And may I quote a part of the week old rebuttal also:
The basic problems in the Guide, which I originally critiqued in Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent, were sidestepped in a rebuttal from Tom Dowdall of Greenpeace International, but the followup laptop lab test report seemed to indicate a new direction for Greenpeace: an interest in accuracy.
Picking up the Pieces Stephen Russell, a materials consultant to the IT sector, explained that the complete disconnect between what Greenpeace reported in their Guide and what they actually found in their lab tests "proves three things:
* that the criteria used by Greenpeace to award HP pole position in last month's Guide to Greener Electronics clearly didn't account for what is actually happening on the ground today.
* that other manufacturers' computers really don't contain toxic chemicals in concentrations that are of concern.
* that Greenpeace has an inexhaustible level of funds to burn on a chemical campaign the basic chemical principles of which they sadly don't appear to understand."
Poison Apples? Unfortunately, Greenpeace ignored their own very expensive lab reports to instead retreat back into sensationalism, fear mongering, and deception. The top story on Greenpeace International's press release blog is an entry titled "HP and Apple's toxic laptops exposed" which states:
"Some of the best-known laptops are contaminated with some of the worst toxic chemicals. Of the five top brands we tested Hewlett-Packard and Apple laptops showed the worst contamination levels."
After reporting that the testing found traces of chemicals in HP's laptop which HP's website "claims it removed from its products years ago," the press release then jumps on Apple. Under the headline Poison Apples, it claims:
"Apple has recently launched its new range of MacBooks, but what you also get with a new MacBook is the highest level of another type of toxic flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A. Apple claims it is looking for alternatives but for now it appears to be using far more of this toxic chemical than its competitors."
The Apple and the Environment website does claim Apple "is actively researching materials with better environmental features to replace tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBA)," and that "Many Apple products have enclosures made of inherently flame retardant aluminum and polycarbonate plastic, reducing the need for added flame retardants."
Under Attack But is TBBA really one 'of the worst toxic chemicals,' and is true that "Apple's laptop shows the worst contamination levels?" Was Greenpeace lying in its press release?
Yes, Greenpeace lied to sensationalize a report it spent a lot of money on, but which didn't provide data the group wanted to hear. While the group's earlier press releases and information was mostly just incompetent and sloppy, the latest 'poison Apple' campaign was simply a malicious attack based upon lies.
[...]
The EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reports it:
"agrees with the conclusion that there are no concerns for the carcinogenicity of tetrabromobisphenol A and supports conclusions ii) for all exposure scenarios since the Margin of Safety (MOS) are very large. Due to low systemic biovailability and efficient conjugation of the phenolic groups in tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), bioaccumulation of this compound is not considered to be of concern."
In EU Risk Assessments, a "conclusion ii)" means that there is no need for further information or testing and no need for risk reduction measures. That's why TBBA isn't even regulated under the strict RoHS guidelines. Greenpeace knows this, but this fact does not fit into their fear mongering campaign.
[...]
In this email, Greenpeace claimed Apple "has a very poor environmental policy," but he facts are that Apple is recognized as a leader in environmental policy by the Sierra Club, and that Greenpeace was unable to find a
They don't subject to the term "podcasting". I read that somewhere, but didn't check it.
But some problem could be that/. has a funny understanding of editing. Here's my original submission:
While news are out that Apple wants to stop companies from using terms like "podcast" or "pod", Wired has the complete text of Apple's cease-and-desist letter to Podcast Ready.
Obviously Apple is under the delusion that people call their iPods not, well "iPod",but instead just "Pod". I suggest all/.ers write a nice and polite letter to Apple pointing out that iPods are still referred to as iPods.
If Zonk didn't like my wording he could have stripped my name too:-/
Jobs probably saw a lot more, but, in any case, what he saw is simply is not relevant to the question of what Apple invented themselves for the Mac.
"Probably"? But that's my point. People just can't pull stuff out their ass and if asked how they know just say: I don't but it was probably so... There are people who were there and we can ask them.
And Apple's behavior is consistent: they keep ripping off people to this very day and they keep not living up to their responsibility of contributing to the body of knowledge of computer science.
Xerox was a far bigger and way more powerful company back then. And they got the payment they asked for. how that could be called a rip-off is only known to you. And maybe that's the way you see it, but i really don't want to imagine how PCs and their OSes would look like today if all had been left to Bill Gates.
