From an engineers point of view there is only so much that can be done to a consumer product to make it fool proof. Engineers have packed prodigous amounts of computing performance into rediculously small packages. It is diffcult if not impossible to do that without using forced air cooling to keep it all cool enough to run. That means that whatever environment you are operating in gets sucked in and then blown out of the case. You want to use your laptop at the beach, thats abuse. You want to smoke around it, thats abuse. You want to let your cat use it as a place to nap, thats abuse. You want something that can stand up to all this abuse? Its called military ruggedized equipment and it is available at a considerably higher cost (not to mention weight and size). Do yourself a favor and use some not so common sense to protect your investment.
Finally, all the arguments about whether Apple could supply their workers with protective gear is beside the point. As a non smoker I am disgusted by everything associated with smoking. I will not even socialize with a smoker because they reek of stale tocacco smoke (not that fresh tobacco smoke is any better). I reserve the right to choose not to have anything to do with a smoker or his possesions and that includes at the workplace. I think Apple has shown an amount of compassion for its workforce by not forcing them to deal with anything contaminated by tobacco smoke, no matter how slightly. If you are a smoker you cannot understand just how gross, sickening, and just plain disgusting the smell of tobacco smoke can be. Its even worse than the smell of raw sewage.
I think most consider radon gas to be the 2nd most serious risk factor for lung cancer.
Actually Radon gas is a non starter as a health hazard. You inspirate it, then you expirate it. No Problem. On the other hand the daughters of Radon are both solids and are both alpha particle emitters, again no problem UNLESS they happen to get lodged in your lungs. None of this would ever have been a problem if the psuedo scientists posing as environmentalists hadn't successfully sold the idea that conservation of energy is a "new" source of energy which led to the idea of making houses so airtight that they began to trap the radon gas that perculates up from the ground virtually everywhere. That's because uranium is ubiquitous and radon is a daughter of uranium. To protect yourself you should buy a drafty old shack to live in or open the windows in what you have.
Actually Radon gas is a non starter as a health hazard. You inspirate it, then you expirate it. No Problem. On the other hand the daughters of Radon are both solids and are both alpha particle emitters, again no problem UNLESS they happen to get lodged in your lungs. None of this would ever have been a problem if the psuedo scientists posing as environmentalists hadn't successfully sold the idea that conservation of energy is a "new" source of energy which led to the idea of making houses so airtight that they began to trap the radon gas that perculates up from the ground virtually everywhere. That's because uranium is ubiquitous and radon is a daughter of uranium. To protect yourself you should buy a drafty old shack to live in or open the windows in what you have.
Sorry but you seem to be in direct conflict with the EPA's statement:
"Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked."
Also... Dr. Maria Neira of WHO said that "Most radon-induced lung cancers occur from low and medium dose exposures in people's homes. Radon is the second most important cause of lung cancer after smoking in many countries."
How else would Apple know the computer was exposed to cigarette smoke? Is it on the buyer's agreement that they have to indicate their smoking status? "Hey, you look all wrinkly and stink so you must be a smoker so sorry, we're not fixing your computer."
Seriously, it's not that hard to see if a computer is exposed to regular cigarette smoke. It speaks for itself! There's a big difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2
Yeah, right. How does Apple know a computer contains harmful substances in sufficient quantities to be harmful? (especially if they wouldn't even look at it?) They got an OSHA inspector at every repair station? The OSHA regulations on nicotine concern concentrations in air. Just containing a harmful substance doesn't mean the computer is harmful. Look at all the BFRs in their slightly older computers. Does Apple refuse to service them because of that?
Good. As a technician, I have been forced to work on computers that smelled so bad I felt nauseous, and every part felt sticky with smoke residue.
It's easy to tell if there's been a smoker around a computer for any significant length of time - unless you, too, are a smoker, and then of course you won't notice the stench.
Wow, you must live in your own little smoke filled bubble where cigarette smoke and tar is as clean and fresh as mountain air accented with the smell of daisies.
Get your head out of your butt and open your eyes to the realities of the toxicity of cigarette smoke. That yellow/brown hue on the walls of your home is not the paint colour you used. Really.
