or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › WSJ: Apple's Chamber departure not in shareholders' interests
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WSJ: Apple's Chamber departure not in shareholders' interests - Page 2

post #41 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Right - the Wall Street Journal doesn't know what they're talking about- especially that Walt Mossberg!

So you agree that his review of Windows 7 is a crock, and that it isn't nearly as good as he thinks it is?
post #42 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

You got your cable channels mixed up...

PMSNBC is the cable channel that obsesses over Palin and Rush to the point that some, like that dork Keith "I still think Bush is in office" Olbermann, needs psychiatric counseling as in yesterday and the rest I just term as brown noses, not brown shirts, brown noses... Because they have their heads stuck up so far Obama's a$$ they couldn't report the news accurately if their life depended upon it!

Calm it down.
post #43 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

The difference between Fox and MSNBC is that the 20% of right wing dead-enders need that self-affirming echo chamber and religiously (literally) watch the likes of Bleck.
MSNBC types think for themselves and don't need their hourly dose of talking points.

BTW, indeed, when polls ask Americans if they consider themselves Liberal or Conservative, people tend to think of themselves as conservative (small 'c') and answer that way.
But when you poll issue by issue, whether its gay rights, single payer, gun control, etc etc, most americans end up looking pretty Liberal.
Funny about that, huh?

I think many people in the U.S. do not care if some one is gay and do not want to discriminate against them but on the other hand most ballot proposals that would have legalized gay marriage have failed. I also believe that many past surveys show gun ownership is down but a majority of people have said that even though they don't own a gun they support others right to do so. So what does that make them?

I think trying to pidgin hole people simply because they watch a news network you don't like is pretty naive and insulting as well.

I think the bigger issue that you folks are ignoring is not Apple dropping out of the chamber, or even if CO2 should be regulated. It is the two different methods of control that are being debated which would be legislative effort versus executive order. If it is done legislatively then it will or at least should be more open to scrutiny as well as allowing we the people to have input on the process. If it is allowed to be regulated by the Epa then procedures and controls will be issued by executive order with little or no public input and scrutiny and no clear explanation of the costs that will be incurred. If this seems like a good idea because the current president shares your views remember the next one might not and could just as easily weaken or overturn said regulations.
Remember The heart attack specials "energy task force" that was held behind closed doors? The controversy that surrounded that fiasco would be nothing compared to the special interests and
lobbying that would happen around something as big as CO2 regulations and cap and trade.

Just some food for thought.

Jim
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #44 of 196
It is humorous that the Wall Street Journal knows so little about modern business.

Apple got where it is today by breaking molds and pursuing its vision. Not by following a bunch of hoary, MBA claptrap. Those were the guys who nearly killed Apple in the mid-1990s.

If a $191 stock price does not impress the WSJ, then nothing will. Apple does what it wants, because it has earned it. As a result, it can lead instead of follow. It's called leadership.
post #45 of 196
The Chamber also opposes the Consumer Protect Act. Good riddance.
post #46 of 196
Fabulous. I'm happy a main-stream publication pointed out the hypocrisy of Apple here. Spot on.
post #47 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Excellent example of right wing rebuttal. Glad you're so onboard with the easy melding of capitalism and totalitarian communism. But you're right... they do fit well together.

No rebuttal... merely acknowledging your supreme intellect and awesome insights. I am a JFK liberal... dufus!
post #48 of 196
After any power shift, don't people on the other side tend to flock to the media outlets? That's a form of selection bias.

I don't know if the audience choice of a cable news networks necessarily represent the population as a whole either. The combined viewership of all those channels is something like 5 million people or less, out of a population of 300 million.

I can only tolerate them in very tiny doses, and I don't like political pundits, regardless of their affiliation, it seems they all spin things so tightly that it seems the only thing they can make are nooses and they set the nooses up in a way they hope their opponents just walk into, but like the slapstick comedy of ages past, they themselves seem to get caught in their nooses in the end.
post #49 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The WSJ is a very conservative journal. Its business articles are usually good, but its editorials are often not.

