Ouch anan. Aggressive stupidity? I admit I may be uninformed on many things, though I am the last to try and prove people right when I may be wrong (most of the time, heh).
There are just many things about this environmental movement that I question the validity of. That said, there are also a lot of things I accept and am willing to make the change to.
For my sake (as a newcomer to using Apple computers as my primary brand of choice) and for Apple's sake (as a company), I want them to become the most environmentally computer maker around.
There are just many things about this environmental movement that I question the validity of.
Fwiw, please know that I do too. In fact, I question anything that is a 'movement' (incl. when it applies to Apple and SJ).
I try to deal with facts as much as I can - that is not to say that facts are always available, or when available, they're unambiguous, or when they are unambiguous, I am their most objective and unbiased interpreter. But when they are reliably unassailable and are backed by good science, I accept them, try to understand their implications, not get too hung up on whether that aligns me with the Right or the Left in relation to some previously-held predilection, and move on.
The issue of climate change happens to be one of those areas.
I have no interest in evangelizing on the issue, however. I fully realize that shutters fall for some when the phrase is uttered, and that is fine with me too. It is not too much to ask, however, that folks try to deal in the realm of facts and science.
This is not an Al Gore motivated question, but one of fact. Can you (or perhaps teckstud) point me to any data (or even claims) on the energy usage and carbon footprint of matte versus glossy screens? Don't they both have LCD underneath?
"Good design is concerned with the environment. Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment."
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
I figured we could agree on something anan, I just may have given you the idea that I believe something heavily that I do not.
On another note, does anyone have a page that shows what other companies are doing similar to what Apple has for their products?
Here are just a couple of examples (I am by no means suggesting they are better or worse than Apple in terms of their environmental performance, but just that they are equally, if not more, serious, and provide a lot more data on a broader set of initiatives than Apple does):
I don't pay much attention to any company's claims about future environmental plans. Or comparisons with how far they've come. I'm interested in how they're doing compared to competitors in the same industry right now. So yes, someone needs to do that for Apple and its competitors, but that may not be too easy - some companies may not make public critical information needed to give meaningful comparisons. I do commend Apple for making their systems energy efficient, highly recyclable, and for eliminating many toxic materials. And yes, for not requiring energy wasted on virus checking and drastically reducing the need for tech support. Not to mention reducing the amount of audio pollution caused by cursing users compared to Windows machines.
I'm curious about the issue of lead in solder. When you get rid of other toxins, you're left with the need for solder, and traditionally it's mostly lead. I understand that there were initiatives in Europe a few years ago to start widespread use of lead-free solder. The main problem with such solder, as I understand it, is that it has a higher melting temperature, making it difficult to use it without damaging electronic components.
I like to read AppleInsider and similar sites for Apple-related information, and the discussion threads for additional insights. Particularly when certain contentious issues are raised, the discussion can range off topic with heated arguments back and forth. Green Peace's tactics are a relevant topic because of their previous attacks on Apple. I like seeing a good discussion of that issue. But I've noticed that whenever the topics like the environment (among others) comes up, we get raging arguments complete with competing references to web sites and demands to justify in detail and with backup research any statements.
I wish that the arguing posters would pause before posting and consider what outcome they're trying to achieve. Do you think that you're actually going to convince the opposing poster that you're right, for example, on the issue of whether human-caused global warming is a serious issue, or whether Al Gore is a douchebag? All by posting to a thread on an Apple discussion forum? I really don't think so. You may be able to provide information useful to other readers. But then again, consider the venue - is this where anyone is going to get serious information on these issues?
If you are arguing a position, also consider whether your means of expression is self-defeating. For example, several topics can provoke flurries of "Obama's destroying our country, bringing socialism", often in the tone of children shouting in anger. Does that work? Or just convince a reader that that position is supported by fools?
My position is that if someone indicates affection for Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or is intent on denying the scientific basis for human-caused global warming, there is absolutely no point in my ever responding. Nothing that I or anyone posting here could possibly say, or pointers to any number of impeccable references, would ever sway them one iota. Arguing back and forth leads to dozens of increasingly heated posts, making it harder to slog through to possibly useful posts on the main topic.
Apple has made a very big deal out of the fact that their packaging has gotten greener. Well I work for a reseller and I have to say that the way Apple ships laptops to dealers is completely ridiculous. EVERY laptop comes in a separate cardboard box, which is larger than the laptop box. Each laptop box has FOUR styrofoam corners suspending it inside the larger box. Yes, the products are well protected. But styrofoam? There is nothing you can do with it. It can't be recycled and the square shape makes them hard to re-use. We at least re-use foam peanuts in our outgoing packaging. Somebody needs to blow the whistle on this practice. Why not use recyclable plastic instead? Some internal hard drives that we buy come this way. We just put the plastic protectors in our co-mingled recycling bin.
