I admit I didn't check to see if McD's had the same icon in the Android store, but seeing them mixed in there with a bunch of other icons that show in the iOS environment, INCLUDING the Safari and App Store icons does lend some credence to the idea that--if indeed it was them who build the display--they simply grabbed them from Apple's infrastructure.
It's like someone at work who says, "I know I saw you bring that bag in, and that it has your name on it, but you left it in the refrigerator and the bag wasn't locked, so I had no way of knowing that the cookies I took from it were yours." Your logic is somewhat flawed.
I'd say a fanatical zealotry and an unwillingness to engage dissenting opinion is much worse.
This.
At least the shills provide rational, well thought out aruments and rebuttals.
Not so much this. A real shill regurgitates corporate marketing talking points as if they were his/her own opinion. People with biases or zealotry are sometimes lumped in with shills, but they're not the same. Anyway, the point being that if all you can do is regurgitate what you're paid to say, then it is the same as refusing to engage in dissenting opinion.
Lots of people straddle the line, and based on your stance, you might choose to believe they are one or the other. Consider the following names: John Gruber, Paul Thurrott, Richard M. Stallman. I was also going to include John C. Dvorak, but I'd call him more of a bigot than a shill or zealot; all he can do is talk about how wrong everything is. He's like a tech version of Andy Rooney, except for the fact that Rooney's codgerism was often charming, sometimes informative.
When Americans are talking about the 1-percenters, they're talking about the top earners within the American economy. It sounds like you're talking about the world economy. It's a worthwhile discussion, but it's not what the GP was referring to.
Further, even if the GP wasn't an American, it is likely that "one-percenters" refers to the top one percent in his or her own nation's economy. I don't think anyone making $38k per year in San Francisco considers themselves significantly more well off than a Bolivian making 1/4 that amount.
If other companies don't follow suit, this is a huge differentiator for HTC. Caveats aside, this will make it easier for their customers to reap the same advantages of updates that iPhone owners have had for a couple of generations. Of course, it's the same disadvantages, too. Most 3GS owners, for example, would suggest that their device's support of iOS 5 is, well, limited. Upgrading an old device to ICS may yield a similar ratio of unhappy people.
Actually, those are the icons for the McDonald's and Google+ apps in the iOS app store. Per the GP, I don't know that the folks who put up the Samsung display were also responsible for the icons in the background, although the first time I saw that picture, it was accompanied by an article which indicated that the whole thing was indeed Samsung's space. But even if they weren't responsible, you'd think they'd take steps to make sure that their store identity wasn't overwhelmed by another company's.
Bush supposedly didn't put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner on that ship, but he was perfectly happy to make a speech and get lots of pictures in front of it.
Android fanboys are now officially more annoying than Apple fanboys.
Well, to be fair, I'd say that the two types of fanboy are officially equally annoying. However, Android fanboys have 75% of the market by unit, where Apple doesn't even hit 20%.
Check out Asymco. The most recent post is titled Global smartphone penetration nearing 10%. They've got lots of other interesting info on the mobile market in older posts.
If you're not an iPhone/Apple fan, beware: this site takes a firm stance that revenue and profits are more important than pure market share. In that context, Apple appears to be walking on water. They present their analyses factually and with complete citation and disclosure of contextual biases, but regardless, I can imagine that someone who hates Apple for whatever reason might feel that it's distressingly pro-Apple.
sure if you break up android sales by model, each one gets a much smaller share... but that's stupid.
Well, stupid might be putting it strongly, but it is definitely a specific measure. But here are some things to consider:
+ I think, but am not certain, that the iPhone outsells other smart phones in unit volume per manufacturer. That is to say, all of the iPhones outsell all of Samsung's smart phones. I'd need to look this up for certain.
+ I am absolutely sure that Apple makes more revenue and profit from their phones than any of its competitors do from theirs, either in the smartphone or dumbphone markets.
+ Having multiple phone products increases complexity and cost. There's an argument to be made that with a dozen major phone vendors, and with some of them offering dozens or even hundreds of different phones, these companies may be pumping out lots of competition to the iPhone, but they're not doing so in a way that is sustainable long term.
I'd definitely recommend you check out Asymco.com for one perspective on that.
The AC's post wasn't necessarily wrong; think of it as a non-sequitor. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against EARLS and I don't believe that user is legally retarded by any stretch of the imagination. However, I do find it more comforting to look at venomous AC posts as something other than related commentary.