This is one of those "not" times.

Actually, the WSJ leans left as well. You're probably just used to the publications that are extremely left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosh01 View Post

Who cares about WSJ anymore

Uh, apparently, a lot of people.
post #50 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

It is humorous that the Wall Street Journal knows so little about modern business.

Apple got where it is today by breaking molds and pursuing its vision. Not by following a bunch of hoary, MBA claptrap. Those were the guys who nearly killed Apple in the mid-1990s.

If a $191 stock price does not impress the WSJ, then nothing will. Apple does what it wants, because it has earned it. As a result, it can lead instead of follow. It's called leadership.

I think it is called Apple's lucky moves at opportune times. Like getting Jobs to come back. Like selling hard into to graphics industries and chumming the educational sector and finally (hopefully successfully) commercial businesses.

BTW EPS growth not stock price is the real driver. And Apple has plenty of that. Traders look at stock prices and trends. Investors are concerned more with the fundamentals of the company.

MBAs... you sound like you rang the bell!
post #51 of 196
It would be nice for a few people to actually READ the article before jumping to their pre-concieved opinions about the Journal. It quite rightly points out that Apple and Nike have in effect exported their pollution to China and that if they were in fact producing the same things in the US they would be on the hook for $100 plus million in carbon taxes. Perhaps they will generously offer to pay them anyway.

I found the article to be fair and balanced.. anyone looked into how much energy Al uses to heat his pool lately? or jet around the world promoting hi agenda?
post #52 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by floccus View Post

Al Gore stands to profit from investing in "green" technology if the climate bill passes... how is that a bad thing?

It is a very bad thing if Gore is pushing the legislation to ensure his personal wealth. It is especially bad if that wealth is the result of tax payer dollars being funneled to Gore, especially my tax payer dollars.
Quote:
Gore is no longer a Senator and thus wouldn't be voting for the bill himself, he simply recognized that doing something about climate change is going to require large investments in an area that few established business were providing goods/services.

I have no problem at all with somebody investing in technology with their own money to serve the public market. It is a very bad thing to have public money funneled to Gore to support technology that has no demand and in the end will be under written by the government.

Frankly this is worst than the excessive Milk production of the 70's & 80's. The government may of had a valid issue to address( the health of the poor) but the program quickly became a wellfare program for farmers. Al Gore doesn't need his own personal wellfare program.
Quote:
Frankly, the WSJ should be commending him for his foresight as a businessman for that and not using it as evidence that Apple will somehow be harmed when legislation passes.

The said it is not in the best interest of Apples share holders and frankly I agree. If Apple had played chicken over a real problem like lead posioning or water quality I'd say great it's a well define issue that needs to be addressed. Global warming however is more of a scam than anything right now.

That is not to dismiss the possibility of global warming it just reflects the fact that the science is so bad it is basically worthless. This is really the huge problem with global warming, the research pretty much revolves around proving the concept rather than finding the truth. Sadly this so called research dismisses or ignore multiple factors with respect to conditions on the planet.



Dave
post #53 of 196
Going from quarter to quarter and the desperate need to make profit and perform well, sometimes no matter the long term cost for this short term monetary benefit is who the WSJ represent right?

Of course they're going to criticize Apple for taking a stance against blinkered, destructive, short sighted, self centred mentalities of corporate capitalism!

Rant over
post #54 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamse7en View Post

Fabulous. I'm happy a main-stream publication pointed out the hypocrisy of Apple here. Spot on.

I don't think anyone undrstands what you said. Could you be more specific?
post #55 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by allotrope View Post

... anyone looked into how much energy Al uses to heat his pool lately? or jet around the world promoting hi agenda?

As of the end of 2007.

In June, 2009, Gore's spokesperson stated:
Quote:
The Gores' home is certified by the US Green Building Council as a Gold LEED certified home for retrofitted homes. As part of the LEED certification process, they upgraded their windows, lighting, appliances and insulation, among other items in and around the home [...] The residence is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. The Gores also participate in the "Green PowerSwitch" program offered by their utility [company].