This is not an Al Gore motivated question, but one of fact. Can you (or perhaps teckstud) point me to any data (or even claims) on the energy usage and carbon footprint of matte versus glossy screens? Don't they both have LCD underneath?
Look it up yourself. SJ even mentioned they were more environmentally friendly when he first unveiled them. The glass component in itself would add to the percentage of biodegradble rating- is that that difficult to understand, Anan ?
How about using other materials in their packaging? I always cringe whenever I see the clear plastic boxes their products are housed in. More than that, how about giving their iPods firmware updates? I know this will go against their cash cow's business model (the fact that iPod users have to buy a new one if they want a more current model's features), but all those old iPods sure put a big strain on the environment. Zune owners have that benefit, but I know it contributes to poor sales as Zune owners tend to be more contented with their devices longer, given that their devices stay current longer.
How about using other materials in their packaging? I always cringe whenever I see the clear plastic boxes their products are housed in. More than that, how about giving their iPods firmware updates? I know this will go against their cash cow's business model (the fact that iPod users have to buy a new one if they want a more current model's features), but all those old iPods sure put a big strain on the environment. Zune owners have that benefit, but I know it contributes to poor sales as Zune owners tend to be more contented with their devices longer, given that their devices stay current longer.
I like to read AppleInsider and similar sites for Apple-related information, and the discussion threads for additional insights. Particularly when certain contentious issues are raised, the discussion can range off topic with heated arguments back and forth. Green Peace's tactics are a relevant topic because of their previous attacks on Apple. I like seeing a good discussion of that issue. But I've noticed that whenever the topics like the environment (among others) comes up, we get raging arguments complete with competing references to web sites and demands to justify in detail and with backup research any statements.
etc etc...
Arguing back and forth leads to dozens of increasingly heated posts, making it harder to slog through to possibly useful posts on the main topic.
Nobody is requiring you to read anything. This is an open forum, where anyone can express any (well, mostly any, subject to Moderators) views. And that's the way it should be. If it's a problem, you should go elsewhere.
Nobody is requiring you to read anything. This is an open forum, where anyone can express any (well, mostly any, subject to Moderators) views. And that's the way it should be. If it's a problem, you should go elsewhere.
I guess you see the irony in responding to one of the most reasonable posts on the entire thread (a post about people behaving childishly), with what is effectively, "get lost if you don't like it?"
Comments
... any discussions about carbon seem to be based on questionable science.
Dave
Really? Questionable science? Can you elaborate?
There are just many things about this environmental movement that I question the validity of. That said, there are also a lot of things I accept and am willing to make the change to.
For my sake (as a newcomer to using Apple computers as my primary brand of choice) and for Apple's sake (as a company), I want them to become the most environmentally computer maker around.
Thank you Al Gore INDEED!
Glossy screens halted my purchases and recommendation of Mac's to others.
It was a brilliant plan by Al Gore, absolutely brilliant!
Make computers a pain in the ass to use and people won't buy them! The EARTH WINS!! BRILLIANT!!
Meanwhile Al Gore uses THREE 30" MATTE monitors and a TV on all at once!
Must have hidden eyes all around his head or something.
http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2251ce3f4f219...f3dd4cd5-500pi
Here's the pic - might as well show it:
There are just many things about this environmental movement that I question the validity of.
Fwiw, please know that I do too. In fact, I question anything that is a 'movement' (incl. when it applies to Apple and SJ).
I try to deal with facts as much as I can - that is not to say that facts are always available, or when available, they're unambiguous, or when they are unambiguous, I am their most objective and unbiased interpreter. But when they are reliably unassailable and are backed by good science, I accept them, try to understand their implications, not get too hung up on whether that aligns me with the Right or the Left in relation to some previously-held predilection, and move on.
The issue of climate change happens to be one of those areas.
I have no interest in evangelizing on the issue, however. I fully realize that shutters fall for some when the phrase is uttered, and that is fine with me too. It is not too much to ask, however, that folks try to deal in the realm of facts and science.
Thank you Al Gore INDEED!
Glossy screens halted my purchases and recommendation of Mac's to others.
It was a brilliant plan by Al Gore, absolutely brilliant!
Make computers a pain in the ass to use and people won't buy them! The EARTH WINS!! BRILLIANT!!
Meanwhile Al Gore uses THREE 30" MATTE monitors and a TV on all at once!
Must have hidden eyes all around his head or something.
http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2251ce3f4f219...f3dd4cd5-500pi
This is not an Al Gore motivated question, but one of fact. Can you (or perhaps teckstud) point me to any data (or even claims) on the energy usage and carbon footprint of matte versus glossy screens? Don't they both have LCD underneath?
"Good design is concerned with the environment. Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment."
