They would have died anyway. The problem with DDT was that mosquitoes were building resistance to it (yes, natural selection works), so they had to keep raising the quantity used. Meanwhile, the stuff doesn't biodegrade and it was accumulating in higher animals at increasing rates. It was lose-lose regardless, so it was banned.
This post has about the same moral foundation as a eugenicist claiming that all he was doing was 'natural selection.'
My guess is that Apple considers the EPEAT criteria to be woefully out of date and thus, no longer worth supporting in 2012.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.
There is a Big difference between local chambers of commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce. The US Chamber is an anti-worker, anti-family, group of elitist fascists that want the vast majority of us who's jobs they don't ship abroad to be slaves of commerce. Local chambers are usually not un-American billionaires and are more down to earth.
There is a Big difference between local chambers of commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce. The US Chamber is an anti-worker, anti-family, group of elitist fascists that want the vast majority of us who's jobs they don't ship abroad to be slaves of commerce. Local chambers are usually not un-American billionaires and are more down to earth.
Since Apple has dropped the EPEAT standard I decided to visit the manufacturer to whom I would go to as an alternative to Apple. They are System 76. They make high end computers for less than the other American manufacturers because they use Linux as the operating system.
System 76 does not have any EPEAT certification listed on any of the products I viewed. They do have something called 80 Plus. It is a system that regulates the amount of power that goes to the power supply to ensure it isn't using any more power than is needed at any one time. It is supposed to reduce energy consumption. Apple had a power saving feature built into some of its products in the past. I haven't studied their product literature in a while to see if it is still a feature.
The benefits I would receive from owning a System 76 product is the ability to access the internal parts. They are also made in the USA which I like. The downside is that there are no sophisticated presentation software programs on Linux equal to Powerpoint or Keynote. If there is such a program out their I really would like to know about it. Libre Office needs to improve some to equal the others.
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
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.
There is a big difference. What are your credentials to make such a claim?
OTOH, 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing global warming. (The call it climate change because you get people who don't understand the concept that even if the planet as a whole is warming up that some areas might be cooler for a short time period). That's 97% of the people who have the expertise, the tools, and the experience to know what they're talking about. http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf
A true environmentalist should not procreate and also consider committing suicide to hasten the demise of the human race since humans are the ones destroying the environment.
Or, better yet, simply shoot the ones who are wasting energy. That would be even more effective. /s
Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.
Well there goes Apple's opportunity and momentum of selling computers to the government down the drain.
Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007. Also there are a lot of schools and corporations that require EPEAT certification.
So it is a big deal and a setback..
Well, Apple decided to do this. No one forced them to. One has to assume they knew what the consequences might be but went ahead anyway. So it's not really a setback in the sense that Apple did this voluntarily to themselves. Apple is not stupid and something is in the works behind the scenes. You can bet your paycheck on it.
Aww, that's a shame. Now how about instead of insulting me you explain your meaning. Also take a gander around, as melgross made posts just today.
I thought the post was funny, and you're proving his point. You're a moderator- you don't need to get in the mud and argue with him. Shouldn't you be above it?
All crap, all the time. Lol. It's catchy.
DDT was losing effectiveness and continued massive use would have rendered it completely harmless to mosquitoes, while remaining toxic to animals higher up in the food chain. What part of that is so hard to comprehend?
Those millions of dead people are so much right-wing fiction. DDT was banned in the United States and a few other advanced countries, but use of DDT continued elsewhere, though curtailed, precisely because it does not biodegrade and becomes ineffective quickly. Mosquitoes resistant to DDT appeared over 60 years ago, in India, and are now present all over the world.
You are parroting a fictional, fact-free story invented by the chemical industry to paint greens as immoral. It's bull, and people who favor turning finite resources into trash have no moral standing to begin with.
No, it didn't. Nothing could be more false. For one thing DDT hasn't even been banned worldwide. It's been banned in countries like the United States, where people don't die from malaria.
Not only that, mosquitoes quickly became resistant to DDT, so it has been of very limited use for decades, except to contaminate habitat.
Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.
Not at all. Design is trivial if you only care about one thing. Design should be done by a small group with clear direction, that's true. But the design objectives can be whatever the company wants. Unsustainable design, in this day and age, is simply bad design.
Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.
Apple's been there, done that. The decade of malaise. Being unable to ship Copland. Chasing technology rabbit holes like Newton and OpenDoc.
