The ship that got rammed by the Japanese did not belong to Greenpeace. Greenpeace does not use or condone violence.
Get you facts straight before you blow off.
You don't understand. We KNOW organizations have two or more sides, some pacifist, some hostile and work closely together, but publicly they distance themselves from each other in order to pursue their similar goals and have plausible deniability.
A favorite tactic is to appear pacifist and demand something, or else you threaten to send in the more covert radical elements of a sister organization.
After all, where the fsck is Greenpeace getting all it's money to fund it's terrorist operations anyway?
But it appears that you have not bothered to look at the WMO analysis from the link that I sent you, as is obvious when you blather on about temperatures in the US.
Yes I did and it confirms what has happened in the PAST, not what is going to happen in the FUTURE.
Quote:
Incidentally, you keep bringing up Al Gore. I have no clue why or how he is relevant to scientific discussion on the topic of climate. You obviously like to pay attention to him. I don't.
He isn't a reliable source, only spouting his opinions and confirming what we already know.
He will have egg on his face when the global temperatures begin to drop.
But his efforts will still be regarded as important, because it's the effects of man that can alter the environment. In this case it was Saddam.
This is why we are in the Middle East, to promote stability and prevent people like Saddam from setting tens of thousands of oil wells on fire and creating the next ice age.
You'll see, mark my words. I'm a prophet. (a person who advocates or speaks in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory)
Same group of people who burn down your house, disable your car, put nails in your trees so you don't cut it down (even if you don't want too) and all other sorts of crazed behavior.
Once they realize a family dog has twice the carbon footprint of a SUV they will come stalk Rover with chocolate and poisoned hamburger.
They are certainly anti-human to say the least.
You must be confusing Greenpeace with other environmental groups, urban legends or fantasies. Greenpeace practices civil disobedience, not militance or vandalism. Navigating an inflatable dinghy between a whale and a harpoon or chaining yourself to a bulldozer are classic examples. The majority of the Greenpeace incidents I recall involve climbing a smokestack to hang a banner or something harmless like that. I'm not sure the Apple protests involved anything more than sending out press releases.
As for being anti-human or even anti-dog, I hardly think that's a logical accusation, since humans and dogs all live on the same planet that environmental groups are trying to protect.
Amazing news. The fact that Apple turned this around so fast is pretty incredible. Couldn't have been easy, couldn't have been cheap. Is it really going to have a huge impact? Certainly not going to make things worse.
The "Amazing Turnaround" isn't because Apple responded to Greenpeace: its because Apple was already working on this stuff, but simply hadn't been telling the public of their plans. For Greenpeace to try to take credit for Apple's performance is simply dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Greenpeace would be a far more effective organization if they formed partnerships to inform and reward companies that are moving in the right direction, instead of being a bunch of militants. Then again, I'm not actually certain if they have engineers and scientists who advise them.
Most of Greenpeace's problem is that their "militancy" is to garner media coverage forthemselves, and to try to posture themselves as the reason why a particular company did something. For example, Apple's "Amazing Turnaround" didn't start after GP's prior criticism: these efforts had already been underway for years. But because GP did their cute finger-waving, they now try to claim credit for it ... and the gullible clueless public buys it, hook line and sinker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000
wait...so they rate companies according to their level of political activism?
Not quite: Greenpeace's prior ratings were based on the company's willingness to make 'Politically Correct' promises. And what this chart shows is how many of those ended up being empty promises. In the meantime, for Apple to sweep in with gold stars after their slamming of Apple really shows that Apple was "Doing, not Saying" all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charel
The ship that got rammed by the Japanese did not belong to Greenpeace. Greenpeace does not use or condone violence.
Get you facts straight before you blow off.
Gosh you're right: the facts are that Greenpeace's tactics are to use dishonestly misleading publicity tricks.
Which all in all is why I'm no longer a financial supporter of Greenpeace.
That's it... three pieces of #7 plastic... two for the case, and a small piece for the mouse to "ride on" inside of it. A few grams of plastic, tops. Can be re-purposed as a little bath for your real mouse (the one that's not so magic), or perhaps a display case for a prized ho-ho.
