Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   A 14-year-old student who is possibly smarter than 99% of us has figured out a way to save the U.S. government $400 million a year, just by switching the font they use to print out documents   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 191
    More: Interesting, U.S. government, GPO, alumni  
•       •       •

18432 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2014 at 12:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-28 08:22:40 PM  
It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.
 
2014-03-28 08:39:55 PM  
It's been proven that simple declarative sentences constructed of well chosen words and good grammar can use far fewer words. So put the $400M into decent language skills for kids.
 
2014-03-28 08:45:01 PM  
Yes. So simple. Also working under the presumption that the government is a single, hyper-efficient entity that can change things like that on a whim.
 
2014-03-28 08:46:40 PM  
It's been proven that Messicans took ur jurbs. So let's use the $400 M to send them bills for back taxes.
 
2014-03-28 08:47:24 PM  
Also, the US Government Printing Office's budget is only about $130 million, so how are they going to save $400 million?
 
2014-03-28 08:49:50 PM  
His damn Garamond looks like draft mode.
 
2014-03-28 09:03:36 PM  
Brilliant.
This kid has no future in government.
 
2014-03-28 09:04:38 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: Also, the US Government Printing Office's budget is only about $130 million, so how are they going to save $400 million?


They'll save $3 billion in inkjet ink.
 
2014-03-28 09:22:21 PM  
Now there's a guy who is never going to get laid in his entire life.
 
2014-03-28 09:47:04 PM  
Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.
 
2014-03-28 10:39:28 PM  

WelldeadLink: Brilliant.
This kid has no future in government.


He'll be deleted tomorrow with a key stroke.
 
2014-03-28 10:43:39 PM  

Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.


Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.
 
2014-03-28 10:53:19 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.


So, you're suggesting a vowel resection?
 
2014-03-28 11:00:18 PM  
HAHA! I'M WASTING YOUR INK!
 
2014-03-28 11:45:04 PM  

Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.


Yeah, I was kinda wondering if that had been taken into consideration.
 
2014-03-29 12:03:02 AM  

Ambivalence: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.


Per page it's a HELL of a lot cheaper than inkjet.
 
2014-03-29 12:03:43 AM  
I fully support this proposal, so long as all Congressional records are printed in Comic Sans.
 
2014-03-29 12:05:40 AM  
Well  thats $400 mill going into someone's back pocket for sure..
 
2014-03-29 12:05:52 AM  
I've always liked Garamond.
 
2014-03-29 12:06:05 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-29 12:07:09 AM  
Not a new idea. Also, things stay as they are, unless forced to change.
 
2014-03-29 12:07:35 AM  
by day:
i.dailymail.co.uk

by night:
splashpage.mtv.com
 
2014-03-29 12:07:56 AM  
...because making government documents harder to read benefits us all!
 
2014-03-29 12:08:14 AM  
Eh, it's play money anyway. Fark experts explained to me last week why it was a wise investment for San Fran to build a temporary bike trail by a bridge for 9.8 million.
 
2014-03-29 12:08:25 AM  
If they just used the first and last two letters of each word, and transmitted them using telepathy, the US would save like a bazillion dollars! We could pay off the debt! Pave the roads with gold! No! Wait! Buy 20 new 2000 ft long aircraft carriers! With 300 F-22s each! Expand the NSA twenty fold! Clone Reagan!
 
2014-03-29 12:08:28 AM  
The final version of this bill would all but dismantle the GPO and set a requirement for the government to contract printing work out with massive overhead.
 
2014-03-29 12:09:08 AM  
Of course, they'll spend 100 million licensing it from adobe..
 
2014-03-29 12:09:11 AM  
Socialist, off to Guantanamo with her!
 
2014-03-29 12:09:23 AM  
The opposite of progress.
 
2014-03-29 12:10:46 AM  

Ambitwistor: I fully support this proposal, so long as all Congressional records are printed in Comic Sans.


http://bancomicsans.com/main/
 
2014-03-29 12:11:44 AM  
You could save the same amount of money by cutting the Federal budget by 0.012%.

Yes, that's 12/1000 of 1%.
 
2014-03-29 12:12:14 AM  
I wonder what the savings would be if we just switched to 11.5 font as the default.
 
2014-03-29 12:12:27 AM  
This is just the type of thinking we need.
 
2014-03-29 12:13:32 AM  
Reminds me of ecofont.
 
2014-03-29 12:15:51 AM  
So that would make the ACA drop down to 100 pages opposed to 2400?
 
2014-03-29 12:16:20 AM  
Wow, that's, like, 0.01% of the federal budget! Good job! That will pay for 2 F-35s!
 
2014-03-29 12:17:23 AM  
WHAT?  SAVING MONEY FROM GUBMINT SPENDING?  Do you hate the black and the poor?  A pox upon you!
 
2014-03-29 12:22:49 AM  

Fano: Eh, it's play money anyway. Fark experts explained to me last week why it was a wise investment for San Fran to build a temporary bike trail by a bridge for 9.8 million.


And you angrily ignored every single one, and are still pissed off about a bridge.  Godspeed.
 
2014-03-29 12:23:14 AM  

Loucifer: This is just the type of thinking we need.


This story underlines the type of bold thinking we need to strike through unjustified government waste.
 
2014-03-29 12:24:33 AM  
Sometimes switching fonts costs more.  A LOT more.
 churchrelevance.com
 
2014-03-29 12:24:34 AM  
Too bad most print jobs are done on printers that are charged per page instead of paying for the ink. I'm even doing this at home now with HP instant ink.
 
2014-03-29 12:24:41 AM  
I wonder if he has any ideas for the Gov to save money on redacting?
 
2014-03-29 12:24:42 AM  
Does he think the government actually cares about saving money?  They have unlimited spending.
 
2014-03-29 12:25:10 AM  

hchaos: Wow, that's, like, 0.01% of the federal budget! Good job! That will pay for 2 F-35s!

