"Doesn't something disturb and worry you about a shopkeeper whipping a polaroid camera out and snapping photos of customers that they don't like so that they can put them on the wall?"
It might just disturb me so much, that I'd take my business elsewhere. Which is the way it should be.
Right, because after going to the expense of creating this program, it would make total sense for the authorities to accept "Well, it's in my other pants..." as an excuse.
Are you familiar with the notion of "the thin end of the wedge"? How about the aphorism "If you give a mouse a cookie..."?
I really wish you and all the fascists that agreed with you would go start your own country, and stop destroying what's left of individual liberty in the US.
They agreed, did they? Well, there's a load off of my mind. Because there's not a government on the planet that would go against an agreement if it were in their interest to do so.
Nope.
Never happen.
You forgot Poland! (and czechoslovakia. And belgium.)
Point 0: Iraq was a disaster. Point 1: Living under a dictatorship in Iraq is worse than living in a liberal democracy. I happen to think that living under a dictatorship (or a theocracy, which amounts to the same thing) is always worse than living in a liberal democracy, even a flawed liberal democracy (like the ones in the US and most of the Western world) Point 2: Living under anarchy in Iraq is arguably worse than living in a dictatorship in Iraq.
I leave the remainder as an exercise for the class.
"how is America promoting 'freedom' exactly"
In this case, the American government is not promoting freedom. That is the problem.
Perhaps they've "accepted their fetters" because they have a different system of value than yours, and choose to follow their own values rather than subject themselves to yours?
Is there room for that possibility in YOUR value system? If not, I call it flawed.
"I hate it when people just believe what they are told without question."
You said above that you believe that people are happier under a dictatorship, and that you believed that because you were told it. I hate it when people can't be bothered to think through the simplest consequences of their beliefs and thought processes.
"I've yet to utilise my right to vote. I also heard recently that people in dictatorships tend to be happier than those in democracies, and I can see that being true "
I heard that you are a crazy person, and that's borne out by your line of "reasoning".
Me? I think plugging my iPod into the 1/8" line in on my head unit is easier than dealing with a binder full o' CDs, some of which might not work in my car deck.
Your mileage may vary.
Re:you mean... like we have had for years?
on
Death of the UMPC?
·
· Score: 1
"it's the same form factor and the same functionality as dozens of devices before it. "
Yep. It's almost like there's more to designing electronic devices than just the physical size and the feature list. As if there were some sort of...interface...between the person and the machine, the design of which is important to some people.
I wonder if there are any companies that have built a loyal (although not overwhelmingly large, but very acceptably profitable) following in the market by having well-designed user interfaces on their electronic devices? I'm sure if we think really hard we can come up with one...
"Sometimes it's nice to just plug something in and have it work without worrying about the environment."
It's also nice to not plug something in, and have it work without worrying about the environment. It's not the plugging part that makes it not nice, it's the not worrying part.
I have one wifi AP that I can access from all points on my own property, upstairs and downstairs. My neighbors both have wifi, too. It all works just fine, even when I use my Bluetooth headset and my microwave.
I'm sure that some people have different experiences, but this here carbon unit is totally sold on eliminating cables whenever possible.
"my impression was that a lot of the stuff in TFA reads like Jobs didn't know about what the environmental impacts of his manufacturing processes were before the Greenpeace thing came out"
What on earth gave you that impression? My reading of it was, "Here's all the stuff we've been doing for a long time, and haven't bothered to toot our horn about. We did it because we thought it was the responsible thing to do, not because we were trying to make PR points. But Greenpeace wants PR points, so here they are."
Oh, I wouldn't for a moment defend Greenpeace's position here. The report on its face was ridiculous, and Jobs' announcement proves that Greenpeace's metrics were b0rked.
Personally, I'm still unconvinced that the manufacturer bears direct responsibility for their product. If I buy a house, the person who sold it to me is not responsible to recycle the building if I decide to tear it down. By the same token, I think it's each of our responsibilities to dispose of our stuff in a responsible manner.
For computer gear, I prefer to take it to places like FreeGeek instead of disposing of it.
"For example, looking at a figure like weight percentage of product recycled doesn't reflect the inherent differences between product weight. If Apple produce a computer that weighs half as much as a rival then the rival would need to recycle at least 50% just to catch up with Apple (assuming identical environmental impacts per unit weight, obviously)."
I'm a little confused. If the average Mac weighs less than the average Dell (which is almost certainly true, as Apple sells lotsa notebooks) then the only reasonable way to measure would be as a percentage of weight of sold goods.
Computer hardware gets lighter over time (there's obviously a substantial trend towards LCDs), but if Apple recycles 10% of the weight of Apple's goods sold, that's better than Dell recycling 5% of the weight of Dell's goods sold.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. The State gets involved, if I go involve the State.
What are you proposing? That it should be illegal to take pictures of people?
Write once, debug everywhere...
If they're saying false things about me, I should sue them. If they're saying true things about me, I should refrain from doing objectionable things.
The State does not need to get involved.
Why would billions be expended to create this datastore, if it were not going to be examined?
"Doesn't something disturb and worry you about a shopkeeper whipping a polaroid camera out and snapping photos of customers that they don't like so that they can put them on the wall?"
