Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Change Google's Background Color To Save Energy? 519

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the turned-off-until-further-notice dept.
i_like_spam writes "Recent commentary at Nature Climate Change describes an on-going debate about the energy savings associated with the background colors used by high-traffic websites such as Google and the NYTimes. A back of the envelope calculation has suggested energy savings of 750 Megawatt hours per year if Google switched their background from white to black. In response, a new version of Google called Blackle was created. However, other calculations by the Wall Street Journal suggest minimal energy savings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Change Google's Background Color To Save Energy?

Comments Filter:
  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx.b c . ca> on Friday July 27, 2007 @03:54AM (#20007289) Journal
    A site that criticizes google for having a light background itself uses a light background.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Don_dumb (927108)
      I think that is hypocritical as opposed to ironic.
      But it is a good point, that site decided to use a white background, why? Is there some simple asthetic reason why a site would choose white or lighter colours over dark?
      Or is it even simpler than that and no one has actually stopped to think about that.
      • Re:Oh, the irony.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Propaganda13 (312548) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:59AM (#20007635)
        My informal research (if you want to call it that)

        White background is more professional looking. It is also easier to read text in a large variety of colors.
        Black background is more "cool" orientated - gaming sites, etc. It is easier on the eyes as long as the text color stands out and font size is large enough.
        • by TWX (665546) on Friday July 27, 2007 @01:02PM (#20012879)
          I found that porn sites use mostly black backgrounds with light (usually pink) text. I've committed this research for over thirteen years, and I consider myself something of an expert on the subject...
        • Back in black! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MikeFM (12491)
          The problem with black backgrounds is that it is considered unprofessional because it is most often used by sites trying to look cool. It remains the best background color because it is way easier on your eyes. I avoid using a white background unless my clients demand it.

          Non-geeks remain horrified when they see how much green text on black I use in my personal desktop choices. It makes a dramatic difference at lowering eye strain though. Luckily, thanks to personal stylesheets, you can recolor just about an
    • Sorry, it's really late/early...I just couldn't resist.
      • by hwojtek (244736) on Friday July 27, 2007 @06:23AM (#20008041) Homepage
        I belive black would turn down the power usage on a CRT, but LCD running white (no voltage applied to the cells, so no dimming) uses less energy... Or am I wrong?
        • by DataSpring (757974) on Friday July 27, 2007 @07:10AM (#20008317)
          Exactly what I was thinking! (The way LCD's produce black is to energize all the pixels that need to be black, "illuminating" them, which makes them opaque, and "get in the way" of the backlight, which is always on.) So, this would effectively *increase* the power consumption of LCD monitors, which are more prevalent everyday, and probably the majority of monitor sales these days.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Phil John (576633)

            Exactly, this is the reason that my Windows Mobile Pocket PC Phone runs with a "white" theme I created (plus it increases readability in sunny locations).

            However, there are new LCD's coming out with a matrix of LED's acting as the backlight. For those, running black would probably give you a net power saving. However, that would be offset by the cost of the things, they are not cheap.

          • mod parent up, a lot.

            The article references a DOE article from decades ago - and clearly before the predominance of LCDs - and another article full of comments about how the tests didn't bear this out on LCDs.

            And if you REALLY want to save money on your CRTs, this is small potatoes compared to having a power strip for you monitor so you can cut all power to it at night - modern CRTs have a very substantial residual drain to keep the heater warm.

            And you can set your machine to monitor-off earlier than sleeping - and since it wakes up from this fast, there aren't a lot of downsides. (This helps CRTs and LCDs...)

            Finally, in many LCDs you can simply turn down the backlight - this is generally the largest power component in an LCD.

        • by AlecC (512609) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Friday July 27, 2007 @10:03AM (#20010047)
          You are right, as actually tested by a colleague using a power meter. With his normal, mostly white, desktop - 26W. Unplug the video so the monitor goes into "No Signal", which this particular monitor did not timeout - 28W. Not a great difference, but definitely going the opposite way to TFA.
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      I've always found it more comfortable reading white (or light grey actually) on black. I've set up visual studio this way at work. I've never really understand the need to have my computer screen look like a piece of paper. Is there anyway to simple reverse the color scheme (like a photographic negative) on a list of sites so that I can see the site in white on black?
    • Perhaps you could design a Blackdot?
  • by User 956 (568564) on Friday July 27, 2007 @03:55AM (#20007295) Homepage
    A back of the envelope calculation has suggested energy savings of 750 Megawatt hours per year if Google switched their background from white to black. In response, a new version of Google called Blackle was created.

