Black Is The New Green
My kid showed me something today, and I just had to pass it on. Everybody is concerned about energy use, resource depletion, and taking care of the planet, and here is a simple and too-cool way to save energy.
If, like me, Google has become the replacement for your brain -- I don't bother to remember or know things any more, it is too easy to Google for information -- then you can help save a good amount of electricity by switching to Blackle. The idea for this is so obvious and dumb that you'll laugh when you hear it.
Last year a blogger named Mark Ontkush noted that it takes 74 watts to display a white screen and only 59 watts for an all-black one.
So the not-evil people at Google got the word and created Blackle, which is just Google but with a black background.
I have Google set as my home page on all my computers -- I'm switching to Blackle right now. It's so easy.
If, like me, Google has become the replacement for your brain -- I don't bother to remember or know things any more, it is too easy to Google for information -- then you can help save a good amount of electricity by switching to Blackle. The idea for this is so obvious and dumb that you'll laugh when you hear it.
Last year a blogger named Mark Ontkush noted that it takes 74 watts to display a white screen and only 59 watts for an all-black one.
Take at look at Google, who gets about 200 million queries a day. Let's assume each query is displayed for about 10 seconds; that means Google is running for about 550,000 hours every day on some desktop. Assuming that users run Google in full screen mode, the shift to a black background [on a CRT monitor! mjo] will save a total of 15 (74-59) watts. That turns into a global savings of 8.3 Megawatt-hours per day, or about 3000 Megawatt-hours a year. Now take into account that about 25 percent of the monitors in the world are CRTs, and at 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, that's $75,000, a goodly amount of energy and dollars for changing a few color codes.
So the not-evil people at Google got the word and created Blackle, which is just Google but with a black background.
I have Google set as my home page on all my computers -- I'm switching to Blackle right now. It's so easy.
posted by JimK at 7:01 AM
40 Comments:
cool idea, Jim
can we do it with blogger?
I find it very straining on the eyes to read pages with a black background. I doubt this is going to catch on.
Democrats, again:
"CHICAGO (Dec. 9) - Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on Tuesday on charges he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder in what a federal prosecutor called a "corruption crime spree.""
yep, from Barney Frank's boyfriend running a male prostitute business from Barney's townhouse to Bill Clinton taking advantage of young interns just out of college to William Jefferson in Louisiana:
it's always something with them dang Dems!
Andrea- not anon
Right- because Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen and David Vitter are all choir boys- or they liked choir boys- well, 3 out of 4 did anyway.
memba, Andreary, at the time you only Repubs were fallible
difference is, corrupt Repubs leave office
Barney Frank sticks around to screw up our economy decades later
David Vitter is still in office bad anonymous. The gay offenders they get rid of, the heterosexual ones get a pass.
And Barney Frank didn't do anything wrong, he was unaware of the prostitution business.
Barney Frank is the main culprit of our present economic troubles and should be jailed
Anon is dipping into the JD unusually early tonight.
"passerby" should be locked in the cell with him
this oughta scare the heck outta 'em:
"AP SAN FRANCISCO – Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians"
I know I'm scared
what ever will we do!
tomorrow is D DAY!
seems like traffic was particularly heavy this morning
guess that "call in gay" day is as big as bust as the "intimidate the mormons" day a couple of weeks back
heard the judge out in California couldn't contain his laughter reading the suit filed to invalidate historically significant Prop 8
the day the lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement died
Why are you hiding bad anonymous?
What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the black community in the U.S.?
You said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."
Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?
"passerby" should be locked in the cell with him
Anon expresses another repressed desire.
Anon noted:
“the day the lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement died”
No such luck Anon… we’re still here, and still fringe-y as ever!
:D
Cynthia
(Where did I put my pink earrings?)
I think maybe you dropped them into my glitter slippers.
rrjr
"What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the black community in the U.S.?"
I'm not answering until I get an answer from Alvin.
Even Robert admits I'm right now:
"The reality is that men who have sex with men, along with other demographic groups, in this country represent a disproportionate number of new HIV infections and cases of AIDS. A discussion about that would be interesting and fruitful,"
Let's have that discussion!
Andrea- not anon
Larry Craig has not resigned either- he will leave office in January. Don't bother making up lies, anon- it doesn't work here.
This post has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous said "I'm not answering until I get an answer from Alvin".
What a childish excuse. Alvin did answer you, he said it was a self-esteem issue. You made some preposterous assertions about how that wasn't tue, I exposed the fallacy in those assertions and you ignored my response because you're wrong. You're just afraid to answer because it'll expose your claim that gay sex is dangerous as the hogwash it is.
Bad anonymous said "Even Robert admits I'm right now:".