Scratch my original speculation about Apple planning its own recycling centers capable of handling the R-MBP. The cynic in me suggests the following motivation instead:
Apple may be pulling previously EPEAT-certified models because (as reported elsewhere) some large customers have policies to buy EPEAT-certified equipment preferentially. If the R-MBP isn't certified but other MBP models are, customers may have difficulty circumventing corporate policy in order to buy the R-MBP.
(Apologies to anyone who may already have written it.)
Agreed. We have another case of Apple having thought something through very carefully but characteristically refusing to air their side of the situation in public. it is inconceivable that they would have made such a move without Tim Cook and the management team thoroughly discussing it with the Apple Board of Directors which of course includes Al Gore. We certainly don't know the whole story. Just look at the [URL=http://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2012/]latest keynote[/URL] at 42.40. They are supremely committed to environmental responsibility.
You are not my equal, since you deny that vast amounts of people have died directly because of DDT being banned and you have nothing to offer besides the rather juvenile and boring usual ad-hominem attacks that certain people resort to when they are participating in a discussion that is far above their pay grade.
Pay grade? So a limitless supply of crayons makes you the richest kid on the block. Mommy must be proud of you. Just remind her to keep them away from the radiator when she tucks you in at night.
I was being polite when I suggested that you were my equal, god forbid, in the event that I become your equal, I hope that my living will results in the life support machine being turned off.
I can only imagine that you were distracted by getting another crayon stuck up you nose (again). How else would me explaining the transition from the term "global warming" to "climate change" be missed construed as me commenting on the efficiency, or otherwise, of DDT.
What amazes me about this thread is how many people jump out of the woodwork with their knee jerk sensibilities on the topic of the environment, without giving Apple the slightest benefit of doubt (and on the other side, environmentalists the slightest benefit of doubt).
Apple has led on the issue of corporate environmental responsibility, and will continue to. There must be a pretty darn good reason for why they're doing what they are, but we're not going to it get it from Apple PR press releases.
Apple's shareholder meeting is coming up soon, and this topic will be raised. Tim Cook will have the answer. End of story.
That is somehow worse than all of the knee jerk responses that must defend Apple at any cost? Which is ironically exactly where everything in your post beyond the first paragraph went. Good job.
Not at all. Design is trivial if you only care about one thing. Design should be done by a small group with clear direction, that's true. But the design objectives can be whatever the company wants. Unsustainable design, in this day and age, is simply bad design.
I disagree. The concept of "unsustainability" does not apply to human beings. It is only animals that, year after year, season after season, eat the same food and perform the same patterns that evolution has programmed them with. If the bear eats all the salmon one year, he is doomed the next year, because he does not have any salmon to eat and does not know how to do anything else.
Human beings, however, are far more adaptable. For practical purposes, for man, the world is basically "a generic ball of matter and energy." Resources for the bear are simply what is given, but resources for man are always a combination of matter and thought. Therefore if he is given a different form of matter one year, he can adapt his thought to get the same/equivalent resource.
Einstein taught us that E=mc2, i.e. matter and energy are directly convertible. The implication of this theory for environmentalism is, worse comes to worst, we can make energy and warmth and survival from *any* matter. It won't come to that, because people get enjoyment from walks in the forest etc, but at the same time, lets not go thinking we are as fragile as the animals, and become afraid to change anything. Change can be good, and human progress can be too.
If it quacks like a duck... If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution. Not a lot of wiggle room there. You disparaging portrayal of environmentalists speaks louder than your backtracking.
Yes, some environmental advocates are hypocrites. So are advocates of any other stripe. Environmentalism would be truly strange if it lacked its share of dishonest players. But as a whole the legacy of conservationists and environmentalists could not be more positive, going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt.
So, once more, with feeling, you can't manufacture hundreds of millions of devices a year destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill, and be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products. Unless Apple can show that the retina display MBP can be recycled as much as an EPEAT gold laptop can, then it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility.
I doubt you really know what is happening in this green thing. I am no expert but I feel that anything is recyclable because there is money to be made from it. I believe the scape sellers exporting every make of used computers to China to be recycle.
You have ben reading too much into those companies with great PR on their green program.
Btw do you really believe the plastic used in a dell pc or laptop is recyclable?
One more thing don't drive a car or ride a bus and yes don't buy anything which may use coal or oil in their manufacturing process.
A few months ago, I saw the future of Apple's repair policy. My grandson dropped by wife's new $900 iPad and cracked the screen. I figured that the screen needed replacing. Not so with Apple. The entire iPad was replaced with a new one since there were no refurbs two days after launch. This appears to be the tact with new MacBooks. If your memory is bad, we replace the entire logic board, send the old one back to Apple and repair it. It makes some sense if you think about it. The Applecare pricing with both iPad and MacBook are very reasonable and fit into this approach. The way to recycle the Retinas is to send them to Apple who will disassemble and recycle, with the appropriate technology. It is one thing less for consumers to worry about, at a reasonable cost. So, why did Apple reject EPEAT? The standards set by EPEAT are no longer reasonable, and there are easier, more efficient ways to recycle.
