More accurately, the rate at which iPods are sold will level off. That doesn't mean iPod itself is a fad, just that consumers are approaching it with a "fad" mindset.
iPod itself may become the Sony walkman: ubiquitous, until CD comes around.
Unfortunately, many manufacturers have switched to the iPod battery style without offering the battery replacement plan Apple does. For example, iriver.
There are trusted brand names in many fields of consumer technology: the Zippo lighter, the Brunton compass, the Victorinox Swiss Army knife, the Timex watch. Outside of the geek market, Apple's biggest challenge comes not from what their competitors have to offer as features and cool-factor, but from their own ability to keep excellent customer service and quality control while newer and more machines are turned out of the factory. Even yuppies and posers will have enough common sense to prefer a brand name trusted as "reliable" over cheaper or more feature-filled options.
I have felt no compelling reason to upgrade from my monochrome 4G: its battery life is as good as the day I bought it, it plays music, it works. I know that if my battery starts to die, I can send it to Apple with $100 and receive a refurbished iPod of the same generation with a new battery. This is something important to me, and that kind of customer service will be a factor in my eventual decision to switch to another music player.
There is no RES-equivalent for printed material. Publishers are assuming that the RES-equivalent for printed material is copyright. That is a matter for the courts to decide; and don't forget, most websites also bear a copyright notice yet they must still inform search engines that they do not want to be indexed. Perhaps the courts will ultimately decide upon an independent "Do Not Scan" books list (like the "Do Not Call" list, another list we have to manually add our numbers to). Not for me to speculate.
Still, I'm not certain you have a point: the "burglary" analogy simply doesn't apply. Firstly, Google did not intrude upon anyone's property to scan these books: they did so with the full cooperation of several university libraries. Secondly, Google did not steal either from the publisher or from the libraries: mere copies of the original material were made and distributed within the organization (it remains to be proven that publishers suffered financial injury as a result of this). At no point was the full text of any book made available to the public, all complete copies were handled internally for indexing use only. Small samples of some books are made available online, which surprised me. IANAL, and even if I were, I suspect I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome of the upcoming court case.
Perhaps taking photographs of the external appearance of people's houses and posting small parts of them online (a couple of windows and maybe the front door) applies slightly more, but not really: there is no matter of copyright breach, though perhaps there is breach of other laws.
I don't think there is a truly apt analogy for the current situation; if there were, it would be used in the current case and could probably be used to predict the outcome of the current case. I haven't heard the full complain from these publishers and copyright holders, and am sure we won't until the matter goes to the courtrooms. I find it hard to imagine how they have suffered financial loss from Google's actions, but I'd rather hear them out before judging either party as thieves.
Not sure if you have a point to make, but the robots.txt method has been a de facto for over a decade (see Robots Exclusion Standard). It is not proprietary to Google or any other search engine.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at by comparing search engines to burglars.
Firstly, please accept this free advice: when reading Slashdot, imagine every comment spoken with a sarcastic sneer. Now add salt. In this case, high sodium is beneficial to your health.
Secondly, just because Slashdotters joke about MySpace (often these jokes are in poor taste, I agree) or have opinions about MySpace does not mean they are uninformed.
Thirdly, the assumption that Slashdotters are "stupid Americans" because they do not share your opinion of MySpace is irrational.
Matters of fact: MySpace runs on a server-side scripting language few Slashdotters have any respect for (ColdFusion), MySpace pages are often unreadable due to user customization (example: black text on dark background, not a fault of MySpace), few MySpace pages satisfy W3C standards (something Blogger Beta also has problems with currently), MySpace is owned by News Corporation (the world's biggest source of misinformation), open-ended customization options leave MySpace vulnerable to social engineering tactics that can lead to end-user installation of malware. Most importantly: MySpace is not the only "social networking" site; for example: Slashdot (to a certain extent).
Please do not assume this to be an excuse or argument. It is not. It is an explanation. Why do Slashdotters have a low opinion of MySpace? The above list.
Currently, my Blogger Beta site is experiencing many of the same issues (for example, I prefer XHTML 1.1 which does not allow for iframes) and I do not claim to have a perfect solution. I simply ask you to remember that criticisms of MySpace are not criticisms of social networking (any more than criticisms of certain politicians are criticisms of democracy). Something better will come along.
