When I read your post, I thought you were being sarcastic. But then later, I saw more of your posts. I then realised you meant what you said. I am almost lost for words. How can someone not be concerned for the planet? There are over 7 billion people living on it, and it is people that are causing damage to the environmental, and in so many ways? Computer equipment waste is a huge problem, and for some people, they may only use their computer for about 4 years, and then want or need to buy a new one, to keep up with technological advances, or because of faults that develop with it, or whatever. And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition. I respected Apple for their concerns and making their products environmentally friendly. So, I am dismayed and disappointed Apple is taking this action.
If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns.
And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from.
If your main purchase criteria is based on environmental standards, then there's no reason for you to own Apple gear anyway. This is nothing new. Even with Apple's best efforts to be green in the past, others have far surpassed them. You might as well get gear from one of Apple's competitors. And if you're really concerned about owning the best tech in terms of User Experience, then this decision by Apple would not deter you anyway. In which case you really have no complaints.
Your post is full of crocodile tears, to be honest.
If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns.
I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142336"]I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.
They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.
They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.
I don't know too much about the Amish, besides that they drive horse and buggys and that they have funny haircuts, but why wouldn't they plant trees? Is that against their religion or something?
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142342"]I don't know too much about the Amish, besides that they drive horse and buggys and that they have funny haircuts, but why wouldn't they plant trees? Is that against their religion or something?
Oh, no, I can't imagine that it is, I'm just illustrating differences. Environmentalists go on about saving the environment and planting forests to offset whatever, but then they go back and live in air-conditioned/heated houses and use plastics and support industrialized economies, whereas the Amish don't bother offsetting the wood they use or take unnecessary precaution to keep the manmade products they use out of the environment, and yet they just have simple houses without modern convenience, use few appliances, and still support industrialized economies.
I've just never seen an Amishman go out of his way to plant a tree, unless he's doing it for beautification on his non-farmland.
And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from.
Environmentalists in general, and Greenpeace in particular, pattern their activism on modern political parties' reality distortion fields. They spin, cherry-pick, lie, distort, and capitalize on it all to feed the insatiable desire of their growth hormone's agenda. The 'environment debate' stands as a variation on the theme of 'making a proprietary case' out of 'molded', 'plastic'... differentiations. Pun intended.
One lesson ought to be learnt from Apple's system-wide creativity. They will, through organic consistency, expand and 'fine-grain' their original thought process onto life-after-death ...of their 'end' products. Who can better recycle past innovations into more salient ones than a through-the-core, recidivist innovator himself?
Apple's genius stands on its own, very lonesome indeed, as a self-replicating 'art-and-science' tautology. Very salmon-like; spawning grounds re-cycled into killing fields ...into spawning grounds ...into killing fields...Very Apple-like, 'bear market' notwithstanding...
Other than not wanting the end user or 3rd parties to be able to replace or upgrade components, what alternative reason would there be for the use of proprietary screws and the soldering of the ram?
It may be the case that CEO Tim Cook is not as interested in appeasing environmentalists as CEO Steve Jobs was. It may also be the case that a future announcement will negate EPEAT certification. If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness. Perhaps it would be prudent to email Tim and ask him to clarify Apple's position on this matter. This matter was likely extensively thought out and discussed within the upper levels of Apple. There's likely an explanation that prompted the removal of Apple products currently meeting the EPEAT standards. If Tim chooses not to clarify Apple's position on this issue with end users, it might be wise to find some shareholders who own significant stocks who can bring this issue up for discussion at the next shareholders meeting. Apple may not always answer to end users, but they must answer to significant shareholders.
If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness.
Education is buying up iPads. iPads are immune from EPEAT.
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/40#post_2142327"]
Also, global warming is baloney for the most part .....
Really? Which 'part,' specifically?
If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.
That's the last time I buy an Apple product, then!
... oh, wait. No it isn't. Like 99.9% of consumers, this will have no effect on my purchasing decisions. The sleeker hardware which it makes possible might, though...
My guess is that Apple considers the EPEAT criteria to be woefully out of date and thus, no longer worth supporting in 2012. There are possibly other behind-the-scenes political motivations behind the status change.
It is unlikely that Apple would ever come out directly against EPEAT, which is explains their thinly veiled language.
Apple has disassociated itself from other groups that it no longer felt worth supporting. Apple Inc. pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce in 2009 over discord with the group's emissions policy. Amusingly, Apple remains a major sponsor of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.
I think you're too quick to apologize for Apple. I usually am, too, but in this case I don't see it. If everything's glued together and it's impossible to get the battery out to recycle it (and recycle the aluminum case also), then it's a failure by Apple in environmental responsibility. That's pretty basic - unless it can be recycled easily, it's a failure, and Apple should be embarassed (and criticized). I don't give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one - they should come out and make a statement.
They should mind their own business. They have no business dictating their extremist religious beliefs unto others. If somebody wants to be all green and go live in a tree for the rest of their lives and never use toilet paper ever again, then good for them, as long as they keep their distance from me. But these loons have no right to impose their beliefs unto others.
You should take your own advice - you're pretty belligerant, and by lumping all the "environmental groups" together, it shows you don't care about the reality. 90% of environmental groups go about their business quietly, improving things a little at a time, so you don't hear about them unless you actually care to find out. Yes, Greenpeace can go crawl into a hole and that would be fine with me, but I'm grateful for the hard working environmentalists who got DDT banned, who got asbestos out of building materials, and on and on (PCBs, phthaltes, etc). If that's "dictating their beliefs to others", we need more of that. The alternative is the chemical companies imposing THEIR beliefs, which are that they should be able to use any chemicals for any purpose at any time.
