Yes, but would it? I'm all for NPR getting funding, but I like my government and my public radio to be as separate as possible. Printer ink really is crazy expensive though. There must be a better solution to home printing than what we've got now.
Tell that to little Ricardo living in rural Nebraska when he ends up having no public radio station to listen to anymore, he also has no wifi or cable access. All poor little Ricardo had was NPR. Now he destined to a life of ignorance completely devoid of leftist leaning comedy quiz shows and folksy-sing along shows out of MN. You sir, are a monster.
I don't know what NPR is like in other states, but in NH it's pretty well-funded by the public (including businesses) and has to be as it receives very little funding from the state anyway. My advice to Ricardo is to leave Nebraska. He could go back to school, perhaps even go back for more cheaply if his state chooses to invest in state universities with money they save by printing very faint memos on very thin paper stock. - The State of NebraskaEducate thyself Ricardo!
The further away you get from an urban center the more public broadcasting stations are funded by government money. I've heard the claim that many rural stations would have to close up shop without government subsidy. I don't know how true this is but it at least sounds plausible.
Laser Printers. A bit more expensive, but it doesn't use expensive ink. Cheaper in the long run, especially if you don't print that much.Printer ink really is crazy expensive though. There must be a better solution to home printing than what we've got now.
Ink cartridges for your printer are expensive because that's how printer manufacturers make their profit, not because the ink is actually expensive.
The GPO uses actual presses. 5 minutes of Googling finds 5 pound cans of opaque blacks (what you'd want for printing pages of text) going for $25-60. A five pound can of ink goes a lot farther than a cartridge for an inkjet printer.Printer ink really is crazy expensive though. There must be a better solution to home printing than what we've got now.
The "government" in "teen to government" was the GPO, yeah? So the price of printer cartages would only be relevant if the GPO used them.
Except you added "home printing", so you're not talking about the proposal the article is about. In which case you can probably find instructions for refilling your printer's cartridges. There are probably kits for your printer, but you usually just need some syringes and process inks. Or Office Max will do it for you, which will be more expensive but much less expensive than buying new ones.
It seems that Madeleine Stix (the writer of the article) brings printer ink up to contextualize costs for people who are more familiar with the price of HP ink cartridges (and I guess Chanel perfume?) than the kind of ink the GPO uses. Also, if you take a look at the video (@ 1:59-2:06), the teen in question states that his goal is not necessarily to get the GPO to change its practices, but "to get a few individuals to change." I have seen the process you're talking about and I've also read that home printers are very wasteful, perhaps even by design. To me, a better solution entails cheaper ink, but also very efficient machines that minimize waste. Of course, where's the profit in that?"Ink is two times more expensive than French perfume by volume," Suvir says with a chuckle.
He's right: Chanel No. 5 perfume costs $38 per ounce, while the equivalent amount of Hewlett-Packard printer ink can cost up to $75.