It might just disturb me so much, that I'd take my business elsewhere. Which is the way it should be.
Right, because after going to the expense of creating this program, it would make total sense for the authorities to accept "Well, it's in my other pants..." as an excuse.
Are you familiar with the notion of "the thin end of the wedge"? How about the aphorism "If you give a mouse a cookie..."?
I really wish you and all the fascists that agreed with you would go start your own country, and stop destroying what's left of individual liberty in the US.
Thanks.
"It was jointly agreed that if either party"
They agreed, did they? Well, there's a load off of my mind. Because there's not a government on the planet that would go against an agreement if it were in their interest to do so.
Nope.
Never happen.
You forgot Poland! (and czechoslovakia. And belgium.)
"On top of this more bills pass through our government in a month, than the EU has passed in their existence, "
You say that like it's a good thing.
Point 0: Iraq was a disaster.
Point 1: Living under a dictatorship in Iraq is worse than living in a liberal democracy. I happen to think that living under a dictatorship (or a theocracy, which amounts to the same thing) is always worse than living in a liberal democracy, even a flawed liberal democracy (like the ones in the US and most of the Western world)
Point 2: Living under anarchy in Iraq is arguably worse than living in a dictatorship in Iraq.
I leave the remainder as an exercise for the class.
"how is America promoting 'freedom' exactly"
In this case, the American government is not promoting freedom. That is the problem.
Perhaps they've "accepted their fetters" because they have a different system of value than yours, and choose to follow their own values rather than subject themselves to yours?
Is there room for that possibility in YOUR value system? If not, I call it flawed.
"I hate it when people just believe what they are told without question."
You said above that you believe that people are happier under a dictatorship, and that you believed that because you were told it. I hate it when people can't be bothered to think through the simplest consequences of their beliefs and thought processes.
"I've yet to utilise my right to vote. I also heard recently that people in dictatorships tend to be happier than those in democracies, and I can see that being true "
I heard that you are a crazy person, and that's borne out by your line of "reasoning".
"Sorry, but, as a coward, I feel obligated to take all my solutions in pill form."
Fixed that for you.
And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Me? I think plugging my iPod into the 1/8" line in on my head unit is easier than dealing with a binder full o' CDs, some of which might not work in my car deck.
Your mileage may vary.
"it's the same form factor and the same functionality as dozens of devices before it. "
Yep. It's almost like there's more to designing electronic devices than just the physical size and the feature list. As if there were some sort of...interface...between the person and the machine, the design of which is important to some people.
I wonder if there are any companies that have built a loyal (although not overwhelmingly large, but very acceptably profitable) following in the market by having well-designed user interfaces on their electronic devices? I'm sure if we think really hard we can come up with one...
"The price of a gadget does not make it more or less indespesible"
Logically, that's very true. However, it DEFINITELY impacts peoples' perceptions of what they need.
"Sometimes it's nice to just plug something in and have it work without worrying about the environment."
It's also nice to not plug something in, and have it work without worrying about the environment. It's not the plugging part that makes it not nice, it's the not worrying part.
I have one wifi AP that I can access from all points on my own property, upstairs and downstairs. My neighbors both have wifi, too. It all works just fine, even when I use my Bluetooth headset and my microwave.
I'm sure that some people have different experiences, but this here carbon unit is totally sold on eliminating cables whenever possible.
So, given that, why are all of their products weak sauce? They might be popular, but they're sure not very good...
Three meters is fifteen feet? You wanna check that math again?
"We would have 2-5 times more food available if we stopped producing meat."
Why do we need 2-5 times more food than we have?
"my impression was that a lot of the stuff in TFA reads like Jobs didn't know about what the environmental impacts of his manufacturing processes were before the Greenpeace thing came out"
What on earth gave you that impression? My reading of it was, "Here's all the stuff we've been doing for a long time, and haven't bothered to toot our horn about. We did it because we thought it was the responsible thing to do, not because we were trying to make PR points. But Greenpeace wants PR points, so here they are."
Oh, I wouldn't for a moment defend Greenpeace's position here. The report on its face was ridiculous, and Jobs' announcement proves that Greenpeace's metrics were b0rked.
Personally, I'm still unconvinced that the manufacturer bears direct responsibility for their product. If I buy a house, the person who sold it to me is not responsible to recycle the building if I decide to tear it down. By the same token, I think it's each of our responsibilities to dispose of our stuff in a responsible manner.
For computer gear, I prefer to take it to places like FreeGeek instead of disposing of it.
YMMV.
"For example, looking at a figure like weight percentage of product recycled doesn't reflect the inherent differences between product weight. If Apple produce a computer that weighs half as much as a rival then the rival would need to recycle at least 50% just to catch up with Apple (assuming identical environmental impacts per unit weight, obviously)."
I'm a little confused. If the average Mac weighs less than the average Dell (which is almost certainly true, as Apple sells lotsa notebooks) then the only reasonable way to measure would be as a percentage of weight of sold goods.
Computer hardware gets lighter over time (there's obviously a substantial trend towards LCDs), but if Apple recycles 10% of the weight of Apple's goods sold, that's better than Dell recycling 5% of the weight of Dell's goods sold.
But it would be considerable with respect to generating the same amount of power by other means.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a bitch, innit?