Well, if you were to describe someone wearing a hoop skirt, you wouldn't just say, "they were wearing a skirt". Except maybe 200 years ago, when hoop skirts were the only kind of skirt around. It's not only a specific kind of skirt, but a very unique and specific kind of skirt.
Similarly, if you were to call a kilt a skirt, you'd be missing a lot of the important information, and conveying an incorrect image. "The man was wearing a skirt" and "The man was wearing a kilt" have two very different meanings to people who use the common definitions of the two.
And I think there's something to cultures standing up for the names of their artifacts. Saying that a Japanese monk is wearing a bathrobe or that the Pope is wearing a funny hat, for instance, not only misses some of the meaning, but to some degree, reflects a level of disrespect of that culture. If you want to call a kilt a skirt, feel free to do so, but be aware that a Scotsman may rightfully take offense.
I'm not a Scot, but my wife's family is. They've been in the US a few generations, but they're still proud Scots; her cousins played the pipes at our wedding, for example.
Yes, but I don't think there's a single active social network which was designed from the ground up with privacy in mind. Hell, even the most carefully designed network is only as well controlled as its participants. The moment I share something with you, you can share that with the world. Even if copying and pasting isn't possible, you could take a screen shot of any comments I make and post them anywhere.
I was thinking of designing a p2p social network as a thought exercise. Such a network would require that you be on-line, running the client for that network, any time someone wanted to see something about you. You could easily revoke anything that you did not want shown on that network. However, problems in usability and the underlying truth that you can't get toothpaste back into the tube made it seem like a vain pursuit.
For me, I use Facebook to post pictures of my kid and to make pithy statements about politics and friends' posts. I try to clamp it down some so that most people don't see most things, but I assume that some of it will slip through. The worst problem I had with FB, actually, was when my sister-in-law posted a picture of me from a family event that, well, there was no good reason to post, and a lot of bad ones. Basically, I looked like crap, and other than me looking like crap, there was nothing interesting in the photo. She tagged me in it, and all of a sudden everyone in my circle could see it in the "Pictures of Ben" folder. I asked her to take it down, and I've since changed those settings, but truthfully, anyone could post anything they want about me, and there's not much I can do about it, regardless of how good FB's privacy settings are.
Mistakes happen. Things get through QA. When a bug occurs, if it's in a flight control system, you might crash. If it's in a backup system, you might lose data. If it's in a social network, you might block users you didn't mean to, or you might open your data to unwanted eyes.
Unless we're going to start regulating social networks like we do products for some other industries, then, well, there's a reasonable likelihood of this sort of thing happening on a regular basis. If you don't like it, don't share stuff on Facebook.
At a much lower cost to what? It's a lot cheaper to get a netbook, a lot of noteboooks are cheaper.
That's a fair question. I was thinking about some very subjective quality metrics around the laptop. If you want build quality that is going to be equivalent to an iPad in terms of being able to be carried around and started and stopped regularly, and used for simple tasks like checking off what parts of a job have been completed (i.e. in my auto shop idea), you're not going to want any of the netbooks or notebooks that costs less than a low-end iPad would. And with the wealth of Android-based tablets available, I'm thinking that there's no reason anyone would *ever* want the things that are sold as netbooks. I've only used a few of them, but I'd take a Blackberry Playbook over anything bearing that standard.
I'd suggest that the way scheduling works now would be just fine if you could, in addition to watching the "live" stream, choose to watch an archived version of anything that came before it, since the dawn of time. With the right system, there'd be no need for DVRs.
On top of that, if there could be alternate options for funding: I don't mind advertising, but it'd be great if I could pay a buck or two for an episode, or 30 bucks for a season and avoid all the ads. Like a more flexible version of iTunes but with EVERYTHING available the moment it's gone out to broadcast and forward.
Though I'd suggest that for the development question, compile speed isn't the problem with an ARM-based tablet. Why? There's no reason that cloud resources couldn't be used for that aspect of development. The reason I wouldn't want to use a tablet for development--even with a keyboard--is that I like to have a couple of monitors available containing windows for editing, testing, and reviewing documentation. While it's possible to switch applications for all those purposes, that would slow me down way too much.