Jobs didn't just see Smalltalk, he saw Xerox's prototype office workstations, which did offer WYSIWYG editing, icons, direct manipulation, and Finder-like functionality.
Says who? Have you been there?
Even Adele Goldberg talks of "a demo of the Smalltalk System".
I guess Horn has two axes to grind, coming from both Xerox and Apple,
This doesn't even make sense.
In reality, Apple's first commercial GUI-based product, the Lisa, was based on a combination of published work, ideas copied from Xerox, and some significant but incremental improvements.
Nobody denies that. But Xerox got paid in stock options. Apple didn't go public then and Xerox surely gained from those.
I think Jobs saw Smalltalk running on the Star which was introduced in 1981.
Well, you think wrong:
From the transcript of "Triumph Of The Nerds Part III":
"Steve Jobs had co-founded Apple Computer in 1976. The first popular personal computer, the Apple 2, was a hit - and made Steve Jobs one of the biggest names of a brand-new industry. At the height of Apple's early success in December 1979, Jobs, then all of 24, had a privileged invitation to visit Xerox Parc.
Steve Jobs
And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see that. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I didn't even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.
It was a turning-point. Jobs decided that this was the way forward for Apple.
Adele Goldberg
Founder, PARC Place Systems
He came back and I almost said asked, but the truth is, demanded that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk System and the then head of the science centre asked me to give the demo because Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo and I said no way. I had a big argument with these Xerox executives telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink and I said that I would only do it if I were ordered to do it cause then of course it would be their responsibility, and that's what they did."
"The author calls the Macintosh a "close clone" of the Alto but I thought it was supposed to be a massive improvement over the Alto design."
Yes, you are absolutely right. But somehow Bill Gates managed to convince people that it was OK to copy the Mac GUI, because "Apple stole it before".
Before Apple, the GUI looked something like this (PDF). No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan. Maybe Steve and his team got to see an even more low key version.
Of course, back then engineers went from Xerox to Apple and took some ideas with them. I guess they even talked to their ex-colleagues and exchanged ideas. It was before software patents.
Bill Gates on the other Hand saw the Mac because his company was to be an important 3rd party developer for the platform. And he is quoted, when asked by his engineers in which direction Microsofts GUI efforts should go, as saying: "I want the Mac". He then got Ex-Xeros Employees too and the Macs icon designer Susan Kare did artwork for Windows 95.
"[...] Linux [...] sees the iPod as an external hard drive, so you can copy to your heart's content. That said, most people will probably still want to use some front end for it, in which case, they would be using a third party program to access it,[...]"
I don't use Linux on the desktop at the moment, but I assume any software that copies music from and to the iPod, that is: music that you can then listen to and sorted according to ID-Tags on your display, has to emulate some iTunes functionality or be considered a "hack"? Of course any iPod mounts on my Mac as a harddrive, I even can put MP3s on that HD, but they won't show up in the music lists on the iPods screen.
"The fact that something is "official" software or not doesn't keep it from being third party (one can argue whether it is stupid or weird). By your definition, all Windows software to use iPods would fall under "third party addons and hacks," too, since they aren't Microsoft products."
I thought of Apple, the manufacturer as the "first party", or maybe "second party" if MS is the first party already.
">Hmmmm, as there is no official iPod software for Linux users at all, I'd say all Linux software to use iPods would fall under "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks", no?
That's a clever troll - you're being deliberately obtuse and ignoring the fact that (typical) Linux distros ship with a wide range of tools and applications."
What I tried to bring across was: For every platform there are tools to circumvent Apples DRM or copy songs on and off iPods as the users wish. Those programs are mainstream and sold in stores. What I don't understand is why people call them "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks" on Windos (or Mac OS X) and refer to them as "a wide range of tools and applications" on Linux.
"Linux users have better support for iPods than windows itunes users do - they can copy songs off the iPod to another computer (without stupid third party addons, weird hacks, or scary warnings)."
Hmmmm, as there is no official iPod software for Linux users at all, I'd say all Linux software to use iPods would fall under "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks", no?
Hm, I just wrote the same comment in another thread..., is there a club of people that want to belittle Apples improvements to the graphical user interface?