Robert's statement was in no way an agreement that you are right.
Bad anonymous said "Let's have that discussion!".
Well then let's have it already! I've been trying to have that discussion with you for two days and you've been running like a coward - you don't really want to have that discussion, hence your pathetic excuse that you're not going to talk until Alvin answers the question he's already answered.
And now, this has nothing to do with Alvin, so no excuses:
You said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."
Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?
did anyone stay home for "call in gay" day?
I went to a Christmas gathering downtown
the place was hopping
it almost seems everyone was looking for a chance to show they don't support the gay agenda
I think it was quite smashing of the gay community to admit that calling in gay is the same thing as calling in sick!
Ipso facto: gay is sick
If I don't "answer" your question, does that mean you won't come back on here with the same mess.
Allow me to quote Robert from another post:
"I've noticed that trolls on other blogs seem to have some of the same characteristics as our own troll here. The central pattern seems to be write posts which are empty of content, to repeatedly accuse others of making statements without support, to ask endless questions, then to whine when others don't answer those questions."
That's you to a tee, anonymous.
on the other hand, you could just answer the question as to why gays get AIDS at such a high rate in areas like Frisco where they are an embraced part of society
you're doing a good job of dodging though
you'll feel better about yourself if you just admit the truth:
AIDS is not as widespread in South Carolina as San Francisco because they don't put up with a bunch of gay crap down south
the less gay crap, the less AIDS
More speculation and more nonsense.
Are you half conscious or do you want to look like an uninformed so-and-so.
I ask you this because your statement was dumb. How else can one compare a city (San Francisco) to a state (South Carolina)
Being a resident of South Carolina (I assume you are not one), I am curious as to what "gay crap" are you talking about? We have several gay organizations in South Carolina- I am a board member of two of them and a member of two more.
You accuse me of dodging but how can I dodge when you haven't pulled out any facts or figures. You act as if I should give your silly speculations credibility.
I went to a Christmas gathering downtown
the place was hopping
Did you meet any girls?
I love blackle and it looks neat, too!
Thanks for the post, Jim.
"Being a resident of South Carolina (I assume you are not one), I am curious as to what "gay crap" are you talking about? We have several gay organizations in South Carolina- I am a board member of two of them and a member of two more."
You're not going to see a couple of guys making out on Gervais or a gay pride parade in Five Points with blasphemous floats or an S&M street festival at the fairgrounds or gay politicians being sworn in under a palm tree.
You see all that gay crap in San Francisco and the normalization and resulting higher self-esteeem has given them a higher AIDS rate.
You have to admit the attitude towards gays is a little different.
Please deny it's so and totally destroy your credibility.
Bad anonymous is still dodging my questions because he knows the positions he's taken can't stand up to scrutiny.
Bad anonymous said "on the other hand, you could just answer the question as to why gays get AIDS at such a high rate in areas like Frisco where they are an embraced part of society...AIDS is not as widespread in South Carolina as San Francisco".
You haven't proven that AIDS is higher in San Francisco than in South Carolina, show us the study. And gays are not an embraced part of society in San Francisoc, oppression of LGBTs is rampant:
http://transgroupblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/cold-showers-and-statistics.html
A study in the San Francisco Bay Area conducted in 2006 of 194 transgender individuals found a 35% unemployment rate, with 59% earning less than $15,300 annually.
Nationwide, the rates of employment discrimination against transgender people are consistently high. A Williams Institute review of six studies conducted in cities and regions on both coasts and the Midwest, showed the following ranges for experiences of discrimination based on gender identity:
13%-56% of transgender people had been fired
13%-47% had been denied employment
22%-31% had been harassed, either verbally or physically, in the workplace.
A large number, possibly a majority, of transwomen are likely to have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives.
Bad anonymous thinks (without evidence) that gays in San Francisco have higher rates of AIDS. If this is true then it is true that gays in Massachusetts have lower rates of AIDS and Massacchusetts is where gays are "embraced" more and allowed to marry. Thus the opposite of his theory holds true - where gays are embraced and allowed to marry there are lower rates of AIDS.
Bad anonymous said "you're doing a good job of dodging though".
The one that's dodging is you. You can tell that the reason why the gay community has a higher rate of AIDS is answered by one of your own comments:
You said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."
Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?
Stop dodging the question, be a man and face the implications of your own beliefs.
Trolls rule.
It's worth noting that Anon does not want to have a discussion on why HIV rates are different in different demographic groups.
He wants to trap people into making statements which he can construe to mean that queer people are bad.
Why is this?