In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #56 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamse7en View Post

Actually, the WSJ leans left as well. You're probably just used to the publications that are extremely left.


Uh, apparently, a lot of people.

No, I'm a long time subscriber to both the WSJ and the NY Times.

While those from the right accuse the Times of being left wing, it's really pretty center.
post #57 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't think anyone undrstands what you said. Could you be more specific?

Mel, the moderate moderator who augments this discussion.

Have you read the WSJ opinion article. Pretty clear to me what poster is referring to.

Excuse me if I am way off on your function. I have never experienced moderators who weigh in on topic discussions and take positions on one side or other. Glad to see that you folks are not letting these discussions succumb to the stature of early Yahoo discussion groups. I realize that this is really not an intellectual group, merely a fan group of Apple, but you and your fellow moderators had done fairly well in controlling the palaver. Kudos.
post #58 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The WSJ is a very conservative journal. Its business articles are usually good, but its editorials are often not.

Actually they're very progressive on a number of fronts: education reform, health reform, tort reform, tax reform, etc... Granted, they take a business standpoint, just as you would expect an environmental group to take an environmental standpoint on an issue. Those are anything but status quo positions. They're not against environmental change either, just ones that don't make economic sense. They push for relaxing the nonsense holding back implementing more nuclear facilities and nuclear processing just as France does and just as the former head of Greenpeace has. You can't ignore the financials of a situation...it's the 800 pound gorilla that will never go away. Leaving an organization like the CoC was a dumb stunt, and the Journal was simply pointing out that it will, at some point, take a bite out of their butt. Smart companies don't do politics in the limelight.
post #59 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

Actually they're very progressive on a number of fronts: education reform, health reform, tort reform, tax reform, etc... Granted, they take a business standpoint, just as you would expect an environmental group to take an environmental standpoint on an issue. Those are anything but status quo positions. They're not against environmental change either, just ones that don't make economic sense. They push for relaxing the nonsense holding back implementing more nuclear facilities and nuclear processing just as France does and just as the former head of Greenpeace has. You can't ignore the financials of a situation...it's the 800 pound gorilla that will never go away. Leaving an organization like the CoC was a dumb stunt, and the Journal was simply pointing out that it will, at some point, take a bite out of their butt. Smart companies don't do politics in the limelight.

Wow! Dasein, Du bist das einziger Mench. Someone here who reads and thinks! Sprechlos!
post #60 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by webpoet73 View Post

I hope not... my favorite tv shows are on FOX.

Careful, they may be killing your shows next week
post #61 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by webpoet73 View Post

I hope not... my favorite tv shows are on FOX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmas View Post

Careful, they may be killing your shows next week

Yeah, really. They'll introduce something interesting one month, the next month it's replaced with vapid tripe.
post #62 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisbear View Post

Mel, the moderate moderator who augments this discussion.

Have you read the WSJ opinion article. Pretty clear to me what poster is referring to.

Excuse me if I am way off on your function. I have never experienced moderators who weigh in on topic discussions and take positions on one side or other. Glad to see that you folks are not letting these discussions succumb to the stature of early Yahoo discussion groups. I realize that this is really not an intellectual group, merely a fan group of Apple, but you and your fellow moderators had done fairly well in controlling the palaver. Kudos.

It really wasn't that clear. Asking him to be more specific is always a good idea.

We control little, as you can tell by your comments here.

As are other mods here, I was a member first.

But if this was some other sites, more than half of the posts would have been deleted.

Is that what some want?
post #63 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

Actually they're very progressive on a number of fronts: education reform, health reform, tort reform, tax reform, etc... Granted, they take a business standpoint, just as you would expect an environmental group to take an environmental standpoint on an issue. Those are anything but status quo positions. They're not against environmental change either, just ones that don't make economic sense. They push for relaxing the nonsense holding back implementing more nuclear facilities and nuclear processing just as France does and just as the former head of Greenpeace has. You can't ignore the financials of a situation...it's the 800 pound gorilla that will never go away. Leaving an organization like the CoC was a dumb stunt, and the Journal was simply pointing out that it will, at some point, take a bite out of their butt. Smart companies don't do politics in the limelight.

