If Apple products last longer then some credit should be given for that. How would one really know that figure?
My first computer was a Gateway that lasted six years. If I wanted to spend $150 on it I could get it working again. The only problem was that the fans quit and they were custom sized built within the power supply tunnel, thus the whole thing needs to be replaced. The thing is I really don't want a 1.8 GHz Intel Celeron 256K RAM computer with a 40 GB hard drive that uses 250 watts of power. I could buy a used netbook for about that much money.
Why would anyone care about a Greenpeace Guide? This outlaw terrorist organization has no following of any statue and anyone who does is nothing more than a terrorist and should be shot on sight.
If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?
OK, I thought it was a well known term, it has been talked about for many years. It is when people find something unpleasant to look at, solar energy, and windmills while "green", are an unpleasant sight to some people.
There are many articles on it, here are two results from a search on the term
It's not light pollution/photopollution/luminous pollution that produces excessive or obtrusive artificial light. It's pollution of visually seeing things that are unpleasant and crappy. just look at any post made by jfanning for an example of such crap.
Once again you go straight in with stupid abuse for no reason. What is your issue?
Oh, great. Here come the trolls again. Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".
Troll? Oh, yes, I'm on Appleinsider, where if you disagree with anyone they either start abusing you, or calling you a troll.
No one accused anyone of anything, I simply stated a fact, I know you guys don't like facts on this site, but get over it, it is still a fact even though you don't like it.
OK, I thought it was a well known term, it has been talked about for many years. It is when people find something unpleasant to look at, solar energy, and windmills while "green", are an unpleasant sight to some people.
So, would you - I mean these people - categorize unattractive people as being an example of "visual pollution"?
Greenpreach has no credibility. In the real world, Apple is leaps and bounds ahead of all other technology companies when it comes to environmental responsibility. Even if they weren't, who is Greenpeace to decide what is or isn't environmentally important? They still think ethanol is "green" when in reality it's the worst of all.
They ranked Apple behind Dell and HP on their scorecard, but I'll tell you what, in practice it's exactly opposite. I receive computer equipment every week. The packaging for Apple is minimalist and recycle friendly - the packaging for the others is massively bulky, wasteful, full of styrofoam, plastics and other crap. The equipment from Apple is made with highly recyclable aluminum, glass, and other materials. The products from the other guys are stamped sheet metal and plastic.
Apple has a link at the bottom of their home page of their web site to "Environment" where they thoroughly and elegantly report their efforts and provide info on how you can recycle any Apple product. They'll also recycle other companies' crap for you. The other guys? HP - nada. Dell - they have a link; it takes you to a page that's certainly not inviting, but it's there.
These are just a few examples. I could go on - there are many more areas where Apple is far more environmentally conscious than any other company. So, Greenpreach - go stick it.
Comments
My first computer was a Gateway that lasted six years. If I wanted to spend $150 on it I could get it working again. The only problem was that the fans quit and they were custom sized built within the power supply tunnel, thus the whole thing needs to be replaced. The thing is I really don't want a 1.8 GHz Intel Celeron 256K RAM computer with a 40 GB hard drive that uses 250 watts of power. I could buy a used netbook for about that much money.
I find it all hypocritical that Greenpeace would wail the destruction of their boat while they continue to try to ram other people's boats.
Greenpeace are anything but peaceful therefore they need to change their name... CLUELESS seems to fit.
If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?
OK, I thought it was a well known term, it has been talked about for many years. It is when people find something unpleasant to look at, solar energy, and windmills while "green", are an unpleasant sight to some people.
There are many articles on it, here are two results from a search on the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_pollution
http://www.dunnfoundation.org/vp/index.html
It's not light pollution/photopollution/luminous pollution that produces excessive or obtrusive artificial light. It's pollution of visually seeing things that are unpleasant and crappy. just look at any post made by jfanning for an example of such crap.
Once again you go straight in with stupid abuse for no reason. What is your issue?
Oh, great. Here come the trolls again. Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".
Troll? Oh, yes, I'm on Appleinsider, where if you disagree with anyone they either start abusing you, or calling you a troll.
No one accused anyone of anything, I simply stated a fact, I know you guys don't like facts on this site, but get over it, it is still a fact even though you don't like it.
OK, I thought it was a well known term, it has been talked about for many years. It is when people find something unpleasant to look at, solar energy, and windmills while "green", are an unpleasant sight to some people.
So, would you - I mean these people - categorize unattractive people as being an example of "visual pollution"?
They ranked Apple behind Dell and HP on their scorecard, but I'll tell you what, in practice it's exactly opposite. I receive computer equipment every week. The packaging for Apple is minimalist and recycle friendly - the packaging for the others is massively bulky, wasteful, full of styrofoam, plastics and other crap. The equipment from Apple is made with highly recyclable aluminum, glass, and other materials. The products from the other guys are stamped sheet metal and plastic.
Apple has a link at the bottom of their home page of their web site to "Environment" where they thoroughly and elegantly report their efforts and provide info on how you can recycle any Apple product. They'll also recycle other companies' crap for you. The other guys? HP - nada. Dell - they have a link; it takes you to a page that's certainly not inviting, but it's there.
These are just a few examples. I could go on - there are many more areas where Apple is far more environmentally conscious than any other company. So, Greenpreach - go stick it.