Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
grounds for capital punishment?
and you want to read your book on your phone's Kindle application.
I didn't specify whose wife.
Doesn't yours have an and?
I mean, the backlight is on full but you just have the screen blanking out the black bits, don't you?
well i thought it was true, and it seemed true on my laptop when i did some experimenting last year (battery power percentage dropped significantly when i had white screen and went back up when i tried black screen) but i've just skimmed over this article and now... i'm just even more not sure http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-black-is
I have no idea really. I've heard so much conflicting evidence now...
dims the screen a lot barring the active window, which is pretty cool. Would they go to all that trouble if it couldn't do anything? Hmm...
Outright brightness definitely hits battery use hard on a laptop.
But isn't brightness a different, umm, 'process' to black-v-white-ness? Or is it? I dunno. Cos that'd give rise to the notion of a 'bright black', which sounds a bit counterintuitive. Hmmm.
You know when the window pops up asking you to give permission to an EXE or similar process? It's just like that with the background all dimmed while the one window is bright.
I wonder if calculating it takes as much processing power as it saves? :D
(relative to white on CRT), but black on LCD does not (relative to white on LCD). That article seems to infer that black on LCD actually uses slightly more energy (relative to white on LCD). But seems to say that while that's the case for CCFL LCD, it may not be for LED LCD.
in newspaper circles.
And, if used sparingly, looks more eye-catching.
Mods, thread deletion request.
It's not like he's paying for the ink.
One of the editors insisted they wouldn't write 'Mr.' with a . after it. When she asked them why, they explained it would save on ink costs.
I'm sure I was once told that a lot of style guides in use at newspapers were designed to save time/money in the hot metal days and they've remained largely unchanged since.
Although it's not always consistent, most newspaper use "per cent" instead of %, for example.
The best rational is surely it's best to avoid anything that 'trips you up' in the sentence, like using capitals where they're not needed. We do per cent instead of %.
That's exactly why I said it's not always consistent.
The only explanation I can offer is that the per cent symbol may not have been in widespread use during the hot metal days. Per cent (which is now written percent, of course) used to be hyphenated (per-cent), so they may have knocked out the hyphen to save ink and the old style has stuck.
^This is all pure conjecture/educated guesses from working in newspapers for eight years, however.
Is actually proven to be easier to read for longer amounts of time.
By proven, i mean, i read it somewhere.