Oh, and with regards to your first sentence, "normal use" does not and should not mean being exposed to a regular haze of cigarette smoke. Dust and lint is normal. We all shed skin cells and wear clothes. A layer of tar from tobacco smoke is NOT normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbdoc
AppleCare is for repairing computers that break. Usual warranty practice is something like "we'll repair your appliance if it breaks under normal use
<snip>
And if it were mentioned, I'd be enraged. If it broke down because of a build-up of lint and dust, I bet they'd fix it; how is smoke - "normal" tobacco smoke, not the smoke caused by the fire that burnt my house down - different? I can use my TV, etc., while smoking, without voiding the warranty, so why not my Mac?
And the health hazard part of this is outrageous. We're talking about smoke residue, not second-hand smoke, and I'd be curious to know what, if any, valid qualitative and quantitative studies have been done on the local or systemic effects of skin contact with cigaret smoke residue, and what these studies show.
We don't know the condition of the computers that Apple refused to fix. For all we know, they looked like the photo of the keyboard that was posted. If that were the case, can anyone blame Apple for refusing to fix it under warranty?
My original post/point was, if a computer is so obviously tobacco smoke damaged, Apple should not be responsible for repairing it under warranty. From the article, this sounds to have been the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
I agree. The way they're handling it makes it looks like its trying to sell extended warranty under false pretense and then weasel their way out of them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this eventually became a class action lawsuit, something that could have been avoided by either listing smoking as voiding the warranty or sending a notice that repairing such things is a health violations and allowing those who smoke or live with those who do to cancel their AppleCare.
just another big corporation trying to screw its customers out of costly warranties...
Ever since the inception of the warranty, companies have been finding ways any way they can to not honor them.
This is a nice and simple way of voiding your warranty even if there is no proof of anything. Next up...if you ever sneeze around your computer the warranty is null! Afterall...it might be a flu hazard...
Since when was smoke damage considered a covered warranty repair? No proof of anything? How about the computers smell like SHIT because that is what happens to clothes, cars, and other household items when they are around smoke. Your comment is pointless and full of crap. There are plenty of companies that go out of their way to resolve warranty and even non-warranty issues (called Goodwill repair) on certain products (even Apple continues to repair the liquid cooled Power Mac G5's when they leak). The owners are negligent for subjecting the equipment to smoke damage.
Employers have every right to protect their employees from health hazards. I wouldn't want to work on a computer that smelled like a dirty ass ashtray. The smokers don't get it because they don't realize they sit in their own filth all day long reeking of an ashtray.
That is why good sellers on eBay advertise that their item came from a smoke-free environment because no one wants to acquire something that smells like a nicotine addict.
Considering your argument consists of a lame citing of Child Labor laws and obscure mining equipment regulations to support your "government knows best and solves all" argument, you appear to have a very weak case. I'll give you one more chance, then I'll argue your own side for you. Only because I can't stand your incompetence.
Your inability to grasp arguments and nuance is just pathetic. You tromp around an argument like a hippo trying to ballet dance. You are my intellectual inferior and always will be -- no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Love to hear about your breakthroughs in physics and the classic literature you've authored.
Yet another example of your inability to keep up. Someone can do important work without it being in the fields of the people you cited. Here's a hint: Something I helped build and test is currently over 116 million miles from Earth and still thrusting using ion propulsion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Yes, you did indeed equate smokers with rapists."
You liar!
You: Dunno about that, there have been some pretty awesome smokers in our history.
Me: Yeah, and some awesome pedophiles, wife beaters, rapists, and murderers, too, right?
That's not 'equating'. It's showing how stupid you were to suggest that the societal contributions of smokers somehow meant that smoking should be viewed less harshly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Good luck with that. Everybody else disagrees with you
Cite your sources for that. If "everyone else" disagrees, just who is it who voted for laws and regulations to determine what was "safe enough" in a mine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
*Remedial History Lesson*
You took a lot of that, I can tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the People only grant specific, limited powers to the Government. Not the other way around.
And some of those powers include providing for the "general welfare" of the citizens. OSHA's establishing document included "The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources --"
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
I know this is a foreign concept, but most people can think for themselves and make big boy decisions.
Save your "big boy" comments for the children you're trying to hit on at the mall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
A lot of people that work in mining are pretty damned educated and specialized in their field.
Educated and desperate are not mutually exclusive. People who are financially desperate will take risks that others will not. That's one reason why the government regulates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
But in your world, mining companies are evil
Your stupidity is giving me a headache. There's a major difference between amoral and evil. Most companies look for ways to maximize profits. That's an amoral goal -- not an evil one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
I guess they must have endless supply of money and poor people to keep retraining, and that nobody of a senior status ever sets foot in a mine?
