Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo published this morning allegations by the bromine industry claiming that Greenpeace's report on the iPhone was inaccurate and alarmist. They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturer, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines. While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."
a good old fashioned hippie ass whoopin'
They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturers, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines.
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market. I'm sure if they had done a similar report on the XBOX 360, the media would have been all over it in a similar manner.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Greenpeace has been pulling stunts like this for publicity since the 1980s, why should it surprise you that they are alarmist and seeking headlines by bashing one company in particular?
Regardless if you agree with their goals or not, they left credibility behind a long time ago.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.
Personally, I don't really care, because we're all in it to make or raise money. PETA says and does offensive things to grab headlines, the WWE does, and 90% of the articles on CNN and even Digg are sensationalist headlines designed to get you to "click through".
Who cares?
rm -rf
Links without slashdotted anonymizer (really, if you think Gizmodo is tracking you maybe you shouldn't be on the Web) here and here.
Why are the URLs hidden behind anonymouse? If I want to browse anonymously, I'm going to use Tor, I don't need some stupid anonymizing site that pops up little boxes over what I'm looking at.
The real url to the store is this: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/electronics-industry-analyst-group-dismisses-greenpeace-claims-on-iphone-313411.php. I suspect the submitter of doing this one purpose.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Why are the links going through anonymouse? Did the poster want to /. two sites at once?
This is not a signature.
no. the top five photographs of all time is the absolute truth about those pictures. the top five reasons to vote for Ron Paul are real, reasonable reasons. the funniest clip of colbert ever on youtube, is well, the funniest ever. that's not offensive or sensationalist - it's the honest to Dawkins truth.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I used to work on factory trawlers in Alaska and although we fished species that travel in very clean schools, attacking that particular part of the industry brought them the most attention, even though most of their information was incorrect.
I will say that I witnessed procedures and practices that bothered me and probably affected the overall industry in the end. However, the crap Green Peace used was totally fabricated and didn't have any basis in truth.
I quit fishing in 98', started using macs in 02' and now the fuckers are attacking something I like and profit from again. I didn't know 10 years ago that I would be working in IT with macs, but I feel like the fuckers are following me.
What's even more ironic is that all the tree-hugging hippies I have known over the years, even those from Green Peace, have been Apple users!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
LOL, another insecure posting about imaginary superiority complexes. Please tell me how I am so superior just because I have a nice computer that costs a little extra? Here's a hint: I don't care what you think about my computer, so therefore, I have no superiority copmlex.
*disclaimer for the countless trolls reading this thread and posting such intelligent things as "hippie ass-whoopin" etc...*
I'm a leftist, sharing many of the ideals of groups like Greenpeace, PETA, etc.. *and* I do not agree that the tactics of groups like PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. are the most rightous or effective means of furthering their goals.
*end disclaimer*
but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical? PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. all make very clear that they are motivated to attract attention to their cause by going after high-profile targets. They've been pulling ridiculous publicity stunts for years and years. It would be hypocritical of them if they said they *did not* engage in such behavoir. It doesn't mean they have a lack of concern for their cause in general, it's just that this is their method of supporting it.
That said, if anyone can show me exactly where Greenpeace stated or even implied that they would not selectively target companies for maximum publicity, I will retract my previous statement.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Why is activism directed at the most high-profile target wrong? One of the big activist-buzzphrases is "consciousness-raising," after all. If you believed that the chemicals in a certain class of consumer products is harmful to the environment, it makes perfect sense to go after the market leader and cultural icon in that class of consumer products. That Greenpeace has decided focus attention on Apple as the optimal strategy for achieving their political goals does not imply that they find similar manufacturing practices of other companies unobjectionable. It's simply that they make more political progress when they direct all their available resources to this particular subject.
yeah, first they selectively target companies to protest for using dangerous chemicals based on the publicity it will get them, then they.... kill people?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
>> quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical
.. get the headlines, get your 300 mentions in the viral media and move on.
With media outlets like Drudgereport looking for punch headlines.
With news being read on Google and Digg (more links = top stories).
"Bloggers" turning into the fourth estate...
With the leader of the free world going "You're either with us or against us".
All that matters is
Mission accomplished I'd say.
Greenpeace has a very long story for even TAKING MONEY to attack someone. Id go as far as to say that, for example, they promoted the idea of dolphin killing tuna fishers everywhere else but the US. They were paid off by american tuna fishers who dont kill dolphins NEAR THE STATES, but they happily do so with dolphin from the philipines.
They also promoted the idea that a harbor project for the large (largest in the world, actually) salt mine down under in Baja was a risk to the gray whales, so that the harbor project was stopped. The pier was projected so big, that a damned whale coud pass under it from ANY possition.... SIDEWAYS. That time they were paid by competing Australian salt miners.
I, for one, have never ever believed anything coming out of greanpeace. They are nothing but a rent-a-hoolingan shop.
NO SIG
Why do you think the original founder of Greenpeace QUIT?
My karma is not a Chameleon.
What Greenpeace does is to ride the hype wave and nobody but Apple has recently released any majorly hyped, or hype-worthy, electronic products.
Greenpeace rides the hype wave in other areas too (ie. not just electronics). This is a very effective way of operating since it relies on the fact that people are already tuned in to the subject and Greenpeace can tack on an environmental angle with far less resources.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.
Yes, that, is, very, weird. ,
I know more than you drink.
Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.
I love animals and believe we need to clean up the earth and all that, but every time I hear about Greenpeace and one of their stunts, I want to go kill a baby seal and wear its fur. Just like every time PETA does some of their bullshit I go eat lunch at KFC.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Like any political organization that has been in place for too long, its purpose is no longer to accomplish the goals it was founded for, but to simply perpetuate its own existence and increase its power base.
"Environmental extremism arose in the mid-1980s. It arose because the majority of people accepted all of the reasonable points in the environmental agenda, and the only way to remain adversarial and confrontational and anti-everything was to adopt even more extreme positions - eventually abandoning all science and logic altogether."
~ Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.
All of you with an ideological bone to pick are frothing at the mouth out of pure ignorance. Not only is it *not* hypocritical to go after high-profile targets, thus extending the reach and efficacy of your message - but it's downright good strategy to go after a target that's more likely to fold and thereby become an industry leader in the values and policies you advocate. In fact, this approach is *standard*. Groups across the ideological spectrum follow this playbook, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
You can certainly criticize Greenpeace for the particulars of this campaign, but criticizing them as "hypocritical" for going after the highest-profile target most likely to achieve success for their campaign? Cry me a river.
The alarmist headline grabbing fear mongering publicity stunts are just to make money. On a credibility scale they are right up there with Rent A Mob and Rent A Crowd.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
But it IS very amusing to watch all the Slashdotters WET themselves over this Apple story.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
When will Greenpeace STFU? They pull this shit in attempt to make themselves look legitimate, but just makes them look more crazy, and less something people want to have anything to do with. I'm all for saving the whales, and whatever other tree hugger crap they are for, but seriously. Be civili, or GO AWAY!!!