    Once Google has gone Black, they'll never go back. That's what I hear, anyway.
  • Black background? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Betonschaar (178617) on Friday July 27, 2007 @03:57AM (#20007307)
    I wonder how much of the 'energy saved' will be consumed by all those machines they use in the hospital for people who get eye problems from staring at white/grey on black text.

    Also, You'd think changing your desktop background to solid black would make more of a difference then just changing google. I spent at most 10 minutes a day with the Google page open. And it's not that there's no other site that uses a white background. How much energy do flashing ads consume btw?
  • by advocate_one (662832) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:00AM (#20007319)
    TFT backlights are still on even if entire page is white text on black... they only go off when energy savings kick in and turn the display off.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't OLEDs use less power with less white? I think those are supposed to spit out light directly from the pixels, which I assume means black would not be powered at all. In a decade or two, those will actually replace LCDs.

      I think it would reduce power in plasma screens too. But, those aren't used much for computers.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tom17 (659054)
        In a decade or two it will probably all be e-ink based so there will be no difference. Except it would need to be illuminated in the dark.

        Unless they make a hybrid with oled in the dark and e-ink in the light. Then a light background would waste electricity at night and strain your eyes more.

        So have a dark background at night and a light background during the day like reading paper, that's it, web pages that adjust their display depending upon your surroundings.

        Maybe I should have kept that to myself...
        • by fbjon (692006)
          No, you're right. There's nothing wrong with black on white, as long as ambient lighting is what it should be. In a darkened room, however, grey on black is a lot better. Not white on black though, that can cause a blooming effect of the typefaces.
    • by sznupi (719324)
      But the "default" state of the crystals in LCD panel is black/opaque; you have to use energy to keep them in other state. So...it has some potentiall, the bigger the screen the bigger impact.
      Miniscule anyway I'd guess...
  • silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gabest (852807) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:00AM (#20007325)
    lcds have a backlight, it only covers the light for black, it won't save any energy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by cerberusss (660701)
      No, indeed, this will bring lots of extra costs as well. The black background will push many, many slashdotters into the abyss of depression. To counter this, they will flee into light therapy and burn up many gigawatts of healthy light.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by pla (258480)
      lcds have a backlight, it only covers the light for black, it won't save any energy.

      Wow, the only actual "informative" comment so far, and only at a +4? Sad...

      Playing Devil's Advocate, though, I had an idea - As you point out, Blackle will result in no real savings on LCD monitors; But the decreased light output does raise the temperature of the monitor, thus very slightly increasing your AC demands (in the summer). Okay, that one kinda goes out on a limb. For a more practical problem, while a nice l
      • Re:silly (Score:5, Informative)

        by deragon (112986) on Friday July 27, 2007 @05:57AM (#20007901) Homepage Journal
        Sorry to correct you, but the temperature of the room will practically not change, unless the LCD faces a window.

        If the LCD background is white, the light will eventually hit an object of your office and most of it will be absorbed. By absorbed, we mean converted to heat. The remaining light will be reflected to another object that will absorb again. And this continues until there is no more light.

        Only light escaping your office through a window will prevent increase. Granted, because of reflection, there will be more light of the LCD that will eventually hit a window when using a white background than a black one, but for practical purposes, the quantity of energy lost will be very, very small. As a percentage of total energy lost to heat, the difference between using a white background versus a black background will be minuscule.

        As a rule, no energy is created nor lost. And most forms of energy degrade as heat.

    • Re:silly (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheLink (130905) on Friday July 27, 2007 @06:50AM (#20008199) Journal
      Some LCDs have dynamic backlights. So if they are displaying something dark they dim the backlight down.

      So when comparing the contrast of LCD displays find out whether contrast ratio are measured the same way.
      e.g. whether it's dynamic or static.