So I guess you think that the government passed regulations requiring that mining companies keep doing the same things that they had been doing all along? You honestly believe that the federal government stepped in and said "This is a safe working environment. We must pass legislation and regulations requiring that they keep up the good work."?
Here's your remedial history lesson: In 1910, following a decade in which the number of coal mine fatalities exceeded 2,000 annually, Congress established the Bureau of Mines as a new agency in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau was charged with the responsibility to conduct research and to reduce accidents in the coal mining industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
You must think poor people are so desperate that they'll work in super dangerous mines?
Who do you think has been dying in the mines? Wealthy CEOs? Mining is one of the most perilous industries to work in according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with a death rate 27.8 deaths in mining for every 100,000 workers in 2007. Did you think that 5% of miners have evidence of black lung disease because mines are so safe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
You think only the miners are affected in a disaster? How about the mining company? Why would they, in your wildest fantasies want a mine to collapse, stop their productivity, and lose all that money in the market?
You really don't understand basic economics and capitalism. Amazing. Of course mining companies don't want disasters to happen. But neither are they willing to cut production in half and quadruple the investment in safety equipment, training, and procedures to prevent it. To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, unregulated capitalism rewards companies who are the most efficient, not those with the best safety record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Dude, you got pØwned. No amount of selective quoting can change that.
Jesus F***ing Christ, I'm trying to debate with a 12 year old. But to clear things up, I've completely and totally dominated you in this discussion, making it obvious to everyone reading that you are an imbecile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Profound, but you're ignoring the part where you said "government regulation" led to this. Kind of like saying US laws concerning theft, led to the prevailing notion that theft is bad. Try again.
Government regulation did lead to McDonalds and Walmart not having 12 year olds working 12 hour days seven days a week. You think that they just decided that it would be "wrong" on their own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Once again - it's common knowledge and undisputed that Child Labor laws/the government were ineffective in changing the abuses of children in this country during the Industrial Revolution...
So you've decided that a law is only effective if there is almost immediate compliance with it. You can't cite the effect decades later to show that the law is a good and valuable thing. You can't show how it became useful as enforcement was stepped up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Pick a university, write their history department about it. In the meantime... I'll have fries with that.
Have some cigarettes, too. The sooner you die, the better off we all will be.
No, they can't avoid the smoke. They all smell like an ashtray. None of them are respectable. But that was their choice to get addicted.
New England Journal of medicine have had reports that smoking is just as, if not more so, addicting then heroin and much harder to quit. It was just a few short years ago that the tobacco companies were found liable for targeting teens and had to pay millions in restatutiion. Knowone grows up saying they want to be addicted to anything, and now they say to much caffeine may be hazardous to your health.
And for the record, pot was seen as a threat to the lumbering farms in the 1800's, so this is where the first out law came from. The paper companies. I sontbamoke it but if it were legal like in Amsterdam, we would not jabs the crime that we have. In the NE, they don't even talk about it. It's all programming of the mind.
I remember sitting there watching a tv show in Dutch, both people were naked and then had sex, there were a few teena there. They never once looked up from their books. We make up for the lack of nudity by using violence which is illegal in holland. If you are programmed to be an anti smoker, then the right message got through. Sure, it can be dagerous but like some have said, some people fie without ever smoking ( cancer ), while others smoke Ns live to 100.
I totally understand where Apple is coming from. I work on PC's at work and I have had to work on users notebooks that looked, and smelled like they were using it as an ash tray. Its disgusting! I smell and feel dirty after working on it.
I will say though, Apple should refund them the cost of AppleCare since they neglected to warn customers that smoking will void the agreement.
That aside, Apple has every right to deny these computers. It isn't just shirking costs for repairs, it's avoiding huge pay outs to these employees when they sue Apple for making them handle equipment deemed toxic by OSHA! You want Apple to work on your tar covered laptop, then you should sign something saying you will be responsible for any & all legal fees if brought against Apple as well as any possible health effects on the employee both current & future!
This is truly mind-boggling, if true! Corporatism at its worst. Can't they wear some gloves and a mask?! Where are we heading next? Apple campus is going to be sealed off in an antiseptic bubble?
At the least, I hope Apple refunded their money.
Why would one wear a mask and gloves to protect themselves just because a customer has chosen to perform an unhealthy activity on a regular basis? It's the same principle as if someone were to get some sort of toxic drug on the case of a computer and asked an Apple employee to deal with it by putting on a body suit during repair. It isn't Apple's problem if someone wishes to engage in such activities.
