On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:18:56 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote: > On 22/01/2008, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > Now let me ask you, why is it more environmentally friendly to > > > have smaller file sizes? I need to know, so that I can make that > > > point. I myself don't really see how that is more environmentally > > > friendly. > > > > Easy. Think processor time, energy, cooling in the NOC, in each > > and every point on the path from me to thee. > > > > A 2MB file, as in the example mentioned, consumes just about > > 2,000 times as much energy as does a plain text file of 1KB. > > > > Besides, think of the energy used by your own machine just to > > open the bloat. > > > > One message? No big deal, just pico cents. Nine billion messages > > a day (a figure I read recently); however is a *BIG* deal, like > > maybe a barrel or two of oil, don't you think? > > > > Besides which it is much, much more secure to use plain text > > e-mail. No hidden scripts, no funny re-directs to malware sites, > > etc. > > > > Best, > > > > Allen > > Thanks, Allen. That's a tough one to swallow. I can imagine that the > processor time would have been spent doing something else, like a > screensaver, if not downloading the file. There are many reasons not > to use doc files, but environmental reasons are a bit far fetched in > my opinion. > Also given that OO.o on windows tends to consume more CPU/RAM cycles/space than Office (Unless you start Excel, Word and Powerpoint simultaneously) the above reasons are nullified and actually counterproductive.
-- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
