUNDS ridiculous.

Send the evidence to MI:6, and wait for James Bond to kill them.

(Note that there must be a hot chick involved in some way for this to work.)

I said "I don't know, is it possible that if someone were to break a window that the cage would suddenly be useless?" and "Is it possible to build a faraday cage that would ONLY block cell phone transmissions and not play havoc with the other communications?"

What part of my post sounded to you like I was stating a falsehood rather than asking for information?

Seriously you should not comment on anything until you learn some manners or bother with reading comprehension.

Gonna have to call foul here, although you did the disclaimer at the end, you extended my basic argument and made it sound like I was proposing something ridiculous there ! :-P