At 18:10 17/08/2004, you wrote:
>Am 17 Aug 2004 13:06 meinte David V. Corbin:
> > >>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kelleher
> > >>> At 11:23 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
> > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: Help with question about web page access
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> At 10:49 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
> > >>> > >>> >WHY DOES SOMEBODY HAS TO SLAP A TINY TINY UNREADABLE FONT
> > >>> > >>> IN MY FACE?
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> It takes less bandwidth and server space.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> >Um...NO...not at all....
>
> > >>> Well certainly then because of reduced X radiation from the CRT.
> > >>> The smaller fonts disturb less phosphor.
> > >>> You'd probably get increased life from your CRT also in that case.
>
> > Well...It could be, but is the person uses a dark font on a light
> background
> > [IMHO as it should be], then the increased area of backgound actually
> > increases radiation!
>
>Are you shure? I mean, if a light backgroung emmits
>more radiation, then we should switch for black paper
>as sonn as possible.
Absolutely! As we know, black holes abosrb everything[0] -including light-,
so clearly they are less dangerous than the Sun, which emits lots of light.
On a similar line, it is obvious that black paper will absorb more
radiation. Ideally, we should also switch all of our ink to black ink too,
in order to further reduce the danger of accidental irradiation through the
irresponsible use of bright colours.
It'd make writing these documents that I'm doing a damn sight easier too... ;)
[0] Excluding X-rays & other dangerous radiation, naturally.
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
Received on Tue Aug 17 2004 - 12:37:29 BST