      Whether it's the ratio of the brightest white vs the darkest black AT THE SAME time on about the same part of the screen (some can dim different parts of the screen to try to suit the dark bits of the picture),
      or it's the ratio of the brightest white now vs darkest black 1 minute ago - no adjustments of brightness levels.
      or even the ratio of the brightest white the monitor can display, vs the darkest black the monitor can display when on, with adjustments allowed (really cheating :) ).
  • by archeopterix (594938) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:01AM (#20007329) Journal
    PLEASE USE BOLD AND UPPERCASE IN YOUR COMMENTS. A +5 COMMENT IN BOLD AND UPPERCASE SAVES 5 DONKEY-FORTHNIGHTS OF THE ENERGY
  • by grahamtriggs (572707) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:01AM (#20007331)
    The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days. For the most part they run with a backlight of constant brightness - so there is no energy saving with a black screen.

    Only if the LCD detects a dark screen, and adaptively lowers the backlight, will there be any energy saving.
    • Thank you. I was going to point this out -- at least one person in this world isn't an idiot. I bet if they got rid of images the lowered CPU cycles not processing images would save a few baby whales or a jungle or some stupid shit like that.
    • The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days. For the most part they run with a backlight of constant brightness - so there is no energy saving with a black screen.
      Poor excuse for not saving teh energy. Just use bloogle AND switch to CRT. Or else the whales will die!
    • by 1u3hr (530656) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:44AM (#20007567)
      The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days.

      No they don't. The majority of monitors sold surely, but monitors last for many years. Mine is over 10 years old, and has survived three or four PCs. There are a lot of old systems and even older monitors in use.

      • by phoenix321 (734987) * on Friday July 27, 2007 @05:53AM (#20007875)
        If you compare the energy consumption of CRTs and LCDs in everyday use, you'll find astounding results. Or perhaps not so astounding, as the CRT is sucking 150W or more, while your LCD consumes less than 40W - or 60W if you've got a larger screen.

        Now you know why many companies are throwing out / have thrown out long ago their CRTs and why it's dumb to pick them up for even less than 10 dollars: larger CRTs may be cheap to buy, but they eat into your wallet through 2-3 years. For fellow geeks who use their computer for 10 hours a day, that's some serious cash burned per year. And baby seals and pet whales killed, of course.

        Most decent notebooks use 40W-60W total when under load, while older desktops routinely have PSUs that eat 30W in the *off*-state (computer powered down, but cable plugged in). A wattmeter ($15) and a calculator ($5) can do so much more for your wallet (and those pooooooooor baby seals) than switching to CF lamps and changing the background of that damn CRT to black.

        Common energy hogs in the average home (in case you haven't taken care of some of these already)

        - the fridge. There are models that use 140kwh per year available, yours probably uses 300 or more
        - the freezer. same here, but when upgrading, consider a top-opening freezer. As cold air stays down, it's much more energy conserving than front-opening models
        - lighting: use CFLs wherever convenient and LED replacements where there's not enough room for CFLs or switching cycles are important

        But those are costing money. Here are some savings for free:
        - the VCR, radio or TV: some waste 15-20W or more for doing nothing than blinking 12:00 - get a e-meter and a power strip with a simple on/off switch.
        - washer and dryer: these appliances sometimes waste 20W or more when just being plugged in. Mine does and it's not a cheap one, either. That's right, 20W energy drain for nothing, no clock, no blinkenlights, nothing, just the plug in the socket. E-meter and then pull the plug when not using them, problem solved.
        - the desktop PC. As mentioned above, most PSUs use 35W for nothing when the computer is supposedly in the off-state. The same for some peripherals, although they use 5-10W at most. Switchable power strip takes care of that - and have all peripherals plugged together so one switch really turns them all off: powered USB-hub, printer, scanner, speaker, screen and everyting else.

        Total cost: 3 switchable power strips for $3 each and an e-meter ($15). Savings in the first year almost $100 or more, convenience and standard of living lost: zero.
        • by richlv (778496)
          all the radios, tvs and other appliances i have had or seen lose some settings when left too long without electrical supply.
          for some, that's clock, for some programmed stations.

          batteries can be installed in some devices, but i'd guess those are even worse than a constant electricity draw.
        • by Smidge204 (605297)
          I'm not sure where you got those numbers from, so I can't argue against them... I agree that truly cutting power to most modern devices will save you in the long run, and power strips are cheap. Just remember that any programming in the device will be lost as a result.