It depends on what is meant by progressive.

I've subscribed to the WSJ for longer than I can remember. If I didn't like the publication, I wouldn't be spending upwards of $500 a year for it.

But just because they support, or don't support something, doesn't make it good or bad.

Companies get little out of the chamber other than the right to contribute to the salaries of the staff, and the lobbying efforts.

The entire goal of the organization is to prevent legislation that members think will hurt their businesses, and to support that which they think will help them. nothing wrong with that offhand.

But not every company has the same goals as to legislation. What will hurt one company will benefit another.

Why should companies who disagree with the goals of the organization remain a member if they don't believe their best interests are at heart, or for that matter, the best interests of the country? Are conservatives now against a company doing that?

The fact that the most important companies to leave have been power generating companies. Those are the companies that would benefit most from the chambers efforts. It's expected that more will do so. So if they are leaving...

Apple doesn't benefit from being there.

They do benefit from being a member of the Business Roundtable.
post #64 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It really wasn't that clear. Asking him to be more specific is always a good idea.

We control little, as you can tell by your comments here.

As are other mods here, I was a member first.

But if this was some other sites, more than half of the posts would have been deleted.

Is that what some want?

Mel, I think MOST want to stick to the topic at hand. If someone wants to opine on something not germane to the topic, they should have the heading "OT" on the post.

I did not know that you were the arbiter of poster decorum based upon your longevity. I guess experience trumps all. My comments are completely innocuous and meant to bring the discussion back to a rational level. Is that what you, as a moderator, are seeking?
Still a pretty good group of later posters. Like I said, Kudos.
post #65 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisbear View Post

Mel, I think MOST want to stick to the topic at hand. If someone wants to opine on something not germane to the topic, they should have the heading "OT" on the post.

I did not know that you were the arbiter of poster decorum based upon your longevity. I guess experience trumps all. My comments are completely innocuous and meant to bring the discussion back to a rational level. Is that what you, as a moderator, are seeking?
Still a pretty good group of later posters. Like I said, Kudos.

Any mod can decide what to edit, delete, and to whom belongs the black star.

But we just try to keep things from becoming too extreme. People have to be allowed to vent a bit. It's preferred that they don't state extreme political views hough.
post #66 of 196
First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these f-ers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the f- up before we become the USR of A.
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #67 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these fuckers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the fuck up before we become the USR of A.

Seriously, no offense intended, but imho, you really should: (i) Get out more; (ii) Read more; (iii) Think more.
post #68 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these fuckers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the fuck up before we become the USR of A.

Wow. Forgot to take your meds again, eh?
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #69 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Right. Fox News is the most watched news channel in the US. The ratings for their primetime lineup dwarfs MSNBC and CNN and has for years. Murdoch is definately not in tune with the way America feels. He's out of touch. Most Americans support and crave a super left wing liberal agenda. That's why Obama's ratings are so high - cause people really love bigger government and higher taxes. I'm sure Murdoch's empire is falling soon. Hold your breath.

Thanks. You just proved my point as to why it would be a good thing to happen.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #70 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these f-ers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the f- up before we become the USR of A.

The cooling might have been because of high altitude particulate pollution blocking sunlight. Nova had an excellent program on this called "Dimming The Sun", they went over how the data was gathered, how the data was checked, made a pretty convincing case. A lot more convincing than going onto a forum and throwing around profanities and hyperbole anyways.
post #71 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

Wow. Forgot to take your meds again, eh?

No, genius. I am just someone who had to live under socialism for 22 years and I know what's going on in this country.
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #72 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The WSJ is a very conservative journal. Its business articles are usually good, but its editorials are often not.

