PDA

View Full Version : World Summit-How 'green' is Apple?


Griffindor73
Sep 1, 2002, 06:24 PM
I have been hearing about the World Summit in Johanisburg this week and I was wondering- how environmentally friendly are our Macs and Apple in gereral?

For example:
How recycable is the computer itself?
Are the new flat screen iMacs more friendly that the old CRT models (What gasses are in the tube etc)?

What uses the most energy- Starting up/Shutting down or sleep mode? My computer is on sleep most of the time- I only shut it down if I am going away overnight/for the weekend. Should we be thinking about shutting down every night- I know only one mac uses a little energy- but think about millions of macs sleep lights pulsing on and off and how much energy that uses!

Campainers at the summit are attacking the records of business on the environment, and Apple and other computer companies are big business? US businesses and government seem to be in for the most critism as the US has been singled out as the most poluting nation on earth, yet has a very small and distant presence at the summit itself (probably not helped by the general ignorance of Mr G. 'W' Bush himself.)

Is there anything that Apple could/ should be doing to help?

Thoughts, please!


Check out this BBC Website link for more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/energy/alternatives/default.stm

madamimadam
Sep 1, 2002, 07:03 PM
Well, it is ALWAYS a good idea to restart your machine in the morning so you might as well shut down and start up in the morning saving a small amount of power.

If you do nothing with you machine all the time, though, I would suggest helping out the folding@home team.
;)

alex_ant
Sep 1, 2002, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Griffindor73
I have been hearing about the World Summit in Johanisburg this week and I was wondering- how environmentally friendly are our Macs and Apple in gereral?
I can't imagine Apple is any more or less environmentally friendly than any other computer company. New CRTs are more environmentally friendly than older ones, but Apple doesn't make its own CRTs or LCDs (or hard drives or CPUs or video cards or RAM). It does design some of its own components including its motherboards, enclosures, and various ICs, but it farms out manufacturing to other companies. In that respect, Apple is a lot like Dell or any other large PC vendor. I can't imagine recyclability being any concern in the design/manufacturing process. Toxicity yes, recyclability no.
What uses the most energy- Starting up/Shutting down or sleep mode? My computer is on sleep most of the time- I only shut it down if I am going away overnight/for the weekend. Should we be thinking about shutting down every night- I know only one mac uses a little energy- but think about millions of macs sleep lights pulsing on and off and how much energy that uses!
Well, put that in perspective by thinking of how many people leave a single light bulb on in their house when they don't need it on. The average light bulb draws 60 watts of power. A PowerBook draws less than 1 watt in sleep mode. That's less than a night-light. I would guess other Macs' sleep power usage figures are similar. The average Mac probably uses more energy in 8 hours of sleep than in 1 minute of booting up, but not a lot more. I think if energy consciousness is our goal, there are much more egregious violators of this principle than our Macs' sleep mode. :)

Alex

jelloshotsrule
Sep 1, 2002, 08:31 PM
i think that the new macs (maybe the last 2 revs) at least in certain models are now being made of recycled parts...

i could be wrong but i think that's what i heard

MacRumorSkeptic
Sep 1, 2002, 08:36 PM
Who cares?! The world summit is full of nothing but a bunch of anti-capitalism socialists who would love to see the U.S. and its companies in financial ruin. Compare our air/water quality to any other industrialized nation on the earth and you'll find that its of the highest standard.

I know that Steve Jobs is a big time liberal and probably agrees with a lot of what these KOOKS have to say about the environment. That is unless they want to apply overly strict environmental standards to Apple that they would apply to other big businesses.

AND! Don't get me started on how it would hurt the consumer as these big companies would simply make-up for the expense of abiding to these enviro-standards by passing it off onto us.

alex_ant
Sep 1, 2002, 08:38 PM
I think somebody's been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh...

