important | writing notes

So today I came across the site Blackle -which is basically a black version of Google. Black as in the background is black rather than white. The reasoning for this is found on their about page which states, among other things:

Blackle saves energy because the screen is predominantly black. “Image displayed is primarily a function of the user’s color settings and desktop graphics, as well as the color and size of open application windows; a given monitor requires more power to display a white (or light) screen than a black (or dark) screen.” Roberson et al, 2002

In January 2007 a blog post titled Black Google Would Save 750 Megawatt-hours a Year proposed the theory that a black version of the Google search engine would save a fair bit of energy due to the popularity of the search engine. Since then there has been skepticism about the significance of the energy savings that can be achieved and the cost in terms of readability of black web pages.

So how should we react to things like this? Sure there is a minor saving and Yes a minor saving is not to be ignored. But (you knew that was coming didn’t you?) what is the point of the average wasteful consumer ignoring all other advice and then changing from Google to Blackle?

Taken on a larger level what is the point of minor energy conservation schemes in relation to the damage we are doing? Don’t get me wrong I truely believe in the importance of the accumalitve effect of small savings but in relation to energy and the environment I get the impression we are sometimes creating false feelings of contributing.

What do I mean? Well if the average (whatever that means) wasteful person feels like they are making a contribution to the environment by switching to a black start or search page then the net result saving is infinitesimal BUT the feelgood effect in the wasteful person will allow them to continue with the otherwise wasteful lifestyles and still claim to care and to contribute.

Or maybe I just a Monday morning cynic and this is an important step in awareness and energy savings…

MissPrism over at A Somewhat Old, But Capacious Handbag has created an interesting meme: Ten books you’re supposed to like but I didn’t. So here is my list (in no particular order):

Lord of the Rings (1939-1944) by Tolkien – I was upset to discover that I did not like this book. I forced myself to read the whole book while on holiday in Sardinia but felt often enough that I wanted to chuck it into the pool. Sorry I just don’t get fantasy fiction or science fiction (see below). But I really like the movies.

Neuromancer (1984) by William Gibson – This upset me less. For me science fiction is great for movies but not worth reading about. The only exception to the scifi rule for me is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy which is actually a great comic work which just happens to be in space.

Zen and the art of motorcycle maintanence (1974) by Robert Pirsig – This is still annoying and I will probably give this another shot. I know it’s not important but it was for a while just “one of those books” and I just couldn’t get into it.

Great Expectations (1860) by Charles Dickens. I blame my schoolteachers for this. Why on earth would they think that this book would interest young children? It ruined Dickens completely for me. I would not be shocked if I eventually tried and enjoyed Dickens at a later date but still today after 30 years I have no desire to read this book, or any others by him. Good work teachers!

A Brief History of Time (1988) by Stephen W. Hawking. Apparently has been printed in over 9 million copies. Honestly folks I know you have it in your bookshelf – have you read it? I could not. The title and author make me want to but as soon as I get close to it, I pick another book.

On the Road (1951) by Jack Kerouac – you have got to be kidding me. Boring, boring… but wait! the next book is the same…

Catcher in the Rye (1951) by J. D. Salinger – again, you have got to be kidding me. Maybe this and On the Road is a generational thing. Boring, boring, boring. I think I would rather read Dickens (see comment above).

Heart of Darkness (1902) by Joseph Conrad. Yes, yes I know. The horror, the horror. I own two or three copies of this book which is proof of my valiant effort to enjoy it. I have read it from cover to cover more times than it deserves. Give it up it’s just not good.

To the lighthouse (1927) by Virginia Woolf. Didn’t like it. Is this a gender thing? Nope! I just didn’t want to finish it. It wasn’t worth reading.

For whom the bell tolls (1940) by Ernst Hemmingway. Nope. The one dimensional macho characters just don’t grip me. It’s just a boys own comic without pictures. A time capsule. But some people are fascinated. Go figure.

Well there it is. Another list. Think of it as light Friday entertainment. Think of it as an admission of bad taste. But what do you think? What would be on your list?