In the aggregate, I would actually not call them 'conservative' except for their editorial pages. The rest of WSJ is surprisingly middle-of-the-road. I agree that the articles are generally better than the editorials and the op-ed (but that might also be a function of my political predilections, which gravitate towards the center.)
post #73 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The cooling might have been because of particulate pollution blocking sunlight. Nova had an excellent program on this called "Dimming The Sun", they went over how the data was gathered, how the data was checked, made a pretty convincing case. A lot more convincing than going onto a forum and throwing around profanities and hyperbole anyways.

What about all the other times when Earth has been colder or hotter than today?How does Gore explain that one?It's all cyclical and it will continue to be that way after we are long gone.
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #74 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these f-ers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the f- up before we become the USR of A.

It's really terrific that you have it all digested and intelligently compartmentalized. If there's any additional cranial capacity to absorb the great truths on origin, here's a current clarification from the EPA:

Quote:
Climate change refers to any significant changes in climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:

· natural causes (changes in the sun's intensity, changes in ocean circulation, etc.)

· human activities (burning fossil fuels, deforestation, urbanization, etc.)

Global warming is an average increase in the Earth's temperature, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human. Today, "global warming" commonly refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.

But, changing the terms was suggested early on by Republican consultant Frank Luntz in a memo to George W. Bush in 2002, in part stating:

Quote:
Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

The phrase global warming should be abandoned in favor of climate change, and the party should describe its policies as conservationist instead of environmentalist, because most people think environmentalists are extremists who indulge in some pretty bizarre behavior... that turns off many voters.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #75 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

You got your cable channels mixed up...

PMSNBC is the cable channel that obsesses over Palin and Rush to the point that some, like that dork Keith "I still think Bush is in office" Olbermann, needs psychiatric counseling as in yesterday and the rest I just term as brown noses, not brown shirts, brown noses... Because they have their heads stuck up so far Obama's a$$ they couldn't report the news accurately if their life depended upon it!


Obama - "Change We Can Believe"

Rush - "How's that change working out for you?!"

Me - Republican Party should fold, Tea Party should take it's place!"


Well, we can't argue with that, I guess. With the "teabagging" and all that stuff, you obviously know everything there is about brown-nosing. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Ex Cathedra
Reply
Ex Cathedra
Reply
post #76 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

What about all the other times when Earth has been colder or hotter than today?How does Gore explain that one?It's all cyclical and it will continue to be that way after we are long gone.

Here.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #77 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

What about all the other times when Earth has been colder or hotter than today?How does Gore explain that one?It's all cyclical and it will continue to be that way after we are long gone.

Of course, it's cyclical, but I don't think it makes sense to use that as an excuse to ignore possible man-made causes that are pushing the changes faster than they would otherwise. Overall temperatures have been higher and lower, but I don't think temperature swings have been as drastic as they are now short of a geologic era changing catastrophe.
post #78 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

It's really terrific that you have it all digested and intelligently compartmentalized. If there's any additional cranial capacity to absorb the great truths on origin, here's a clarification from the EPA:

Because so are soooooo schmart: By definition, climate is ALWAYS changing. I am not fooled by any of their B.S. Everytime the government comes up with some scheme to supposedly protect us from ourselves, we are the ones that end up paying for it by means of higher taxes and added fees. The Earth has been cooling since 1998 and that is why they now call the hoax climate change. Sorry if you can't see this hoax for what it is.
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #79 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

Because so are soooooo schmart: ...

Sorry if you can't see this hoax for what it is.

Thank you.

Apology accepted ... I guess.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #80 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Of course, it's cyclical, but I don't think it makes sense to use that as an excuse to ignore possible man-made causes that are pushing the changes faster than they would otherwise. Overall temperatures have been higher and lower, but I don't think temperature swings have been as drastic as they are now short of a geologic era changing catastrophe.

I really think everyone here would benefit from reading this thread about so called climate change. Very informative, with a few real scientists heavily involved in the discussion.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=646331
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › WSJ: Apple's Chamber departure not in shareholders' interests