Durandal7
Sep 1, 2002, 08:43 PM
You just HAD to put a little comment about how much you hate Bush in the thread. Was it your intention to get this thread closed? Now all we're going to have is a bunch of crybabies whining about their respective political party.

madamimadam
Sep 1, 2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Compare our air/water quality to any other industrialized nation on the earth and you'll find that its of the highest standard.

I wish I could say the same about Australia... the downside to being a heavy coal country.

As for the US having the highest standard air.... give me a break... the only thing that saves the US in that field is the amount of space that it covers and the smaller populated areas make up for the highly populated areas.

MacRumorSkeptic
Sep 1, 2002, 08:49 PM
Nope, although I have great respect for Rush Limbaugh and his views I would have to say that he is not enough of a strict constitutionalist the way that I am. Check out http://www.LP.org for an idea of where I'm coming from. It maybe a great introduction to some of you on the ideas and superiority of limited government.

madamimadam
Sep 1, 2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
You just HAD to put a little comment about how much you hate Bush in the thread. Was it your intention to get this thread closed? Now all we're going to have is a bunch of crybabies whining about their respective political party.

I think it is more likely that it will be moved to the Community area

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 12:13 AM
wow. some people are dumb


for instance, rush limbaugh

and if you are even more of a strict constitution interpreter then you will have some problems i think.

blah.

MacRumorSkeptic
Sep 2, 2002, 12:41 AM
Is dumb the best you could come up with? You've probably never made an arguement with any substance to it in your life which is why you resort to name calling. What problems could I possibly have by being a strict constitutionalist other than liberals calling me dumb? I don't use the saying constitutional interpreter because the U.S. constitution is quite clear in its meaning. It is after all a legal document and our founding fathers wanted everything to be clearly defined.

Rower_CPU
Sep 2, 2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Is dumb the best you could come up with? You've probably never made an arguement with any substance to it in your life which is why you resort to name calling. What problems could I possibly have by being a strict constitutionalist other than liberals calling me dumb? I don't use the saying constitutional interpreter because the U.S. constitution is quite clear in its meaning. It is after all a legal document and our founding fathers wanted everything to be clearly defined.

Are you trying to argue that our founding fathers had complete foresight and could see into the future and make provisions in the Constitution for any and all future events/technologies/social changes? Please, give it a rest.

The U.S. Constitution, and therefore the the U.S. Goverment, is in needs of constant revision to make it applicable to our world as it is today. Because, that which does not adapt is doomed to die.

MacRumorSkeptic
Sep 2, 2002, 12:57 AM
You show complete ignorance when it comes to the U.S. constitution. Its fundamental knowledge that the founders realized that things may change in the future and therefore allowed that the constitution be amendable.

Oh, and 1 more thing. Rush Limbaugh (who is an Apple user) can't be that dumb because he realizes superior technology when he sees it just like the rest of us. Not only that he'll talk about the superiority of the Macintosh from time to time on his radio show.

vniow
Sep 2, 2002, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Is dumb the best you could come up with? You've probably never made an arguement with any substance to it in your life which is why you resort to name calling. What problems could I possibly have by being a strict constitutionalist other than liberals calling me dumb? I don't use the saying constitutional interpreter because the U.S. constitution is quite clear in its meaning. It is after all a legal document and our founding fathers wanted everything to be clearly defined.

Jesus Christ man, that just made you look really intelligent.:rolleyes:
Maybe if you've been around long enough here you'd have figured out by now that jello is a helluva person to argue with. The problem with strictly interpreting what the Constitution is exactly what Rower_CPU said; the Founders could not have forseen what was going to happen in 300 years, that's why there's amendments. To blindly agree with everything it says is stupid. It's not all what's right and good in this world. We have a whole section of the Middle East that disagrees with us and justified or not, they have their reasons.

MacRumorSkeptic
Sep 2, 2002, 01:11 AM
I anxiously await any arguement that (ahem) jello can bring to the table. As for me blindly agreeing with everything the constitution says, I do no such thing. I very much disagree with the 16th amendment (which gives congress the authority to collect income tax) and would have firmly disagreed with the 18th amendment (prohibition) had I been around at the time.