So because we can't cut as much as you want, we shouldn't attempt to save any money at all?
 
2014-03-29 12:25:29 AM  
When my company was bought out, one of those consultants came in and had everyone print up what we did.

I gave her mine  in 6 pt small fonts.   I told her sorry about that.. Its what I usually print out so I can see more code on each page, plus it saved the company toner cost.
 
2014-03-29 12:26:18 AM  

Zygar: [img.fark.net image 281x179]


never even got to the words in the article before i said "Holy shiat that's McLovin"
 
2014-03-29 12:30:12 AM  

Ambivalence: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.


If by "ain't cheap" you mean "is practically free", then you're right. If you print a lot, buy a laser printer. TCO is much, much lower for anyone who prints often.
 
2014-03-29 12:30:29 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.


President bm then?
 
2014-03-29 12:30:40 AM  
I DNRTFA, but I have a strong opinion anyway and now I have to take shiat!
 
2014-03-29 12:33:21 AM  

Rhaab: hchaos: Wow, that's, like, 0.01% of the federal budget! Good job! That will pay for 2 F-35s!
So because we can't cut as much as you want, we shouldn't attempt to save any money at all?


That seems to be the consensus
 
2014-03-29 12:33:52 AM  
This government? Doing simple changes to save money?


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


img.4plebs.org
 
2014-03-29 12:36:39 AM  
it's this kind of simplistic, yet obviously genius and argument-less thinking that will get this kid on a "no-fly" list
 
2014-03-29 12:37:40 AM  
this would be awesome if it weren't the 4,000,000th time someone had figured this out. Kudos to the kid anyhow.
 
2014-03-29 12:39:23 AM  
Pretty sure I've seen this before, let's see...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125639616
Story is from 2010.  So the kid browses the internet, finds a story that his teachers haven't read, finds another font that does the same thing and now he's a genius wizkid!
 
2014-03-29 12:39:29 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Ambivalence: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.

If by "ain't cheap" you mean "is practically free", then you're right. If you print a lot, buy a laser printer. TCO is much, much lower for anyone who prints often.


and if you don't print a lot you avoid inkjet nozzles drying out by having a laser printer
 
2014-03-29 12:39:41 AM  
Cool.

Now if the government doesn't do what this kid says, I have another reason to be angry!
 
2014-03-29 12:41:08 AM  
It's been proven, resistance is futile.
 
2014-03-29 12:44:31 AM  
Search "save money with smaller font" to see how many dozens of people and environmental organizations have been grabbing headlines with this suggestion since 2010.  And the amount of savings seems to get bigger every time.
 
2014-03-29 12:46:00 AM  

StrangeQ: Pretty sure I've seen this before, let's see...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125639616
Story is from 2010.  So the kid browses the internet, finds a story that his teachers haven't read, finds another font that does the same thing and now he's a genius wizkid!


Even older: http://lifehacker.com/5108188/ecofont-saves-your-ink/all
 
2014-03-29 12:50:25 AM  
The printer ink cartel is far too evil, far too entrenched to let this happen. Be very afraid.

I have to run now..
 
2014-03-29 12:52:33 AM  

Ambivalence: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.


It is in bulk. When you talk large scale units you can usually print pages are around $0.02/page or so. You just don't use that much toner per page. When you get the 'lil laserjet that sits on your desk, they overcharge you because they want to make up the cost on consumables. However the big units keep consumable prices down because they want you to buy their stuff.

So I just can't see how this kid's idea would work. Changing a font isn't going to save that much toner, it won't really reduce how much is fused to the paper, and that isn't the only way toner is used (just having the components moving uses a bit of toner). Any savings in changing a font would be totally outclassed by simply printing a bit less.

My bet is this kid looked at the fonts, checked the price of the ink for his Lexmark printer which costs too much, threw some math at it based on guesses, and came up with a completely BS number.

Here's a tip to news organizations: When you hear of some kid with an amazing solution to a problem that nobody has ever managed to think of before... it basically never is. Invariably the kid ignored something, forgot something, simplified something, or what have you and thus their results are wrong. Any one remember  Aidan Dwyer? No? But why not? He was a child genius who revolutionized solar panels by using the Fibonacci Sequence. I mean all solar panels must be designed that way now! Ummm, no. Turns out the kid didn't know basic electrical engineering, and measured voltage and thought that represented power (power is voltage*amperage). No surprise, having solar panels pointing at all angles is not as efficient as having them use motors to track the sun, which is precisely what the highest efficiency ones we have do.
 
2014-03-29 12:55:26 AM  

Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.


Inkjets and laserprinters will BOTH save on printing costs, regardless of media, by switching fonts.  Less ink, less toner.  Will save more on top of bulk purchasing.
 
2014-03-29 12:59:23 AM  
ecmoRandomNumbers: HAHA! I'M WASTING YOUR INK!

ME TOO.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2014-03-29 12:59:59 AM  

Rhaab: hchaos: Wow, that's, like, 0.01% of the federal budget! Good job! That will pay for 2 F-35s!
So because we can't cut as much as you want, we shouldn't attempt to save any money at all?


No. Because the amounts we're talking about are completely insignificant and cannot ever make a practical difference, it's completely silly to act like it would matter.
 
2014-03-29 01:01:10 AM  
What ?
 
2014-03-29 01:02:08 AM  
That was a good science project.
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-29 01:02:32 AM  

#13.  OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS

 
2014-03-29 01:03:23 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: When my company was bought out, one of those consultants came in and had everyone print up what we did.

I gave her mine  in 6 pt small fonts.   I told her sorry about that.. Its what I usually print out so I can see more code on each page, plus it saved the company toner cost.


I typed mine up in Webdings.
 