I will say though, Apple should refund them the cost of AppleCare since they neglected to warn customers that smoking will void the agreement.
Except that it doesn't void the agreement. The agreement is that Apple will fix manufacturing defects. A computer damaged by a build-up of tar and nicotine is not an example of a manufacturing defect.
Going beyond that, the agreement does not promise that Apple's technicians will handle or clean-up toxic waste -- or even disgusting things. It may be completely legal for you to defecate and urinate in your own car, but if you do, don't be surprised if the car dealer refuses to do warranty work on it. If you were like most of the smokers who have commented in this thread, you would be infuriated that the dealership was unwilling to make their service technicians to don masks and gloves and push urine-soaked turds out of the way in order to service your car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb
You want Apple to work on your tar covered laptop, then you should sign something saying you will be responsible for any & all legal fees if brought against Apple as well as any possible health effects on the employee both current & future!
Whoa! So imagine yourself as the technician who was told "the customer is taking legal responsibility if you get sick, so we told him that you'd clean up the computer that he spilled his bedpan into." I think the old Nancy Reagan 'just say no' policy on Apple's part is the right one.
1st-There is much more to this "story" than is being revealed. That much should be obvious.
2nd-Regarding this whole smoking deal, ignore all the health aspects and political/media BS associated with it. The fact is humans are the only animals on this earth that VOLUNTARILY put smoke in their bodies. Even a monkey has to be trained to do that.
Just a little food for thought, if it helps anyone.
ironic, isn't it. I mean we can fly to outter space, use microwaves and IMHO, are on the cusp of revoluntionary changes and advancements. My sister was in the air force, stationed in Nevada and a few of the stories are right out if x files.
Anyway, the irony is that out of all the species, we are the most frail when it comes to birth. Look at how penguins or dolphins, cubs, kagaroos are when born. Everything is instinct yet we have to clothe, bath, protect as the baby is clueless compared to other baby animals.
ironic, isn't it. I mean we can fly to outter space, use microwaves and IMHO, are on the cusp of revoluntionary changes and advancements. My sister was in the air force, stationed in Nevada and a few of the stories are right out if x files.
Anyway, the irony is that out of all the species, we are the most frail when it comes to birth. Look at how penguins or dolphins, cubs, kagaroos are when born. Everything is instinct yet we have to clothe, bath, protect as the baby is clueless compared to other baby animals.
Peace.
There is a level of complexity of the organism that seems to largely follows the capacity of the young when born. There also seems to be some exceptions for certain species. Horses offspring can walk and run within minutes of being born but this seems to be one of those survival of fittest, evolutionary situations.
Primates can care for their young at a higher level so there seems to be no reason for a more developed offspring to be born. Your examples are interesting. Penguins take a lot of care to the egg and the offspring keeping both warm and feeding them for several months (I think) after birth until they have developed warming feathers, body fat, and learned enough to fish for themselves. Kangaroos intensively climb from the womb to the pouch if I recall correctly but are then protected by the mother until they are quite large (or at least larger than I would have expected). Cubs, like kittens and puppies are born very frail and require a lot of attention and then specific training from the parent to learn certain hunting skills, as I recall.
Just yesterday I read the article below on oxytocin production which may drive us to be social creatures and may be what causes a mother to clean her pups after birth.
My father, along with quite a few people he worked with, died because his employer thought it okay to knowingly let them work with known hazardous materials - asbestos.
How can you honestly be this upset with a company who is taking a stand to protect their workers from a known health hazard? Are the warranty repair workers supposed to die to fix computers that were not faulty in the first place, but were rather damaged by neglect of their owners? Owners who knowingly put carcinogens in their body and in their air?
Also a company who CEO nearly died from cancer - you want him to force his workers to work with known carcinogens?
I'm sorry to hear about your father.
The problem is that *if* Apple has refused warranty service due to 'safety of our workers' BS, then they are spreading a huge amount of FUD. Tar on PCBs is not particularly dangerous. The solvents used in cleaning the machine are no worse than those found in any car shop. Proper worker education would solve any problems.
Neither is human sh*t, semen, urine, or phlegm, but I would not expect an Apple service tech to have to clean those off either.
But dangerous to what? If it causes dust to cake and cooling to fail, is that no dangerous to the computer? What is the resistance of a layer of tar on a motherboard? How does it not harm a hard disk drive when it clogs the air filters on the breather holes? How does it not harm an optical drive when it is deposited onto the optics of the head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
The solvents used in cleaning the machine are no worse than those found in any car shop.
