Kavin Nguyen December 15, 2010 08:03 PM Great idea and all, but a smart person would take a screen shot of the document and print the picture file. Mr Stiffy December 15, 2010 10:17 PM There is a proportion of things that DO not really need to be printed, there are documents that are useful to have printed, and there are documents that MUST be printed.Some of these decisions are based upon needs, choice and circumstance.In essence - it\'s a STUPID idea that is out of synch with reality. Gadgeteer December 16, 2010 03:35 AM I avoid printing whenever possible, mainly because paper is a bother. The environmental benefit is incidental. But try to take away my options and I would be upset. This idea is DOA. Wally3178 December 16, 2010 06:22 AM I just printed this article out several times and I have also set my security software to block any attachment with a .wwf suffix. skyking96w December 16, 2010 11:45 AM The paper companies own millions of acres of forest that were planted specifically to be used for pulp. When sections are harvested, they are re-planted. It\'s a constantly renewable resource. Stupid article, stupid idea. Facebook User December 16, 2010 12:03 PM Have all those junk \"snail mail\" senders stop. It would save a hella\'va lot of wood. buddy4095 December 16, 2010 01:38 PM Duh - why re-invent the wheel ?? There is PDF that already does this ! Charles Bosse December 16, 2010 02:25 PM I have invested an easy hour of my life each year getting off snail mailing lists. Without this mail, the post office could deliver letters twice a week and I would notice no serious impact. Talk about saving resources! Matt Rings December 16, 2010 09:37 PM I\'ve mused that if the computer was invented before paper, and then someone created this \'new\' technology that required no electricity to save information, didn\'t crash, easy to file for ready access, easy to mark on, and made with renewable resources...we would love it. It\'s called paper.Of course, 95% of what I do is electronic medium, but occasionally paper just works a bit better in a few circumstances....and I would leave that up to the end-user to decide, and not just BLOCK it from the source writer. Facebook User December 16, 2010 11:40 PM Will the World Wildlife Fund sue the World Wide Fund for Nature? They sued the World Wrestling Federation to force them to stop using the letters WWF because the World Wildlife Fund claimed it caused confusion and \"forced\" them to have to print their full name and their panda bear logo on all their stuff.Nevermind that US copyright law provides for organizations and companies and other things the ability to use the same name as long as what they do or make is completely different. I bet there\'s similar provisions in other countries.So the WWF went judge shopping until they found a left-wing \"liberal\" judge who would ignore the law and order the other WWF to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment. The wrestling outfit may still use their old WWF logo and name where present on archival material and in references to other legacy materials and products.If the World Wildlife Fund doesn\'t sue the World Wide Fund for Nature over the use of the letters WWF, I bet the WWE could make a good case for countersuit and damages against the World Wildlife Fund.