Do you really think they have helped the environment at the end of the day? Wouldn´t they have helped more designing eco-friendly products while holding a real job?
they forced apple into a unibody glass screen !!
look at the timing and product cycles
in truth green peace has done more for the world than a 100 al gores
yet green peace is a tiny group of eco nuts
Green peace right now is fighting a hand to hand battle against the japanese whaling ships
That's it... three pieces of #7 plastic... two for the case, and a small piece for the mouse to "ride on" inside of it. A few grams of plastic, tops. Can be re-purposed as a little bath for your real mouse (the one that's not so magic), or perhaps a display case for a prized ho-ho.
The packaging seems pretty minimal to me, and it's already using a recycled plastic no? Most mice packages you buy are larger than a dvd box, and tend to have a lot more plastic. That fun kind that ends up slicing your fingers because you can't get the damn stuff open.
I do not agree with you,[ and some of the other comments made against Greenpeace]. Most great things happen because of militant activity. The USA was found by militants after the seeking a partnership angle didn't work out.
First, Apple was a fair target by Greenpeace. Apple's campaign was Think Different, and Al Gore sits on Apple's Board. Greenpeace exercised it's first Amendment rights to express it's desire that Apple become more a leader in environmental efforts. Second, Apple seemed to spring into action highlighting Apple's environmental efforts in response to Greenpeace's attacks. In fact, we know that is true because Jobs letter to the public indirectly refers to Greenpeace. Third, the problem with forming partnerships is companies interests are seldomly aligned with doing the right thing. I doubt profit driven companies without the proper motivation are going to produce environmentally responsible policies. If corporations are open to that, then sure partnerships would be great. Fifth, it is hard to find fault with an organization that merely wants corporations to remove toxic materials from the products they manufacturer. I certainly am glad Greenpeace is spending it's time trying to put pressure on corporations. I do not have the time to do it.
With all that said, Greenpeace's initial ranking system was flawed. It was based on corporations ranking on statements of what corporations intended to do in the future. That system worked against Apple because it is more of a take action company as opposed to let us discuss what our future plans may be sort of company. In Greenpeace's defense it probably initially approached companies asking them to disclose their efforts to reduce the toxic materials it uses in their products, and the companies wouldn't cooperate. Accordingly, Greenpeace had to create a system that allowed companies to start thinking about such efforts without making legally binding commitments to actually do anything.
Wrong. Greenpeace is about staging high-profile media events and attacking high-profile companies in order to support their fundraising efforts, period. Interviews with key former leaders in Greenpeace (in spite of the Greenpeace spin) point to heavy evidence that Greenpeace is substantially ineffectual at causing any real change. Media awareness does not categorically equate to improving the environment. The vast majority of their funding goes to fundraising to keep their operations afloat. They stage media events to maintain some mindshare and rely heavily on socially guilt-ridden high income consumers to provide those funds. Greenpeace's methods are ill-conceived, flawed (as you said) and designed specifically to draw attention to themselves. Having been on the inside of other activist organizations, I think I can speak fairly authoritatively here. Moving in those circles is very revealing and more than just disillusioning to anyone with high ideals. The realities behind Greenpeace and many of these other organizations stand in stark contrast to their stated goals.
Wrong. Greenpeace is about staging high-profile media events and attacking high-profile companies in order to support their fundraising efforts, period. Interviews with key former leaders in Greenpeace (in spite of the Greenpeace spin) point to heavy evidence that Greenpeace is substantially ineffectual at causing any real change. Media awareness does not categorically equate to improving the environment. The vast majority of their funding goes to fundraising to keep their operations afloat. They stage media events to maintain some mindshare and rely heavily on socially guilt-ridden high income consumers to provide those funds. Greenpeace's methods are ill-conceived, flawed (as you said) and designed specifically to draw attention to themselves. Having been on the inside of other activist organizations, I think I can speak fairly authoritatively here. Moving in those circles is very revealing and more than just disillusioning to anyone with high ideals. The realities behind Greenpeace and many of these other organizations stand in stark contrast to their stated goals.
The "Amazing Turnaround" isn't because Apple responded to Greenpeace: its because Apple was already working on this stuff, but simply hadn't been telling the public of their plans. For Greenpeace to try to take credit for Apple's performance is simply dishonest.
