So you won't be able to go 5 Gbps over Cat5e over short distances? I'm skeptical.

Once. Most just don't work so well after that.

Thanks for the reply, this is actually good to know in case I have to deal with that in the future.

For my side business, I usually ship using 6"x9" manila envelopes, so a 4x6 sticker fits on that just fine. But my next project is to see if I can just use a laser printer with the paper path going straight through to print directly on the envelope, bypassing the sticker altogether.

I agree with the sentiment, to a point, but honestly, I really hate classic rock stations. Yes, that 30-year period is chock-full of great music, but these stupid stations manage to ruin it by playing the same small handful of songs over and over and over. It ignores so much more great music from that time, while making us sick to death of those excellent songs by overplaying them so much.

Peeling and sticking 4x6 labels is far easier.

And I'm not sure how you can reduce a label to 80% and have it still work, though I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant on barcode standards. Do the labels still even scan?

Sticky labels are dirt cheap if you buy them in bulk on Ebay.

I'm fairly sure the 2x00 series printers used Canon engines.

Anyway, my 2300 is 13 years old now and still works great, though the plastic is yellowing. The 2200d I have before that was great too, but was slower and didn't have as many features, but it was quite reliable.

What in the fuck are you yapping about? Has the Apple cult driven you completely insane?

I never said anything about paperless anything; we're talking about printing here.

And WTF are you talking about with aluminum? Aluminum isn't environmentally-unfriendly, especially not in the minute quantities it might be used in thermal paper. It's certainly a lot better than using a bunch of plastic packing tape to tape labels to packages.

You're making me tensor and tensor.

Well, if you were more coordinated, you'd feel better about it. Get my point?

I've actually never seen anyone with a chromebook. People do use smartphones, but not for real work.

She just accused Trump of believing, "pregnancy is an inconvenience for employer". That's a perfectly non-controversial soundbite in itself.

The context is Trump himself and how he treats women, compounded with the way he runs his businesses (regularly screwing people over.)

I personally doubt the birth certificate which has been released, but it is a moot point.

Conspiracy theories are a hell of a drug. You might want to talk to a doctor instead of self medicating.

"pregnancy is an inconvenience"

Last I looked, pregnancy was a natural aspect of humanity. I suppose it's an inconvenience if you think people exist solely to earn you money, and those who can't (however temporarily) should be punished for it.

Why wouldn't you believe that? If she did get stuck in Kenya late into her pregnancy and was forced to give birth there, the announcements could've been considered a perfectly innocent "white lie" (no racist pun intended) to ease repatriating the newborn child back into the US.

Birth certificate is from Hawaii, so that little bullshit line is out too. But anything to paste him as an EVIL KENYAN MUSLIN USURPER right?

There we go again. It is just unbelievable, that the kind of argument, which Hans Christian Andersen utterly destroyed back in 19th century, is still in use by Democrats today. Only a total moron or virulent racist would think, the Emperor is naked.

An argument repeatedly discredited put forth on conspiratorial grounds with zero evidence and lots of pre-existing vitriol doesn't deserve consideration.

A presidential contender — vying for arguably the highest post on the planet — is always under a microscope with hundreds of people, both well-paid and volunteers, looking for every possible flaw. For example, Washington Post alone has 20 reporters dedicated to digging up dirt on Trump this year. Are they White-hating racists, or is it a legitimate scrutiny of a major party's nominee?

The GOP actions against Obama are pretty much only for a handful of reasons: he's black, and he's a Democrat. I'm sure they went over his past with a fine-tooth comb when he first ran for President, and I imagine that they came up empty handed, so ultimately they had to resort to contrived scandals to attack him and Hillary with.

Both produced birth certificates upon request, rendering their circumstances rather different from Obama's, who kept stalling for 3 years...

He ignored the cries for 3 years because the claims were bullshit that had NEVER been leveled against a previous candidate. He released it to shut them up and, predictably, the conspiracy theorists just moved the goalposts.

You should just accept that Trump is an incompetent, disgusting excuse for a human being who gets a pass because he has money and has been on TV for a long time. And since they only see the TV personality, they generally don't know the con-man who has screwed people over for decades.

Sure.

"What will you do about climate change?"

"I will eliminate regulations and leave it up to the free market."

Which translates to "nothing and I will ensure it gets worse." Which is pretty much the Libertarian Party's platform.

t if you read the link I posted (not from a conservative source either)

The "Daily Mail" is as reactionary, fearmongering source you can possibly find. It is by no measure "liberal" or even "neutral."

I said they may well have left it on but were not really watching... I explained that that had to be the case because of the poll results.

So you're literally jumping to conclusions you can't support, but insist they must be the case because that supports your desired world view of Trump winning despite spending 90 minutes looking like an incompetent jackass.