"... the computer that INVENTED the modern GUI, the Xerox Alto..."
Before Apple, the GUI looked something like this. No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan.
Sigh... why is the "Submit"-button that close to the "Preview"-button?
"...the Alto which gave us the WIMP interface..."
Meh, before Steves team got on it the GUI looked something like this. No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan...
"...the Alto which gave us the WIMP interface..." Meh, before Steves Team got on it the GUI looked something like this. No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan...
I haven't tried speech rec. software for years, although I found IBM ViaVoice on the Mac was working quite good after some training. But tomstdenis wrote: "Voice recognition requires some training regardless of who provides it. We're not Star Trek here". So I have to assume he's talking about speech recognition in general. I know that David Pogue used that kind of software years ago on windows, so I trust his article somewhat and have to assume that Microsofts solution isn't as good as waht's on the market right now. How shocking.
He writes: "The software I'm using is Dragon NaturallySpeaking 9.0, the latest version of the best-selling speech-recognition software for Windows. This software, which made its debut Tuesday, is remarkable for two reasons.
Reason 1: You don't have to train this software. That's when you have to read aloud a canned piece of prose that it displays on the screen -- a standard ritual that has begun the speech-recognition adventure for thousands of people.
I can remember, in the early days, having to read 45 minutes' worth of these scripts for the software's benefit. [...] NatSpeak 9 requires no training at all."
"As if MS is the only one who has problems with demonstrations."
Hmmm, no. Maybe it's the way they deal with failures. Remember Bill gates trying hard to demonstrate the Media Center? Some time after that Steve Jobs gave his regular Macworld keynote when his Mac didn't respond anymore. He moved a monitor switch to continue the presentation on another Mac and said: "Well, that's why we have backup systems here."
"SCO's been making this claim about destruction of code at random for awhile, before Lyons picked it out of their last huge filing and decided to make a big deal out of it."
But what we have now is Hatchs direct quote about an IBM employee saying that he was told to delete code. Before I only knew that SCO filed an appeal under seal. 1.: This is some heavy allegation 2.: Wasn't SCO told by some judge to not blab so much in public about the case? 3.: Would that be enough reason to unseal the filing in question?
"I am a developer in India. All my college buddies are too. Not one of us gets less than $800 per month."
That's interesting. But to put the number in context, maybe you could tell us a bit about your cost of living? What is a flat per moth? What about cars and computers?
Slashdot Mirror
About the the inconsistencies and outright lies in Greenpeace' report read this, this and this.
But some problem could be that /. has a funny understanding of editing. Here's my original submission:
While news are out that Apple wants to stop companies from using terms like "podcast" or "pod", Wired has the complete text of Apple's cease-and-desist letter to Podcast Ready. Obviously Apple is under the delusion that people call their iPods not, well "iPod",but instead just "Pod". I suggest all /.ers write a nice and polite letter to Apple pointing out that iPods are still referred to as iPods.
If Zonk didn't like my wording he could have stripped my name too :-/
"Probably"? But that's my point. People just can't pull stuff out their ass and if asked how they know just say: I don't but it was probably so ... There are people who were there and we can ask them.
Xerox was a far bigger and way more powerful company back then. And they got the payment they asked for. how that could be called a rip-off is only known to you. And maybe that's the way you see it, but i really don't want to imagine how PCs and their OSes would look like today if all had been left to Bill Gates.
Says who? Have you been there?
Even Adele Goldberg talks of "a demo of the Smalltalk System".
This doesn't even make sense.
Nobody denies that. But Xerox got paid in stock options. Apple didn't go public then and Xerox surely gained from those.
Well, you think wrong: From the transcript of "Triumph Of The Nerds Part III":
"Steve Jobs had co-founded Apple Computer in 1976. The first popular personal computer, the Apple 2, was a hit - and made Steve Jobs one of the biggest names of a brand-new industry. At the height of Apple's early success in December 1979, Jobs, then all of 24, had a privileged invitation to visit Xerox Parc.
Steve Jobs
And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see that. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I didn't even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.
It was a turning-point. Jobs decided that this was the way forward for Apple.
