• World Wildlife Federation Creates Unprintable .WWF File Format to Save Trees
    58 replies, posted
I don't get all this "save the trees" stuff. If the paper is already made, then it's too late for the tree it was made from, now isn't it?
This format is just a massive joke.
[img]http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/0002/5530/brand.gif[/img] ??
Well trees do not grow as fast as potatoes, so...
[QUOTE=StickyNade;26663902][img_thumb]http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/0002/5530/brand.gif[/img_thumb] ??[/QUOTE] [img]http://perfectpandas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/wwf_panda_chair.png[/img] [editline]12th December 2010[/editline] hey we could save this as a .WWF
1. The only way you could make it unprintable is if the format was exclusive to only one reader, which even adobe realized was stupid and open-sourced the format. So they can't really expect anyone to use it for that. 2. Even at that, text always equals printable. Period.
The logging industry is a good thing. Do you seriously think they don't replant? Up here in BC, this is logging country. You'd think we wouldn't have forests anymore, but nope, some areas the forests are bigger now than they were 15 years ago. Seriously, logging replants as many trees as they can because that's more money for them. Clearcutting for development is a totally different issue.
I feel like printing out an article for the first time in years... this is like how PeTA's Tofu Boy game made me not only buy Super Meat Boy, but go purchase the most delicious double bacon burger within casual driving distance.
Remember kids, for every animal you don't eat, Maddox will eat three.
I don't print shit anyway. Printers were made by Satan and their sole purpose is to ruin my day. [img]http://www.filmsnmovies.com/media/thumbs/1242852281.jpg[/img]
It's funny because many producers of paper have said that they will plant 2/3 trees for every one tree felled to make paper.
File > Save As > PDF > Print
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;26664733]What's the point? If you need to print, this is not going to be used, and if you don't need to print, you normally don't print it. In short: pointless.[/QUOTE] We're in the future. We don't need paper anymore.
[editline]13th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=AtomiC0l;26666527]We're in the future. We don't need paper anymore.[/QUOTE] Are you saying you wipe your ass with [b]digital toiletpaper[/b]?.
Why not just send emails? There is no point in physically-based communication via letters and such. [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;26666549][editline]13th December 2010[/editline] Are you saying you wipe your ass with [b]digital toiletpaper[/b]?.[/QUOTE] Or you could wash your ass and have an analgasm at the same time.
[QUOTE=AtomiC0l;26666527]We're in the future. We don't need paper anymore.[/QUOTE] Actually with the ability to print virtually anything, the world consumes [I]more[/I] paper in the past couple of decades than it had before when things were either handwritten or put through a typewriter.
its not like they expect this to do anything, it's just a subtle hint not to print everything you pass by [QUOTE=RayDark;26666883]Why not just send emails? There is no point in physically-based communication via letters and such.[/QUOTE] as a person who reads entire academic journals online: physical type is substantially more comfortable to read than digital type. In a business stance people do send emails, but when you've got a massive document to read, people tend to print them out to ease the burden of reading it, and allow them to make notes and such on it. hard copies really are superior to digital copies in effectively every way; at least in PDF's and viewing material
each medium has its pros and cons I personally like reading stuff from hard copies because I can lie down on my bed and read them but if they're on a screen I have to sit up and sometimes my eyes hurt from looking at letters made of pure light.
People don't seem to get the idea of this. Yes we all know you can just save as PDF. But when you actually don't need it on paper and see this in the file formats, it makes you think if you actually need to print it. You could say it is sort of advertising. If this gets enough public attention, some companies will decide to use this as their file format and try to reduce paper usage. Being ´green´ sells. After all it can't have taken much resources to make this format.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;26667135]its not like they expect this to do anything, it's just a subtle hint not to print everything you pass by as a person who reads entire academic journals online: physical type is substantially more comfortable to read than digital type. In a business stance people do send emails, but when you've got a massive document to read, people tend to print them out to ease the burden of reading it, and allow them to make notes and such on it. hard copies really are superior to digital copies in effectively every way; at least in PDF's and viewing material[/QUOTE] This is what the Kindle does best, is displaying type without harsh backlighting or unnatural contrast. I'm sure the WWF should just invest in that stuff instead of projects as quaint as this.
Kindle is fucking amazing, it's probably the closest to reading a real book you're ever going to get.
Open WWF document. Save As a PDF. Open PDF file and print.
[QUOTE=V12US;26666549][editline]13th December 2010[/editline] Are you saying you wipe your ass with [b]digital toiletpaper[/b]?.[/QUOTE] I'll just wipe my ass all over your computer monitor
This is so stupid, paper is made from [b]treefarms[/b] where they grow trees based on it's demand. If you want more trees, print more shit! :black101:
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;26669836]Open WWF document. Save As a PDF. Open PDF file and print.[/QUOTE] Hey guys you mind actually reading the thread so the same joke doesn't get posted 5 times?
Umm.. if a readable file is not something anyone would print out for any reason, why would this new WWF-file be any better choice than a regular file? Assuming you do not print it anyway. Or would it be a good practical joke in some paper-company, I mean.. enviro friendly?
It isn't so much a restriction as it is a statement that whoever uses it is being consciously green. Much like putting an "I recycle!" bumper sticker on a Humvee.
I like the idea. It's not suppose to be practical. It's just a novel way of making people think twice before printing something. Of course the file extension can just be changed, but that's not the point. It's essentially just a way of embedding a 'are sure sure you really need to print this?' message in a novel way onto the end of a document.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.