Priya, Priya
there's so much you don't understand
stats can be misleading
go to San Francisco, go to the capital of South Carolina
then come back and tell us attitudes toward gays are identical
"that queer people are bad."
let's just say they need help
many are unstable and do dangerous things on a regular basis
and, let's figure why they have such a high rate of AIDS infection
what behavior is causing this?
Thanks for the example, Anonymous. It's so nice to have such support from you.
rrjr
any explanation about that high rate of AIDS infection in gays, Robert?
Alvin and Priya can't bring themselves to speak the obvious.
Bad anonymous said "there's so much you don't understand,stats can be misleading, go to San Francisco, go to the capital of South Carolina,then come back and tell us attitudes toward gays are identical".
I understand far more than you, or at least far more than you'll admit to. The onus is on the person making an assertion to prove it, not on the skeptic to disprove it. You've asserted that attitudes towards gays and AIDS rates are different in South Carolina and San Francisco, that's pure speculation on your part, present your proof or admit you're wrong.
Bad anonymous said "any explanation about that high rate of AIDS infection in gays, Robert?Alvin and Priya can't bring themselves to speak the obvious.".
What makes you think the explanation for the high rate of AIDS in gays is any different than the explanation for the high rate in blacks? Alvin and I have spoken the obvious, and you've inadvertently touched on it despite yourself. Its you who now can't bring yourself to speak the obvious and is now trying desperately to hide from your own beliefs:
You said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."
Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?
Stop dodging the question, be a man and face the implications of your own beliefs. Admit it the reason for the high rate in both groups is because when you tell a person they're bad for benign reasons like being black or gay they have no reason not be bad by being promiscuous.
I do have opinions on the matter anonymous, and some research and experts who support them.
Here's the difference between you and me: I want to have the discussion to reduce the impact of the epidemic. You just want to put down queer people.
Do you understand why there is not a discussion of HIV/AIDS in the comments of this blog? You, and sometimes Theresa, pollute the discussion by using it to arm yourself with pejorative statements about queer people; and, we must always remember, this is a public blog and groups such as CRC/W and PFOX are always lurking around to use our statements against us.
Given this, no fruitful discussion in this forum is possible.
Do you realize that people aren't really discussing the rightfulness of being gay with you? They're just being annoyed with you.
Oh, forgive me, I forgot; that's just what you want.
Honey, you need to talk to someone.
"I want to have the discussion to reduce the impact of the epidemic. You just want to put down queer people."
Don't you see, Robert.
"Putting down queer people" protects them from disease. At least then they have some restraint on their behavior, which is dangerous.
They are better off if society doesn't put up with a bunch of gay crap!
"this is a public blog and groups such as CRC/W and PFOX are always lurking around to use our statements against us"
Do you realize you do this exact same thing?
A properly functioning mind must have a mirror!
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Bad anonymous said ""Putting down queer people" protects them from disease. At least then they have some restraint on their behavior, which is dangerous.".
That exactly contradicts the idea you previously put out there:
You said "Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."
Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?
The problem is "putting down queer people" for something they will inevitably do destroys their self esteem and gives some little incentive not to be promiscuous - just as you said.
Anon asserted:
“"Putting down queer people" protects them from disease. At least then they have some restraint on their behavior, which is dangerous.”
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Temperance Movement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement ) started with informal social controls (“putting down drinkers” if you will) to moderate alcohol consumption and then moved on to legislation culminating in the 18th amendment which banned alcohol for everyone except for religious purposes.
This eventually led to crime syndicates that smuggled or made their own alcohol and maintained their control over the business by corrupting law enforcement officials and judges, and an excessive amount of violence that all too often involved innocent people getting killed.
Nearly universal intolerance of polygamy, and explicit laws against it has not put an end to the practice, even after its “prophet,” Warren Jeffs has been convicted of rape as an accomplice after setting up underage teenage girls for “marriage.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs )
You may not consider this “dangerous behavior” on the same scale that you assert gays apparently engage in, but I consider a 14 year old girl having sex against her will with a man MUCH older than she is to be a rape. PERIOD.
Quite frankly, heterosexual rape of a minor (even if sanctioned by a “prophet”) is far more of a problem than homosexual behavior between consenting adults.
Children are being recruited into this lifestyle by perverted old men who deny the children access to radio and television so they can brainwash them into believing their practices are ordained by God and the prophet.
Yet I don’t see the mainstream Mormon Church or the Catholics railing against this lifestyle choice of church sanctioned child rape nearly so adamantly as they did against gay marriage.
Social intolerance hasn’t protected anyone from any disease, nor did it get rid of alcoholism or polygamy.
Education, tolerance, and reasonable laws are necessary if we want to modify behaviors in a socially beneficial way.
Peace
Cynthia
Post a Comment
<< Home