That being said, if the iPad 3 had an available dock that could drive a browser instance in a full-size external monitor (say, a 27" ACD), and that browser would let me connect to a cloud version of, say, Eclipse or the iOS SDK, I could see working on that. In that set-up, the main iPad window could be running an app independent of the browser, and... um, in the second monitor, you could even use a mouse. What do you think about that?
This is someone that doesn't program, doesn't write long docs...
I'd suggest that a significant number of real jobs don't require programming or the write-up of long documents. iPads are being used in hospitals and the airline industry. I could imagine a situation where hotel cleaning staff could be managed via tablets which would allow their location and cleaning times to be tracked, as well as their availability for an emergency clean-up. Or as a checklist to be used in an auto shop. Or any place where large amounts of inventory need to be managed?
Don't get me wrong: I like my laptop. But I do code and I do write long documents on a regular basis. But there are a LOT of people out there who could use a tablet device or tablet+keyboard at a much lower cost and get their jobs done just fine.
It's sad that Napster had to be a sacrifice on the road to the industry finally waking up...
I agree with your general points, although I carry no emotional attachment to the service. I'm thinking of a football metaphor: Napster was the lead offensive blocker; iTunes Music Store was the running back that established the ground game. Amazon, Google Music and any number of other services are the wide receivers who are now able to come into play.
I'm sure that some people would disagree with what services played what roles, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue the details, but my main point is that everyone has their role. Napster, at least under that name, was never going to become the main player in the mainstream music industry. But that's OK, I'm sure all the key players from that service are doing fine.
Environmentally, recycling anything besides metal is not always all that green. For instance, recycling paper often involves a lot more power than making new paper, not to mention all of the nasty detergents and chemicals that can end up leaking into the water table.
Looking at your linked article to find reference to all the nasty detergents and chemicals you're talking about, I found this:
The article explains how paper made from new wood releases more toxic chemicals than recycled paper.
And it goes on to say...
The article also said there is now an increase in soybeans being used for ink to reduce the use of toxic chemicals.
... and this indicates that some of these issues are continuing to be improved.
Now, with regards to the usage of the bleaches and the like to prep paper for recycling, it's true that there are some nasty chemicals involved. Even if that's improved, they'll still be somewhat nasty. But the leaching into the water table? It is entirely possible for factories, properly maintained (and regulated?), to avoid leaking that sort of stuff into the environment. To say that's an inherent cost is disingenuous.
Usually when I hear these "recycling is bad for the environment" arguments, people aren't taking into account the entire process of farming and harvesting wood. If you truly believe your statements, do you feel that depletion of old growth forests has no long-term detrimental effects? That clear-cutting huge swaths of forests can't have unwanted effects on human quality-of-life? Are you taking into account the vast array of vehicles required for cutting down and transporting trees to become paper? Also, if those recycling trucks are already going around and picking up the highly profitable aluminum cans, is it really accurate to say that fuel is wasted when you're picking up paper or plastics at the same time?
I've heard these arguments before, but it always comes down to cherry-picking facts. Can you show me something different?
WTF? Anyone who really wants to do some entry level programming can use HTML and Javascript, which have become really, really powerful. Hell, Microsoft even released a HTML5 demo of Windows Phone 7 and it runs beautifully on the iPhone.
The iPhone has some of the best open web standards support, and Apple is leading the way by trying to make all their latest and greatest tricks (CSS effects and all) into published standards anyone can take advantage of. Anyone bemoaning the loss of Hypercard is ignoring a brazillian other options.
Which brings us back to natural selection when the chain of events that you suggest happens. Nothing of big value would be lost.
I find it amazing how many people have this sort of feeling when it comes to environmental topics, but who get totally worked up about walled gardens or patents. But DAMN YOU! I just looked through your recent history and it doesn't seem like you're one of these demonstrably inconsistent folks. Way to ruin my joke!!
I agree that humans are part of nature, but I guess what I'm saying from a philosophical standpoint, is that if we just say, "Oops, natural selection!", it's the equivalent of setting someone's house on fire and calling them unfit to survive if they don't get out in time.
I think "oops, natural selection" applies when the human race kills itself off, but if we do want to avoid that (and I think most people do), then it's wise to consider our effects on our environment before those effects circle back to harm us irreparably.
Slashdot Mirror
I admit I didn't check to see if McD's had the same icon in the Android store, but seeing them mixed in there with a bunch of other icons that show in the iOS environment, INCLUDING the Safari and App Store icons does lend some credence to the idea that--if indeed it was them who build the display--they simply grabbed them from Apple's infrastructure.