If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611
When I read your post, I thought you were being sarcastic. But then later, I saw more of your posts. I then realised you meant what you said. I am almost lost for words. How can someone not be concerned for the planet? There are over 7 billion people living on it, and it is people that are causing damage to the environmental, and in so many ways? Computer equipment waste is a huge problem, and for some people, they may only use their computer for about 4 years, and then want or need to buy a new one, to keep up with technological advances, or because of faults that develop with it, or whatever. And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition. I respected Apple for their concerns and making their products environmentally friendly. So, I am dismayed and disappointed Apple is taking this action.
If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns.
And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from.
If your main purchase criteria is based on environmental standards, then there's no reason for you to own Apple gear anyway. This is nothing new. Even with Apple's best efforts to be green in the past, others have far surpassed them. You might as well get gear from one of Apple's competitors. And if you're really concerned about owning the best tech in terms of User Experience, then this decision by Apple would not deter you anyway. In which case you really have no complaints.
Your post is full of crocodile tears, to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
LOL. Is that Ellen Feiss? And would she even know what the oscilloscope on the wall behind her was for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns.
I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.
They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.
I don't know too much about the Amish, besides that they drive horse and buggys and that they have funny haircuts, but why wouldn't they plant trees? Is that against their religion or something?
Oh, no, I can't imagine that it is, I'm just illustrating differences. Environmentalists go on about saving the environment and planting forests to offset whatever, but then they go back and live in air-conditioned/heated houses and use plastics and support industrialized economies, whereas the Amish don't bother offsetting the wood they use or take unnecessary precaution to keep the manmade products they use out of the environment, and yet they just have simple houses without modern convenience, use few appliances, and still support industrialized economies.
I've just never seen an Amishman go out of his way to plant a tree, unless he's doing it for beautification on his non-farmland.
They still don't use mirrors, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from.
.
Since when were planets sentient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is the Mitchell & Webb video?
The second one is very good, thanks!
One lesson ought to be learnt from Apple's system-wide creativity. They will, through organic consistency, expand and 'fine-grain' their original thought process onto life-after-death ...of their 'end' products. Who can better recycle past innovations into more salient ones than a through-the-core, recidivist innovator himself?
Apple's genius stands on its own, very lonesome indeed, as a self-replicating 'art-and-science' tautology. Very salmon-like; spawning grounds re-cycled into killing fields ...into spawning grounds ...into killing fields...Very Apple-like, 'bear market' notwithstanding...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They still don't use mirrors, though.
I didn't know that. Maybe that explains all of the funny looking haircuts.
Other than not wanting the end user or 3rd parties to be able to replace or upgrade components, what alternative reason would there be for the use of proprietary screws and the soldering of the ram?
It may be the case that CEO Tim Cook is not as interested in appeasing environmentalists as CEO Steve Jobs was. It may also be the case that a future announcement will negate EPEAT certification. If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness. Perhaps it would be prudent to email Tim and ask him to clarify Apple's position on this matter. This matter was likely extensively thought out and discussed within the upper levels of Apple. There's likely an explanation that prompted the removal of Apple products currently meeting the EPEAT standards. If Tim chooses not to clarify Apple's position on this issue with end users, it might be wise to find some shareholders who own significant stocks who can bring this issue up for discussion at the next shareholders meeting. Apple may not always answer to end users, but they must answer to significant shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green
If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness.
Education is buying up iPads. iPads are immune from EPEAT.
deleted
Really? Which 'part,' specifically?
If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.
That's the last time I buy an Apple product, then!
... oh, wait. No it isn't. Like 99.9% of consumers, this will have no effect on my purchasing decisions. The sleeker hardware which it makes possible might, though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
My guess is that Apple considers the EPEAT criteria to be woefully out of date and thus, no longer worth supporting in 2012. There are possibly other behind-the-scenes political motivations behind the status change.
It is unlikely that Apple would ever come out directly against EPEAT, which is explains their thinly veiled language.
Apple has disassociated itself from other groups that it no longer felt worth supporting. Apple Inc. pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce in 2009 over discord with the group's emissions policy. Amusingly, Apple remains a major sponsor of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.
I think you're too quick to apologize for Apple. I usually am, too, but in this case I don't see it. If everything's glued together and it's impossible to get the battery out to recycle it (and recycle the aluminum case also), then it's a failure by Apple in environmental responsibility. That's pretty basic - unless it can be recycled easily, it's a failure, and Apple should be embarassed (and criticized). I don't give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one - they should come out and make a statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
They should mind their own business. They have no business dictating their extremist religious beliefs unto others. If somebody wants to be all green and go live in a tree for the rest of their lives and never use toilet paper ever again, then good for them, as long as they keep their distance from me. But these loons have no right to impose their beliefs unto others.
You should take your own advice - you're pretty belligerant, and by lumping all the "environmental groups" together, it shows you don't care about the reality. 90% of environmental groups go about their business quietly, improving things a little at a time, so you don't hear about them unless you actually care to find out. Yes, Greenpeace can go crawl into a hole and that would be fine with me, but I'm grateful for the hard working environmentalists who got DDT banned, who got asbestos out of building materials, and on and on (PCBs, phthaltes, etc). If that's "dictating their beliefs to others", we need more of that. The alternative is the chemical companies imposing THEIR beliefs, which are that they should be able to use any chemicals for any purpose at any time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Really? Which 'part,' specifically?
If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
but I'm grateful for the hard working environmentalists who got DDT banned
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.