Are savings the deciding factor in choosing whether or not to use a more environmentally friendly solution? If so, I'd say: no, it's rarely ever worth it. Until natural resources ride the brink of exhaustion, it's generally cheaper to use a less environmentally friendly solution. The cost of financing the special 'eco-equipment' often eats far into any long-term savings. (In this case, we're talking about a cost comparable to that of a brand new car.)
Reasons to install a windmill: "growing your own" matters to you; you're worried about the quality of the electricity the power company is pumping into your home (especially with all those chemicals they stick in it these days); your neighbors have complained that you do not have enough eyesores on your property; you are concerned about the environment; you have too much money.
Reasons to not install a windmill: you live in tornado valley (you want a windmill, not a propeller); your insurance refuses to cover the object or your house if it is too close; you are the owner of a power company; you have a fear of windmills; local wildlife conservationists contact you and complain that the proposed construction destroys the natural beauty of your private property; you are married; you already have one; you accept that in spite of the huge expense, your personal contribution to the environment will make little difference and the only significant result to the environment will be that could have been spent researching a better alternative energy source was instead spent on a giant non bio-degradable eyesore.
Could you explain what rights the GPL gives me, the developer whose code is GPLed?
In theory, it gives me the FSF's protection, but the right to defend my copyright is something I already had.
It allows others to see and use my code, but I could have granted that without the GPL and with less restrictions on the developer community (if I had used the LGPL, for example).
What extra rights does it give me? How does it extend the law and enable me to do things I couldn't otherwise?
This isn't a criticism of the GPL, it is a criticism of the suggestion that the GPL makes new rights and gives me them. The GPL gives me no rights, but it doesn't take any of my rights away, either.
If I'm writing a piece of Open Source code I don't mind being put to commercial use, I will apply the LGPL. That's what it's for. If you find a GPLed library on Slashdot that you want to use in a commercial product, don't give up looking for an LGPLed or public domain version. Otherwise, accept that you're developing a commercial product and have your boss/client cough up the change for a commercial library license; explain the difference in cost between purchasing the license and paying you for man-hours to develop that license yourself. If it's a small enough library, write it yourself, stick an LGPL on it, and upload it to SourceForge!
Cinema Graphics are those things featured in powerpoint presentations that tell Paramount execs not to produce any more Star Trek movies. Wait, that should be demographics. My bad.
What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."
In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.
The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.
In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.
Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.
Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.
Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.
I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of
The Greenpeace requirement was for a timeline for the complete phasing out of PVC.
Bzzt! Stupid strawman alert!
Nokia and Dell stand in exactly the same position as Apple, with the exceptions that Nokia uses smaller parts and Dell name the arbitrary date 2009 with the condition that "acceptable alternatives are identified". Apple uses bigger parts like Dell, yet is rated "partially bad" instead of "good" for not having pulled a random date out its ass.
Of course if you had read any of the material, you would already have realized this.
Do you consider yourself more of an anti-Apple troll or a pro-Greenpeace fanboy?
Apple has eliminated PVC in all plastic parts weighing more than 25 grams, with the exception of cable enclosures, which is standard across the industry... Apple was able to meet many of the RoHS restrictions long before the July 2006 deadline.
Below this text is a graphic of the timeline showing when Apple phased out PVC to fit compliance with RoHS restrictions. The timeline doesn't show future dates because that goal has already been achieved.
Your argument is what, that I should take Greenpeace's misleading report (big surprise that Greenpeace would publish something misleading) at face value because lots of other people take anti-Microsoft misleading reports at face value? Er, no thanks.
I have never had a problem using OS X's Mac Classic mode. All my documents have loaded just fine, thank you.
I have not had any luck running DOS/16-bit applications in Windows XP without third party tools.
I have been a DOS user for 13 years, a Windows user for 11. I was introduced to modern Mac systems only after the release of OS X, and only since then dropped some of my anti-Apple reservations. However, I purchased OS 9 software because it was cheap. In the last year, I have spent more time on my Mac system as it is more stable.