Rower_CPU
Sep 2, 2002, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
You show complete ignorance when it comes to the U.S. constitution. Its fundamental knowledge that the founders realized that things may change in the future and therefore allowed that the constitution be amendable.

Oh, and 1 more thing. Rush Limbaugh (who is an Apple user) can't be that dumb because he realizes superior technology when he sees it just like the rest of us. Not only that he'll talk about the superiority of the Macintosh from time to time on his radio show.

Your lack of tact and respect for others is astounding.

How can you be so naive as to blindly follow the laws set down on a piece of paper over 200 years ago? Amendments are analogous to software patches or updates. Eventually you get to the point where a complete rewrite is neccessary.

The U.S., and the world in general, has grown to the point where we cannot proceed under the assumptions that our actions do not affect other countries. The limited government envisioned by the writers of the Constitution was an overreaction to the dictatorship of England. It worked when the U.S. constituted 13 states on the Eastern sea board. It does not work for a country as large as ours has become.

The ideals and principles of the Constitution are wonderful, but the laws therein should not be held as gospel today.

vniow
Sep 2, 2002, 01:17 AM
BTW, just because Rush Limbaugh uses a Mac doesn't mean he's intelligent. Last time I checked, there were some idiot Mac users (some even on this forum, imagine that) and yes, you should care about how thrown away computers affect the environment, you're living in it right?

MacRumorSkeptic
Sep 2, 2002, 01:33 AM
Tell me, what protections of rights and limits on government are there in the U.S. constitution that dont apply or shouldnt apply to our life in the U.S. today? What horrible rewrite would you insist upon?

The constitution was by no means an overeaction to England. The Revolutionary War was the response to England for their oppressive ways. The U.S. constitution was the response to the history of evils from government and avoiding a large centralized government at all costs.

By the way I do care about the environment I live in. I just dont think that the federal government should have a 1 size fits all regulation on business. Its far more effective if each individual state has its own policy.

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 01:42 AM
Sssssooooo.... the Apple Mac is easily recycled?!
;)

vniow
Sep 2, 2002, 01:44 AM
I think one of the main problems of the Constitition is that no truth is eternal. It can all be amended. There's nothing eternal about it at all, it can all be changed whenever the powers that be wish it. That is our sacred document's flaw. Another one is that it seperates the church and state. No other government in the history of the world has ever had that before, by these terms, it's pretty radical compared to everything else. By no means am I implying that Bush make Christianity or any other religion a national standard, but it's better to believe in something than in nothing.

Durandal7
Sep 2, 2002, 01:54 AM
Anyway :rolleyes:
I would guess that the Mac has about the same lead content as most other computers. THe fact that Apple uses primarily LCDs should make them more environmentally friendly though (certain models)

And in the future, please don't post arbitrary comments about politics in your posts unless it's a thread on politics. This is a thread on recycling macs griffondor, not your opinion of how intelligent you think the President is. Community Discussion is there for a reason and all that a comment like that will do is cause a flamewar.

Rower_CPU
Sep 2, 2002, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Tell me, what protections of rights and limits on government are there in the U.S. constitution that dont apply or shouldnt apply to our life in the U.S. today? What horrible rewrite would you insist upon?

The constitution was by no means an overeaction to England. The Revolutionary War was the response to England for their oppressive ways. The U.S. constitution was the response to the history of evils from government and avoiding a large centralized government at all costs.

By the way I do care about the environment I live in. I just dont think that the federal government should have a 1 size fits all regulation on business. Its far more effective if each individual state has its own policy.

The creation of our government was completely a reaction against the monarchical government of Britain. Why else would the system of checks and balances be put in place? The forefathers sought to prevent any one part of the government from having too much control, even at the expense of a smooth running system whereby action and decisions could be made swiftly.

My main problem with our system today is that special interests and corporate lobbies have too much influence over legislation. Laws that would protect the environment, or bring about social change are stymied by big money and our outdated puritanic sense of morals.