Adele Goldberg
Founder, PARC Place Systems
He came back and I almost said asked, but the truth is, demanded that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk System and the then head of the science centre asked me to give the demo because Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo and I said no way. I had a big argument with these Xerox executives telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink and I said that I would only do it if I were ordered to do it cause then of course it would be their responsibility, and that's what they did."
What Steve and his folks saw looked like this.
Yes, they had more advanced GUI-stuff, but they didn't show it to Apple. Apple mostly saw the Smalltalk environment.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But somehow Bill Gates managed to convince people that it was OK to copy the Mac GUI, because "Apple stole it before".
Before Apple, the GUI looked something like this (PDF). No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan. Maybe Steve and his team got to see an even more low key version.
Of course, back then engineers went from Xerox to Apple and took some ideas with them. I guess they even talked to their ex-colleagues and exchanged ideas. It was before software patents.
Bill Gates on the other Hand saw the Mac because his company was to be an important 3rd party developer for the platform. And he is quoted, when asked by his engineers in which direction Microsofts GUI efforts should go, as saying: "I want the Mac". He then got Ex-Xeros Employees too and the Macs icon designer Susan Kare did artwork for Windows 95.
How long does it take to copy a 70MB file?
I don't use Linux on the desktop at the moment, but I assume any software that copies music from and to the iPod, that is: music that you can then listen to and sorted according to ID-Tags on your display, has to emulate some iTunes functionality or be considered a "hack"? Of course any iPod mounts on my Mac as a harddrive, I even can put MP3s on that HD, but they won't show up in the music lists on the iPods screen.
I thought of Apple, the manufacturer as the "first party", or maybe "second party" if MS is the first party already.
That's a clever troll - you're being deliberately obtuse and ignoring the fact that (typical) Linux distros ship with a wide range of tools and applications."
What I tried to bring across was: For every platform there are tools to circumvent Apples DRM or copy songs on and off iPods as the users wish. Those programs are mainstream and sold in stores. What I don't understand is why people call them "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks" on Windos (or Mac OS X) and refer to them as "a wide range of tools and applications" on Linux.
Hmmmm, as there is no official iPod software for Linux users at all, I'd say all Linux software to use iPods would fall under "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks", no?
One dollar for everytime I have to read that line on /. and I could quit work.
"... the computer that INVENTED the modern GUI, the Xerox Alto..."
Before Apple, the GUI looked something like this. No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan.
"...the Alto which gave us the WIMP interface..."
Meh, before Steves team got on it the GUI looked something like this. No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan ...
"...the Alto which gave us the WIMP interface..." ...
Meh, before Steves Team got on it the GUI looked something like this. No bar with drop-down-menus, no icons for files, instead rather for actions, no desktop metaphor, no trashcan
I haven't tried speech rec. software for years, although I found IBM ViaVoice on the Mac was working quite good after some training. But tomstdenis wrote: "Voice recognition requires some training regardless of who provides it. We're not Star Trek here". So I have to assume he's talking about speech recognition in general. I know that David Pogue used that kind of software years ago on windows, so I trust his article somewhat and have to assume that Microsofts solution isn't as good as waht's on the market right now. How shocking.
Reason 1: You don't have to train this software. That's when you have to read aloud a canned piece of prose that it displays on the screen -- a standard ritual that has begun the speech-recognition adventure for thousands of people.
I can remember, in the early days, having to read 45 minutes' worth of these scripts for the software's benefit. [...] NatSpeak 9 requires no training at all."
Hmmm, no. Maybe it's the way they deal with failures. Remember Bill gates trying hard to demonstrate the Media Center? Some time after that Steve Jobs gave his regular Macworld keynote when his Mac didn't respond anymore. He moved a monitor switch to continue the presentation on another Mac and said: "Well, that's why we have backup systems here."
But what we have now is Hatchs direct quote about an IBM employee saying that he was told to delete code. Before I only knew that SCO filed an appeal under seal. 1.: This is some heavy allegation 2.: Wasn't SCO told by some judge to not blab so much in public about the case? 3.: Would that be enough reason to unseal the filing in question?
And at first I read: "Bear ate my pants". Even funnier ...
Don't you know anything about the net? Obviously his tube got clogged ...
I'm waiting for a movie version of this on YouTube :)
That's interesting. But to put the number in context, maybe you could tell us a bit about your cost of living? What is a flat per moth? What about cars and computers?