My anecdotal argument is better than your anecdotal argument.
"Definition of precautionary principle reflects poor understanding of this principle in chemical policy." (Translation: Apple oversimplifies its PR material.)
"Apple provides only examples of substances that are on its Regulated Substances Specification 069-0135, but the Spec itself is not publicly available." (Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"Although Apple commits to eliminating PVC, there is no timeline for complete phase out." (Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"Although Apple commits to eliminating all BFRs, there is no timeline for complete phase out." (Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"No PVC-free or BFR-free product systems. Apple only lists some PVC-free peripherals on its website." (Translation: Apple doesn't specifically state its systems are PVC-free or BFR-free as far as we could tell.)
"Apple refers to its individually responsible approach to recycling through its own takeback initiatives and national collective take-back programmes. The definition of IPR needs to be more explicit." (Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"Apple reports on amounts recycled based on weight and not percentage of sales." (Translation: we can't do math.)
For the reasons mentioned. It claims to be a review of the environmental friendliness of Apple's practices. It isn't. It's a review of the lucidity of Apple's PR material.
"Your choice of words gives away your prejudice."
Prejudice against misleading reports? Quite right.
"Apple has everything to gain by publishing information on their environmental correctness..."
And they do publish that information. You can read it in the PR material Greenpeace were reading. If you have improvements to suggest, direct your suggestions toward Apple.
"You must mean due to..."
You're quite right! Sorry!
"There is no reason to believe Greenpeace desires to single out Apple..."
Quite right. All of Greenpeace's propaganda is misleading, not just this document.
If you had paid attention to the article or even to the copy+pasted text above, you would realize the flaw in Greenpeace's "review". They aren't basing their ratings on any hard work or "research", they're just reviewing a bunch of PR material. Apple didn't score badly because it fails to comply with EU standards, Apple scored badly partly because its PR material wasn't sufficiently lucid for crackhead Greenpeace editors.
As far as "replaced by support team" is concerned, I can only assume you're talking about iPods (since it was easier for me to buy a replacement PowerBook battery than it ever was to replace the battery in my Toshiba). Surprise surprise: most other MP3 players (including newer iRiver models) have built-in batteries, too! Fortunately, unlike iRiver, Apple offers a battery replacement program.
As far as "backwards compatability" is concerned, I can tell you've never owned a Mac (or if you have, thought it was some kind of fancy paperweight). OS X (current) came bundled with and supported OS 9 (1999-2001, itself compatible as far back as OS 7) apps right up until the Intel switch earlier this year (though I have heard report of successful third party replacements for Intel machines). Who should we compare this to? Microsoft, whose flawed Windows XP-9x/3.1/DOS backwards compatability modes fail 90% of the time? Linux, which hasn't experienced enough major changes for backwards compatability to be a real issue?
Download and read the Apple PDF. Apple is low on the list because the website you point to is what Greenpeace reviewers were reading (along with other Apple-released material). Throughout the PDF, Greenpeace "researchers" admit to giving Apple low scores because Apple hadn't publicly released any information. Without that information, they assumed it was bad. This would be fine if Greenpeace were reporting on the quality of company press releases. As it stands, their report is very misleading.
This is not a case of Apple refusing to "walk the walk", this is a case of Greenpeace compiling a misleading report (again); this time blaming Apple for walking with the lights out.
Apple is an especially secretive company. Its busy legal team and history of company secret related firings and court cases should be enough to tell us this alone, if not its more recent attitude toward distributions of Leopard (the upcoming OS X) found online or even the secrecy under which even its flagship retail store was constructed. For some, this evokes paranoia. For others, frustration. As an environmentally concerned consumer, Greenpeace's ranking of Apple does affect my desire to purchase hardware from the company in spite of obvious flaws in their review system.
This is very easy (for someone with only a few DRMed songs) to do, but is a flawed technique. Not only is it a breach of T&C (and possibly of some laws; a "fair use" argument may depend on what is done with the resulting MP3), you will experience a loss of audio quality. With a handful of exceptions, music sold online is already heavily compressed. However done, recording audio output and saving to a lossy format will result in further loss of audio quality.