Most of Greenpeace's problem is that their "militancy" is to garner media coverage forthemselves, and to try to posture themselves as the reason why a particular company did something. For example, Apple's "Amazing Turnaround" didn't start after GP's prior criticism: these efforts had already been underway for years. But because GP did their cute finger-waving, they now try to claim credit for it ... and the gullible clueless public buys it, hook line and sinker.
Not quite: Greenpeace's prior ratings were based on the company's willingness to make 'Politically Correct' promises. And what this chart shows is how many of those ended up being empty promises. In the meantime, for Apple to sweep in with gold stars after their slamming of Apple really shows that Apple was "Doing, not Saying" all along.
Gosh you're right: the facts are that Greenpeace's tactics are to use dishonestly misleading publicity tricks.
Which all in all is why I'm no longer a financial supporter of Greenpeace.
-hh
Is the right STILL using "politically correct" as a way to say, the Left? Get some new material, Gingrich & Co.
Of course GP use the media and so on. So what? All politics is about manipulating public opinion. But I'll take GP manipulation over that of Herr Bush & Co. any day, thanks.
If only Apple could somehow influence the third-party accessory makers that it somehow licences to make products to sell in their stores.
Something like: If, as a third party manufacturer you don't meet the environmental requirements that our own products do, you don't get licensed and we won't sell your products.
Comments
The ship that got rammed by the Japanese did not belong to Greenpeace. Greenpeace does not use or condone violence.
Get you facts straight before you blow off.
You don't understand. We KNOW organizations have two or more sides, some pacifist, some hostile and work closely together, but publicly they distance themselves from each other in order to pursue their similar goals and have plausible deniability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
A favorite tactic is to appear pacifist and demand something, or else you threaten to send in the more covert radical elements of a sister organization.
After all, where the fsck is Greenpeace getting all it's money to fund it's terrorist operations anyway?
Extorting Apple for donations?
Yea...
But it appears that you have not bothered to look at the WMO analysis from the link that I sent you, as is obvious when you blather on about temperatures in the US.
Yes I did and it confirms what has happened in the PAST, not what is going to happen in the FUTURE.
Incidentally, you keep bringing up Al Gore. I have no clue why or how he is relevant to scientific discussion on the topic of climate. You obviously like to pay attention to him. I don't.
He isn't a reliable source, only spouting his opinions and confirming what we already know.
He will have egg on his face when the global temperatures begin to drop.
But his efforts will still be regarded as important, because it's the effects of man that can alter the environment. In this case it was Saddam.
This is why we are in the Middle East, to promote stability and prevent people like Saddam from setting tens of thousands of oil wells on fire and creating the next ice age.
You'll see, mark my words. I'm a prophet. (a person who advocates or speaks in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory)
deleted
Eco-terrorists is what they are.
Same group of people who burn down your house, disable your car, put nails in your trees so you don't cut it down (even if you don't want too) and all other sorts of crazed behavior.
Once they realize a family dog has twice the carbon footprint of a SUV they will come stalk Rover with chocolate and poisoned hamburger.
They are certainly anti-human to say the least.
You must be confusing Greenpeace with other environmental groups, urban legends or fantasies. Greenpeace practices civil disobedience, not militance or vandalism. Navigating an inflatable dinghy between a whale and a harpoon or chaining yourself to a bulldozer are classic examples. The majority of the Greenpeace incidents I recall involve climbing a smokestack to hang a banner or something harmless like that. I'm not sure the Apple protests involved anything more than sending out press releases.
As for being anti-human or even anti-dog, I hardly think that's a logical accusation, since humans and dogs all live on the same planet that environmental groups are trying to protect.
Amazing news. The fact that Apple turned this around so fast is pretty incredible. Couldn't have been easy, couldn't have been cheap. Is it really going to have a huge impact? Certainly not going to make things worse.
The "Amazing Turnaround" isn't because Apple responded to Greenpeace: its because Apple was already working on this stuff, but simply hadn't been telling the public of their plans. For Greenpeace to try to take credit for Apple's performance is simply dishonest.