It's like someone at work who says, "I know I saw you bring that bag in, and that it has your name on it, but you left it in the refrigerator and the bag wasn't locked, so I had no way of knowing that the cookies I took from it were yours." Your logic is somewhat flawed.
Are you defending MS shills? SHILL!
(could I be any more shrill?)
I'd say a fanatical zealotry and an unwillingness to engage dissenting opinion is much worse.
This.
At least the shills provide rational, well thought out aruments and rebuttals.
Not so much this. A real shill regurgitates corporate marketing talking points as if they were his/her own opinion. People with biases or zealotry are sometimes lumped in with shills, but they're not the same. Anyway, the point being that if all you can do is regurgitate what you're paid to say, then it is the same as refusing to engage in dissenting opinion.
Lots of people straddle the line, and based on your stance, you might choose to believe they are one or the other. Consider the following names: John Gruber, Paul Thurrott, Richard M. Stallman. I was also going to include John C. Dvorak, but I'd call him more of a bigot than a shill or zealot; all he can do is talk about how wrong everything is. He's like a tech version of Andy Rooney, except for the fact that Rooney's codgerism was often charming, sometimes informative.
When Americans are talking about the 1-percenters, they're talking about the top earners within the American economy. It sounds like you're talking about the world economy. It's a worthwhile discussion, but it's not what the GP was referring to.
Further, even if the GP wasn't an American, it is likely that "one-percenters" refers to the top one percent in his or her own nation's economy. I don't think anyone making $38k per year in San Francisco considers themselves significantly more well off than a Bolivian making 1/4 that amount.
If other companies don't follow suit, this is a huge differentiator for HTC. Caveats aside, this will make it easier for their customers to reap the same advantages of updates that iPhone owners have had for a couple of generations. Of course, it's the same disadvantages, too. Most 3GS owners, for example, would suggest that their device's support of iOS 5 is, well, limited. Upgrading an old device to ICS may yield a similar ratio of unhappy people.
Of course, they can always downgrade...
Actually, those are the icons for the McDonald's and Google+ apps in the iOS app store. Per the GP, I don't know that the folks who put up the Samsung display were also responsible for the icons in the background, although the first time I saw that picture, it was accompanied by an article which indicated that the whole thing was indeed Samsung's space. But even if they weren't responsible, you'd think they'd take steps to make sure that their store identity wasn't overwhelmed by another company's.
Bush supposedly didn't put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner on that ship, but he was perfectly happy to make a speech and get lots of pictures in front of it.
Android fanboys are now officially more annoying than Apple fanboys.
Well, to be fair, I'd say that the two types of fanboy are officially equally annoying. However, Android fanboys have 75% of the market by unit, where Apple doesn't even hit 20%.
Check out Asymco. The most recent post is titled Global smartphone penetration nearing 10%. They've got lots of other interesting info on the mobile market in older posts.
If you're not an iPhone/Apple fan, beware: this site takes a firm stance that revenue and profits are more important than pure market share. In that context, Apple appears to be walking on water. They present their analyses factually and with complete citation and disclosure of contextual biases, but regardless, I can imagine that someone who hates Apple for whatever reason might feel that it's distressingly pro-Apple.
sure if you break up android sales by model, each one gets a much smaller share... but that's stupid.
Well, stupid might be putting it strongly, but it is definitely a specific measure. But here are some things to consider:
+ I think, but am not certain, that the iPhone outsells other smart phones in unit volume per manufacturer. That is to say, all of the iPhones outsell all of Samsung's smart phones. I'd need to look this up for certain.
+ I am absolutely sure that Apple makes more revenue and profit from their phones than any of its competitors do from theirs, either in the smartphone or dumbphone markets.
+ Having multiple phone products increases complexity and cost. There's an argument to be made that with a dozen major phone vendors, and with some of them offering dozens or even hundreds of different phones, these companies may be pumping out lots of competition to the iPhone, but they're not doing so in a way that is sustainable long term.
I'd definitely recommend you check out Asymco.com for one perspective on that.
It's the flip side of the Vegas coin. "What goes on the Internet stays on the Internet."
