"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The "Devil" is correct in that the article does appear to say this.

Only for sloppy readers. The lead-off sentence says:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32593.html

"Keeping data CDs in the dark for two years isn't a good idea."

It doesn't say keeping data in the dark isn't a good idea, it says that
keeping it in the dark for two years isn't a good idea. Then the article
goes on to say something significantly different from that:

"According to the Dutch magazine PC Active some CD-Rs degrade in months,
even at room temperature without sunlight."

The word "some" is key. It says that these findings don't apply to all CDs,
but only some of them. Apparently some where some place there are CDs that
are so crappy that they can't be stored for as short as 2 years under good
conditions, without degrading unacceptably.

However, it appears to be an example of sloppy journalism.

You got that right!

The results are reasonable.

In the sense that some CDs are so crappy that even when stored in accordance
with accepted methodologies, they don't last two years.

But it's an incorrect inference to
conclude that dark storage is worse than light storage.

Agreed.

IMHO, the correct interpretation is that poor quality CDs can degrade
quickly even in the dark.

Agreed.

It is still an authoritative contradiction of Arny's ignorant
sound-off on the subject of CD brand selection.

Drop the word "ignorant", and I won't point out how much I had to beat on
you Bob, to get you to produce references that supported your claims.