The difference is I do not interupt shareholder meetings to read my posts out. If they want to preach their nonsense let them do it on their own time, not Apple's.
As Wilco said, the "environmentalists" did not "interrupt" the shareholder meeting to "read any posts out". They weren't a nuisance, a group of shareholders proposed something at a shareholder meeting and it was considered. Simple, mate.
That's how share-holder meetings work. Pull your head out of your a**.
Oh puhleeze, don't be so naive. It was a publicity stunt. Apple is a very popular brand these days, so they buy a few shares in order to get publicity for their ideas. If you think they are legitimate shareholders offering up serious business suggestions you really have the blinkers on.
Since when is caring about the environment, the very thing that sustains all life on this planet (including ours, as much as we don't seem to want to admit it) a bunch of "nonsense"??
Oh puhleeze, don't be so naive. It was a publicity stunt. Apple is a very popular brand these days, so they buy a few shares in order to get publicity for their ideas...
It's also publicity for Apple. Journalists that cover the "environmentalists' publicity stunt" will also get a soundbite from an Apple spokesperson that can talk about recycling or whatever from http://www.apple.com/environment/
Oh puhleeze, don't be so naive. It was a publicity stunt. Apple is a very popular brand these days, so they buy a few shares in order to get publicity for their ideas. If you think they are legitimate shareholders offering up serious business suggestions you really have the blinkers on.
That's right, all good intentions in this world come from self centered motivations. It's a trick to try to get you on their side. Trust no one. Run... run... run...
Since when is caring about the environment, the very thing that sustains all life on this planet (including ours, as much as we don't seem to want to admit it) a bunch of "nonsense"??
Because people's means of survival is modding the environment. Just look around you: cars, trucks, planes, buildings. Therefore anyone who says the environment is sacrosanct and not to be touched is against our survival.
Interesting terminology. Sustainable "modding" of the environment would be a good thing though. Just like overclocking your GPU, you don't want to push it too far it'll overheat/melt/explode. Same with our "modding" of the environment, I think currently the "development" and "progress" especially in developing countries is "excessively overclocked"
Like your GPU when you push it too hard you see artifacts on the screen, our overclocking of the modding of the environment is also starting to show artifacts eg. climate change, rising sea level, overpopulation, land becoming more arid and less fertile, etc. etc.
They don't want sustainable modding, they want no modding. "Sustainability" is just the thin end of the wedge.
Umm... They suggested "to study how Apple could improve its recycling program". That is, how to mod in a better way. Again, with my GPU reference, "improving recycling program" would be like you know, getting a better heatsink for the GPU, so you can overclock some more without artifacts.
In this case, the environmentalists didn't ask for NO modding -- they didn't say "Apple should stop making iPods and Macs".
They don't want sustainable modding, they want no modding. "Sustainability" is just the thin end of the wedge.
Umm... They suggested "to study how Apple could improve its recycling program". That is, how to mod in a better way. Again, with my GPU reference, "improving recycling program" would be like you know, getting a better heatsink for the GPU, so you can overclock some more without artifacts.
In this case, the environmentalists didn't ask for NO modding -- they didn't say "Apple should stop making iPods and Macs".
Why are you wasting your time arguing with this jackass?
Comments
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
at any time soon, if you don't mind.
I don't mind one bit. The last thing I would want is to start resisting someone's communication.
The difference is I do not interupt shareholder meetings to read my posts out. If they want to preach their nonsense let them do it on their own time, not Apple's.
Originally posted by wilco
That's how share-holder meetings work. Pull your head out of your a**.
Oh puhleeze, don't be so naive. It was a publicity stunt. Apple is a very popular brand these days, so they buy a few shares in order to get publicity for their ideas. If you think they are legitimate shareholders offering up serious business suggestions you really have the blinkers on.
Oh puhleeze, don't be so naive. It was a publicity stunt. Apple is a very popular brand these days, so they buy a few shares in order to get publicity for their ideas...
It's also publicity for Apple. Journalists that cover the "environmentalists' publicity stunt" will also get a soundbite from an Apple spokesperson that can talk about recycling or whatever from http://www.apple.com/environment/
Like this dude:
Took donations to get a g5, got a g5, and blew up his g4, and posted the video.
http://www.helpmegetag5.com/movie.htm
Originally posted by ascii
Oh puhleeze, don't be so naive. It was a publicity stunt. Apple is a very popular brand these days, so they buy a few shares in order to get publicity for their ideas. If you think they are legitimate shareholders offering up serious business suggestions you really have the blinkers on.
That's right, all good intentions in this world come from self centered motivations. It's a trick to try to get you on their side. Trust no one. Run... run... run...
Originally posted by Sekio
Since when is caring about the environment, the very thing that sustains all life on this planet (including ours, as much as we don't seem to want to admit it) a bunch of "nonsense"??
Because people's means of survival is modding the environment. Just look around you: cars, trucks, planes, buildings. Therefore anyone who says the environment is sacrosanct and not to be touched is against our survival.
Like your GPU when you push it too hard you see artifacts on the screen, our overclocking of the modding of the environment is also starting to show artifacts eg. climate change, rising sea level, overpopulation, land becoming more arid and less fertile, etc. etc.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Interesting terminology. Sustainable "modding" of the environment would be a good thing though.
They don't want sustainable modding, they want no modding. "Sustainability" is just the thin end of the wedge.
They don't want sustainable modding, they want no modding. "Sustainability" is just the thin end of the wedge.
Umm... They suggested "to study how Apple could improve its recycling program". That is, how to mod in a better way. Again, with my GPU reference, "improving recycling program" would be like you know, getting a better heatsink for the GPU, so you can overclock some more without artifacts.
In this case, the environmentalists didn't ask for NO modding -- they didn't say "Apple should stop making iPods and Macs".
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by ascii
They don't want sustainable modding, they want no modding. "Sustainability" is just the thin end of the wedge.
Umm... They suggested "to study how Apple could improve its recycling program". That is, how to mod in a better way. Again, with my GPU reference, "improving recycling program" would be like you know, getting a better heatsink for the GPU, so you can overclock some more without artifacts.
In this case, the environmentalists didn't ask for NO modding -- they didn't say "Apple should stop making iPods and Macs".
Why are you wasting your time arguing with this jackass?
Why are you wasting your time arguing with this jackass?
Heh...