This wouldn't be the first time someone who ostensibly was out to "do the right thing" resorted to blatantly unethical tactics. The fact is that most people can't understand the difference between some learned set of rules they call "morality" from the more general concept of right and wrong called "ethics." This is why fundies have no problems killing abortion doctors or terrorists killing thousands of innocents. Their moral high-ground is the only definition of right and wrong to them, and that gives them license to do anything the hell they want in the name of their morality. It's been this way throughout all of human history, and it's unlikely to change. People get it in their minds that anything counter to what they believe is evil and should be eradicated.
Green Peace alarmist!!!!!
no, it just can't be!!
they are like anyone else, they spin shit for their own agenda.
I suppose this is what I get for addressing trolls specifically, huh.
BTW, when calling another a pussy, it helps not to have the name "coward".
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Greenpeace is an advocacy group. It uses the same marketing techniques as politicians, for-profit companies, and everyone else. They go for the big target. I think they're being honest in admitting it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
As we citizens have chosen to ignore what our responsibility to the planet is, it has come to groups like GreenPeace to push us and remember. We have chosen to grasp the philosophy of if I am the only one to do it, it won't hurt anyone. That obviously is a foolish logic.
I am quite happy that they take angles like this. And I am quite happy that people react. And I am quite happy that they attack the high profile targets. Thats their job.
Good work GreenPeace. Keep it up.
Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.
Glad you could wake up. The coffee pot is over there. If you take the last cup, start another batch.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Well they first release a series of "green" soylent products.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
That happens to other organizations as well... look at MADD.
Nephilium
Admitting targeting Apple to grab headlines grabs headlines too :)
Now, how long until this recursion dies with out of memory error...
Hyperom.com
It amazes me that anyone takes these alarmist groups seriously. It's clear that they outright lie to raise publicity; at least they're admitting it now.
How then, I must ask, do they feel this sort of practice helps their cause?? Does credibility and trust mean nothing to them? Aren't they the least bit concerned that their lying will cause people to start doubting the worthiness of their efforts?
I realize that a lot of people value rhetoric and good intentions over accuracy and truth. But with such tactics, how can any reasonable person consider the likes of Greenpeace anything other than a fringe element whose care first and foremost about drawing attention to themselves.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I consider myself an environmentalist, and this is one of the reasons I have a serious problem with a number of organisations similar to greenpeace. A number of technologies that can do a lot to help the environment, have been irrationally opposed, or hung out, not because of any rational considerations, but for these organisations to make themselves look important. The most notable example is Nuclear power, but there are plenty of others. Over in Sweden the environmentalists are heavily opposing carbon capture and storage ( arguing that it is "just an excuse to continue using certain [evil] technologies". ) despite it being pretty much the only technology we know of that could end the emissions from our steel industry. Electric heating has been shot down as "inefficient" despite being orders of magnitude cleaner than oil and gas (Sweden's electricity production is very clean ).
Seriously, the more I hear about these organisation the more it becomes obvious that they are oblivious to the real issues involved and just want to make themselves look important. In my eyes greenpeace has about as much credibility when it comes to environmental issues as the bush administration. Now just to make things perfectly clear, I think the Bush administration is a bunch of dishonest, selfish and corrupt bastards, and I wouldn't trust a thing they say when it comes to environmental policy, same goes for greenpeace.
Or the ALF...
Nephilium
I saw how long you UID is, so I looked at your posting history.
/. bitching about Apple?
Don't you have better things to do that troll
--- Someone who has never owned an Apple product
you only need to read their website to see to know fuck all about the issues their protest so vocally about.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Now to even out the environmental Karma on a global scale, I'm going to have to travel to Japan and eat a whale. Nice going, Greenpeace!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Fuck i wish i could put you in a picture and frame it.
On the one hand you say greenpeace is great, but then you say they don't tackle any important environmental issues. WTF? how can they be great if they don't meet their primary function?
you then go on to say we have too many people in the world (put your hand up if you think your one of those "too many" ?). finally you confirm my previous statments about greenpeace types by putting a link to an anti globalisation website in you sig.
PURE GOLD.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Wait, we get to vote on the nobel peace prize? Sweet. It doesn't even matter that the two situations are really not at all the same, either.
I know more than you drink.
Greenpeace needs media attention. Since they're not exactly best of friends with big business, it's really no surprise at all that they try to leverage whatever they can to thrust themselves into the spotlight. If they didn't take this approach, they wouldn't reach as many people. Reaching as many people as possible is the name of the game. There are bad ways of doing this ( email spam, fax spam, 'market researchers' calling at dinner time ), and there are creative ways of doing this. Apple are in the spotlight, and are fair game.
hile it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."
Isn't it only really hypocritical if they don't admit it?
Greenpeace admits that it's easy to troll the lazy, sensationalist, fact-immune, hypocritical, navel gazing, self righteous, egotistical, ignorant, self serving, ... media.
News at 11.
The previous comments are only true, if no-one says they're wrong.
"See the novel State of Fear...it's not too far off it seems..."
An anti-science fiction writer advising the US senate on climate science, what could possibly go wrong?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Totally. They're the worst kinds of selfish cunts.
When I used to work for a solar module manufacturing firm in Italy, I would have to represent the firm with others at trade conferences and talk about the benefits -- and costs -- of the product. Most people were great.
However, with Greenpeace, I would get accosted outside of their booths simply because I would be wearing a suit. I was selling out the environmental movement. And I'd have to listen to this shit from a coddled undergraduate who'd never done a damn thing in his life aside from marching around in a piazza every once in a while.
And that's not even talking about the other criticisms of Greenpeace...
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Your post is ludicrous.
First off, I'm not going to even try explaining to you how impossible it is to escape the use of fossil fuels in western society. So to "protest fossil fuels" (this statement itself is pretty vague but I'll use your phrase) while using fossil fuels is not hypocritical; it's called doing your best given the situation that you are in. Also, without any citation for your claim that Greenpeace takes money not to protest, I'm calling that pretty clear FUD.
Second, I have only had direct contact with Greenpeace twice: once about 10 years ago a guy came door-to-door soliciting for donations to help Greenpeace educate people about preservation efforts in the Sierra Nevadas (I was living in CA at the time), and once I was stopped by a guy here in New Zealand soliciting for donations to fund a boat that was going out to try protest the Japanese whaling ships that hunt in south pacific waters. In both cases I agreed with the issue so I gave some money.
These are people who are spending their own time and money to try to improve the world around them. What exactly are YOU doing besides making baseless accusations, citing no established literature to support your position, on Slashdot? Why should I give a rat's ass about your opinion when I weight it against the opinion of people who actually back up their beliefs with action?
If Greenpeace were grabbing headlines by complaining that Apple is grabbing headlines, that would be hypocritical.
If Greenpeace were complaining that Apple is using dangerous chemicals in their manufacturing, while Greenpeace itself was manufacturing goods using dangerous chemicals, that would be hypocritical.