You say you don't blindly follow the Constitution? The why are the only two things you disagree with Amendments to the original document?

Telomar
Sep 2, 2002, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Who cares?! The world summit is full of nothing but a bunch of anti-capitalism socialists who would love to see the U.S. and its companies in financial ruin. Compare our air/water quality to any other industrialized nation on the earth and you'll find that its of the highest standard.

AND! Don't get me started on how it would hurt the consumer as these big companies would simply make-up for the expense of abiding to these enviro-standards by passing it off onto us.

I'll deal with both sections of that and hopefully shed some light on the actual topic of this thread.

Firstly the people attending the World Summit in Johannesburg arenít anti-capitalism socialists. They come from a very wide variety of areas and more than a few of them work for large corporates. They arenít seeking to put their employers out of business.

Secondly air and water quality in the US is terrible. I really hate to break that fact to you but it is fairly universally known by the environmental engineers in the US. Australiaís water quality is lousy too but it isnít from coal itís from a variety of more serious areas, many of which the US also faces.

Next on to the expense of environmental standards and dealing with environmental wastes (hit page down a few times if you donít want to read this ;) ). I wonít go into that much detail because in all honesty this topic area is massive and if I get started I wonít stop. I could easily write a book on this topic.

To abbreviate it into a few words the basis of these environmental standards is largely from the fact that previously it has been the custom of companies to ignore the environmental aspects of their operations especially when it is cheaper to do so. That simply is not a viable mode of operations. These standards arenít cooky things people at Greenpeace have thought up. Professionals, following very detailed reports into the areas, develop them. They are an effort to apply value to the environment and create level playing fields (Iíll explain that later).

There is a major issue when it comes to being environmentally friendly (depending on the industry and environmental concern this can in fact be not the case. Often by being environmentally friendly you improve efficiencies and thereby economic performance as well. It's quite complex) and that is the fact that often it is cheaper to not be. So unless you are being forced there is little incentive to be environmentally friendly (also not entirely true but to be perfectly honest Iím not going overboard with detail because I doubt people will read most of it. If you really want it though it isnít hard considering this is one of the areas I work in). Let me give you an example.

When you manufacture paint you produce roughly 8 litres of wastewater per 1 litre of paint (the US alone produces roughly 5 million litres of paint each year). I was having a discussion with someone not long ago and basically they said why don't you hand off those 8 litres to the people buying the paint and have them deal with it or include it in your price. The reply to giving it to the consumer to deal with is rather sobering.

If you give it to the consumer to deal with most likely it will just go down the sink. Consumers really aren't willing to pay to deal with these issues because to be frank most people are too ill educated to understand them. Around 90% of consumers fit into a broad group that basically says, ďIf I canít see it, it mustnít be affecting me.Ē Most people donít quite understand the wastes that a single plant can produce let alone a city or country full and honestly most donít care.

To be perfectly blunt in an ideal world if a consumer is going to use a good or service they should have to deal with the cost of dealing with the waste. People are just too used to the past where the environment wasnít a factor at all and therefore didnít contribute to price at all. To some extent they do have to pay these costs now but by and large consumers get off cheap.

As to passing the price on to the consumer this is a little more complicated. To generalise and simplify it a great deal though it is difficult to be environmentally friendly and remain economically competitive with your competitors, who arenít incurring the additional costs you are. That simplifies it somewhat though. For instance a certain Aluminium smelting company used to produce left over waste metal, which was causing some environmental issues, just by recycling that metal they managed to save themselves around $2 million a year. Not a lot but that is a very minor case.

That said when you bring minimum legislated levels into practice that ultimately tighten over time the climate changes somewhat. For instance in plant design now quite often people will look ahead in development and try to design clean so to speak. By being ahead of the curve from the start you will have a longer grace period before you have to start addressing environmental issues.

The benefit of legislating though is a) you get everybody to a critical point and b) nobody has an economic excuse compared to competitors (not quite true again but I have a character limit :p ) for not implementing improvements and in fact you have economic reasons to implement change.