OP, if you only purchased one DRMed song, you're best to consider it an ill-advised waste of 99 cents and cut your losses. Just think, you could have spent that money on 1/4 of a Frappuccino. Instead you had to waste it on something as transient and insubstantial as music. Tampering with the file you downloaded (which, according to the RIAA, you don't "own" and did not purchase) may have legal penalties. You purchased a license to listen to the music; you can listen to it. Contractual obligations have been fulfilled.
I have no interest in the PhD flamewar, but the violence rating system Thompson used is clearly useless even for the purpose you propose: by Thompson's standards, Centipede (92% violent) is probably more violent than the movie Robocop (I believe Robocop is about 100 minutes long, that means it would need 8 minutes of "non-violent" material just to be on a par with Centipede!) Does this mean parents should consider Robocop more suitable entertainment for their three year old child? Consider: Centipede (in which a gnome destroys some bugs), or Robocop (the opening scene of which features a man being shot to squishy bits).
Parenting is a hard enough job as it is without studies like Thompson's being taken out of context and used to give parents yet more confusion. Television and tabloid psychologists should always be ignored in favor common sense. "How do I determine if this game is too violent for my young one?" Look at the packaging, read the copy, scrutinize the screenshots. Think about the implications of the words "Rape, pillage, claw, and shoot your way through 69 bloodthirsty levels of gore, guts and mayhem!" If you're still not sure, try renting the game and maybe even playing it yourself.
Sorry, that should have been page 362, not 360. Page 360 describes the Willesden Junction Exception rule, which doesn't come into play until the Bakerloo line has been called 3 times successively!
In answer to your question: the old map applies only if the central line was quartered BEFORE the fifth trick (eg, Mile End to St. Pauls without switching at Liverpool Street. Otherwise, between Baker Street and Liverpool Street you may assume the old map applies unless Finchley Road is blocked (in which case the Swiss Cottage move would have been illegal anyway). Aldgate is always illegal anyway until the Central/Victoria/Northern triangle has been formed clockwise (in which case the buses will run from Aldgate to Aldgate East, so you can return to the Hammersmith line; see MC:R&O (NF Stovold), vol 12 p. 360.)
Slashdot Mirror
More accurately, the rate at which iPods are sold will level off. That doesn't mean iPod itself is a fad, just that consumers are approaching it with a "fad" mindset.
iPod itself may become the Sony walkman: ubiquitous, until CD comes around.
Unfortunately, many manufacturers have switched to the iPod battery style without offering the battery replacement plan Apple does. For example, iriver.
There are trusted brand names in many fields of consumer technology: the Zippo lighter, the Brunton compass, the Victorinox Swiss Army knife, the Timex watch. Outside of the geek market, Apple's biggest challenge comes not from what their competitors have to offer as features and cool-factor, but from their own ability to keep excellent customer service and quality control while newer and more machines are turned out of the factory. Even yuppies and posers will have enough common sense to prefer a brand name trusted as "reliable" over cheaper or more feature-filled options.
I have felt no compelling reason to upgrade from my monochrome 4G: its battery life is as good as the day I bought it, it plays music, it works. I know that if my battery starts to die, I can send it to Apple with $100 and receive a refurbished iPod of the same generation with a new battery. This is something important to me, and that kind of customer service will be a factor in my eventual decision to switch to another music player.
There is no RES-equivalent for printed material. Publishers are assuming that the RES-equivalent for printed material is copyright. That is a matter for the courts to decide; and don't forget, most websites also bear a copyright notice yet they must still inform search engines that they do not want to be indexed. Perhaps the courts will ultimately decide upon an independent "Do Not Scan" books list (like the "Do Not Call" list, another list we have to manually add our numbers to). Not for me to speculate.
Still, I'm not certain you have a point: the "burglary" analogy simply doesn't apply. Firstly, Google did not intrude upon anyone's property to scan these books: they did so with the full cooperation of several university libraries. Secondly, Google did not steal either from the publisher or from the libraries: mere copies of the original material were made and distributed within the organization (it remains to be proven that publishers suffered financial injury as a result of this). At no point was the full text of any book made available to the public, all complete copies were handled internally for indexing use only. Small samples of some books are made available online, which surprised me. IANAL, and even if I were, I suspect I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome of the upcoming court case.