2014-03-29 01:03:32 AM  
Why not go ahead and switch to a font size that requires a magnifying glass.  Saves 10 kajillion dollars.  Or go paperless and save 20 squillion dollars.  Make everyone write by hand and save 100 sesquecentillion dollars.  Sure, some ink companies are going to see a big loss in their profits, but I am sure they would find the way to make certain my $1.25 in taxes per year got returned to me.  I could pump that right back into the economy in no time.
 
2014-03-29 01:03:36 AM  

Dadoody: This government? Doing simple changes to save money?


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[img.4plebs.org image 479x356]


Believe it or not, most government agencies are quite constrained in many ways as far as budgets go.  Its just done in a very useful way.  The saying "penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.
 
2014-03-29 01:05:06 AM  

hchaos: Wow, that's, like, 0.01% of the federal budget! Good job! That will pay for 2 F-35s!


He's 14 years old and looked into this.  I'll give him a ton of credit for that.

I have a friend from business school who worked the United-Continental merger for a big 3 consulting firm.  One of his teams' accomplishments on the project was weighing silverware and figuring out that using plastic silverware in first class would save the company $2mm in fuel.  That more than paid for the consulting fees for the entire team.  And this high school science project trumped their accomplishments by magnitudes.
 
2014-03-29 01:09:31 AM  
OH! YOU MEAN GARAMONDtm BY ADOBE! I WONDER IF HE DID THE COST OF LICENSING THE FONT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES? Maybe somebody should tell that kid that when he gets out into the real world he is going to have to start paying for all that shiat he steals off the internet. His next project is BIG: If you just download music for free of the internet, you'd save millions!
 
2014-03-29 01:09:35 AM  
Then theres this shiat. 

i181.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-29 01:10:40 AM  
Wow, people are protective of their government font.  Fixing Global Warming - we can do that, but changing fonts is hard.
 
2014-03-29 01:11:30 AM  
or maybe just stop printing so many documents?
 
2014-03-29 01:16:06 AM  
PC load letter? What the fark does that mean?
 
2014-03-29 01:17:00 AM  

Intrepid00: Too bad most print jobs are done on printers that are charged per page instead of paying for the ink. I'm even doing this at home now with HP instant ink.


^^^^This^^^^

All you'd do is save the printer money. The government will still pay the same per-page cost.
 
2014-03-29 01:18:03 AM  

This About That: It's been proven that simple declarative sentences constructed of well chosen words and good grammar can use far fewer words. So put the $400M into decent language skills for kids.


Words have power and shiat yo. F**k that whitey bling speak and jam dem dollas up in kids brains!

Point taken
 
2014-03-29 01:20:28 AM  

Cyno01: Then theres this shiat. 

[i181.photobucket.com image 361x294]


Do you realize how many pixel trees had to be cut down for that ludicrous display?  Please try to not destroy the planet the rest of us live on.
 
2014-03-29 01:22:16 AM  

Robin Hoodie: this would be awesome if it weren't the 4,000,000th time someone had figured this out. Kudos to the kid anyhow.


this. Pretty sure newspapers and such have considered everything to save money. This isn't novel, its not news worthy.
 
2014-03-29 01:23:29 AM  

trappedspirit: Why not go ahead and switch to a font size that requires a magnifying glass.


While we're at it I have a way we can save $300 trillion a year on electricity.

www.cyberpunkreview.com
 
2014-03-29 01:26:33 AM  
You can save even more money by NOT PRINTING anything.

/If only we had some other medium other than hard copy...
 
2014-03-29 01:27:50 AM  
Well, why wouldn't someone just come along and recommend a smaller thinner font next, maybe six point?

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-29 01:29:37 AM  
i.imgur.com
I don't always have a lot to print out;
But when I do, I use large type.

/Sad but true.
 
2014-03-29 01:30:51 AM  

Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.


This. I have no idea why anyone would even bother with inkjet now given the much more economical cost of laser.
 
2014-03-29 01:30:54 AM  
make everything a QR Code
 
2014-03-29 01:33:10 AM  
Now we just need to find out how to get more ink on the ribbons.
 
2014-03-29 01:35:08 AM  
If "printing fewer documents" hasn't occurred to him, he's not that smart.
 
2014-03-29 01:35:24 AM  
This is all over Facebook. I don't farkin' buy it, sorry.

* The US government is a big-ass entity. I'd be surprised if they used one font for everything.
* How many documents does the government actually print vs. how many they read/transmit electronically?
* Simple answers (like switching fonts) to complex problems (like the US budget) are almost never right
* Assuming this change was made, how much time/money/effort would it require, and would we still save money once that was figured in?

Is there anything more irritating than (supposed) genius kids that know better than all their adults? Good news, kid: actual geniuses that transform the world are real. Bad news, kid: they're exceedingly rare. It was an interesting science project, but let's not get carried away.
 
2014-03-29 01:35:49 AM  
Though there are lots of factors, in general if you do frequent printing, laser printing costs about 1/8th the price of inkjet printing. Also many government documents are printed much more efficiently than either method by huge industrial printing presses. Then there are issues of licensing costs of fonts and since this is such a large scale project, the difference in reading time for equal comprehension (which might be better or worst for either font). Laser printers need much less frequent maintenance, so less employee time is wasted waiting for the IT guy to come around and change the cartridge. A true cost analysis can't be done on the back of a cocktailrootbeer napkin.
 
2014-03-29 01:37:29 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: t's bn prvn tht y dn't ctlly nd vwls t ndrstnd nglsh, s wh nt bn thm frm gvrnmnt pblctns? Tht wll sv  lt f nk.


t sre svs lts f tm rdng, wldn't t? Xcpt nw y spnd th tm y sv b plggng vwls nt wds t mk sns f thm.

 
2014-03-29 01:38:59 AM  
What the fark is McLovin doing trying to take my Comic Sans. Cold dead hands McLovin, cold dead hands.
 
2014-03-29 01:40:23 AM  

bigstoopidbruce: WHAT?  SAVING MONEY FROM GUBMINT SPENDING?  Do you hate the black and the poor?  A pox upon you!