Hold it right there! Why should my Applecare subscription, and the subscription of all of the non-smokers, be paid to Apple technicians to strip smokers' systems down to the bare boards to do hazmat cleanups?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Proper worker education would solve any problems.
So how do you "educate" a worker so that they don't gag from the smell? How do you educate them so that they don't say "F*ck this! I'm going to work at a data center."? No amount of educating will prevent the revulsion that many techs would feel in that situation.
Comments
Finally, all the arguments about whether Apple could supply their workers with protective gear is beside the point. As a non smoker I am disgusted by everything associated with smoking. I will not even socialize with a smoker because they reek of stale tocacco smoke (not that fresh tobacco smoke is any better). I reserve the right to choose not to have anything to do with a smoker or his possesions and that includes at the workplace. I think Apple has shown an amount of compassion for its workforce by not forcing them to deal with anything contaminated by tobacco smoke, no matter how slightly. If you are a smoker you cannot understand just how gross, sickening, and just plain disgusting the smell of tobacco smoke can be. Its even worse than the smell of raw sewage.
I think most consider radon gas to be the 2nd most serious risk factor for lung cancer.
Actually Radon gas is a non starter as a health hazard. You inspirate it, then you expirate it. No Problem. On the other hand the daughters of Radon are both solids and are both alpha particle emitters, again no problem UNLESS they happen to get lodged in your lungs. None of this would ever have been a problem if the psuedo scientists posing as environmentalists hadn't successfully sold the idea that conservation of energy is a "new" source of energy which led to the idea of making houses so airtight that they began to trap the radon gas that perculates up from the ground virtually everywhere. That's because uranium is ubiquitous and radon is a daughter of uranium. To protect yourself you should buy a drafty old shack to live in or open the windows in what you have.
Actually Radon gas is a non starter as a health hazard. You inspirate it, then you expirate it. No Problem. On the other hand the daughters of Radon are both solids and are both alpha particle emitters, again no problem UNLESS they happen to get lodged in your lungs. None of this would ever have been a problem if the psuedo scientists posing as environmentalists hadn't successfully sold the idea that conservation of energy is a "new" source of energy which led to the idea of making houses so airtight that they began to trap the radon gas that perculates up from the ground virtually everywhere. That's because uranium is ubiquitous and radon is a daughter of uranium. To protect yourself you should buy a drafty old shack to live in or open the windows in what you have.
Sorry but you seem to be in direct conflict with the EPA's statement:
"Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked."
http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html
Also... Dr. Maria Neira of WHO said that "Most radon-induced lung cancers occur from low and medium dose exposures in people's homes. Radon is the second most important cause of lung cancer after smoking in many countries."
Dude- that's not my post- why are you attributing that to me? It's too long for one thing.
Sorry about that. I didn't actually do that. I think there may have been a glitch at the time.
Seriously, it's not that hard to see if a computer is exposed to regular cigarette smoke. It speaks for itself! There's a big difference!
Yeah, right. How does Apple know a computer contains harmful substances in sufficient quantities to be harmful? (especially if they wouldn't even look at it?) They got an OSHA inspector at every repair station? The OSHA regulations on nicotine concern concentrations in air. Just containing a harmful substance doesn't mean the computer is harmful. Look at all the BFRs in their slightly older computers. Does Apple refuse to service them because of that?
It's easy to tell if there's been a smoker around a computer for any significant length of time - unless you, too, are a smoker, and then of course you won't notice the stench.
Get your head out of your butt and open your eyes to the realities of the toxicity of cigarette smoke. That yellow/brown hue on the walls of your home is not the paint colour you used. Really.
Oh, and with regards to your first sentence, "normal use" does not and should not mean being exposed to a regular haze of cigarette smoke. Dust and lint is normal. We all shed skin cells and wear clothes. A layer of tar from tobacco smoke is NOT normal.
AppleCare is for repairing computers that break. Usual warranty practice is something like "we'll repair your appliance if it breaks under normal use
<snip>
And if it were mentioned, I'd be enraged. If it broke down because of a build-up of lint and dust, I bet they'd fix it; how is smoke - "normal" tobacco smoke, not the smoke caused by the fire that burnt my house down - different? I can use my TV, etc., while smoking, without voiding the warranty, so why not my Mac?
And the health hazard part of this is outrageous. We're talking about smoke residue, not second-hand smoke, and I'd be curious to know what, if any, valid qualitative and quantitative studies have been done on the local or systemic effects of skin contact with cigaret smoke residue, and what these studies show.