Onto Apple and the computer industry as a whole. This is a little complicated (it always is) and there will always be people that debate whether this is Appleís concern or someone elseís.

Firstly LCDs and power. From a simple power point of view LCDs are better than CRTs were. Modern computers are also not that huge a drain (around 10 lights) on the power supply and Macs tend to require less power than most. From a power point of view they arenít a huge problem however they should always be looking to improve energy efficiency.

From a recycling point of view it is possible. It would be similar to recycling mobile phones, which is done in Europe. There is certainly some argument that computer manufacturers should have to deal with the computer once it becomes waste. The real problem is that you really donít get much back from recycling a computer and it is a rather costly procedure.

From a lifecycle point of view the industry isnít wonderful, although it probably isnít the worst. Most of the environmental concerns come from the manufacturing stages upstream of Apple. There is a significant amount of waste with computers and ultimately you can attribute that to the manufacturer. They can certainly do a lot to cut down on material usage and encourage upstream users to be friendlier to the environment (processor manufacturing, plastics and metals. It isnít nice wonderful upstream).

The problem faced by the computer industry is similar to the car industry. They canít really do much with the car once it is dead and there are a lot of wasted materials in it so they really need to increase its useful life expectancy (cars currently average 7 year lives and need to reach around 20 Ė 25), improve efficiencies and decrease material usages.

amnesiac1984
Sep 2, 2002, 05:40 AM
Well informed post Telomar. Just to add a point to your last car bit, The European Union is issueing a directive that means Every Car sold in europe has to be completely recycleable and the manufactures have to do the recycling when the car's life comes to and end!

moomin
Sep 2, 2002, 07:15 AM
sounds like MacRumorSEptic has been drinking too much of the 'highest standard' arsenic riddled water.

A really interesting question

Apart from Steve are there any other billionaire vegans in the world?

ibjoshua
Sep 2, 2002, 09:08 AM
if anyone is a kook...

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Who cares?! The world summit is full of nothing but a bunch of anti-capitalism socialists who would love to see the U.S. and its companies in financial ruin. Compare our air/water quality to any other industrialized nation on the earth and you'll find that its of the highest standard.

I know that Steve Jobs is a big time liberal and probably agrees with a lot of what these KOOKS have to say about the environment.

have you guys heard the expression the pot calling the kettle black i think MacRumorSkeptic may be a bit potty

i agree with most of what telomar has said.

plus, this pseudo-isolationist viewpoint that so many americans take really bothers me. you want to be involved here but not there. give advice but not take it. your "president"* is not dangerous because he is clever...

the environment (especially sea and air) has no borders. we're all in the same boat on this one one. i for one believe the onus is on the countries that have best profited from the environment in the past to set a good example. that is what Rio and Kyoto should have been about, setting a good example.

what sort of example do you think the US and Oz (where i live now) are currently setting. one of self interest and (very) shortsightedness.

american (and many other 'western' countries) only have such great
air/water quality because so much of our heavy, dirty industry is shipped off to poorer countries where labour and environmental laws are more lax.

as telomar said, environmentally friendly manufacturing is good business and will pay off for many companies in the long run. i for one one would be so much more prouder of my mac if it had a smaller environmental footprint.

and for what it's worth there are quite a few US companies that downright deserve financial ruin for their crimes.

lets hope apple doesn't join them.

i_b_joshua


*GW Bush was not elected president so much as declared president by his cronies. the Supreme Court stopped the vote recount in Florida because the outcome looked like it would (in the courts own words) '...threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election.' As Mike Moore puts it 'In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and they come out in Gore's favor, and Gore wins, well, that will impair Bush's ability to govern once we install him as "President"' - Stupid White Men 2001

cleo
Sep 2, 2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
Well, it is ALWAYS a good idea to restart your machine in the morning


Why? I thought this wasn't true for OS X? There are Unix machines that aren't rebooted for years.

