answered question
0
Votes
Votes
3
Answers
Answers
M$0.25
How many people know about http://blackle.com?
trying to see how mant people are environmentaly friendly
answers (2)
I am interested in being environmentally friendly, but I'm not convinced blackle.com is particularly helpful.
As mentioned in this artilcle, LCD monitors and laptops really don't seem to benefit from less power consumption using black instead of white (or any other color).
I don't have any non-LCD monitors anymore, so I'm not very interested.
Also, I am of the opinion that white text on a black background is hard on the eyes (something that I am very concerned about)
As mentioned in this artilcle, LCD monitors and laptops really don't seem to benefit from less power consumption using black instead of white (or any other color).
I don't have any non-LCD monitors anymore, so I'm not very interested.
Also, I am of the opinion that white text on a black background is hard on the eyes (something that I am very concerned about)
source(s):
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-a-darkened-google-really-save-electric...
http://www.website.net.nz/post/blackle-doesnt-work
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-a-darkened-google-really-save-electric...
http://www.website.net.nz/post/blackle-doesnt-work
It's a marketing gimmick to get ad revenue from search results.
LCD displays don't use less power for black. The backlight is always on. "Black" is displayed by the liquid crystal polarization default state of blocking 100% in all 3 colors (red/green/blue). White is displayed by turning all settings to non-blocking.
The 2002 reference was to a study on EPA ratings for "on" v. "off" power consumption. A reference was made to these LCDs made in 2000-2001 consuming 1-3 Watts more energy, but no further study was made into the reason. The report _did_ say that the backlight brightness on the LCD is has greater effect on power consumption than any colors displayed on-screen. At the end of that page, the report states:
"More thorough testing is needed to characterize and quantify the effect of all these variables (monitor brightness, contrast, refresh rate, resolution, and screen color) on the range of CRT and LCD on power."
The 2007 reference is a blog post where the author has made no study at all...just repeats the marketing gab from Blackle.com. Some commenters below that blog post have attempted to correct the fallacies.
What would _really_ have a measurable effect on reducing power consumption from Google searches?
1. get everyone with CRTs to switch to LCDs
2. install hard switch to turn off all electronics...the power supplies still consume significant energy when "off"
3. get everyone to turn down the backlights (or brightness settings) to the minimum settings required to read without eyestrain.
4. turn down the lights in the room and darken the shades...you can turn the backlight down more, and save electricity on the room lighting
5. shut down the Blackle servers and routing equipment, which only serve to intercept Google traffic, show you the Google results, then take the advertising revenue.
There's so much obvious deception out there. The FTC has guidelines on the use of "green" marketing tactics. This site Blackle.com is clearly ignoring the guidelines, specifically section 260.5:
--quote
ยง 260.5 Interpretation and substantiation of environmental marketing claims
Section 5 of the FTC Act makes unlawful deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce....In addition, any party making an express or implied claim that presents an objective assertion about the environmental attribute...possess and rely upon a reasonable basis substantiating the claim....such substantiation will often require competent and reliable scientific evidence, defined as tests, analyses, research, studies or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results....
---end quote
So...equipment that is almost a decade old, products no longer on the market, data tables with no conclusive findings, blog posts which regurgitate the source marketing speak...
I'm not buying the snake oil here.
My 2-cents.
LCD displays don't use less power for black. The backlight is always on. "Black" is displayed by the liquid crystal polarization default state of blocking 100% in all 3 colors (red/green/blue). White is displayed by turning all settings to non-blocking.
The 2002 reference was to a study on EPA ratings for "on" v. "off" power consumption. A reference was made to these LCDs made in 2000-2001 consuming 1-3 Watts more energy, but no further study was made into the reason. The report _did_ say that the backlight brightness on the LCD is has greater effect on power consumption than any colors displayed on-screen. At the end of that page, the report states:
"More thorough testing is needed to characterize and quantify the effect of all these variables (monitor brightness, contrast, refresh rate, resolution, and screen color) on the range of CRT and LCD on power."
The 2007 reference is a blog post where the author has made no study at all...just repeats the marketing gab from Blackle.com. Some commenters below that blog post have attempted to correct the fallacies.
What would _really_ have a measurable effect on reducing power consumption from Google searches?
1. get everyone with CRTs to switch to LCDs
2. install hard switch to turn off all electronics...the power supplies still consume significant energy when "off"
3. get everyone to turn down the backlights (or brightness settings) to the minimum settings required to read without eyestrain.
4. turn down the lights in the room and darken the shades...you can turn the backlight down more, and save electricity on the room lighting
5. shut down the Blackle servers and routing equipment, which only serve to intercept Google traffic, show you the Google results, then take the advertising revenue.
There's so much obvious deception out there. The FTC has guidelines on the use of "green" marketing tactics. This site Blackle.com is clearly ignoring the guidelines, specifically section 260.5:
--quote
ยง 260.5 Interpretation and substantiation of environmental marketing claims
Section 5 of the FTC Act makes unlawful deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce....In addition, any party making an express or implied claim that presents an objective assertion about the environmental attribute...possess and rely upon a reasonable basis substantiating the claim....such substantiation will often require competent and reliable scientific evidence, defined as tests, analyses, research, studies or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results....
---end quote
So...equipment that is almost a decade old, products no longer on the market, data tables with no conclusive findings, blog posts which regurgitate the source marketing speak...
I'm not buying the snake oil here.
My 2-cents.
source(s):
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm
p.19 http://enduse.lbl.gov/Info/LBNL-48581.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm
p.19 http://enduse.lbl.gov/Info/LBNL-48581.pdf
voted helpful: dannyjohnson
140 characters left
ask any question