This is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2014-03-29 01:40:45 AM  
Switch to clay tablets. No ink at all needed.
 
2014-03-29 01:45:43 AM  
Yea, they could also save a ton of money on paper by switching all the fonts to 8 point instead of the standard 12 point.

Maybe they could stop making cover pages too.

Seriously, there are expenses to everything, and changing a font is all well and good, but lets not pretend that this kid just found the lost city of Atlantis.
 
2014-03-29 01:47:07 AM  
This is basically a "one weird trick discovered by a mom that government printers hate!" story gussied up to be "legitimate" journalism. Everyone involved in hyping this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.
 
2014-03-29 01:51:10 AM  
FTFA: A 14-year-old student from Pennsylvania could help the government save nearly $400 million a year thanks to his ingenious science fair project

Or, in other words, the Daily Fail blows out of proportion some barely-teenager's science project that shows what anyone with eyes and a brain, almost certainly including various governments, already knows:  thinner fonts use less ink.  It could save governments money, but won't ever happen because such decisions are undoubtedly made on a number of factors in addition to cost, such as how easy thinner/thicker letters are to read.
 
2014-03-29 02:10:46 AM  

emersonbiggins: Sometimes switching fonts costs more.  A LOT more.
 [churchrelevance.com image 468x228]


Every one knows hell when they see it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
2014-03-29 02:15:22 AM  

pxlboy: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

This. I have no idea why anyone would even bother with inkjet now given the much more economical cost of laser.


Because the initial purchase of the printer itself is cheaper, and last-generation idiots don't realize how much they're going to have to spend on ink until they've run out.
 
2014-03-29 02:16:16 AM  
Of course, the government would have to hire outside contractors to run around and change the default fonts on every application on every computer at every government agency, rewrite a few thousand applications, and redo a couple hundred thousand websites.  It shouldn't cost more than 50 billion dollars to implement and only take 20 years.
 
2014-03-29 02:18:09 AM  
Eager young student: "Hey guys!  I found a great way to save the government money!"

Government: (stifles yawn)

Eager young student: "There's practically no down side!  All you have to do is..."

Government: (glances at smartphone)

Eager young student: "You're not even going to listen to me, are you?"

Government: (texts NSA to put Suvir on no-fly list)
 
2014-03-29 02:20:42 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

Yep.  This is exactly what I expect someone who proposes to save money by changing fonts looks like.

/also exactly what I expect a student from Dorseyville to look like
 
2014-03-29 02:30:55 AM  
Here's a novel idea that could save 2 billion dollars. Stop printing documents and use the goddamn internet.

You're welcome.
 
2014-03-29 02:33:16 AM  

aerojockey: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

Yep.  This is exactly what I expect someone who proposes to save money by changing fonts looks like.

/also exactly what I expect a student from Dorseyville to look like


You'd better be nice. We're going to be working for him someday.
 
2014-03-29 02:34:10 AM  

Gunboat: Ambitwistor: I fully support this proposal, so long as all Congressional records are printed in Comic Sans.

http://bancomicsans.com/main/


ih3.redbubble.net
 
2014-03-29 02:36:22 AM  

Captain Dan: Eager young student: "Hey guys!  I found a great way to save the government money!"

Government: (stifles yawn)

Eager young student: "There's practically no down side!  All you have to do is..."

Government: (glances at smartphone)

Eager young student: "You're not even going to listen to me, are you?"

Government: (texts NSA to put Suvir on no-fly list)


Student:  Hey everyone, I spent 3 days proving what anyone can see in 10 seconds for my project!  The government could save money, though they'd have to make their text harder to see!

Daily Fail:  Genius student discovers foolproof way to save government money with no cost or downside that no one else has already noticed and decided isn't worth it!  Unprecedented discovery will change the world as we know it!

Student:  Um, that's not really what I said...

Daily Fail:  Do you mind if we lie and say in the headline that you're a gorgeous soon-to-be lingerie model?  Here, turn to the side, we're going to take some totally natural looking glamour photos.

Student:  You realize I'm a 14 year old boy?

Daily Fail:  Don't mind us, we're just shredding the remaining tatters of any journalistic integrity we might have once had.
 
2014-03-29 02:56:58 AM  
maybe letting it be outsourced to china isn't so great either.
 
2014-03-29 02:58:38 AM  
It's not a stupid idea, but perhaps there's a balance between readability and efficiency that's not obvious.

Although I'm more in favor of making the recipients pay more. IIRC, the FAR/AIM is printed privately for users who desire a hard copy. You can download a PDF of the official object, but the hard copy is another matter.

/Learned ATC from a PDF of the FARs.
//Not in a tower, but I have a card saying I'm a CTO laying around somewhere.
 
2014-03-29 03:04:10 AM  

Shostie: Yes. So simple. Also working under the presumption that the government is a single, hyper-efficient entity that can change things like that on a whim.


As a federal employee I can say you are wrong in spirit on this. A single order from the pres could easily get the executive branch in line.

Congress and the judicial could stick with times new roman, but would likely go with the flow just so they don't appear wasteful.

The question is whether the font would be harder to read or something. If so the recomendation is merely on par with suggesting a reduction in font size.

A better solution would be to continue going paperless as much as possible and stop requiring shiatloads of paper for the less important documents. For now though I would still like my paper criminal records and other things on file at the national records center.
 
2014-03-29 03:47:30 AM  

sycraft: My bet is this kid looked at the fonts, checked the price of the ink for his Lexmark printer which costs too much, threw some math at it based on guesses, and came up with a completely BS number.


He looked at total expenditure on printing costs. The question is whether and how he calculated how much of that printing costs is costs of ink/toner, but the article doesn't explain. But if he calculated that garamond uses, say 20% less ink than more common fonts, all he has to do is calculate/estimate what the total expenditure of the government is on ink/toner, both in office setting, government printing services and outsourced printing services. You come to x-amount and in theory you should then be able to cut 20% of x-amount by changing fonts. That's some pretty serious research and calculating work for ahigh school project if he did it correctly. Seeing what the government produces in paperwork, publications etc. $400 million doesn't sound strange.