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 12:28 PM
i went to bed and only just now found this thread again, forgive me for my absence when i sparked some interesting debate

rower and co summed it up pretty well

the constitution means little to me, because it has only been adapted to the times in ways which i find to be only the beginning.

and yes, i know that the founding fathers meant for it to be adapted, as i've been to the jefferson memorial in dc and seen that founding father's quote about how a government will not progress if it does not change with the times. but alas, we're not doing enough of that

should we really be allowed to own all the types of guns we can? how about the fact that (as rower said), it's all too easy to buy an election via special interest and corporate money? why wasn't ralph nader allowed to take part in the debates? oh yeah, cause the two party system would be in jeopardy... guess what, a lot of the founding fathers (who you obviously hold in very high esteem) didn't like the 2 party system at all. and one of the founding fathers (i forget if it was washington or a bit later in madison or one of them... sorry) said that if the country meddles in other parts of the world it will only doom itself...

yet what are we doing in iraq/the middle east? don't get me wrong, i think that if we have as much power as we do (we being america) then we should use it for good. but not just what we think is good. not what will benefit us monetarily. but for the good of humanity... but that's just idealism

anyways, that's just a bit of what i think. and as people have said, this should have been about macs and recyclability... not politics

for that, go to the community section thread named "why?"

sorry for the petty name calling. it was late and i've heard some pretty dumb ass things on rush limbaugh lately, as well as a couple other radio show hosts... so i was just reacting to that more than yourself.. my bad

peace

Durandal7
Sep 2, 2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

sorry for the petty name calling. it was late and i've heard some pretty dumb ass things on rush limbaugh lately, as well as a couple other radio show hosts... so i was just reacting to that more than yourself.. my bad

peace

I have come to the conclusion that all political radio shows are evil. Aside from the BS that Limbaugh spouts I happened to come across a liberal talk show. The host was rambling about how everyone in between the two coasts were uneducated and married their cousins because they are primarily conservative. This country has been fiercely divided in the past 10 years and it a little strange.

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
I have come to the conclusion that all political radio shows are evil. Aside from the BS that Limbaugh spouts I happened to come across a liberal talk show. The host was rambling about how everyone in between the two coasts were uneducated and married their cousins because they are primarily conservative. This country has been fiercely divided in the past 10 years and it a little strange.

oh i hear ya. it's not just the rush limbaughs... the first ones i heard were the liberal ones and they made me just as sick as the conservative ones do....

ahhh well

Durandal7
Sep 2, 2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


oh i hear ya. it's not just the rush limbaughs... the first ones i heard were the liberal ones and they made me just as sick as the conservative ones do....

ahhh well

Apparently the only requirement to get a radio talk show is to be an a**hole.

alex_ant
Sep 2, 2002, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
Apparently the only requirement to get a radio talk show is to be an a**hole.
* (alex_ant makes mental note: Become a political talk show host) *

Durandal7
Sep 2, 2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by moomin

Apart from Steve are there any other billionaire vegans in the world?

I don't think Steve is a billionaire so the answer would be 0. :p

Rower_CPU
Sep 2, 2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
I don't think Steve is a billionaire so the answer would be 0. :p

He is...but just barely:
http://www.time.com/time/digital/cyberelite/07.html

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Telomar
Australiaís water quality is lousy too but it isnít from coal itís from a variety of more serious areas, many of which the US also faces.

I don't think this point was ever in debate.

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by cleo


Why? I thought this wasn't true for OS X? There are Unix machines that aren't rebooted for years.

Don't get caught up in all the hype... you could run certain types of servers for years but a desktop machine is subject to memory leaks. Memory leaks occur due to flaws in programing and, over time, they build up and your RAM stays allocated to a program that might not even be running.

This is the major reason why I regularly use all 896MB of RAM in my machine and my next machine will have no less than 1GB and more likely 1.5GB. Admittedly, when you put that much RAM into your machine, though, the OS takes over 400MB all by itself just because it can.... you see the speed increase, though.