My original post/point was, if a computer is so obviously tobacco smoke damaged, Apple should not be responsible for repairing it under warranty. From the article, this sounds to have been the case.
I agree. The way they're handling it makes it looks like its trying to sell extended warranty under false pretense and then weasel their way out of them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this eventually became a class action lawsuit, something that could have been avoided by either listing smoking as voiding the warranty or sending a notice that repairing such things is a health violations and allowing those who smoke or live with those who do to cancel their AppleCare.
just another big corporation trying to screw its customers out of costly warranties...
Ever since the inception of the warranty, companies have been finding ways any way they can to not honor them.
This is a nice and simple way of voiding your warranty even if there is no proof of anything. Next up...if you ever sneeze around your computer the warranty is null! Afterall...it might be a flu hazard...
Since when was smoke damage considered a covered warranty repair? No proof of anything? How about the computers smell like SHIT because that is what happens to clothes, cars, and other household items when they are around smoke. Your comment is pointless and full of crap. There are plenty of companies that go out of their way to resolve warranty and even non-warranty issues (called Goodwill repair) on certain products (even Apple continues to repair the liquid cooled Power Mac G5's when they leak). The owners are negligent for subjecting the equipment to smoke damage.
Employers have every right to protect their employees from health hazards. I wouldn't want to work on a computer that smelled like a dirty ass ashtray. The smokers don't get it because they don't realize they sit in their own filth all day long reeking of an ashtray.
That is why good sellers on eBay advertise that their item came from a smoke-free environment because no one wants to acquire something that smells like a nicotine addict.
There are many respectable smokers.
No, they can't avoid the smoke. They all smell like an ashtray. None of them are respectable. But that was their choice to get addicted.
Please retire from writing and do something else instead.
I agree. AppleInsider has a bunch of high school drop outs writing the articles.
Considering your argument consists of a lame citing of Child Labor laws and obscure mining equipment regulations to support your "government knows best and solves all" argument, you appear to have a very weak case. I'll give you one more chance, then I'll argue your own side for you. Only because I can't stand your incompetence.
Your inability to grasp arguments and nuance is just pathetic. You tromp around an argument like a hippo trying to ballet dance. You are my intellectual inferior and always will be -- no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise.
Love to hear about your breakthroughs in physics and the classic literature you've authored.
Yet another example of your inability to keep up. Someone can do important work without it being in the fields of the people you cited. Here's a hint: Something I helped build and test is currently over 116 million miles from Earth and still thrusting using ion propulsion.
Yes, you did indeed equate smokers with rapists."
You liar!That's not 'equating'. It's showing how stupid you were to suggest that the societal contributions of smokers somehow meant that smoking should be viewed less harshly.
Good luck with that. Everybody else disagrees with you
Cite your sources for that. If "everyone else" disagrees, just who is it who voted for laws and regulations to determine what was "safe enough" in a mine?
*Remedial History Lesson*
You took a lot of that, I can tell.
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the People only grant specific, limited powers to the Government. Not the other way around.
And some of those powers include providing for the "general welfare" of the citizens. OSHA's establishing document included "The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources --"
I know this is a foreign concept, but most people can think for themselves and make big boy decisions.
Save your "big boy" comments for the children you're trying to hit on at the mall.
A lot of people that work in mining are pretty damned educated and specialized in their field.
Educated and desperate are not mutually exclusive. People who are financially desperate will take risks that others will not. That's one reason why the government regulates.
But in your world, mining companies are evil
Your stupidity is giving me a headache. There's a major difference between amoral and evil. Most companies look for ways to maximize profits. That's an amoral goal -- not an evil one.
I guess they must have endless supply of money and poor people to keep retraining, and that nobody of a senior status ever sets foot in a mine?
So I guess you think that the government passed regulations requiring that mining companies keep doing the same things that they had been doing all along? You honestly believe that the federal government stepped in and said "This is a safe working environment. We must pass legislation and regulations requiring that they keep up the good work."?
Here's your remedial history lesson: In 1910, following a decade in which the number of coal mine fatalities exceeded 2,000 annually, Congress established the Bureau of Mines as a new agency in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau was charged with the responsibility to conduct research and to reduce accidents in the coal mining industry.
You must think poor people are so desperate that they'll work in super dangerous mines?