There is nothing wrong with approach, the question is of course whether he calculated/estimated the x-amount in the right way.

And of course the way government works it will never be implemented in practice, and an important aspect of government publications is that it should be readable for everyone, so the fonts have to be clear and large enough.
 
2014-03-29 04:13:30 AM  
I think this sounds like a great idea.
 
2014-03-29 04:28:16 AM  

Avenger: Here's a novel idea that could save 2 billion dollars. Stop printing documents and use the goddamn internet.

You're welcome.


Until you pile on the cost of all the high paid nerds you'll need to manage the servers and provide tech support to the ladies who can't right-click.
 
2014-03-29 05:10:41 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: Also, the US Government Printing Office's budget is only about $130 million, so how are they going to save $400 million?


Now I know the government is terribly inefficient, by I believe that this figure was based on all the printers the government uses, not just the ones in the Printing Office.  I mean I assume that State, Defense, Interior, ext. all have their own ink jet printers on their computers, and don't have to go running to the Printing Office every time they want to print off an office report.

Of course, the study probably also assumes that the only thing being printed is text, which is probably also not true.  Even though, if it only saves a couple hundred million across the board, and keeps a few thousand fewer ink cartridges out of the landfills every year, maybe it is still worth doing.  Of course being the government, they will probably spend at least twice that much writing the new regulation.
 
2014-03-29 05:16:57 AM  
Bolder fonts increase legibility. Skinnier fonts decrease cost. If all you care about is cost, why not Print Clearly and Spirequal Light? Fantastic free fonts, great for design and headers, but you'd go cross-eyed trying to read a paragraph of them.

This article: TEEN DISCOVERS REVOLUTIONARY MONEY-SAVING FONT!! Daily Fail does not implement it. Reasons!

/Print less, farkers. Seriously. Printers are the absolute worst part of my job. Email that shiat.
//Printscreen and email it if you have to. Just don't print and scan and email it.
 
2014-03-29 05:19:25 AM  

Thanks, Obama.

 
2014-03-29 05:20:54 AM  
Big Ink will never let these suggestion through.
 
2014-03-29 05:52:38 AM  
This is a good science fair project-- kid had an idea, wondered if there was actually anything to it, came up with a way to quantify/falsify it, and performed the test.  That's exactly what the science fair is supposed to teach you, so... well done getting the lesson, have an A.

That said, the US government (and I assume others) have in fact looked into this and tend to use other fonts because of  readability, even in the scaled-up example in TFA Garamond was already having issues with the letters thinning out and becoming indistinct at the edges, something that can mess up words entirely at smaller font sizes.  I mean, legibility that low in one-inch letters is  not a good sign if you're going to print the manuals for how to handle the nuclear arsenal and so on in it.

Additionally, the government typically uses either full-scale or office-scale printing operations, so the price of Ink doesn't actually apply-- at the most expensive, they're using toner-based systems which are massively more efficient.  Ink jet printing isn't used by any group with more than 5 or 10 people, private or public.  This is a non-problem to begin with.

// Again, not being down on the kid here, this is a good science-fair project.  I'm just incredibly unamused that the news-media retards have managed to dramatically misinterpret the science of a goddamned  grade-school science project.
 
2014-03-29 05:56:13 AM  
Lose the serifs and think how much they could save?!
 
2014-03-29 06:02:28 AM  
That means more vacation time for the Oblunders.
 
2014-03-29 06:05:27 AM  

wildcardjack: /Learned ATC from a PDF of the FARs.
//Not in a tower, but I have a card saying I'm a CTO laying around somewhere.


Details/specifics, please..?  Out of honest interest..  EIP
 
2014-03-29 06:06:35 AM  
Kid finds way of saving printer manufacturers 400 million by convincing large entities to use less pigment when they're paying per page and not per cartridge.

/Wouldn't save our company a cent, Fuji Xerox would love it, though.
//FTA: "Gary Somerset, of the Government Printing Office, described the work as 'remarkable' but told CNN the office was focused more on switching to digital rather than changing the font." He should have studied the cost, savings and repercussions of a digital transition. Our company is currently working on this.
 
2014-03-29 06:12:57 AM  

bikkurikun: But if he calculated that garamond uses, say 20% less ink than more common fonts, all he has to do is calculate/estimate what the total expenditure of the government is on ink/toner, both in office setting, government printing services and outsourced printing services. You come to x-amount and in theory you should then be able to cut 20% of x-amount by changing fonts.


So what kind of magical super-printing do you use where it only uses ink/toner and not paper, electricity, maintenance, or employee time?
 
2014-03-29 06:13:32 AM  

Somaticasual: Of course, they'll spend 100 million licensing it from adobe..


And another $2 billion to implement the changeover, not to mention $500 million a year in monitoring and enforcement costs.
 
2014-03-29 06:31:02 AM  

Jim_Callahan: bikkurikun: But if he calculated that garamond uses, say 20% less ink than more common fonts, all he has to do is calculate/estimate what the total expenditure of the government is on ink/toner, both in office setting, government printing services and outsourced printing services. You come to x-amount and in theory you should then be able to cut 20% of x-amount by changing fonts.

So what kind of magical super-printing do you use where it only uses ink/toner and not paper, electricity, maintenance, or employee time?


I see reading comprehension is not your strongest point. As I said, you have to look at total expenditure on ink/toner. That is not that hard to figure out if you have access to financial reports, or to calculate if you have an idea of how much is produced. For outsourced printing services, you indeed have to look at how much of the price comes from ink/toner.  I have no doubt that for the government as a whole is a lot money.
 
2014-03-29 06:33:20 AM  

Riotboy: The opposite of progress.