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

* (alex_ant makes mental note: Become a political talk show host) *

haha. you're funny sometimes

but an ******* all the time....


ha

nah, that was cool. good humor


if moby makes enough money he could be a billionaire vegan..... but i don't see that happening

alex_ant
Sep 2, 2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


haha. you're funny sometimes

but an ******* all the time....

What the hell does Jello's Hot Srule mean anyways? :)

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

What the hell does Jello's Hot Srule mean anyways? :)

It was a typo and his inability to spell, I think, he meant to write "Jello Shot Droole"

Telomar
Sep 2, 2002, 07:21 PM
http://www.apple.com/about/environment/

There's some of their corporate info if anybody actually cares. I know recently there was a complaint regarding their environmental practices so I will try and find that later.

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Telomar
http://www.apple.com/about/environment/

There's some of their corporate info if anybody actually cares. I know recently there was a complaint regarding their environmental practices so I will try and find that later.

aaahhhh..... something related to the topic at hand

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

What the hell does Jello's Hot Srule mean anyways? :)

i'll tell you when you tell me what Ale x_ant means

eh? :)

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
It was a typo and his inability to spell, I think, he meant to write "Jello Shot Droole"

that's not how you spell "drool" come on...

ha.

we won't even get into your name...


thanks for the link there telomar

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


that's not how you spell "drool" come on...

ha.

we won't even get into your name...


thanks for the link there telomar

HEY, that's not far... my name is actually madamimadam but that had already been taken so I added my middle names, Timothy and Allen, to make madamimadamtimallen.

madamimadam is cool because it is the same both forwards and backwards like hannah and pop.

And... well... madam... I'm Adam.
;)

alex_ant
Sep 2, 2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
HEY, that's not far... my name is actually madamimadam but that had already been taken so I added my middle names, Timothy and Allen, to make madamimadamtimallen.

madamimadam is cool because it is the same both forwards and backwards like hannah and pop.

And... well... madam... I'm Adam.
;)
That's awesome! Your name was just gibberish to me until I paid more attention. It's a palindrome. The most brilliant nick I've ever seen. :) (Palindromes are very hard to make)

My middle name is Anthony, so that's where the "ant" comes from, and it's abbreviated like that in honor of the great '80s pop star Adam Ant who is now insane. It's nowhere near as clever as madamimadam, though.

Who in the blazes took "madamimadam," anyway?

alex_ant
Sep 2, 2002, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i'll tell you when you tell me what Ale x_ant means

eh? :)
It's Chinese for "massive cock." :)

Don't want to excite the censors with the evil p-word! *****! *****! *****!

jelloshotsrule
Sep 2, 2002, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

It's Chinese for "massive cock." :)

Don't want to excite the censors with the evil p-word! *****! *****! *****!

ahh.... i see... going with the irony thing eh???

also, madamimadamtimallen is not a palindrome... eh? sure, madamimadam is but not with the addition....

so it loses something..

but yeah, who the heck took it? you should hunt them down and... yadda yadda.

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

That's awesome! Your name was just gibberish to me until I paid more attention. It's a palindrome. The most brilliant nick I've ever seen. :) (Palindromes are very hard to make)

My middle name is Anthony, so that's where the "ant" comes from, and it's abbreviated like that in honor of the great '80s pop star Adam Ant who is now insane. It's nowhere near as clever as madamimadam, though.

Who in the blazes took "madamimadam," anyway?

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW... I have NEVER seen a madamimadam on the forums but the bastard took MY name.

**EVIL STARE**

alex_ant
Sep 2, 2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
but yeah, who the heck took it? you should hunt them down and... yadda yadda.
No... don't leave us hanging like that!

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 10:03 PM
I checked the members list and "madamimadam" is not taken any more.... I am going to try to switch my name... if I can.