          I bought one of those Kill-A-Watt meter things to help me make the same kind of calculations, so I figured I'd share my results. I only tested my PC workstation, though.

          Main PC (Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM, two HDDs, 380W PSU)
          Off: 4.0 watts
          Boot
    • by gsslay (807818)

      The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days.
      You got figures for that confident statement? Not just most, not just a majority, but a "vast majority"?

      While it's the case that new computer systems tend to be LCD, most existing computers out there are over a couple of years old and far more likely to be CRT.
      • by Tony Hoyle (11698)
        I haven't seen a CRT in ages.. they don't even sell them any more in most shops.

        vast majority is probably true. Even a couple of years ago they were common, and as they break the ones on ancient computers are being replaced as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vtcodger (957785)
      ***The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days.***

      The vast majority of your friends may run LCD monitors, but it's unlikely that LCD monitors have replaced even half the CRTs in the general user population. Techies are prone to overestimate the rate of adoption of new technology.

      For that matter, they are still selling CRTs -- and they are cheaper to buy if not to operate -- than LCDs. Check the ads in your Sunday paper and look at what sort of monitor is on the low-end, loss-leader, offeri

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rick17JJ (744063)

      I hooked up a Kill-A-Watt meter to my monitor again, just now, to see for myself if dark colors save power on my monitor. In the past, I had noticed that my 19 inch CRT monitor's power usage varied from 64 - 84 Watts depending on background color. With the CRT monitor, the dark color used about 20 Watts less. In the sleep mode, when the screen was blank it only used a little over 1 Watt.

      My new monitor is a 20-inch Dell 2007FP flat panel LCD monitor which I will test right now. With Firefox running unde

  • by Depili (749436) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:01AM (#20007333)
    As TFT displays seem to be more common than CRT:s nowadays, the energy savings are minimal to non-existent, as the TFT backlight won't get turned off...
    • by TheThiefMaster (992038) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:04AM (#20007353)
      In fact don't TFTs use marginally more energy to display black?
      • I believe so because to display white the crystals arent twisted.
      • Depends on the kind (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:29AM (#20007495)
        TN+Film ones, by far the most common, do. They have to be energised to go black, their no power state is open which is why the pixels fail to white. VA (P-MVA, S-PVA and so on) and IPS (S-IPS and such) don't because their no power state is black and have to be energised to open and thus fail to black.

        Regardless the energy used on the panels isn't much in comparison to the backlight. That's why companies toy with reflective displays (like the old Game Boy Advances). It does really well for battery life when there's not a backlight. That's what sucks the energy.
    • But still having a black background with bright letters is a rest for the eyes. I read a lot of PDFs in the computer and the average PC usage is 10 hours a day. After I switched to a dark background-light foreground screen my eyes have really appreciated that.

      Just try it by yourself, open in a tab the black google page advertised here and in another the normal google page, and cycle through them to see how the black background feels easier for the eyes...

  • by ddt (14627) <ddt@davetaylor.name> on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:03AM (#20007343) Homepage
    Most computers these days use LCD screens, and most LCD's use flourescent tubes as a backlight, which is what creates whiteness. If you put your ear really close to your screen, it's also what creates a faint hum. Those tubes draw most of the power on a display, and they don't turn off just because the screen goes black.

    I don't think changing the colour to white changes the power draw significantly. It just means more of the flourescent tube light is passing through the screen.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tony Hoyle (11698)
      You can save more by doing something like switching of Aero in vista - the power draw of a graphics card under load is far more than an LCD panel.

  • Not true at all (Score:5, Informative)

    by moosesocks (264553) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:04AM (#20007347) Homepage
    All LCD screens get their light from a single backlight. When the display is on, the backlight is on. Always.

    The LCD crystals in the screen act as tiny shutters, and can open or close to allow that light through, or keep it out. Although these shutters take a small amount of energy to open and close, it's insignificant compared to the amount of energy it takes to power the backlight.

    A commenter in this thread [blogspot.com] commented that an Apple 17" display attached to a lab supply is measured as drawing 0.6W less when displaying a white screen than when displaying a black one.