Well, if the opposite of "pro" is "con", then the opposite of progress...........
 
2014-03-29 06:55:12 AM  
Didn't they run this story a year or two ago? Why is it suddenly news again?
 
2014-03-29 06:55:49 AM  
Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a 14year old's science project is a dumbass. There are so many flaws and holes in his logic that's it not really even worth going into it. Most of all, ink/toner is only a tiny fraction of the cost of printing for any non-inkjet printer and nobody uses an inkjet printer for bulk document printing (can you say slow?). Even if his savings percentage was 100% it seems extremely unlikely that the govt spends 400million a year on ink, much less on printing as a whole. If I had to take a stab at the actual savings of using a thinner font it might be >$1million. Implementation would cost many times that. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I will give the kid some props for using scientific methods. But he kind of half assed his research and made wild assumptions with no basis in reality. Boooo. And Boo to you if you were taken in by this. Try studying it out next time.
 
2014-03-29 07:01:29 AM  

Shostie: Yes. So simple. Also working under the presumption that the government is a single, hyper-efficient entity that can change things like that on a whim.


When the kid can make it happen, I'll believe he's smart. Any of us can make good observations.

It took my agency over five years to give in to its employees constantly suggesting we stop automatically printing cover sheets with every print job
 
2014-03-29 07:05:55 AM  

Intrepid00: Too bad most print jobs are done on printers that are charged per page instead of paying for the ink. I'm even doing this at home now with HP instant ink.


Instant ink is a horrible deal.
 
2014-03-29 07:08:35 AM  
Oh look, a good idea. No way the republicans will oppose it, right?
 
2014-03-29 07:18:15 AM  
Comic Sans 12 please.
It's informative and fun - like a clown with a thesaurus.
 
2014-03-29 07:34:35 AM  
Print all documents on 3D printers.
 
2014-03-29 07:36:05 AM  
Wow, teenage kid does a Google search on old news, adds bad math, gets National Media attention!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125639616
 
2014-03-29 07:44:24 AM  
i work for the city i live in.

MS Outlook uses Calibri as its font. Is Garamond better than Calibri?
 
2014-03-29 07:48:21 AM  

sethen320: Intrepid00: Too bad most print jobs are done on printers that are charged per page instead of paying for the ink. I'm even doing this at home now with HP instant ink.

Instant ink is a horrible deal.


No it isn't. You pay less per page AND you always max out quality. I did the math. I pay about per page what we do at the office.

I also currently do the cheapest which is one black or color cartridge. I don't print often and was losing ink to the maintenance inkjets do to keep unclogged.
 
2014-03-29 08:18:51 AM  
Go paperless and save TRILLIONS!

/Farker who is smarter than 99.97% of you
//I DNRTFA, did his parents help him come up with this brilliant idea?
///yaaaaawn
 
2014-03-29 08:43:13 AM  

WelldeadLink: Brilliant.
This kid has no future in government.


Sure he does!

It'll cost 400 million to change to Garamond.
 
2014-03-29 08:46:17 AM  
It's a clever hook, a simple solution and a neat project, but it's based on assumptions that aren't realistic.

For example, most modern offices use copier/laser printer combos, not inkjet printers.

Also, Times New Roman is commonly used because it's a default font designed for narrow columns, which suits many government applications. Nicer-looking fonts like Georgia or Garamond aren't used as commonly because they take up more space and don't work as well in newsletters, brochures or forms. (And as a result, saving money on ink might lead to spending more money on paper, printed materials storage, paper transportation costs and so forth).

So, the government official quoted in the article is right -- going digital really is the better solution. That doesn't mean the status quo couldn't be examined, but saving $400 million is likely unrealistic.
 
2014-03-29 08:49:09 AM  
"Tragically, the boy was found dead early this morning. Strangely, his mouth was completely stuffed with paper."

/from tomorrow's article
//don't piss off the gravy train
 
2014-03-29 08:53:19 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.



upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-29 08:56:56 AM  
HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111
HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111
 
2014-03-29 08:58:35 AM  
How much money will be wasted each time someone says "I still can't read that fax you sent. Just overnight it to me"?
 
2014-03-29 08:59:38 AM  
The kid's arial genius.
 
2014-03-29 09:00:28 AM  

Barfmaker: Now there's a guy who is never going to get laid in his entire life.


Because women hate smart guys.
 
2014-03-29 09:05:22 AM  
The government would spend twice that much on a lame feasibility study, and then reject the idea because a senator owns a bunch of stock in a printer ink company.
 
2014-03-29 09:12:34 AM  
Well for gods sakes do not try to get a congressional Democrat to submit a bill to implement this because if it has a "D" after the bill the GOP will be automatically against it, even if it does save taxpayers money.
 
2014-03-29 09:15:04 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.


trck vs trck, one is for moving materials down the road and the other is for runners, which is which?  Or am I trckng you.
 
2014-03-29 09:15:23 AM  

RogermcAllen: I wonder what the savings would be if we just switched to 11.5 font as the default.


THIS.

/it's pretty much what the "kid" suggested, and not tainted with the "frenchness" of Garamond...
 
2014-03-29 09:15:38 AM  

Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.


Given that Obama's federal drug pruchasing program forbids bulk pricing, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's printer ink acquisition laws forbids it too.
 
2014-03-29 09:21:56 AM  

lack of warmth: itcamefromschenectady: It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.

trck vs trck, one is for moving materials down the road and the other is for runners, which is which?  Or am I trckng you.


don't confuse the poor dear by demonstrating the flaw in their plan. Entertainment value, don't ya know?
 
2014-03-29 09:26:33 AM  

WelldeadLink: itcamefromschenectady: Also, the US Government Printing Office's budget is only about $130 million, so how are they going to save $400 million?

They'll save $3 billion in inkjet ink.


Because they aren't the only ones who print?
 
2014-03-29 09:30:43 AM  
We need regulated ink pricing!
 
