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. Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