    CRT screens probably do draw less power when displaying a black screen, but on the whole they still draw considerably more power than an LCD under any circumstance. On the same note, CRT users may find that the white-on-black scheme is easier on their eyes -- I still have a CRT in my cube at work, and setting my editor to the white-on-black scheme is definitely more legible and less stressful on my eyes. (I still find it more legible on LCDs, although eye strain isn't an issue at all)

    I don't get it... CowboyNeal should know better than this. Is he intentionally seeding flamebait?
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:04AM (#20007351)
    It's not like it takes any less power to transfer the bits or anything like that, so they must be talking displays. Ok, fine, maybe (and I do emphasize maybe) this would work if we were all on CRTs but we aren't. LCDs are dominant these days. Well, their backlights are always on. They work by blocking light, not by emitting it. So their power consumption is constant, regardless of what the panel is doing.

    To me this jsut sounds like more BS "Get more from less!" crap from people who probably aren't willing to make the simple changes that will actually, really make a difference.

    Look, if you want to use less energy have your computer turn off monitor, disks, and suspend sooner, replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs (there are good full spectrum ones out there that give nice light), get a programmable thermostat and add some weatherstripping around doors and windows. It's simple, cheap and will do way more than crap like this.
  • LCDs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by king-manic (409855) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:04AM (#20007357)
    Most new monitors are LCDS. LCD's are generally backlit and black is achieved by having all the pixels opaque. So wouldn't black cause a higher power usage? or just break even?
    • by GeekDork (194851)

      AFAIK, dark is the active state of the (sub)pixels, so a black screen would actually draw more power than a white one, not to mention that the filtering occurring on dark pixels means the panel heats up and breaks earlier.

      The crackpot idea would indeed work if we were all using plasma screens which really draw a lot of power for lit areas.

  • 1) That would maybe work if CRT monitors weren't a minority. Even if an LCD displays displays a screen consisting entirely of black-color pixels, the power consumption is the same as if they were white.

    2) This is obvious slashvertisment. He Slashdotted his Google custom search and he gets ~75% of the that the Google AdWords ads displayed next to the search results will earn.
  • by Octopus (19153) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:10AM (#20007387) Homepage
    It will provide at least 50% in power savings.

    Then again, that extra money might get taken up in seizure meds.
  • OLED (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aembleton (324527) <aembleton@gmaMONETil.com minus painter> on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:16AM (#20007431) Homepage
    I guess this could work with future OLED displays that only emit light on each pixel if it is needed, so a black background would require minimal energy. However, my current Samsung TFT monitor draws 40W whether it is on or off which I believe is due to the power transformer that it uses. Even with alternative displays, energy saving might not occur due to these power transformers.
  • Tried inverting the default colors in Firefox a while back - black background, white text, dark skins, etc. I wanted to reduce the strain on my eyes from reading the screen with the room lights off. I was somewhat successful - with certain sites. Other sites didn't respond well to my browser alterations, and I eventually gave up. If that computer was a mac I'd've tried Black Light [michelf.com], but, alas...

    Black backgrounds are easier to read - white backgrounds emit a lot of photons, whereas black backgrounds with
    • by gomoX (618462)
      Black backgrounds are easier to read - white backgrounds emit a lot of photons, whereas black backgrounds with white/gray/yellow text emit photons at a rate orders of magnitude lower.

      Ah! I knew it! Those stinky photons, making my fonts so hard to read!! I'll read books in the dark from now on.
    • Yeah, I actually prefer light text on dark backgrounds too.

      Actually, more precisely, I don't like staring into light bulbs much, and similarly, I don't like staring at screens that are outputting a similar quantity of lumens at me. IIRC, my old 19 inch CRT produced about as much light as a 100 watt light bulb, and it sat about two feet from my face for hours on end.

      Yes, I did try messing with color schemes in Windows several years ago, but inevitably legibility issues show up with some random application or
  • by rossdee (243626) on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:26AM (#20007477)
    and don't use a fancy scrensaver, just a blank screen.
  • White takes less energy than black on TFTs, so Google is already helping TFT owners save energy :) However, even if the CRT energy savings are significant, they would be nothing compared to the high medical costs of people with damaged eyesight from trying to discern little white letters on black background, and from back problems (for bending towards to be able to discern the white letters) :) The est you can do to save energy is to replace all your CRTs with TFTs, which is what I've done as well. TFTs
  • Just once more confirming that if the article's title ends with a "?", it's purified bullshit streaming down your internet connection.