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Gotta love him!
You cock
On another note, does anyone have a page that shows what other companies are doing similar to what Apple has for their products?
I figured we could agree on something anan, I just may have given you the idea that I believe something heavily that I do not.
On another note, does anyone have a page that shows what other companies are doing similar to what Apple has for their products?
Here are just a couple of examples (I am by no means suggesting they are better or worse than Apple in terms of their environmental performance, but just that they are equally, if not more, serious, and provide a lot more data on a broader set of initiatives than Apple does):
http://content.dell.com/us/en/corp/dell-earth.aspx
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitiz...inability.html
I can give you lots more, and across hundreds of forward-thinking companies.
PS: My first name is not 'anan.'
In a nut shell it is a effort to make sure people are kept poor and dependant on the government.
...
It is extremely frustrating to see this stuff. Especially when any discussions about carbon seem to be based on questionable science.Dave
As opposed to ludicrous and baseless conspiracy theories stemming from a traditional American anti-governmennt attitude?
I'm curious about the issue of lead in solder. When you get rid of other toxins, you're left with the need for solder, and traditionally it's mostly lead. I understand that there were initiatives in Europe a few years ago to start widespread use of lead-free solder. The main problem with such solder, as I understand it, is that it has a higher melting temperature, making it difficult to use it without damaging electronic components.
I like to read AppleInsider and similar sites for Apple-related information, and the discussion threads for additional insights. Particularly when certain contentious issues are raised, the discussion can range off topic with heated arguments back and forth. Green Peace's tactics are a relevant topic because of their previous attacks on Apple. I like seeing a good discussion of that issue. But I've noticed that whenever the topics like the environment (among others) comes up, we get raging arguments complete with competing references to web sites and demands to justify in detail and with backup research any statements.
I wish that the arguing posters would pause before posting and consider what outcome they're trying to achieve. Do you think that you're actually going to convince the opposing poster that you're right, for example, on the issue of whether human-caused global warming is a serious issue, or whether Al Gore is a douchebag? All by posting to a thread on an Apple discussion forum? I really don't think so. You may be able to provide information useful to other readers. But then again, consider the venue - is this where anyone is going to get serious information on these issues?
If you are arguing a position, also consider whether your means of expression is self-defeating. For example, several topics can provoke flurries of "Obama's destroying our country, bringing socialism", often in the tone of children shouting in anger. Does that work? Or just convince a reader that that position is supported by fools?
My position is that if someone indicates affection for Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or is intent on denying the scientific basis for human-caused global warming, there is absolutely no point in my ever responding. Nothing that I or anyone posting here could possibly say, or pointers to any number of impeccable references, would ever sway them one iota. Arguing back and forth leads to dozens of increasingly heated posts, making it harder to slog through to possibly useful posts on the main topic.
Thank you Al Gore INDEED!
Glossy screens halted my purchases and recommendation of Mac's to others.
It was a brilliant plan by Al Gore, absolutely brilliant!
Make computers a pain in the ass to use and people won't buy them! The EARTH WINS!! BRILLIANT!!
Meanwhile Al Gore uses THREE 30" MATTE monitors and a TV on all at once!
Must have hidden eyes all around his head or something.
http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2251ce3f4f219...f3dd4cd5-500pi
thank you thank you and there you gave it - what an hypocrite
This is not an Al Gore motivated question, but one of fact. Can you (or perhaps teckstud) point me to any data (or even claims) on the energy usage and carbon footprint of matte versus glossy screens? Don't they both have LCD underneath?
Look it up yourself. SJ even mentioned they were more environmentally friendly when he first unveiled them. The glass component in itself would add to the percentage of biodegradble rating- is that that difficult to understand, Anan ?
I like to read AppleInsider and similar sites for Apple-related information, and the discussion threads for additional insights. Particularly when certain contentious issues are raised, the discussion can range off topic with heated arguments back and forth. Green Peace's tactics are a relevant topic because of their previous attacks on Apple. I like seeing a good discussion of that issue. But I've noticed that whenever the topics like the environment (among others) comes up, we get raging arguments complete with competing references to web sites and demands to justify in detail and with backup research any statements.
etc etc...
Arguing back and forth leads to dozens of increasingly heated posts, making it harder to slog through to possibly useful posts on the main topic.
Nobody is requiring you to read anything. This is an open forum, where anyone can express any (well, mostly any, subject to Moderators) views. And that's the way it should be. If it's a problem, you should go elsewhere.
Nobody is requiring you to read anything. This is an open forum, where anyone can express any (well, mostly any, subject to Moderators) views. And that's the way it should be. If it's a problem, you should go elsewhere.
I guess you see the irony in responding to one of the most reasonable posts on the entire thread (a post about people behaving childishly), with what is effectively, "get lost if you don't like it?"