2014-03-29 09:32:07 AM  

Braggi: We need regulated ink pricing!


Hush, we're still dealing with oil wars, we can't begin to start paying for the ink wars.
 
2014-03-29 09:38:14 AM  
The substantial majority of printed material is printed in bulk by bulk printers and not with laser or inkjet printers.
 
2014-03-29 09:43:24 AM  
ho9od35yvs05ejqn.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com
 
2014-03-29 09:57:34 AM  
Shostie [TotalFark]
2014-03-28 08:45:01 PM


Yes. So simple. Also working under the presumption that the government is a single, hyper-efficient entity that can change things like that on a whim.

republican in office - farklibs "change now"

democrat in office "change can't happen on a whim"

// cause drop downs are harrrrd.
 
2014-03-29 09:58:13 AM  

Ambivalence: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.


Yes. Yes it is cheap.
 
2014-03-29 10:00:19 AM  
The government probably uses the same method that most larger businesses use for printing which is leasing.    This way the maintenance and upgrade problems are passed on to a company that is specifically trained by the copier manufacturers to deal with those messes.  Toner used isn't a part of the equation - they pay per click. One click is anything printed on 1 -  8.5x11 sheet.  That cost which includes toner and maintenance is probably about 2 cents per sheet in black and 10 cents for color.  A sheet with a single black dot on it is 2 cents.  A sheet completely black is 2 cents.  The amount of toner used doesn't matter.

But let's say that they really could benefit from using less toner.  The company I work for uses Canon copiers.  Each cartridge would cost about $75 if we bought them outside of our contract.  Each cartridge is good for more than 40,000 sheets at the common 5% coverage.  That's .18 cents or $0.0018 per page.

If the gov is spending $467,000,000 on toner, then it must be printing about 260,000,000,000 sheets per year.  That's more than 800 sheets for every man, woman and child alive in the US today.  Does that sound right to you?
 
2014-03-29 10:04:15 AM  
Have any of you actually tried to read something printed by the GPO? It's horrible, and making the font smaller is a very bad idea.
 
2014-03-29 10:09:10 AM  
when half of the pages in your documents look like this:
www.pjvoice.com
font doesn't matter.
 
2014-03-29 10:13:38 AM  
Why bother? Michelle Obama will just use that $400M to print up new lobster menus.
 
2014-03-29 10:52:49 AM  

zzzzt: If the gov is spending $467,000,000 on toner, then it must be printing about 260,000,000,000 sheets per year.  That's more than 800 sheets for every man, woman and child alive in the US today.  Does that sound right to you?


Yes. Yes it does.
 
2014-03-29 11:04:00 AM  

The Googles Do Nothing: HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111


Joke's on you. These pixels are 100% recyclable.
 
2014-03-29 12:13:28 PM  

italie: zzzzt: If the gov is spending $467,000,000 on toner, then it must be printing about 260,000,000,000 sheets per year.  That's more than 800 sheets for every man, woman and child alive in the US today.  Does that sound right to you?

Yes. Yes it does.


There is no way that every government employee in the country prints over 40 pages every working day. And how can they save 85% of the toner by switching fonts?

The government, like every other business, has been using more and more electronic documents and fewer printed ones. I have worked for a government contractor and I handled electronic documents exclusively. I currently work for a nonprofit that's owned by a public entity and I haven't printed a single sheet of paper in more than a month.

When I mentioned the US Gov. Printing Office having a much smaller budget than the purported savings, it wasn't because I thought nobody ever prints out anything independently of it, but because it is absurd to think that the rest of the government prints out orders of magnitude more stuff, when the GPO has a small budget and is printing out fewer and fewer things because of people moving to electronic documents. The point of having a Printing Office is to save costs by centralizing the significant jobs.

If the article was actually serious and not click bait, it would have talked about percentages.
 
2014-03-29 12:18:19 PM  
I can save the the US government $400 BILLION dollars in incarceration and law enforcement and legal costs...simply by eliminating welfare.
 
2014-03-29 12:25:52 PM  

Ambivalence: Laser printers use toner. It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.


Actually it is. Just buy the toner and refill the cartridges yourself.
 
2014-03-29 12:27:23 PM  

Barfmaker: Now there's a guy who is never going to get laid in his entire life.


No, that's not necessarily true...but he'll only get skinny twinks.
 
2014-03-29 12:30:48 PM  
Aren't printing costs usually a flat rate per page?
 
2014-03-29 01:06:47 PM  
print everything in Braille. no ink at all!
 
2014-03-29 01:37:25 PM  
TIL there are still plenty of people out there that own inkjet printers.

Sometimes reality will blow your farking mind. This was one of those days.
 
2014-03-29 01:44:43 PM  
dennysgod:
Well for gods sakes do not try to get a congressional Democrat to submit a bill to implement this because if it has a "D" after the bill the GOP will be automatically against it, even if it does save taxpayers money.

With their recent track record, a Democrat-supported bill to enforce this would cost $400 billion, and wouldn't be implemented in full for twenty years, just in time for everyone else to stop using printers altogether.

They could call it the Affordable Toner Act.
 
2014-03-29 02:02:21 PM  

Ambivalence: Abzzstain: Because the government only uses inkjet printers and buys single cartridges at retail prices. Surely no one in the government has ever heard of bulk purchasing. Or laser printers.

Laser printers use toner.  It's the "ink" equivalent and it aint cheap.


It's a lot cheaper than ink.
 
2014-03-29 02:35:26 PM  
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/03/28/sixth-grader-tells - government-how-to-save-400m-on-ink/

So he's a 14 year old 6th grader?  Held back for googling science fair projects?
 
2014-03-29 02:37:59 PM  

Saturn5: Wow, people are protective of their government font.  Fixing Global Warming - we can do that, but changing fonts is hard.


Actually, changing fonts IS hard.