    And that wastes so much energy :(
  • Article is basically B.S., but a small change in the computer realm that definitely would save energy is eliminating DRM.

    Ron
  • Feel the (Score:5, Funny)

    by jsse (254124) on Friday July 27, 2007 @05:14AM (#20007705) Homepage Journal
    POWER saving of the darkside...

    Skywalker: pardon?!
  • A pittance (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DrHyde (134602)
    Even if it did save 750MWh a year, so what? If you assume that on average a home uses 1kW an hour (which when you consider all of the slashdolt readers' computers being left on all the time seems like an underestimate) then that's 8.7MWh a year, or just over 1% of that 750MWh, so you're saving at most the energy output of just 100 homes. That miniscule saving comes at the expense of making the pages *much* harder to read. If you want to save energy, then how about making US cars to the same efficiency st
  • The guy has two figures that he's bandying about with no sources at all. A couple of people have actually tested the idea, and found that it makes at best a tiny difference whether the screen is white or black. My 19" Trinitron draws 65W regardless of screen colour.

    Bet his blog ads are doing well, though.
  • Fro an LCD, there weill be exactly no savings at all. The backlight is on, whether the pixels are or not. The rest of the LCD does not consume a significant amount of power.

    For old-fashiones CRTs, there might be a tiny bit of savings, but one look at the datasheed to the final amplifier for the erelctron beams shows that the total electron beam power is relatively small. Less then 10W. Switching the CRT to an LCD saves much, much more power.

    Incidentially, your grapgics card does not care about what pixels i
  • 1. What about the number of people who will be in a daze for minutes, if not hours, staring at a new Google website once it goes black? How much electricity will that waste?

    2. As someone else pointed out, will it make a difference on LCDs?

    3. Is it more difficult to read lettering on a black screen? What about the confort issue?

    4. 750 megawatt hours per year. Do you have any idea of what that is representative? Don't people tend to use about 10 megawatt hours per year for an individual household? That is 75
  • I don't get it. The backlight on my LCD is always full on, even if the screen is black. So how does having a black screen save energy?

  • Change MS Windows default background color to grey will same more, a LOT more.

  • Some real figures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by David Off (101038) on Friday July 27, 2007 @07:41AM (#20008521) Homepage
    I've just tested this on a Sony 15" LCD monitor (M51?).

    Google.com: 18.5 watts
    Blackle.com: 19.5 watts
    Slashdot: 19 watts

    so it would seem that using blackle is using about 5% more power.
  • userContent.css (Score:5, Informative)

    by Door in Cart (940474) on Friday July 27, 2007 @09:14AM (#20009375)
    Who needs Blackle when there's userContent.css? Google's been white-on-black on my machines for years. Same with /. It's just easier on the eyes.

    @-moz-document url-prefix(http://google.com), url-prefix(http://www.google.com) {
        body, .t {
            background:   black !important;
        }
        body {
            color:        white !important;
        }
        body, td, div, .p, a {
            font-family:  fixed-width !important;
        }
        a:link, .w, a.w:link, q:visited, q.link, q:active, .q {
            color:        #3366cc !important;
        }
        a:visited,
        span.a,
        span.a:link {
            color:        #888 !important;
        }
        div, td {
            color:        white !important;
        }
        table.histTable td {
            color:        black !important;
        }
        div#navbar div,
        table,
        td,
        div
            {
            background:   black !important;
        }
        input[title=Search] {
            background:   black !important;
            border:       1px solid #888 !important;
            padding:      0 3px !important;
        }
        input[title='Google Search'] {
            background:   black !important;
            border:       1px solid #888 !important;
            padding:      0 3px !important;
            margin-bottom: 20px !important;
        }
        img[src='/intl/en_ALL/images/logo.gif'] {
            padding-top:  110px;
            height:       0px !important;
            overflow:     hidden !important;
            background:   url(http://*************/google-black-276x110.jpg );
        }
        a#logo span {
            background-image: url(http://*************/google-black-150x78.jpg) !important;
        }
        img[src='/images/google_sm.gif'] {
            background-image: url(http://*************/google-black-150x78.jpg) !important;
            padding-top:  78px;
            height:       0px !important;
            overflow:     hidden !important;
        }
        div#gbarl {
            display:      none !important;
        }
    }

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...