Perhaps taking photographs of the external appearance of people's houses and posting small parts of them online (a couple of windows and maybe the front door) applies slightly more, but not really: there is no matter of copyright breach, though perhaps there is breach of other laws.
I don't think there is a truly apt analogy for the current situation; if there were, it would be used in the current case and could probably be used to predict the outcome of the current case. I haven't heard the full complain from these publishers and copyright holders, and am sure we won't until the matter goes to the courtrooms. I find it hard to imagine how they have suffered financial loss from Google's actions, but I'd rather hear them out before judging either party as thieves.
Not sure if you have a point to make, but the robots.txt method has been a de facto for over a decade (see Robots Exclusion Standard). It is not proprietary to Google or any other search engine.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at by comparing search engines to burglars.
Firstly, please accept this free advice: when reading Slashdot, imagine every comment spoken with a sarcastic sneer. Now add salt. In this case, high sodium is beneficial to your health.
Secondly, just because Slashdotters joke about MySpace (often these jokes are in poor taste, I agree) or have opinions about MySpace does not mean they are uninformed.
Thirdly, the assumption that Slashdotters are "stupid Americans" because they do not share your opinion of MySpace is irrational.
Matters of fact: MySpace runs on a server-side scripting language few Slashdotters have any respect for (ColdFusion), MySpace pages are often unreadable due to user customization (example: black text on dark background, not a fault of MySpace), few MySpace pages satisfy W3C standards (something Blogger Beta also has problems with currently), MySpace is owned by News Corporation (the world's biggest source of misinformation), open-ended customization options leave MySpace vulnerable to social engineering tactics that can lead to end-user installation of malware. Most importantly: MySpace is not the only "social networking" site; for example: Slashdot (to a certain extent).
Please do not assume this to be an excuse or argument. It is not. It is an explanation. Why do Slashdotters have a low opinion of MySpace? The above list.
Currently, my Blogger Beta site is experiencing many of the same issues (for example, I prefer XHTML 1.1 which does not allow for iframes) and I do not claim to have a perfect solution. I simply ask you to remember that criticisms of MySpace are not criticisms of social networking (any more than criticisms of certain politicians are criticisms of democracy). Something better will come along.
Are savings the deciding factor in choosing whether or not to use a more environmentally friendly solution? If so, I'd say: no, it's rarely ever worth it. Until natural resources ride the brink of exhaustion, it's generally cheaper to use a less environmentally friendly solution. The cost of financing the special 'eco-equipment' often eats far into any long-term savings. (In this case, we're talking about a cost comparable to that of a brand new car.)
Reasons to install a windmill: "growing your own" matters to you; you're worried about the quality of the electricity the power company is pumping into your home (especially with all those chemicals they stick in it these days); your neighbors have complained that you do not have enough eyesores on your property; you are concerned about the environment; you have too much money.
Reasons to not install a windmill: you live in tornado valley (you want a windmill, not a propeller); your insurance refuses to cover the object or your house if it is too close; you are the owner of a power company; you have a fear of windmills; local wildlife conservationists contact you and complain that the proposed construction destroys the natural beauty of your private property; you are married; you already have one; you accept that in spite of the huge expense, your personal contribution to the environment will make little difference and the only significant result to the environment will be that could have been spent researching a better alternative energy source was instead spent on a giant non bio-degradable eyesore.
Could you explain what rights the GPL gives me, the developer whose code is GPLed?
In theory, it gives me the FSF's protection, but the right to defend my copyright is something I already had.
It allows others to see and use my code, but I could have granted that without the GPL and with less restrictions on the developer community (if I had used the LGPL, for example).
What extra rights does it give me? How does it extend the law and enable me to do things I couldn't otherwise?
This isn't a criticism of the GPL, it is a criticism of the suggestion that the GPL makes new rights and gives me them. The GPL gives me no rights, but it doesn't take any of my rights away, either.
In short, it doesn't affect my rights.