Greenpeace admitting that it targets high-profile companies in order to most efficiently convey their message, is NOT hypocritical.
I think the word you are looking for is 'disingenuous', which I actually don't even agree with. But it matches your slanderous intentions better than the word 'hypocritical' in this situation.
Conservatives are about truth, ideas that work, and doing things without governmental controls, but the private sector instead. Liberals have one facade they portray to grab the whiny-hearts, the undecided, the people who know no history, and those with hate to spare. It's a big tent, the Democrat party...tree huggers, herbalists, hippies, union thugs, foreign spies, and bigots. There's just one idea: making people victims. When they're victims, they election on "we'll get those republicans, this time!" and they never do.
And you were doing so well. You actually had me agreeing with you until this. But you're just another divisive, partisan fucktard. Oh well.The end justifies the means.
Problem: People worldwide are concerned about the environment, human rights, and peace/security. Many feel that multinational corporations are making things worse. But multinational companies are really good at avoiding regulation by 'traditional' democratic institutions, namely governments.
Solution: Brands are already signifiers of complex emotional meanings. Marketers would love to define these meanings for us, but the meaning of a brand is a contested space. Holding high-value brands accountable for the sustainability of their actions becomes a powerful tool, but ONLY when those brands defy the values of their customers. Turns out many customers don't like toxics leaking out their landfills and so on. They never did. But now that marketeering has taught us that brands have deep things to say about who we as customers are, well gosh, suddenly brands that represent poisoned water tables are in deep shit. Because branding is about feeling, and poison-water feels bad.
Think about it: Greenpeace's only action was to release information. Not exactly threatening, unless that information drives customers. If Greenpeace doesn't share the values/ethics of the people who shop at Apple, there's absolutely no effect. But they do. Greenpeace picks targets that have value-added brands, brands with emotional resonance. It's hardball tactics and it's completely fair because what they said about Apple is true. Generic companies are also bad, but those companies don't have fanboys and big brand-name markups. Apple makes all kinds of promises to its customers wrapped into "Think Different". Turns out the customers want that to means something.
The interesting thing about this is that far from destroying brands, it actually makes them more powerful. Suddenly brands go beyond marketing language to become signifiers of real corporate ethics, where a value-added brand is even more desireable, because we customers know that a company that claims to "Think Different" but isn't will get crucified. Outing liars increases trust. Good for everyone: markets are more efficient with more information.
it all just makes me wish for some good old fashioned hippie whomping
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I just read on your web site that you do have a charity project that you work on (or worked on; given how little you seem to update your web site, it's probably old news).
So is it just that only projects that *you* work on are worthwhile, but things that other people believe in enough to take action on are worthy of your disdain? You were involved in a "faculty-wide fundraiser" according to your site. It's ironic that the submitter of this Greenpeace story used the word 'hypocritical' (even though it actually isn't justified in Greenpeace's case), because I can't think of anything more hypocritical than your post, given what you have on your web site.
> Apple needs hit them where it hurts, the wallet.
We're talking about Greenpeace here. Hitting them where it hurts means pulling Phish from iTunes.
This sig intentionally left blank.
...let me just say that I fricking hate Greenpeace.
Although I agree with some of their stands on environmental issues, they are detrimental to environmental movement overall. All Greenpeace does is provide the Rush Limbaughs, Fox News twits and other industry stooges with ammunition to paint all environmentalists as extremist loons. The vast majority of conservation-minded individuals are educated, rational, reasonable and intelligent people. But, in the minds of many in our society, Greenpeace loons = all environmentalists.
It's a shame.
The Terrorists talk about the Housing Market?
I like microcars
Precisely. I'm having a debate, you're having a name-calling session. Rarely is the open-mindedness and enlightenment so, so....."progressive".
You're not debating, you're identifying all Democrats as idiots. I could just as easily say the same about all Republicans, but I won't, because such a generalization is untrue and pointless. I made a specific statement about YOU. YOU sir, are a fucktard.
...Any more than Larry Craig is concerned about gays. The so-called environmental movement is a religious institution, a profit center designed to exploit people's legitimate concerns in order to enrich itself. It's just a racket, that's all it is.
Just do this exercize. Watch some Sunday TV and look at what the preachers are doing... yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of God, if you don't give them money. Then, turn on the likes of PBS or the Discovery or Science channel, and, if you happen to find a good environmental documentary, you'll find some jackass yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of mother nature, if you don't give them money. While I doubt it it would be politically possible, but I bet if you could have switched Jerry Falwell and the head of Greenpeace and made them do each other's jobs for a year, they wouldn't have missed a beat, because they are all doing the same thing.
Please don't get all hot and bothered about some nonsense that says: "yeah, but they do such good work." These people are con artists, 99% of the time, and what they sell is entertainment. It's entertainment, that's all it is. Just like in Christianity, if you want to save someone, so it is in the environment. If you want to save the world, start with your own life first.
This is my sig.
Thank you for again proving my point: switch to profanity and claim defeat.
You *can't* say the same about the Conservatives. (Notice the precision with which I'm using the terms, here...not all Republicans are Conservative.) Conservatives are almost Libertarian, and a lot of people agree with the general stance of both.
Now, as is present in any gathering of any number of people, hipocracy and corruption can be found...there's one in every bunch. A lot of people use this argument to stay away from church, but it never stops them from visiting the grocercy store, somehow...
But the core Conservative ideals are what everyone wants. Less government. Less intrusion. Less taxes, strong military for protection, adherence to the Constitution. But just the other day Hillary was suggesting $5,000 for each child born...no word on where the money will be coming from, but I know they pay taxes. And her masterpiece of deception is universal healthcare. It sucks in Britian, Canada, Cuba and France, I have the idea it'll suck here, too.
Some thoughts before you warm-up to "free" healtcare: the same government in which you mistrust the Federal Reserve, the draft, tax loopholes, set outrageous taxes on fuel, buy $600 toliet seats....do you *really* want to put your *life* in their hands?
To do so, would be stupid, no?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
So Greenpeace makes an example of a villain that the most people will notice and be affected by when they learn the story. How is that "hypocritical"?
Greenpeace isn't an order of saints or something. They've got some very strong positions on some values that are also held by some very moral people. But they're very pragmatic about working to conserve specific things for the practical welfare of people in this world, and of the world we're living in. They're not here to save your soul, just your planet.
--
make install -not war
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq
Well, that's a surprise for many folks, I imagine.
No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
Quite right. Except for Bush, on 5/1/03:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
...and Cheney, on 9/14/03:
"If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Tell me, with your head so far up the Administration's ass, how do you get the Kool Aid into your mouth?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
First off, I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, and I do think that they targetted the iPhone because of the increased publicity it would bring.
However, Greenpeace did not admit that is what they are doing. The summary is incorrect.
If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.
What Greenpeace said is the opposite of what the summary claims they said. Greenpeace said that they recognize that their report on the iPhone did capture more headlines, but that they do, and have done, the same thing with other phones. Greenpeace is claiming that they did not focus on the iPhone in order to capture headlines, that it happened because the media is more interested in news relating to the iPhone. Which also makes perfect sense, because that is what their readers want to read about (not whether it's right or wrong for them to report what the people want to hear, but that is the way it is).