The AC's post wasn't necessarily wrong; think of it as a non-sequitor. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against EARLS and I don't believe that user is legally retarded by any stretch of the imagination. However, I do find it more comforting to look at venomous AC posts as something other than related commentary.
Well, if you were to describe someone wearing a hoop skirt, you wouldn't just say, "they were wearing a skirt". Except maybe 200 years ago, when hoop skirts were the only kind of skirt around. It's not only a specific kind of skirt, but a very unique and specific kind of skirt.
Similarly, if you were to call a kilt a skirt, you'd be missing a lot of the important information, and conveying an incorrect image. "The man was wearing a skirt" and "The man was wearing a kilt" have two very different meanings to people who use the common definitions of the two.
And I think there's something to cultures standing up for the names of their artifacts. Saying that a Japanese monk is wearing a bathrobe or that the Pope is wearing a funny hat, for instance, not only misses some of the meaning, but to some degree, reflects a level of disrespect of that culture. If you want to call a kilt a skirt, feel free to do so, but be aware that a Scotsman may rightfully take offense.
I'm not a Scot, but my wife's family is. They've been in the US a few generations, but they're still proud Scots; her cousins played the pipes at our wedding, for example.
Yes, but I don't think there's a single active social network which was designed from the ground up with privacy in mind. Hell, even the most carefully designed network is only as well controlled as its participants. The moment I share something with you, you can share that with the world. Even if copying and pasting isn't possible, you could take a screen shot of any comments I make and post them anywhere.
I was thinking of designing a p2p social network as a thought exercise. Such a network would require that you be on-line, running the client for that network, any time someone wanted to see something about you. You could easily revoke anything that you did not want shown on that network. However, problems in usability and the underlying truth that you can't get toothpaste back into the tube made it seem like a vain pursuit.
For me, I use Facebook to post pictures of my kid and to make pithy statements about politics and friends' posts. I try to clamp it down some so that most people don't see most things, but I assume that some of it will slip through. The worst problem I had with FB, actually, was when my sister-in-law posted a picture of me from a family event that, well, there was no good reason to post, and a lot of bad ones. Basically, I looked like crap, and other than me looking like crap, there was nothing interesting in the photo. She tagged me in it, and all of a sudden everyone in my circle could see it in the "Pictures of Ben" folder. I asked her to take it down, and I've since changed those settings, but truthfully, anyone could post anything they want about me, and there's not much I can do about it, regardless of how good FB's privacy settings are.
Why u h8 America?
Mistakes happen. Things get through QA. When a bug occurs, if it's in a flight control system, you might crash. If it's in a backup system, you might lose data. If it's in a social network, you might block users you didn't mean to, or you might open your data to unwanted eyes.
Unless we're going to start regulating social networks like we do products for some other industries, then, well, there's a reasonable likelihood of this sort of thing happening on a regular basis. If you don't like it, don't share stuff on Facebook.
At a much lower cost to what? It's a lot cheaper to get a netbook, a lot of noteboooks are cheaper.
That's a fair question. I was thinking about some very subjective quality metrics around the laptop. If you want build quality that is going to be equivalent to an iPad in terms of being able to be carried around and started and stopped regularly, and used for simple tasks like checking off what parts of a job have been completed (i.e. in my auto shop idea), you're not going to want any of the netbooks or notebooks that costs less than a low-end iPad would. And with the wealth of Android-based tablets available, I'm thinking that there's no reason anyone would *ever* want the things that are sold as netbooks. I've only used a few of them, but I'd take a Blackberry Playbook over anything bearing that standard.
I'd suggest that the way scheduling works now would be just fine if you could, in addition to watching the "live" stream, choose to watch an archived version of anything that came before it, since the dawn of time. With the right system, there'd be no need for DVRs.
On top of that, if there could be alternate options for funding: I don't mind advertising, but it'd be great if I could pay a buck or two for an episode, or 30 bucks for a season and avoid all the ads. Like a more flexible version of iTunes but with EVERYTHING available the moment it's gone out to broadcast and forward.
Yup yup.
Though I'd suggest that for the development question, compile speed isn't the problem with an ARM-based tablet. Why? There's no reason that cloud resources couldn't be used for that aspect of development. The reason I wouldn't want to use a tablet for development--even with a keyboard--is that I like to have a couple of monitors available containing windows for editing, testing, and reviewing documentation. While it's possible to switch applications for all those purposes, that would slow me down way too much.