Yours made the most sense than all the boys who cry wolf.
Comments
This post has about the same moral foundation as a eugenicist claiming that all he was doing was 'natural selection.'
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.
There is a Big difference between local chambers of commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce. The US Chamber is an anti-worker, anti-family, group of elitist fascists that want the vast majority of us who's jobs they don't ship abroad to be slaves of commerce. Local chambers are usually not un-American billionaires and are more down to earth.
Hey... Corporations are people too! /s
Since Apple has dropped the EPEAT standard I decided to visit the manufacturer to whom I would go to as an alternative to Apple. They are System 76. They make high end computers for less than the other American manufacturers because they use Linux as the operating system.
System 76 does not have any EPEAT certification listed on any of the products I viewed. They do have something called 80 Plus. It is a system that regulates the amount of power that goes to the power supply to ensure it isn't using any more power than is needed at any one time. It is supposed to reduce energy consumption. Apple had a power saving feature built into some of its products in the past. I haven't studied their product literature in a while to see if it is still a feature.
The benefits I would receive from owning a System 76 product is the ability to access the internal parts. They are also made in the USA which I like. The downside is that there are no sophisticated presentation software programs on Linux equal to Powerpoint or Keynote. If there is such a program out their I really would like to know about it. Libre Office needs to improve some to equal the others.
Aww, that's a shame. Now how about instead of insulting me you explain your meaning. Also take a gander around, as melgross made posts just today.
There is a big difference. What are your credentials to make such a claim?
OTOH, 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing global warming. (The call it climate change because you get people who don't understand the concept that even if the planet as a whole is warming up that some areas might be cooler for a short time period). That's 97% of the people who have the expertise, the tools, and the experience to know what they're talking about.
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf
Or, better yet, simply shoot the ones who are wasting energy. That would be even more effective. /s
Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
Well there goes Apple's opportunity and momentum of selling computers to the government down the drain.
Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007. Also there are a lot of schools and corporations that require EPEAT certification.
So it is a big deal and a setback..
Well, Apple decided to do this. No one forced them to. One has to assume they knew what the consequences might be but went ahead anyway. So it's not really a setback in the sense that Apple did this voluntarily to themselves. Apple is not stupid and something is in the works behind the scenes. You can bet your paycheck on it.
I thought the post was funny, and you're proving his point. You're a moderator- you don't need to get in the mud and argue with him. Shouldn't you be above it?
All crap, all the time. Lol. It's catchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This post has about the same moral foundation as a eugenicist claiming that all he was doing was 'natural selection.'
It has no moral foundation or lack of it. It has scientific foundation.
DDT was losing effectiveness and continued massive use would have rendered it completely harmless to mosquitoes, while remaining toxic to animals higher up in the food chain. What part of that is so hard to comprehend?
Those millions of dead people are so much right-wing fiction. DDT was banned in the United States and a few other advanced countries, but use of DDT continued elsewhere, though curtailed, precisely because it does not biodegrade and becomes ineffective quickly. Mosquitoes resistant to DDT appeared over 60 years ago, in India, and are now present all over the world.
You are parroting a fictional, fact-free story invented by the chemical industry to paint greens as immoral. It's bull, and people who favor turning finite resources into trash have no moral standing to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This is very true. Indeed, the right words in-between should be much stronger: it should say, 'because of.'
The DDT ban probably killed more people than Stalin did.
PS: I did not see post #107 before posting ths.
No, it didn't. Nothing could be more false. For one thing DDT hasn't even been banned worldwide. It's been banned in countries like the United States, where people don't die from malaria.
Not only that, mosquitoes quickly became resistant to DDT, so it has been of very limited use for decades, except to contaminate habitat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.
Not at all. Design is trivial if you only care about one thing. Design should be done by a small group with clear direction, that's true. But the design objectives can be whatever the company wants. Unsustainable design, in this day and age, is simply bad design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.
Apple's been there, done that. The decade of malaise. Being unable to ship Copland. Chasing technology rabbit holes like Newton and OpenDoc.