So again, I agree that Greenpeace almost certainly did focus on the issue in order to attract attention to the issue, and that that is their standard operating procedure, it is clearly false that they admitted to it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I don't know who's spoon feeding you your manure, but it sure is funny.
The "precision" you're using the terms? Liberal and Democrat are interchangeable, but Conservative and Republican aren't? Republicans have a pretty good stranglehold on the bulk of giant disasters and wasteful spending.
Everyone says they want less government and less taxes, but they also want the basics covered, which costs an increasing amount of money. Where is your question about where the money is coming from for tax cuts and outrageous Iraq spending? How about the money on infrastructure improvements the country so desperately needs? How about the abomination that is faith-based initiative spending and putting strings on funding mandates? You "conservatives" are worse than any Democrat--you're willing to spend the money if it harps your backwards viewpoints and furthers your own ego-stoking goals, and who cares whether or not it actually helps anyone?
"Conservatives are almost Libertarian"? Someone seems a little definition-challenged. "Do you *really* want to put your *life* in their hands"...when no government healthcare program (only a funding plan) has even been proposed, nor would it be mandatory if you don't "trust" them? Your facts are no better than your spelling.
Since they're done with Apple, will they go after Orange next?
Yes, I know I'm comparing Apples to Oranges...
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
What can you possibly expect from communists, anarchists, or just plain freaks? The truth? lol.
I admit targeting Slashdot for targeting Greenpeace for targeting Apple grabs karma; but only if you do it early on. It's probably too late for me to get anything out of this, so what good are you?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Environmentalism scares people. It ushers in big, unwanted changes. It tells people how to run their lives. And when that ideology clashes with libertarianism, like here on slashdot, a lot of mud is slung. The word "corruption" gets tossed around, as if it's not enough to be ideologically opposed to the environmentalists, but they also have to be sell-outs.
In fact, if Greenpeace didn't publicly admit it had gamed the system for publicity, I would bet that there would be some FUD story claiming that they took bribes from [insert portable music device manufacturer here], and how this is just another example of their racketeering.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Thank you for again proving my point: switch to profanity and claim defeat.
Defeat? You are the -- what's the term again... fucktard -- who has framed this as an "us vs. them" debate. You presume a battle where none exists. At least, none EXISTED until you chose to diverge from rational discourse and switch to partisan buffoonery. I don't really care if you claim to be a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, at this point. You are simply a fucktard.
how many people still believe in WMD
Oh, I think pretty much every Kurd on earth believes that Saddam had WMDs.
The fact is, he had them, and he admitted to it at the end of operation dessert storm. He signed a cease-fire agreement that obligated him to destroy not only his WMDs, but also his WMD development programs, and document having done so (you know, like Libya did after Kadaffy got spooked by seeing Saddam in prison.)
What he did instead was try to bluff, so he made a habit of jerking the UN weapons inspectors around, and he was allowed to do so for about a decade. 9/11 had the effect of temporarily reducing the USA's willingness to put up with that bullshit. Too bad for him.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yeah, in today's world, it must indeed be shocking to find an organization telling the truth.
However, I think you are missing the point here. The issue is not if Apple is still using toxic sustances in their products. The point is IF Greenpace is right in manipulating media in this way, targeting one company because is highly visible to the media.
In other words, those sustances you mention, are less toxic if a less known company uses them?
This is clearly a biased report which jeopardizes Greenpeace's credibility as the reporting policy is not transparent for us, the consumers. Greenpace should state clearly which media reporting policy is using and it should be based on some objetive metric such as the environmental impact or the recurrence of faults by companies.
it IS Jobs. Look at it. It's a "dirty hippy playing the guitar" with Steve Jobs' face photoshopped over it. The picture is playful swing at Apple, not a smear on Greenpeace.
Apple is a publicity slut: glitzy ad campaigns, using pictures of Einstein and Chavez, carefully controlled leaks, etc. If Greenpeace uses them as a target to give more visibility to a cause, that seems reasonable to me. Why should we let Apple get away with only creating positive images for marketing purposes?
"Come to think of it, nobody claimed that Saddam was connected to Al Queda in particular, but he was indeed a sponsor of terrorism."
In his "Mission Accomplished"-speec, GWB said this:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."
Seems to me that he's claiming that Iraq and Al-Qaida were "allied"... So your claim is 100% WRONG.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
9/11 had the effect of temporarily reducing the USA's willingness to put up with that bullshit. Too bad for us.
Corrected.
Why should we let Apple get away with only creating positive images for marketing purposes?
When Apple claims to be a disinterested party they get hammered, even in supposedly pro-Apple forums as this, even on such occasions when they actually have a track record to support their claim. Because we know they're just another company (yes, really, they are).
So turn it around.
Why should we let Greenpeace get away with pretending to be unbiased? If they're going to act like just another marketing machine, then they shoud be treated like one.
Apparently you don't understand the use of an elipsis:
ellipsis
. 1.Gram. a. the omission from a sentence or other construction of one or more words that would complete or clarify the construction, as the omission of who are, while I am, or while we are from I like to interview people sitting down. b. the omission of one or more items from a construction in order to avoid repeating the identical or equivalent items that are in a preceding or following construction, as the omission of been to Paris from the second clause of I've been to Paris, but they haven't.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.
And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.
If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Reads a bit different when you supply your snip, don't it?
.... Unless they're _your_ ends. In which case, slander and attention-whore away. I mean, it's all for the good of the proletariat, yes?
Not in the slightest.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
How dare you post this scientific gobledygook. This, Sir, is an Apple shill site!
Michael Crichton M.D. certanly isn't anti-science, a gad-fly maybe, his writing does prod the "climatologists" to a higher standard than they had been acustomed to; at any account he's certainly more qualified than Al Gore is.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I love the "dangerous" characterization of bromine. Bromine is no more dangerous than hydrogen. If you rapidly combine hydrogen with oxygen you get a big boom! Dangerous!!
Ban hydrogen and hydrogen compounds forever!!!
People never seem to have a clue about how the things in their everyday life are produced. Generally they seem to expect that the only byproduct of production should be butterflys and rose water. Unfortunately these people are also allowed to vote.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Why? Show a me a group or individual publicly campaigning for a cause that isn't cavalier and, in some cases, downright hypocritical. Both conservative and liberal groups and individuals do this all the time and I'm tired of it. Right wing "pro life" advocates who seem to have no problem supporting a war in which innocent people are dieing every day spring to mind. As does Al Gore and the host of other leftist celebrities who try and bring attention to global warming by traveling the world in private energy wasting jets and then get from event to event via SUV once they've landed.
I'm sick and tired of the "do as I say, not as I do crowd". Shut the hell up you shameless self promoters.