That being said, if the iPad 3 had an available dock that could drive a browser instance in a full-size external monitor (say, a 27" ACD), and that browser would let me connect to a cloud version of, say, Eclipse or the iOS SDK, I could see working on that. In that set-up, the main iPad window could be running an app independent of the browser, and... um, in the second monitor, you could even use a mouse. What do you think about that?
This is someone that doesn't program, doesn't write long docs...
I'd suggest that a significant number of real jobs don't require programming or the write-up of long documents. iPads are being used in hospitals and the airline industry. I could imagine a situation where hotel cleaning staff could be managed via tablets which would allow their location and cleaning times to be tracked, as well as their availability for an emergency clean-up. Or as a checklist to be used in an auto shop. Or any place where large amounts of inventory need to be managed?
Don't get me wrong: I like my laptop. But I do code and I do write long documents on a regular basis. But there are a LOT of people out there who could use a tablet device or tablet+keyboard at a much lower cost and get their jobs done just fine.
Thanks for that second link. I didn't know that Lars had ever admitted that he and the boys were wrong about their stance on Napster.
It's sad that Napster had to be a sacrifice on the road to the industry finally waking up...
I agree with your general points, although I carry no emotional attachment to the service. I'm thinking of a football metaphor: Napster was the lead offensive blocker; iTunes Music Store was the running back that established the ground game. Amazon, Google Music and any number of other services are the wide receivers who are now able to come into play.
I'm sure that some people would disagree with what services played what roles, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue the details, but my main point is that everyone has their role. Napster, at least under that name, was never going to become the main player in the mainstream music industry. But that's OK, I'm sure all the key players from that service are doing fine.
Environmentally, recycling anything besides metal is not always all that green. For instance, recycling paper often involves a lot more power than making new paper, not to mention all of the nasty detergents and chemicals that can end up leaking into the water table.
Looking at your linked article to find reference to all the nasty detergents and chemicals you're talking about, I found this:
The article explains how paper made from new wood releases more toxic chemicals than recycled paper.
And it goes on to say...
The article also said there is now an increase in soybeans being used for ink to reduce the use of toxic chemicals.
... and this indicates that some of these issues are continuing to be improved.
Now, with regards to the usage of the bleaches and the like to prep paper for recycling, it's true that there are some nasty chemicals involved. Even if that's improved, they'll still be somewhat nasty. But the leaching into the water table? It is entirely possible for factories, properly maintained (and regulated?), to avoid leaking that sort of stuff into the environment. To say that's an inherent cost is disingenuous.
Usually when I hear these "recycling is bad for the environment" arguments, people aren't taking into account the entire process of farming and harvesting wood. If you truly believe your statements, do you feel that depletion of old growth forests has no long-term detrimental effects? That clear-cutting huge swaths of forests can't have unwanted effects on human quality-of-life? Are you taking into account the vast array of vehicles required for cutting down and transporting trees to become paper? Also, if those recycling trucks are already going around and picking up the highly profitable aluminum cans, is it really accurate to say that fuel is wasted when you're picking up paper or plastics at the same time?
I've heard these arguments before, but it always comes down to cherry-picking facts. Can you show me something different?
WTF? Anyone who really wants to do some entry level programming can use HTML and Javascript, which have become really, really powerful. Hell, Microsoft even released a HTML5 demo of Windows Phone 7 and it runs beautifully on the iPhone.
The iPhone has some of the best open web standards support, and Apple is leading the way by trying to make all their latest and greatest tricks (CSS effects and all) into published standards anyone can take advantage of. Anyone bemoaning the loss of Hypercard is ignoring a brazillian other options.
Which brings us back to natural selection when the chain of events that you suggest happens. Nothing of big value would be lost.
I find it amazing how many people have this sort of feeling when it comes to environmental topics, but who get totally worked up about walled gardens or patents. But DAMN YOU! I just looked through your recent history and it doesn't seem like you're one of these demonstrably inconsistent folks. Way to ruin my joke!!
I agree that humans are part of nature, but I guess what I'm saying from a philosophical standpoint, is that if we just say, "Oops, natural selection!", it's the equivalent of setting someone's house on fire and calling them unfit to survive if they don't get out in time.
I think "oops, natural selection" applies when the human race kills itself off, but if we do want to avoid that (and I think most people do), then it's wise to consider our effects on our environment before those effects circle back to harm us irreparably.