If I'm writing a piece of Open Source code I don't mind being put to commercial use, I will apply the LGPL. That's what it's for. If you find a GPLed library on Slashdot that you want to use in a commercial product, don't give up looking for an LGPLed or public domain version. Otherwise, accept that you're developing a commercial product and have your boss/client cough up the change for a commercial library license; explain the difference in cost between purchasing the license and paying you for man-hours to develop that license yourself. If it's a small enough library, write it yourself, stick an LGPL on it, and upload it to SourceForge!
Cinema Graphics are those things featured in powerpoint presentations that tell Paramount execs not to produce any more Star Trek movies. Wait, that should be demographics. My bad.
What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."
In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.
The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.
In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.
Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.
Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.
Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.
I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of
The Greenpeace requirement was for a timeline for the complete phasing out of PVC.
Bzzt! Stupid strawman alert!
Nokia and Dell stand in exactly the same position as Apple, with the exceptions that Nokia uses smaller parts and Dell name the arbitrary date 2009 with the condition that "acceptable alternatives are identified". Apple uses bigger parts like Dell, yet is rated "partially bad" instead of "good" for not having pulled a random date out its ass.
Of course if you had read any of the material, you would already have realized this.
Do you consider yourself more of an anti-Apple troll or a pro-Greenpeace fanboy?
Your argument is what, that I should take Greenpeace's misleading report (big surprise that Greenpeace would publish something misleading) at face value because lots of other people take anti-Microsoft misleading reports at face value? Er, no thanks.
I have never had a problem using OS X's Mac Classic mode. All my documents have loaded just fine, thank you.
I have not had any luck running DOS/16-bit applications in Windows XP without third party tools.
I have been a DOS user for 13 years, a Windows user for 11. I was introduced to modern Mac systems only after the release of OS X, and only since then dropped some of my anti-Apple reservations. However, I purchased OS 9 software because it was cheap. In the last year, I have spent more time on my Mac system as it is more stable.
My anecdotal argument is better than your anecdotal argument.
"Definition of precautionary principle reflects poor understanding of this principle in chemical policy."
(Translation: Apple oversimplifies its PR material.)
"Apple provides only examples of substances that are on its Regulated Substances Specification 069-0135, but the Spec itself is not publicly available."
(Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"Although Apple commits to eliminating PVC, there is no timeline for complete phase out."
(Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"Although Apple commits to eliminating all BFRs, there is no timeline for complete phase out."
(Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"No PVC-free or BFR-free product systems. Apple only lists some PVC-free peripherals on its website."
(Translation: Apple doesn't specifically state its systems are PVC-free or BFR-free as far as we could tell.)
"Apple refers to its individually responsible approach to recycling through its own takeback initiatives and national collective take-back programmes. The definition of IPR needs to be more explicit."
(Translation: we couldn't find detailed information, didn't bother.)
"Apple reports on amounts recycled based on weight and not percentage of sales."
(Translation: we can't do math.)
"In what way is the report misleading?"
For the reasons mentioned. It claims to be a review of the environmental friendliness of Apple's practices. It isn't. It's a review of the lucidity of Apple's PR material.
"Your choice of words gives away your prejudice."
Prejudice against misleading reports? Quite right.
"Apple has everything to gain by publishing information on their environmental correctness..."
And they do publish that information. You can read it in the PR material Greenpeace were reading. If you have improvements to suggest, direct your suggestions toward Apple.
"You must mean due to..."
You're quite right! Sorry!
"There is no reason to believe Greenpeace desires to single out Apple..."
Quite right. All of Greenpeace's propaganda is misleading, not just this document.
If you had paid attention to the article or even to the copy+pasted text above, you would realize the flaw in Greenpeace's "review". They aren't basing their ratings on any hard work or "research", they're just reviewing a bunch of PR material. Apple didn't score badly because it fails to comply with EU standards, Apple scored badly partly because its PR material wasn't sufficiently lucid for crackhead Greenpeace editors.
As far as "replaced by support team" is concerned, I can only assume you're talking about iPods (since it was easier for me to buy a replacement PowerBook battery than it ever was to replace the battery in my Toshiba). Surprise surprise: most other MP3 players (including newer iRiver models) have built-in batteries, too! Fortunately, unlike iRiver, Apple offers a battery replacement program.