Groups such as Greenpeace have never given so much as a flying fuck about the environment. In fact, the absolute worst thing that could happen as far as Greenpeace &c. are concerned would be the development of a cheap, plentiful and innocuous energy source capable of replacing fossil fuels altogether. Why? Because then they would no longer have a stick to beat us with.
Apple are based in California, for crying out loud -- the state with probably the most stringent environmental legislation anywhere outside the EU.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Ah, but Bromine is in Group VIIb, one down from Chlorine. Therefore it must be evil!
Watch out Iodine, you're next!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
No one but a tiny minority of muttonheads actually believe ANYTHING Greenpeace has to say.
The world has long since figured out that it is an organization that exists to benefit those who are paid to work there.
Naturally they are trying to stir up headlines to raise funds.It takes less than a rocket scientist to figure out that they target the impressionable(young,teens) who are looking for purpose to fullfill their existence and exploit it to their financial and P.R.gain. Between the young and the clueless they make a pretty good living and have just as much fun as any supermarket tabloid speading lies created from half truths and outright bullshit.
No one of consequence takes them seriously.
No story here,move along please.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Terrorism is the act of scaring people for a social or political reason using violence (or threat of violence). A person who uses terrorism is called a terrorist. Sometimes they do the things they say they will do, and sometimes they do not. Terrorists think that if others are afraid of them, they will have more power over other people.
Huuuuuuum...
Actually, bromine is a neurotoxin. Typically, compounds with bromine in them will be a lot more harmful to human health than those with hydrogen, and not just due to explosions. It tends to be more corrosive than hydrogen as well.
You want something similarly dangerous that is common, you'd be better off picking oxygen, but even that isn't as bad.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Hypocrisy is always wrong.
But, I guess it is OK in your mind to say "Do as I say, not as I do."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The liberal mind is so interesting; capable of much technical knowledge, yet devoid of self-control and wisdom; the programming runs deep. Calling me a 'Fucktard' doesn't promote your insistance, win the argument, or do anything but embarrass yourself.
There *is* a war going on. These people in Greenpeace are just one small unit in it. The masters of the 'progressive' movement own 80% of the media....they're just coming to terms with no longer owning 100%. Back in the day Walter Cronkite saw the Tet Offensive with all the blood and guts and declared it a loss. But the truth is, some 80,000 VC died in a very short time, damaging them critically- the war was almost won, yet because Cronkite spoke it, the president was convinced and we had 'lost'.
They yearn for the days before Fox News, the internet, and Matt Drudge. Their game is coming apart, but I fear not fast enough. Their goal is the same; divorce us from tradition, de-educate us, empty our collective pockets, and make America unable to come to the rescue for the next century like it did, last century.
And you, with your bluster and assumptions...you're just another bot in their arsenal. When you scream 'Partisan', you're fulfilling their rhetoric of those 'holy' days where there was no partisanship: just their viewpoint. No alternative views; no dissent; fascism. And when you call me a 'fucktard' you show what you were before they brainwashed you: some garden variety know-nothing kid.
Thanks for illuminating my point; I won't bother with a reply.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
"The "precision" you're using the terms? Liberal and Democrat are interchangeable, but Conservative and Republican aren't? Republicans have a pretty good stranglehold on the bulk of giant disasters and wasteful spending."
Look closely; Republicans are the Conservatives that got into office. They're doing the massive wasting, and it's gotten us almost as unhappy on this side of the aisle as you are, on yours. I've screamed when I learned the money-and-men headed to be border had been cut off and diverted. I screamed when Bush picked Harriet Myer for the court. I screamed when McCain/Feingold broke the ever-sacred First Amendment. Alas, Bush isn't a great Conservative.
If you'll look closely, even though the war (well, the part that's on TV is the occupation, and we're winning) the defeceit has been dramatically reduced. It in was in the news last week. It's because "Reganomics" or "Supply Side Economics" is working again, the SIXTH time it's been tried. The third time was under JFK, by the way.
It *shouldn't* cost more and more to cover the basics, but when each and every item in the budget is getting a 9%-every-year standard, and someone doesn't get it, the Democrats cry "Oh, you're CUTTING the budget! Children will starve!" and the media amplifies it.
So, on tap in the next decade or so are millions of senior citizens with no way to pay them, tens-of-millions on Welfare, and the houses we built for them, all needing money we don't have, and the hospital system, because there's too much government in it (Medicare/Medicade demanding prices) we'll be out of business.
WE NEED TERM LIMITS.
Only 3% of Congress changes after elections. We're electing people who are only good at one thing: getting elected. Almost no one there has had a real job, ever! How can we expect them to do anything *but* vote where the money is?
Democrats are the first to buy votes with your tax money. See last week with Hillary pushing $5,000 to every child. See the S-CHIP plan for poor children, having "poor" defined by $80,000 a year, and "children" defined as old as 25. This is textbook Liberalism.
There once stood a Democratic Party worth mentioning. It sourced people like Truman and FDR. But since Vietnam they've become SO much more Liberal it's false advertisement to call them Democrats. Teaching my pre-schooling masterbation? No thank you, Jocyln Elder. Still trying to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn? Back off, secular scientists. Take "God" off of everything? Piss off, ACLU.
If you think there's no difference between the parties, please, for the love of God, DON'T VOTE anymore!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Indeed, we must ban dihydrogen monoxide! It's the most dangerous of all of the hydrogen compounds!
Heck, those hypocrits at Greenpeace use DHMO every day. When will they learn?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Why should we let Greenpeace get away with pretending to be unbiased? If they're going to act like just another marketing machine, then they shoud be treated like one.
Greenpeace is a not-for-profit. That's not my opinion, that's a legal fact.
When Apple claims to be a disinterested party they get hammered, even in supposedly pro-Apple forums as this, even on such occasions when they actually have a track record to support their claim.
Apple is never a disinterested party: their goal and their legal obligation is to improve their bottom line, nothing else. If they claim they have any other goals, they are lying.
Greenpeace, of course, is also not a disinterested party: their goal is environmentalism, but they are quite clear about it.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq. No one ever said that except for those on the left that try to say that Bush said it.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq? This post has to be a troll, or the worst typo ever.
(If there are any 5-year-olds in the audience, Saddam Hussein happened to be dictator of Iraq for decades.)
Comment of the year
You kind of want some official response to a story like the Greenpeace boondoggle, but it only fans the flames. As it is, Apple's "no comment" makes the rumor sites go wild.
But has any "issue" with the iPhone ever been overplayed as much? Let's see: if you have a baby with an iPhone, don't let them chew on the earphones. Well, they don't have iPhones. And if they chew on the earphones, they might get a spanking. Plus, not having your earphones burst into flame along with the battery seems more important in this instance. As for the rest, well, there "might be" more bad chemicals. Which will remain inside the iPhone until it doesn't work anymore, at which time you will of course give it in for recycling, right?
It doesn't suprise me that Greenpeace acts this way. They have been an irresponsible organization for a generation, with a totally inflated reputation. In terms of the overall environmental activists, the NRDC is the New York Times and they're the Enquirer. They demagogue ruthlessly, they're sloppy with facts and light on research-- yuck.