Greenpeace would be a far more effective organization if they formed partnerships to inform and reward companies that are moving in the right direction, instead of being a bunch of militants. Then again, I'm not actually certain if they have engineers and scientists who advise them.
Most of Greenpeace's problem is that their "militancy" is to garner media coverage forthemselves, and to try to posture themselves as the reason why a particular company did something. For example, Apple's "Amazing Turnaround" didn't start after GP's prior criticism: these efforts had already been underway for years. But because GP did their cute finger-waving, they now try to claim credit for it ... and the gullible clueless public buys it, hook line and sinker.
wait...so they rate companies according to their level of political activism?
Not quite: Greenpeace's prior ratings were based on the company's willingness to make 'Politically Correct' promises. And what this chart shows is how many of those ended up being empty promises. In the meantime, for Apple to sweep in with gold stars after their slamming of Apple really shows that Apple was "Doing, not Saying" all along.
The ship that got rammed by the Japanese did not belong to Greenpeace. Greenpeace does not use or condone violence.
Get you facts straight before you blow off.
Gosh you're right: the facts are that Greenpeace's tactics are to use dishonestly misleading publicity tricks.
Which all in all is why I'm no longer a financial supporter of Greenpeace.
-hh
Is this the packaging in total, or is there a larger container that holds this?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32819147@N00/4055330189/
That's it... three pieces of #7 plastic... two for the case, and a small piece for the mouse to "ride on" inside of it. A few grams of plastic, tops. Can be re-purposed as a little bath for your real mouse (the one that's not so magic), or perhaps a display case for a prized ho-ho.
Do you really think they have helped the environment at the end of the day? Wouldn´t they have helped more designing eco-friendly products while holding a real job?
they forced apple into a unibody glass screen !!
look at the timing and product cycles
in truth green peace has done more for the world than a 100 al gores
yet green peace is a tiny group of eco nuts
Green peace right now is fighting a hand to hand battle against the japanese whaling ships
and i am thrilled to own green uni body
apple always leads the way
Do you think I was serious?
Apple would go out of business or raise their prices so high consumers would not buy them.
My point is this, GP didn't make Apple do anything. Apple did it because they wanted to or their customer base wanted it.
really now
well GP played nasty trick on apple handing out organic green apples in london
and i saw for myself the green light shined on the apple 5th ave's glass box
no one really thought about this much
i mean besides these asine stunts GP released a green report on computers
like err duh when did GP ever do a report like this ever before
but apple was so sensative and take there public image to such a high degree >.that they acted swiftly and became the greenest company on earth
yrs later these few dozen anti apple stunts have born fruit way beyond GP input
tons of toxins now will not be released by apple
and i pray dell hp sony follow suit
and we all created teckstud
and then we killed him
is mactripper next ??
That's it... three pieces of #7 plastic... two for the case, and a small piece for the mouse to "ride on" inside of it. A few grams of plastic, tops. Can be re-purposed as a little bath for your real mouse (the one that's not so magic), or perhaps a display case for a prized ho-ho.
The packaging seems pretty minimal to me, and it's already using a recycled plastic no? Most mice packages you buy are larger than a dvd box, and tend to have a lot more plastic. That fun kind that ends up slicing your fingers because you can't get the damn stuff open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzNZD_KlVMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaAbQ...eature=related
I do not agree with you,[ and some of the other comments made against Greenpeace]. Most great things happen because of militant activity. The USA was found by militants after the seeking a partnership angle didn't work out.
First, Apple was a fair target by Greenpeace. Apple's campaign was Think Different, and Al Gore sits on Apple's Board. Greenpeace exercised it's first Amendment rights to express it's desire that Apple become more a leader in environmental efforts. Second, Apple seemed to spring into action highlighting Apple's environmental efforts in response to Greenpeace's attacks. In fact, we know that is true because Jobs letter to the public indirectly refers to Greenpeace. Third, the problem with forming partnerships is companies interests are seldomly aligned with doing the right thing. I doubt profit driven companies without the proper motivation are going to produce environmentally responsible policies. If corporations are open to that, then sure partnerships would be great. Fifth, it is hard to find fault with an organization that merely wants corporations to remove toxic materials from the products they manufacturer. I certainly am glad Greenpeace is spending it's time trying to put pressure on corporations. I do not have the time to do it.
