I think red font on black background will cause the least eyestrain from a quantum physics/chemistry perspective. Red has the least amount of energy and hence it's the least likely to hit electrons and to cause them to move into higher energy levels and to bounce them off into other atoms which tends to produce ions (and producing ions tends to cause unwanted chemical reactions). Red is basically the least destructive color which is why it doesn't destroy your film during development but other colors will. Same thing with your eyes, it's most likely the least harmful to your sensitive eyes just as well.
Also whenever something emits light it doesn't emit one color, it emits a distribution curve of frequencies. One of the reasons why CRT monitors and televisions were bad for your eyes if you sat close to them is that they emit more X - Rays than LCD monitors do. However, the color you see is determined by which frequency/frequencies are emitted from the light source and by the intensity of each frequency being emitted from the particular light source you are looking at. Light emitted from your LCD monitor (just like any other light source) does emit some UV and it does emit some X - rays, though with LCD monitors its not as intense as with CRT monitors. However, red light will tend to emit less ultraviolet and X - rays than white or purple light (since the intensity of red peaks at a lower frequency). and UV and higher energy radiation is more damaging than lower energy radiation. While stopping a light source from emitting harmful radiation is difficult it maybe possible to filter such radiation (ie: sunglasses do a good job filtering UV though they're probably not that ideal for a monitor).
Most of the light that we naturally see is reflected light, we hardly ever look directly into emitted light. Looking into a light bulb is bad for your eyes partly because you're not looking at reflected light, you're looking directly at emitted light. Likewise, looking into a monitor is bad for your eyes partly for the same reason. This is why a black background is optimal for causing the least amount of damage, you want to reduce the overall amount of light being directly emitted into your eyes (BTW, black is a shade, not a color). A black background will also reduce the U.V. and X - rays being emitted into your eyes.
and of course some common sense things to consider are to ensure that the brightness and contrast of your monitor are set appropriately (not too bright, not too dark), ensure you choose an appropriate font, font size, and monitor resolution, ensure you enable anti - aliasing and use something like cleartype fonts, and ensure that the room you are in has proper lighting.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why intellectual property lasts too long
I think 20 year patents are entirely too long, I mean, how much does the future amount generated from a patent 20 years from now contribute to the present value of the patent compare to the present value of the money you will currently spend for R&D on the product that you have patented? It just doesn't seem like the money generated for a patent twenty years from now will give you much incentive to add a lot of R&D dollars into a product you are developing now being that those dollars are worth a lot more now than the present value of that future amount generated by the patent.
But if you're a big corporation why not lobby for the patents you apply for to last 100 years, what harm does it do to you? and there is incentive for patents that you currently do have not to expire any time soon no matter how old the patent is being that you maybe generating revenue on the patent now meaning it contributes more to your current present value (even if the patent is 100 years old, the current money you generate from it now contributes largely to the present value). This explains why corporations always try to lobby for intellectual property extensions.
Also, one has to realize that in twenty years from now many of the corporation's executives and members and employees (ie: CEO, COO, CFO, etc...) would probably be either retired or working for another corporation and many of the stock holders are going to be different people (ie: stocks are bought and sold every day). Sure some current stockholders still may have stock in the corporation in the future (but again, what's the present value of the future amount of a patent twenty years from now to an investor vs the money he could get now by simply having less money put into current R&D. Doesn't seem there is much incentive to add that much more money into R&D now based on revenue generated in twenty years from now being that the present value to an investor of that invested money is easily worth substantially more than the present value of the future amount generated by the patent twenty years from now) but the corporation may have many new stockholders and many of the old stockholders may not even be with the corporation by then. Many many things could also happen in twenty years, the invention could be rendered obsolete by newer technology even, the economic conditions or some other changes (ie: political) might make the patent twenty years from now irrelevant, meaning that some investors and executives probably aren't even really thinking twenty years down the line in terms of that patent right now, they're thinking more of how they can make a fast buck with the patents they have now. I mean how often does the average American change jobs even, how many years? Many things would change in twenty years rendering the revenue generated from the patent twenty years from now irrelevant to many of the current investors and corporate employees and executives. and this is ESPECIALLY true for copyright which lasts much longer than 20 years even.
and when I say the present value of the future amount 20 years from now I mean the future amount on the twentieth year. Meaning the money generated in that year (alone) is not going to give you much additional incentive at all to invest a lot more money into R&D presently, so there really is little reason for patents to last that long.
But if you're a big corporation why not lobby for the patents you apply for to last 100 years, what harm does it do to you? and there is incentive for patents that you currently do have not to expire any time soon no matter how old the patent is being that you maybe generating revenue on the patent now meaning it contributes more to your current present value (even if the patent is 100 years old, the current money you generate from it now contributes largely to the present value). This explains why corporations always try to lobby for intellectual property extensions.
Also, one has to realize that in twenty years from now many of the corporation's executives and members and employees (ie: CEO, COO, CFO, etc...) would probably be either retired or working for another corporation and many of the stock holders are going to be different people (ie: stocks are bought and sold every day). Sure some current stockholders still may have stock in the corporation in the future (but again, what's the present value of the future amount of a patent twenty years from now to an investor vs the money he could get now by simply having less money put into current R&D. Doesn't seem there is much incentive to add that much more money into R&D now based on revenue generated in twenty years from now being that the present value to an investor of that invested money is easily worth substantially more than the present value of the future amount generated by the patent twenty years from now) but the corporation may have many new stockholders and many of the old stockholders may not even be with the corporation by then. Many many things could also happen in twenty years, the invention could be rendered obsolete by newer technology even, the economic conditions or some other changes (ie: political) might make the patent twenty years from now irrelevant, meaning that some investors and executives probably aren't even really thinking twenty years down the line in terms of that patent right now, they're thinking more of how they can make a fast buck with the patents they have now. I mean how often does the average American change jobs even, how many years? Many things would change in twenty years rendering the revenue generated from the patent twenty years from now irrelevant to many of the current investors and corporate employees and executives. and this is ESPECIALLY true for copyright which lasts much longer than 20 years even.
and when I say the present value of the future amount 20 years from now I mean the future amount on the twentieth year. Meaning the money generated in that year (alone) is not going to give you much additional incentive at all to invest a lot more money into R&D presently, so there really is little reason for patents to last that long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)