Reads a bit different when you supply your snip, don't it?
No... it really doesn't.
How is that Kool-aid, anyway?
Does this count as slander, or is it simply FUD?
Greenpeace is funded by private citizens, and doesn't even accept funding from governments, corporations, or other organisations that might compromise their independence. The only way in which companies are requested to "pay up" is by reducing their damage to the environment. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.
Never mind facts and credibility, lets just attack Apple 'cause it grabs headlines. Listen greentards, if it comes down to choosing between Apple and Greenpeace, it's Apple all the way. Greenpeace has lost whatever tiny shed of credibility it had. The greentards are doing more harm to the environmental movement by making up alarmist stories. Haven't the greentards heard about crying wolf?
Alex
As a born and bred bridge troll, I take great offense at the insinuation that all manner of trolls are incapable of participating in a civil debate on what is clearly a controversial topic. For someone who claims to possess Leftist ideals, your sweeping generalizations of my race are hurtful and inconducive to the discussion at hand.
Now excuse me while I eat a passing traveler.
(Irish traveller. %&#! pikeys...)
many years ago when they started their campaign to ban the element Chlorine. (I kid you not.)
Greenpeace is painfully hypocritical and full of liars? Big Surprise. These organizations full of self-righteous crusaders always are... Peta is a good example - http://www.peta-sucks.com/main.htm This isn't trolling, this is obvious truth to anyone but the Pamela Anderson's of the world...
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
... I gotta agree.
But why was the OP "shocked"? Many of the big environmental groups, at the top, are indistinguishable from the people they're fighting. It's power at any cost, and screw everyone who disagrees.
Well, atleast more folks realize it now.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
"If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." I still don't see them saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. I DO see them saying that Iraq is part of the war on terror. Iraq supported terrorists. Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers. Iraq trained and harbored terrorists. I think that point was made quite clearly in my last post and you did not dispute it. You just tried to change the subject. Bush made it quite clear that we would not only fight terrorists, but the governments that support them. Iraq was one of those countries.
Also, you didn't touch on the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. Tell me, putting why we went into Iraq aside, do you want us to leave Iraq today, effectively surrendering to Al Qaeda in that region? Tell me, with your head so far up the Administration's ass, how do you get the Kool Aid into your mouth? So because I want America to succeed, I want to see the freedom spread to the people who want it (and the Iraqis want it, trust me, I've been there), and I want to defend those that try to do what is right from those who will lie and twist the truth to meet their political goals, then have my head up this administration's ass? I supported our actions in Bosnia, was my head up that administration's ass too? When people lie in an attempt to make my country look bad, I will call them out on it. I took an oath to defend this country from all who threaten it, foreign and domestic, and I will stand by it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How is that Kool-aid, anyway? Well, seeing as the GGP was trying to use the part of a quote to say that Bush was trying to pin blame for 9-11 on Iraq, and the Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally, yeah, I think it shows the inherent dishonesty of the GGP's post. It is obvious that when you see the whole quote, that that is not what Bush was saying at all. And for you to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest of yourself. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda. You should not let your political agenda filter your hearing like that.
I find it ironic that those who claim that Bush lied are the ones who are doing the lying themselves by denying the truth like the fact the GP stated. I also find it sad that Slashdot mods would mod that down as flamebait. All the GP did was state fact. What have we become when the truth is considered flamebait?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How is that Kool-aid, anyway? Well, seeing as the GGP was trying to use the part of a quote to say that Bush was trying to pin blame for 9-11 on Iraq. It is obvious that when you see the whole quote, that that is not what Bush was saying at all. The Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally. So yeah, I think it shows the complete dishonesty of the GGP's post. And for you to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest on your part. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda. You should not let your political views filter your hearing like that.
I find it ironic that those who claim that Bush lied are the ones who are doing the lying themselves. They deny truths like the facts that the GP stated. I also find it sad that Slashdot mods would mod that down as flamebait. All the GP did was state fact. What have we become when the truth is considered flamebait?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It's totally snotty. Given.
But it's not really a reversal. We're all sad.
-josh
"Overrated" I might be able to understand (if the parent actually was rated high), but who the hell rates an informative and insightful post like this "flamebait"? One of the mysteries of the slashdot modding system, I guess.
Seems like you've read some Bill Whittle. If not, I highly recommend.
damaged by dogma
If sex is the only outcome that matter, then better advice would be to just go pay a prostitute for some. It also gets rid of any obligation to good or talented at sex - they'll tell you exactly what you want to hear.
Is this a rhetorical question?
It is soley there as anti-corporate dick waving.
It died as a useful environmental tool in the early 80s.
Don't give them money or recognition.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Corrected" is irony. Yes, it is snotty, and I have people do it to me, but it was the most succinct way to get my point across. I have no sympathy for Hussein, but his death was not worth our soul.
The liberal mind is so interesting; capable of much technical knowledge, yet devoid of self-control and wisdom; the programming runs deep. Calling me a 'Fucktard' doesn't promote your insistance, win the argument, or do anything but embarrass yourself.
The idiot mind is more interesting. You actually think I'm a "liberal" just because I dislike your partisan shit-slinging. You've gone wrong in the first 10 seconds of the "debate." I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 8 years.
Your logic is basically, "I'm a Republican, he doesn't like me, therefore he must be a liberal Democrat." You have the IQ of a nematode. I don't like you because you seem to group each one of the hundreds of millions in this country into one of two groups, not because you are a Republican, not even because you want to defend that idiot Limbaugh. Like I said, you were on a good course until you decided to slip into partisan shit-slinging. You also define yourself in terms of which class of people you despise. Only a complete moron thinks like that.
I won't argue against your point about, power - I agree, but there are a lot more dangerous bromine compounds than hydrogen compounds.
But there are also worse chemicals than bromine (radon anyone?)
So, maybe I jumped the gun a bit, as I dont know what the alternatives in the manufacturing process are, but in the post regarding Hydrogen vs. Bromine, I'd rather rule-of-thumb it and take a hydrogen based substance over a bromine based substance if there was no time for serious study, and bromine does tend to be more dangerous.
Yes, anything can be dangerous, but this isn't a true/false or 1/0 option, it's a gradient.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
You should not let your political views filter your hearing like that.
It's a bit like what many religious people do, isn't it. Sad.
How easy we, the media and some of us, get deceived by some people in the marketing world. However the world has gotten much more complicated so verifying sources is a hard thing to do but this verification needs to be done so we don't get the wool pulled over out eye in which this case Greenpeace did on Apple. This really doesn't help Greenpeace any in this "marketing" champaign against Apple and this will even more ammunition for the detractors of Greenpeace since now they have caught Greenpeace in a smear champaign.
HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahha,,
Higher standard? there standard in scien has always been high.
He is nothing but a science fiction writer with predisposed view. He twists facts to meet those pre-disposed views.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally.
Say what? With context or not, the speech clearly says the following:
now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
No amount of context changes the fact that what is said, there, is that attacking Iraq and bringing democracy there would, they claim, be a direct blow against the terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11.