Who do you think has been dying in the mines? Wealthy CEOs? Mining is one of the most perilous industries to work in according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with a death rate 27.8 deaths in mining for every 100,000 workers in 2007. Did you think that 5% of miners have evidence of black lung disease because mines are so safe?
You think only the miners are affected in a disaster? How about the mining company? Why would they, in your wildest fantasies want a mine to collapse, stop their productivity, and lose all that money in the market?
You really don't understand basic economics and capitalism. Amazing. Of course mining companies don't want disasters to happen. But neither are they willing to cut production in half and quadruple the investment in safety equipment, training, and procedures to prevent it. To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, unregulated capitalism rewards companies who are the most efficient, not those with the best safety record.
Dude, you got pØwned. No amount of selective quoting can change that.
Jesus F***ing Christ, I'm trying to debate with a 12 year old. But to clear things up, I've completely and totally dominated you in this discussion, making it obvious to everyone reading that you are an imbecile.
Profound, but you're ignoring the part where you said "government regulation" led to this. Kind of like saying US laws concerning theft, led to the prevailing notion that theft is bad. Try again.
Government regulation did lead to McDonalds and Walmart not having 12 year olds working 12 hour days seven days a week. You think that they just decided that it would be "wrong" on their own?
Once again - it's common knowledge and undisputed that Child Labor laws/the government were ineffective in changing the abuses of children in this country during the Industrial Revolution...
So you've decided that a law is only effective if there is almost immediate compliance with it. You can't cite the effect decades later to show that the law is a good and valuable thing. You can't show how it became useful as enforcement was stepped up.
Pick a university, write their history department about it. In the meantime... I'll have fries with that.
Have some cigarettes, too. The sooner you die, the better off we all will be.
No, they can't avoid the smoke. They all smell like an ashtray. None of them are respectable. But that was their choice to get addicted.
New England Journal of medicine have had reports that smoking is just as, if not more so, addicting then heroin and much harder to quit. It was just a few short years ago that the tobacco companies were found liable for targeting teens and had to pay millions in restatutiion. Knowone grows up saying they want to be addicted to anything, and now they say to much caffeine may be hazardous to your health.
And for the record, pot was seen as a threat to the lumbering farms in the 1800's, so this is where the first out law came from. The paper companies. I sontbamoke it but if it were legal like in Amsterdam, we would not jabs the crime that we have. In the NE, they don't even talk about it. It's all programming of the mind.
I remember sitting there watching a tv show in Dutch, both people were naked and then had sex, there were a few teena there. They never once looked up from their books. We make up for the lack of nudity by using violence which is illegal in holland. If you are programmed to be an anti smoker, then the right message got through. Sure, it can be dagerous but like some have said, some people fie without ever smoking ( cancer ), while others smoke Ns live to 100.
I totally understand where Apple is coming from. I work on PC's at work and I have had to work on users notebooks that looked, and smelled like they were using it as an ash tray. Its disgusting! I smell and feel dirty after working on it.
I will say though, Apple should refund them the cost of AppleCare since they neglected to warn customers that smoking will void the agreement.
That aside, Apple has every right to deny these computers. It isn't just shirking costs for repairs, it's avoiding huge pay outs to these employees when they sue Apple for making them handle equipment deemed toxic by OSHA! You want Apple to work on your tar covered laptop, then you should sign something saying you will be responsible for any & all legal fees if brought against Apple as well as any possible health effects on the employee both current & future!
This is truly mind-boggling, if true! Corporatism at its worst. Can't they wear some gloves and a mask?! Where are we heading next? Apple campus is going to be sealed off in an antiseptic bubble?
At the least, I hope Apple refunded their money.
Why would one wear a mask and gloves to protect themselves just because a customer has chosen to perform an unhealthy activity on a regular basis? It's the same principle as if someone were to get some sort of toxic drug on the case of a computer and asked an Apple employee to deal with it by putting on a body suit during repair. It isn't Apple's problem if someone wishes to engage in such activities.
I will say though, Apple should refund them the cost of AppleCare since they neglected to warn customers that smoking will void the agreement.
Except that it doesn't void the agreement. The agreement is that Apple will fix manufacturing defects. A computer damaged by a build-up of tar and nicotine is not an example of a manufacturing defect.
Going beyond that, the agreement does not promise that Apple's technicians will handle or clean-up toxic waste -- or even disgusting things. It may be completely legal for you to defecate and urinate in your own car, but if you do, don't be surprised if the car dealer refuses to do warranty work on it. If you were like most of the smokers who have commented in this thread, you would be infuriated that the dealership was unwilling to make their service technicians to don masks and gloves and push urine-soaked turds out of the way in order to service your car.