Rower_CPU
Sep 2, 2002, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
I checked the members list and "madamimadam" is not taken any more.... I am going to try to switch my name... if I can.

arn should be able to help you out with that.

ibjoshua
Sep 2, 2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

What the hell does Jello's Hot Srule mean anyways? :)

when i was at university it was very popular to make vodka jelly (jello to americans)

tasted good and went down a treat. you could do several shots in a few minutes. lethal.

i_b_joshua

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


arn should be able to help you out with that.

Yeah... i have written him a personal message and I am just waiting for him to respond to it

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua


when i was at university it was very popular to make vodka jelly (jello to americans)

tasted good and went down a treat. you could do several shots in a few minutes. lethal.

i_b_joshua

AAAHHHH.... jelly shots are such a great Australian tradition.

Did you ever get into Goon of Fortune?

ibjoshua
Sep 2, 2002, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen


AAAHHHH.... jelly shots are such a great Australian tradition.

Did you ever get into Goon of Fortune?

nah, never heard of it. the only drinking games i like are the ones where everyone drinks at the same pace. i'm not very sadistic, i guess.

ibjoshua
Sep 2, 2002, 10:23 PM
oh and i went to university in NZ where we needed the alcohol just to keep us warm. brrrr

madamimadam
Sep 2, 2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua


nah, never heard of it. the only drinking games i like are the ones where everyone drinks at the same pace. i'm not very sadistic, i guess.

Oh, you have missed out on a great Australian tradition. I do not play these days because I HATE goon but it is fantastic fun.

Basically, you tie a goon cask (or just the pillow) to a good ol' aussie Hills Hoist (for those who are not from Oz, a Hills Hoist is the traditional Aussie clothes line that rotates on a centralised pole); sit in a group around the line; spin the Hills and who ever the goon is closest to when it stops has to scull some.

:) :) :)

madamimadam
Sep 3, 2002, 01:09 AM
WOOHOO... the big man himself has fixed the problem
:)

<homer simpson childish voice>My name's a palindrome</homer simpson childish voice>

ibjoshua
Sep 3, 2002, 06:54 AM
congratulations

jelloshotsrule
Sep 3, 2002, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam
WOOHOO... the big man himself has fixed the problem
:)

<homer simpson childish voice>My name's a palindrome</homer simpson childish voice>

sweetness. now no one has to try to figure out what the heck tim allen is... and thinking about home improvement and all that... ha

Griffindor73
Sep 3, 2002, 04:50 PM
Well, its nice to see this post got a few people thinking, although there were a 'few' off-topic replies out there!:)

I do find views such as MacRumorSkeptic's seem like someone burying their head in the sand- I think issues such as the World Summit and the things it is trying to address too important to brush aside in such a dismissive manner.

By the way, who is Rush Limbaugh? Never heard of him in the UK (which actually sounds like a good thing...)

Rower_CPU
Sep 3, 2002, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Griffindor73
Well, its nice to see this post got a few people thinking, although there were a 'few' off-topic replies out there!:)

I do find views such as MacRumorSkeptic's seem like someone burying their head in the sand- I think issues such as the World Summit and the things it is trying to address too important to brush aside in such a dismissive manner.

By the way, who is Rush Limbaugh? Never heard of him in the UK (which actually sounds like a good thing...)

Lucky, lucky bastard:D...do a google search and you'll have all the info you need.

Griffindor73
Sep 5, 2002, 11:31 AM
Oh my God, I have just been to his website, or web*****. What a load of rubbish!
Total unreasoned political rant with fly-of-the-handle opinions backed up with little or no evidence or thought. I feel sorry for you guys- you can keep the bloke and just make sure he never tries to come over here. Thanks!

LimeiBook86
Sep 5, 2002, 05:05 PM
I go to school in the day, go on my iBook sometimes at night. I always have it plugged into my AC outlet. When I'm done I put it to sleep with the AC still plugged in, then I put it on my shelf. I use it other times besides at nioght but I always have it charged because you never know when you need to unplug and GO! :D

madamimadam
Sep 5, 2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Lucky, lucky bastard:D...do a google search and you'll have all the info you need.

Is he just a liberal hater is he?