So, in a sense, yes, you're right, Bush wasn't claiming Iraq actually carried out 9/11. He was claiming that they supported, and provided a "geographic base" for, the Islamic Jihadists who carried out those attacks. Except that, unfortunately for Bush and Co, Iraq was a secular state who had no ties with Al Qaeda (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia), and attacking them has done precisely the opposite of what they claimed: it's provided fuel to an already burning hatred against the US, and provided a lawless country in which terrorism could flourish.
Now, you could claim that, hey, they didn't know that was going to happen. Except, of course, that many people were telling them that this is *precisely* what would happen... including Bush Sr, as I recall. And they were right, much to the world's detriment.
Regardless, the point is that, yes, the US government attempted to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 by claiming they were an Al Qaeda supporter, despite evidence to the contrary. They then used this specious argument to wage a pointless war, diverting attention, funds, and resources away from far more important fronts, such as Afghanistan. And the result has been, without question, disastrous.
Nice ploy; pretend to be Republican or Conservative. If you were, you'd know that Limbaugh was wronged in plain sight, in the exact same way any one of us could be. But that doesn't matter; presenting a good slap, does.
"Nematode"..that puts you in 8th grade biology class around this time of day. You probably still think Limbaugh is fat, much less have any concept of anything he's said in 18 years. It's childish to present something without facts. It's deadly to vote that way. Keep that in mind, it'll give you something to do until the bell rings for lunch.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Greenpeace is a not-for-profit. That's not my opinion, that's a legal fact.
Where did I say that Greenpeace was not a not-for-profit?
I said that Greenpeace was operating as a marketing machine, and that they were not acting impartially nor applying their resources effectively. None of these have anything to do with what their goals are, whether their goals are laudable, or how they are funded.
Apple is never a disinterested party: their goal and their legal obligation is to improve their bottom line, nothing else.
If two actions both serve those goals, and they advocate one of those over another, then there is no reason to presume bias in that advocacy. If an action does not have anything to do with those goals, then there is no reason to presume bias.
But in any case, even if you decide not to believe that these circumstances could exist, I didn't say they should be given a "pass" even in that situation. I'm actually granting Greenpeace MORE leeway.
My point is not that Apple is "better" or that Greenpeace is "worse", it is that when they are seen to be behaving in the same way, and Apple gets taken to task for it, why should Greenpeace be given a pass when they are not only seen to be acting inconsistently with their declared goals but have admitted to it?
Look, the original argument was that Apple wasn't being expected to hold to the same standard as Greenpeace. My point is... they are: Jobs does get hit with brickbats in the press on a regular basis, but this time it's Greenpeace that's claiming to be exposing bad practices while they're actually ignoring the real bad players (who continue to operate in the darkness) in favor of attacking a high profile target that's already been responsive to them.
They're crying wolf at Apple, ignoring the real wolves, and telling everyone that there's no point in actually responding to Greenpeace because Greenpeace doesn't care what you actually do... they only care how much PR they can get out of you.
Nice ploy; pretend to be Republican or Conservative.
You're right -- I'm not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat, a conservative, a liberal, or anything else. I'm a CITIZEN who has opinions on issues, opinions formulated based on my personal perceptions of reality. You on the other hand prefer to avoid actual thought by aligning yourself with a political abstraction. I suppose you can fly through the polls in 10 minutes flat. You seem to be the one who wants to avoid facts.
As for Limbaugh, I have no idea if he's fat or even what the guy looks like. What the hell does it matter if the guy is fat? I just know that, based on a few things I've heard him say, he's an inflammatory jackass.
Here is how I see it. Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC under the Al Qaeda banner. Iraq supports Islamic terrorists. So in attacking Iraq, he was taking out a source of support for Islamic terrorists, in the geographic center of where most of these terrorists come from, the middle east. As for attacking other countries with a strong terrorist presence, such as Saudi Arabia, this would be counter productive. We would literally be taking out a government that is actively helping us fight terrorism. This would mean that we would need to take over whatever support, no matter how small, that their current government is providing in addition to running the day to day security operation (police force) of that entire country. Iraq was not only refusing to help us fight terrorism, but they were actively supporting terrorists in places like the West Bank and Gaza. Bush had already stated that any government actively supporting terrorism could be attacked. Had Bush not attacked Iraq, this would have been seen by the world as hollow threat. The war against Iraq is a part of the War on Terror just as much as the war in Afghanistan. Both had the sole purpose of taking out governments that supported or provided safe haven to terrorists and install a free society that would become an ally in the world's fight against terrorism.
Iraq fired on NATO war planes patrolling the "no fly zone" as mandated by the UN. This was a direct attack on US sovereignty.
There is also little doubt that given the chance, they would support other terrorists organizations that aimed to attack the US. An actual example would be the attempted assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush when he visited Kuwait. Being the now sitting President's father aside, the government sponsored attempt at a former US president is reason enough to go to war. Clinton did not have the guts for it and Bush couldn't use it as an reason because too many people would claim that GWB was simply saying "I'm looking for the man that shot my pa!" With GWB's cowboy image the way it is, he could not politically afford to give the opposition more cowboy ammunition.
The way I think YOU see it is that Bush was trying to make a direct link between Iraq and 9-11. He used both in the same sentence. He was trying to link Al Qaeda, the group that actually pulled off 9-11, and Iraq. As we all know, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 so any linking between the two is completely dishonest.
I see where you are coming from and your view is valid. Of course, I think that way I see it is correct. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, how are why we got into Iraq is completely irrelevant today. I hope that we can agree that a defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the US. It would provide the boost that Somalia gave to Al Qaeda multiplied proportionately to the amount of time invested and number of troops involved. It would turn Iraq into a 1990's Afghanistan with enough oil resources to finance whatever operations were desired! That is something that neither US nor the world can afford.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Right on. Tom Cruise was awesome in Magnolia.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
Iraq supports Islamic terrorists.
Well, now, here's where the fundamental disagreement comes in, doesn't it? What evidence do you have that Iraq supported Islamic terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda? Everything I've come across says that a) Saddam's regime was entirely secular, and b) he did his best to squash religious extremists because they posed a threat to his power. Nor was there, to my knowledge, any documented evidence of support of Al Qaeda by the Iraqi government. Unlike Afghanistan, which was known to be harbouring and supporting terrorists.
And, whether or not you believe Iraq supported terrorism, it was completely and utterly clear that Al Qaeda was, at the time, based primarily in Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Hence why the invasion of Afghanistan was met with relative support for the world community. And then, for reasons that remain specious, the US suddenly turned it's attention to Iraq, without finishing it's job in Afghanistan, and without catching Osama bin Laden, the individual generally considered the mastermind behind the attacks.