You want Apple to work on your tar covered laptop, then you should sign something saying you will be responsible for any & all legal fees if brought against Apple as well as any possible health effects on the employee both current & future!
Whoa! So imagine yourself as the technician who was told "the customer is taking legal responsibility if you get sick, so we told him that you'd clean up the computer that he spilled his bedpan into." I think the old Nancy Reagan 'just say no' policy on Apple's part is the right one.
Two things:
1st-There is much more to this "story" than is being revealed. That much should be obvious.
2nd-Regarding this whole smoking deal, ignore all the health aspects and political/media BS associated with it. The fact is humans are the only animals on this earth that VOLUNTARILY put smoke in their bodies. Even a monkey has to be trained to do that.
Just a little food for thought, if it helps anyone.
ironic, isn't it. I mean we can fly to outter space, use microwaves and IMHO, are on the cusp of revoluntionary changes and advancements. My sister was in the air force, stationed in Nevada and a few of the stories are right out if x files.
Anyway, the irony is that out of all the species, we are the most frail when it comes to birth. Look at how penguins or dolphins, cubs, kagaroos are when born. Everything is instinct yet we have to clothe, bath, protect as the baby is clueless compared to other baby animals.
Peace.
ironic, isn't it. I mean we can fly to outter space, use microwaves and IMHO, are on the cusp of revoluntionary changes and advancements. My sister was in the air force, stationed in Nevada and a few of the stories are right out if x files.
Anyway, the irony is that out of all the species, we are the most frail when it comes to birth. Look at how penguins or dolphins, cubs, kagaroos are when born. Everything is instinct yet we have to clothe, bath, protect as the baby is clueless compared to other baby animals.
Peace.
There is a level of complexity of the organism that seems to largely follows the capacity of the young when born. There also seems to be some exceptions for certain species. Horses offspring can walk and run within minutes of being born but this seems to be one of those survival of fittest, evolutionary situations.
Primates can care for their young at a higher level so there seems to be no reason for a more developed offspring to be born. Your examples are interesting. Penguins take a lot of care to the egg and the offspring keeping both warm and feeding them for several months (I think) after birth until they have developed warming feathers, body fat, and learned enough to fish for themselves. Kangaroos intensively climb from the womb to the pouch if I recall correctly but are then protected by the mother until they are quite large (or at least larger than I would have expected). Cubs, like kittens and puppies are born very frail and require a lot of attention and then specific training from the parent to learn certain hunting skills, as I recall.
Just yesterday I read the article below on oxytocin production which may drive us to be social creatures and may be what causes a mother to clean her pups after birth.
My father, along with quite a few people he worked with, died because his employer thought it okay to knowingly let them work with known hazardous materials - asbestos.
How can you honestly be this upset with a company who is taking a stand to protect their workers from a known health hazard? Are the warranty repair workers supposed to die to fix computers that were not faulty in the first place, but were rather damaged by neglect of their owners? Owners who knowingly put carcinogens in their body and in their air?
Also a company who CEO nearly died from cancer - you want him to force his workers to work with known carcinogens?
I'm sorry to hear about your father.
The problem is that *if* Apple has refused warranty service due to 'safety of our workers' BS, then they are spreading a huge amount of FUD. Tar on PCBs is not particularly dangerous. The solvents used in cleaning the machine are no worse than those found in any car shop. Proper worker education would solve any problems.
Tar on PCBs is not particularly dangerous.
Neither is human sh*t, semen, urine, or phlegm, but I would not expect an Apple service tech to have to clean those off either.
But dangerous to what? If it causes dust to cake and cooling to fail, is that no dangerous to the computer? What is the resistance of a layer of tar on a motherboard? How does it not harm a hard disk drive when it clogs the air filters on the breather holes? How does it not harm an optical drive when it is deposited onto the optics of the head?
The solvents used in cleaning the machine are no worse than those found in any car shop.
Hold it right there! Why should my Applecare subscription, and the subscription of all of the non-smokers, be paid to Apple technicians to strip smokers' systems down to the bare boards to do hazmat cleanups?
Proper worker education would solve any problems.
So how do you "educate" a worker so that they don't gag from the smell? How do you educate them so that they don't say "F*ck this! I'm going to work at a data center."? No amount of educating will prevent the revulsion that many techs would feel in that situation.