Scratch my original speculation about Apple planning its own recycling centers capable of handling the R-MBP. The cynic in me suggests the following motivation instead:
Apple may be pulling previously EPEAT-certified models because (as reported elsewhere) some large customers have policies to buy EPEAT-certified equipment preferentially. If the R-MBP isn't certified but other MBP models are, customers may have difficulty circumventing corporate policy in order to buy the R-MBP.
(Apologies to anyone who may already have written it.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
You are not my equal, since you deny that vast amounts of people have died directly because of DDT being banned and you have nothing to offer besides the rather juvenile and boring usual ad-hominem attacks that certain people resort to when they are participating in a discussion that is far above their pay grade.
Pay grade? So a limitless supply of crayons makes you the richest kid on the block. Mommy must be proud of you. Just remind her to keep them away from the radiator when she tucks you in at night.
I was being polite when I suggested that you were my equal, god forbid, in the event that I become your equal, I hope that my living will results in the life support machine being turned off.
I can only imagine that you were distracted by getting another crayon stuck up you nose (again). How else would me explaining the transition from the term "global warming" to "climate change" be missed construed as me commenting on the efficiency, or otherwise, of DDT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What amazes me about this thread is how many people jump out of the woodwork with their knee jerk sensibilities on the topic of the environment, without giving Apple the slightest benefit of doubt (and on the other side, environmentalists the slightest benefit of doubt).
Apple has led on the issue of corporate environmental responsibility, and will continue to. There must be a pretty darn good reason for why they're doing what they are, but we're not going to it get it from Apple PR press releases.
Apple's shareholder meeting is coming up soon, and this topic will be raised. Tim Cook will have the answer. End of story.
That is somehow worse than all of the knee jerk responses that must defend Apple at any cost? Which is ironically exactly where everything in your post beyond the first paragraph went. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
Not at all. Design is trivial if you only care about one thing. Design should be done by a small group with clear direction, that's true. But the design objectives can be whatever the company wants. Unsustainable design, in this day and age, is simply bad design.
I disagree. The concept of "unsustainability" does not apply to human beings. It is only animals that, year after year, season after season, eat the same food and perform the same patterns that evolution has programmed them with. If the bear eats all the salmon one year, he is doomed the next year, because he does not have any salmon to eat and does not know how to do anything else.
Human beings, however, are far more adaptable. For practical purposes, for man, the world is basically "a generic ball of matter and energy." Resources for the bear are simply what is given, but resources for man are always a combination of matter and thought. Therefore if he is given a different form of matter one year, he can adapt his thought to get the same/equivalent resource.
Einstein taught us that E=mc2, i.e. matter and energy are directly convertible. The implication of this theory for environmentalism is, worse comes to worst, we can make energy and warmth and survival from *any* matter. It won't come to that, because people get enjoyment from walks in the forest etc, but at the same time, lets not go thinking we are as fragile as the animals, and become afraid to change anything. Change can be good, and human progress can be too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
If it quacks like a duck... If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution. Not a lot of wiggle room there. You disparaging portrayal of environmentalists speaks louder than your backtracking.
Yes, some environmental advocates are hypocrites. So are advocates of any other stripe. Environmentalism would be truly strange if it lacked its share of dishonest players. But as a whole the legacy of conservationists and environmentalists could not be more positive, going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt.
So, once more, with feeling, you can't manufacture hundreds of millions of devices a year destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill, and be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products. Unless Apple can show that the retina display MBP can be recycled as much as an EPEAT gold laptop can, then it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility.
I doubt you really know what is happening in this green thing. I am no expert but I feel that anything is recyclable because there is money to be made from it. I believe the scape sellers exporting every make of used computers to China to be recycle.
You have ben reading too much into those companies with great PR on their green program.
Btw do you really believe the plastic used in a dell pc or laptop is recyclable?
One more thing don't drive a car or ride a bus and yes don't buy anything which may use coal or oil in their manufacturing process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
A few months ago, I saw the future of Apple's repair policy. My grandson dropped by wife's new $900 iPad and cracked the screen. I figured that the screen needed replacing. Not so with Apple. The entire iPad was replaced with a new one since there were no refurbs two days after launch. This appears to be the tact with new MacBooks. If your memory is bad, we replace the entire logic board, send the old one back to Apple and repair it. It makes some sense if you think about it. The Applecare pricing with both iPad and MacBook are very reasonable and fit into this approach. The way to recycle the Retinas is to send them to Apple who will disassemble and recycle, with the appropriate technology. It is one thing less for consumers to worry about, at a reasonable cost. So, why did Apple reject EPEAT? The standards set by EPEAT are no longer reasonable, and there are easier, more efficient ways to recycle.
Yours made the most sense than all the boys who cry wolf.