As far as "backwards compatability" is concerned, I can tell you've never owned a Mac (or if you have, thought it was some kind of fancy paperweight). OS X (current) came bundled with and supported OS 9 (1999-2001, itself compatible as far back as OS 7) apps right up until the Intel switch earlier this year (though I have heard report of successful third party replacements for Intel machines). Who should we compare this to? Microsoft, whose flawed Windows XP-9x/3.1/DOS backwards compatability modes fail 90% of the time? Linux, which hasn't experienced enough major changes for backwards compatability to be a real issue?
Download and read the Apple PDF. Apple is low on the list because the website you point to is what Greenpeace reviewers were reading (along with other Apple-released material). Throughout the PDF, Greenpeace "researchers" admit to giving Apple low scores because Apple hadn't publicly released any information. Without that information, they assumed it was bad. This would be fine if Greenpeace were reporting on the quality of company press releases. As it stands, their report is very misleading.
This is not a case of Apple refusing to "walk the walk", this is a case of Greenpeace compiling a misleading report (again); this time blaming Apple for walking with the lights out.
Apple is an especially secretive company. Its busy legal team and history of company secret related firings and court cases should be enough to tell us this alone, if not its more recent attitude toward distributions of Leopard (the upcoming OS X) found online or even the secrecy under which even its flagship retail store was constructed. For some, this evokes paranoia. For others, frustration. As an environmentally concerned consumer, Greenpeace's ranking of Apple does affect my desire to purchase hardware from the company in spite of obvious flaws in their review system.
This is very easy (for someone with only a few DRMed songs) to do, but is a flawed technique. Not only is it a breach of T&C (and possibly of some laws; a "fair use" argument may depend on what is done with the resulting MP3), you will experience a loss of audio quality. With a handful of exceptions, music sold online is already heavily compressed. However done, recording audio output and saving to a lossy format will result in further loss of audio quality.
OP, if you only purchased one DRMed song, you're best to consider it an ill-advised waste of 99 cents and cut your losses. Just think, you could have spent that money on 1/4 of a Frappuccino. Instead you had to waste it on something as transient and insubstantial as music. Tampering with the file you downloaded (which, according to the RIAA, you don't "own" and did not purchase) may have legal penalties. You purchased a license to listen to the music; you can listen to it. Contractual obligations have been fulfilled.
I have no interest in the PhD flamewar, but the violence rating system Thompson used is clearly useless even for the purpose you propose: by Thompson's standards, Centipede (92% violent) is probably more violent than the movie Robocop (I believe Robocop is about 100 minutes long, that means it would need 8 minutes of "non-violent" material just to be on a par with Centipede!) Does this mean parents should consider Robocop more suitable entertainment for their three year old child? Consider: Centipede (in which a gnome destroys some bugs), or Robocop (the opening scene of which features a man being shot to squishy bits).
Parenting is a hard enough job as it is without studies like Thompson's being taken out of context and used to give parents yet more confusion. Television and tabloid psychologists should always be ignored in favor common sense. "How do I determine if this game is too violent for my young one?" Look at the packaging, read the copy, scrutinize the screenshots. Think about the implications of the words "Rape, pillage, claw, and shoot your way through 69 bloodthirsty levels of gore, guts and mayhem!" If you're still not sure, try renting the game and maybe even playing it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_boot
Sorry, that should have been page 362, not 360. Page 360 describes the Willesden Junction Exception rule, which doesn't come into play until the Bakerloo line has been called 3 times successively!
In answer to your question: the old map applies only if the central line was quartered BEFORE the fifth trick (eg, Mile End to St. Pauls without switching at Liverpool Street. Otherwise, between Baker Street and Liverpool Street you may assume the old map applies unless Finchley Road is blocked (in which case the Swiss Cottage move would have been illegal anyway). Aldgate is always illegal anyway until the Central/Victoria/Northern triangle has been formed clockwise (in which case the buses will run from Aldgate to Aldgate East, so you can return to the Hammersmith line; see MC:R&O (NF Stovold), vol 12 p. 360.)
It looks like someone invoked "Mirror, Mirror" rules and triggered a multi-threaded Mornington Crescent.