Meanwhile, if your memory remains clear, you might recall that the US never attempted to use terrorism as the basis for justifying an invasion of Iraq to the UN (probably because there was no such basis) (incidentally, they did attempt to use the terrorism line with the American public, but alas, they tend to be more gullible than the UN). Despite the fact that harbouring terrorists was a valid justification for invading Afghanistan, the US chose to justify the Iraqi invasion based on the claim that Iraq posed an imminent threat to it's neighbours, due to it's possession of WMDs. Except that the evidence was, at best, thin, at worst, flat out fabricated.
So, tell me, why would the US use the weak case of WMDs to justify the Iraqi invasion if the link to terrorism was so plainly clear? Unless, that is, it wasn't that clear, and you're simply mistaken.
I hope that we can agree that a defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the US.
Unfortunately, this goes without saying. OTOH, I'm not convinced one *can* "win" in Iraq. I'm not even convinced you can form a stable government there, given the diverse and conflicting sets of religions and races. And that's ignoring the destabilizing forces of nations such as Iran, who *do* actively support terrorism. Of course, if the US had never gone in, or had actually planned out the postwar scenarios, we might not be in this mess. But, alas, it's too late now. The damage is done, and the only people winning are the extremists and the undertakers.
Andromeda strain plot summary - science gone mad.
Jurasic park plot summary - science gone mad.
State of fear plot summary - science gone mad.
Notice a pattern? If you want an insight into what scientific skepticisim is all about read either Carl Sagan or James Randi.
"he's certainly more qualified than Al Gore is"
Neither are "qualified" - an MD is not a science degree, particularly so when MC was at school. So let's take a look at what they do rather than what they say they are doing?
Michael Crichton M.D - Replaced other people's research with his own (admirable) fiction and tried to convince the senate it was science.
Al Gore - Presented the IPCC reports in his own (admirable) documentary format.
Here is a quote from the wikipedia entry for MC: "Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above, that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".[14] Crichton himself states in the book that though he uses a number of studies to support his stance, the authors of these studies do not necessarily agree with his interpretations."
By going to the senate and proffesing to be an expert on climate and disputing the science without any back-up what-so-ever I belive that MC is practising the same "political meddling" that he accuses others of doing both in real life and his books.
Phycologists call this behaviour "projection", but most people call it hypocricy and hubris. Despite this personality flaw (or maybe because of it) he writes a damn good story.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
More and more nonsense.
Reaganomics IS deficit spending, making your whole point self-contradictory. It is also not a solution in and of itself. The particular supply-side approach also only restores the status quo, as it loses energy as the economy recovers; in other words, you have to dig the hole in order to need it. I'd also challenge you for a factual source for your claim that the deficit is going down as Bush wastes tens of billions of dollars seemingly every month--money we don't have.
As to basic services that "shouldn't cost more and more", it would appear you need to be introduced to reality. We have this thing called the dollar, which is tanking on account of our terrible spending and disastrous fiscal policy. When it's worth less, it takes more to cover costs. Population is also increasing, which increases costs. Inflation is also a consequence of time. All of these things mean it will continually cost more to provide the services that society wants.
Too much government in medicine? My god, you ARE bonkers. The whole HMO/healthcare access clusterfuck is the result of Conservative and free market policies put forth by your heroes. Care to those who can best afford it. Price controls? What price controls?
"WE NEED TERM LIMITS"? Turns out we HAVE term limits. They're called elections. The people get exactly what the people choose. But you're encouraging people not to vote; what you think that would actually accomplish is unknown. I support your advice, though, because the more people like you that sit at home, the better. The 97% incumbency rate is also being misapplied by you (though it does indicate where you get your outrageously cockeyed "news" and "information")--more than 3% of Congress changes at each election, and if people wanted different people in office, well, there's that secret little "ballot" thing.
Since Vietnam the country (and the Democratic Party) has shifted solidly to the RIGHT. The Democrats are not liberals. They're chickenshit moderates who don't have the spines to stand up to the Jesus hypocrites and the Spendy Conservatives. Democrats want to spend money, but they have a strategy for paying for it. Republicans (and your "Conservative" friends you try to separate from the current administration) want to spend the same amount of money, but couple it with tax cuts so it becomes even MORE expensive.
It's amazing how you can stand on your soapbox with so little of substance. You're practically a Fox News posterchild--a real life Stephen Colbert. Sensationalist ranting aside, you've got nothing but a desire to shove your Jesus up everyone's ass and unravel the social programs that need to be repaired if this society has any hope of meeting its humanitarian obligations, let alone staying economically competitive.
It is very easy to make baseless accusations, not so to prove them.
Go on wise boy, show us all the rich Greenpeace activists leading lavish lifestyles supported by people's donations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Then surely you will have no problems to provide us with some documented examples of such deplorable behavior....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... but I do know that the stuff you are smoking is of very high caliber....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Accept defeat and shut up.
Poor sod, beaten by reasoned argumentation and having nothing to reply.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh wait, you mean dirty industrialization without regard for the environment?
Sorry, my bad, I did not get you environmentally murderous gist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Then why is this harmless waste not disposed off with my kitchen waste.
And why, oh why wise one, is this kind of waste so heavily regulated if it is harmless?
Inquiring minds *must* know....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I hate /. now. This is one of the best posts ever, and some slash-douche mods it "troll".
And you could not be bothered to provide some links to this information (hint: Greenpeace does not accept donations from corporations, only individuals).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yup, it's a gradient. If bromine has "dangerous" properties, you can account for them. If it's the best substance to accomplish a given task AND the consequences of it's properties can be handled there is no reason not to use it. Note that the term "best" includes an analysis of it's ability to meet a specific manufacturing requirement AND it's "safety".
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Well, then it appears you need to educate yourself. Please, take a look at this page. You will find gems like this one.
At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein's government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government's underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
"President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000."
It also has copies of canceled checks that were sent to the families of suicide bombers, along with a certificate of appreciation that was sent to families of the "martyrs".
I know what you are thinking, "These are Palestinian terrorists. They don't count." Well, first I bid you tell that to the families of those murdered for going out to eat. Next, let me point you to another quote:
After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein's guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.
That hijacking was NOT in Israel, but on a cruise ship on the high seas.
I know what's next, "But what about Al Qaeda?"
This is Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of this man, Lawrence Foley:
Even the courts agree:
Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and -- according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge -- the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.
Maybe you'd prefer a different link. Maybe from a source that is known to be more left of center. How about The New York Times?
Well armed and financed by both Iraq and Iran, this affiliate of Al Qaeda has since provided a haven for bin Laden followers exfiltrating from Afghanistan. They tried to assassinate an articulate Kurdish leader, Barham Salih, killing several bodyguards, but their target escaped and several killers were captured. Our National Security Council members did not learn about this bloody engagement, one of them told me a week afterwar
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The environment movement has been taken over by ferals, not hippies, and the loony fringe. The planet will die as much because of the backlash against environmentalism caused by the ratbags in the frontline movement.
Yes, there are some good and true believers, but so many are anti-science (we cannot save the planet without science), ill-informed or just plain contrarianists. Unless the activist organisations can regain some mainstream cred, the earth is as surely fucked as if we just give up and burn coal as dirty as ever until the party's over.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1