With all that said, Greenpeace's initial ranking system was flawed. It was based on corporations ranking on statements of what corporations intended to do in the future. That system worked against Apple because it is more of a take action company as opposed to let us discuss what our future plans may be sort of company. In Greenpeace's defense it probably initially approached companies asking them to disclose their efforts to reduce the toxic materials it uses in their products, and the companies wouldn't cooperate. Accordingly, Greenpeace had to create a system that allowed companies to start thinking about such efforts without making legally binding commitments to actually do anything.
Wrong. Greenpeace is about staging high-profile media events and attacking high-profile companies in order to support their fundraising efforts, period. Interviews with key former leaders in Greenpeace (in spite of the Greenpeace spin) point to heavy evidence that Greenpeace is substantially ineffectual at causing any real change. Media awareness does not categorically equate to improving the environment. The vast majority of their funding goes to fundraising to keep their operations afloat. They stage media events to maintain some mindshare and rely heavily on socially guilt-ridden high income consumers to provide those funds. Greenpeace's methods are ill-conceived, flawed (as you said) and designed specifically to draw attention to themselves. Having been on the inside of other activist organizations, I think I can speak fairly authoritatively here. Moving in those circles is very revealing and more than just disillusioning to anyone with high ideals. The realities behind Greenpeace and many of these other organizations stand in stark contrast to their stated goals.
A company who designs EVERY handheld computer so that when the battery dies.... the ENTIRE COMPUTER MUST BE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE....
....... is not green.
Apple is the most environmentally harmful computer / music player / game device / phone manufacturer in the world.
Wrong. Greenpeace is about staging high-profile media events and attacking high-profile companies in order to support their fundraising efforts, period. Interviews with key former leaders in Greenpeace (in spite of the Greenpeace spin) point to heavy evidence that Greenpeace is substantially ineffectual at causing any real change. Media awareness does not categorically equate to improving the environment. The vast majority of their funding goes to fundraising to keep their operations afloat. They stage media events to maintain some mindshare and rely heavily on socially guilt-ridden high income consumers to provide those funds. Greenpeace's methods are ill-conceived, flawed (as you said) and designed specifically to draw attention to themselves. Having been on the inside of other activist organizations, I think I can speak fairly authoritatively here. Moving in those circles is very revealing and more than just disillusioning to anyone with high ideals. The realities behind Greenpeace and many of these other organizations stand in stark contrast to their stated goals.
the far right wing has arrived
welcome
the far right wing has arrived
welcome
You said it, brucep, and with all their predictable and easy to school agendas.
The "Amazing Turnaround" isn't because Apple responded to Greenpeace: its because Apple was already working on this stuff, but simply hadn't been telling the public of their plans. For Greenpeace to try to take credit for Apple's performance is simply dishonest.
Most of Greenpeace's problem is that their "militancy" is to garner media coverage forthemselves, and to try to posture themselves as the reason why a particular company did something. For example, Apple's "Amazing Turnaround" didn't start after GP's prior criticism: these efforts had already been underway for years. But because GP did their cute finger-waving, they now try to claim credit for it ... and the gullible clueless public buys it, hook line and sinker.
Not quite: Greenpeace's prior ratings were based on the company's willingness to make 'Politically Correct' promises. And what this chart shows is how many of those ended up being empty promises. In the meantime, for Apple to sweep in with gold stars after their slamming of Apple really shows that Apple was "Doing, not Saying" all along.
Gosh you're right: the facts are that Greenpeace's tactics are to use dishonestly misleading publicity tricks.
Which all in all is why I'm no longer a financial supporter of Greenpeace.
-hh
Is the right STILL using "politically correct" as a way to say, the Left? Get some new material, Gingrich & Co.
Of course GP use the media and so on. So what? All politics is about manipulating public opinion. But I'll take GP manipulation over that of Herr Bush & Co. any day, thanks.
Something like: If, as a third party manufacturer you don't meet the environmental requirements that our own products do, you don't get licensed and we won't sell your products.
Now that would be impressive.