Sure, it's no problem for a basic text document.  But when you're dealing with forms, you can't just change the font and have it format correctly.

So if you change the font, you've got to redesign all those forms, and the government has a lot of forms.  So a font change means that you're going to have to pay a designer to redo all of those so that it looks good.  I'm going to make a guess that if you were to redesign all the government forms so that you could go to a new font, you're going to spend many, years of ink savings on the redesign if you're using expensive inkjet ink.  You'd probably be talking decades of savings to recoup if you're talking about toner.  And if it's bulk offset printing ink?  Probably centuries.
 
2014-03-29 03:10:39 PM  
The GSA has had PrintWise in place for a few years now, and this kid is suggesting the government use a font they've already been recommending since at least 2012.  How is this kid deserving any credit?
 
2014-03-29 03:46:27 PM  

Zygar:


It took almost 10 posts to note MCLOVIN, I am disappoint.
 
2014-03-29 03:50:44 PM  

DarkVader: So a font change means that you're going to have to pay a designer to redo all of those so that it looks good.


Hahaha, you think government forms look good?

Oh man, I have the handwriting of a 3rd grader and I could still take a blank sheet of people and make things look better than some of our computer generated documents where I fill in the blanks and hit print.

We have one where we click a box and if the sentence isn't applicable, it prints with a line of X's typed over the sentence.  That is a document that will potentially be used in court, too.
 
2014-03-29 04:00:36 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: italie: zzzzt: If the gov is spending $467,000,000 on toner, then it must be printing about 260,000,000,000 sheets per year.  That's more than 800 sheets for every man, woman and child alive in the US today.  Does that sound right to you?

Yes. Yes it does.

There is no way that every government employee in the country prints over 40 pages every working day. And how can they save 85% of the toner by switching fonts?

The government, like every other business, has been using more and more electronic documents and fewer printed ones. I have worked for a government contractor and I handled electronic documents exclusively. I currently work for a nonprofit that's owned by a public entity and I haven't printed a single sheet of paper in more than a month.

When I mentioned the US Gov. Printing Office having a much smaller budget than the purported savings, it wasn't because I thought nobody ever prints out anything independently of it, but because it is absurd to think that the rest of the government prints out orders of magnitude more stuff, when the GPO has a small budget and is printing out fewer and fewer things because of people moving to electronic documents. The point of having a Printing Office is to save costs by centralizing the significant jobs.

If the article was actually serious and not click bait, it would have talked about percentages.



There was some snark in my comment that apparently wasn't tagged right.
 
2014-03-29 04:25:40 PM  

The Googles Do Nothing: HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111


What color is a monitor when it's powered off?  BLACK, dummy.

The more black pixels you put on my screen, the more money you're SAVING me.

Thanks!!!
 
2014-03-29 04:49:00 PM  

poot_rootbeer: The Googles Do Nothing: HA! HA! HA!

I'M WASTING YOUR PIXELS111

What color is a monitor when it's powered off?  BLACK, dummy.

The more black pixels you put on my screen, the more money you're SAVING me.

Thanks!!!


How do you like me now?
 
2014-03-29 05:09:19 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: itcamefromschenectady: It's been proven that you don't actually need vowels to understand English, so why not ban them from government publications? That will save a lot of ink.

So, you're suggesting a vowel resection?


I lol'd, had 3 of them. Well done.
 
2014-03-29 08:22:52 PM  
Times New Roman has a pretty strong and well-funded lobby, so I predict failure.
 
2014-03-29 10:51:39 PM  
There was an article published by CNet in 2010 ( link: http://www.cnet.com/news/the-right-font-can-save-you-money/  )

And I don't think they were the first to report this.

And the Cnet story went green here, too.
 
2014-03-29 11:02:39 PM  
The government could save a fortune if they replaced all the staff with 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters.

/be more productive too
 
2014-03-30 12:06:48 AM  
The headline says 'font'.  Garamond vs. Times New Roman is not a different 'font', subtard.  It is a different typeface.
Bold is a font.
Italic is a font.
Garamond is not a font.  It is a typeface.  How do you feel getting a greenlight for being a moran?
 
2014-03-30 12:38:45 AM  
Petition the president! All government docs in wingdings!
 
2014-03-30 03:22:17 AM  

syrynxx: The headline says 'font'.  Garamond vs. Times New Roman is not a different 'font', subtard.  It is a different typeface.
Bold is a font.
Italic is a font.
Garamond is not a font.  It is a typeface.  How do you feel getting a greenlight for being a moran?


Nerd
 
2014-03-30 06:30:52 AM  
They could save more than that by not printing "This page intentionally left blank" on the pages that would be blank if they hadn't printed "This page intentionally left blank" on them.
 
2014-03-30 07:38:36 AM  
Why don`t they email more. I`m sure that would save even more ink...

I got told in the 70`s that we would have paperless offices.

I`m still waiting and bits of paper still come through my front door like people will be whipped if they don`t send more.

I have an email address, it stores every bit of correspondence I get. I store it in multiple places and don`t need to visit my home address to get a message. I have one for business and one for friends so I can just get the emails I want when on holiday etc.

It`s a better system but they insist that unless something is printed on paper then they have not sent it or received it.

Luddites.

"I`ve found a way for the horse and cart to use only 3 bales of hay a day instead of four"

Stop propping up an old and broken system and come up with something better if you think you are so smart...
 
2014-03-30 07:39:22 AM  

fredbox: They could save more than that by not printing "This page intentionally left blank" on the pages that would be blank if they hadn't printed "This page intentionally left blank" on them.


They could turn it into a joke about a blank page paradox that`s only funny if you don`t read it.
 
2014-03-30 11:11:16 AM  
Gary Somerset, of the Government Printing Office, described the work as 'remarkable' but told CNN the office was focused more on switching to digital rather than changing the font.

Because it's not like they could implement ONE solution while working towards the other, or something. What a prick.
 
Displayed 191 of 191 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report