I always chuckle when you guys say things like this. You conservatives are against education and in shows in all your low brow posts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Paris Accord 'Was Wrong for Our Planet'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I always chuckle when you guys say things like this. You conservatives are against education and in shows in all your low brow posts.
"The vast majority of pervs are white heterosexual men." Well, the vast majority of people are heterosexual and cisgender, and I'll bet more men than women are pervs and capable of sexual offense, so that doesn't say much.
[doublepost=1496384255][/doublepost]
OK, but you have to concede that some states disagree, so why do we get to force our views on them? And I don't think the issue is danger but some other reason women don't want men in their restrooms that I can't pretend to know since I'm a dude. Personally, I was a little uncomfortable around semi-naked women (sexually) exiting from the dorm showers when I was in college, so it's probably something around those lines, but in regular toilet bathrooms, I don't care (as long as I get a urinal).
Last edited:
Fair question and I don't have a good answer other than to say we are one country and if we're not going to be one country, we should all just go our own way as states and we can all sink or swim on our own. Where does one draw the line in terms of what is the right of the state and what is the right of the federal government? I don't know. I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't mention transgender bathroom usage. I've honestly grown fatigued with the endless arguing over states rights versus federal overreach. Sometimes I think the federal government needs to step in and slap some sense into stupid states and this one of those issues that I feels warrants just that. But I can't argue with your point of view.
They are saving that one as part of the incredible products in the pipeline.... they will reinvent black with grey... watch this space
Women are less likely to be (reported) sexual offenders. I can make lots of guesses that are probably accurate as to why. But the issue some people had was with men identifying as women, not the other way around.
[doublepost=1496385281][/doublepost]
I would say that if and only if one state's actions can affect the other states, federal laws are reasonable. Driving laws obviously should be similar. War is another easy example to defend, I think. We shouldn't commit to or abstain from war separately and certainly shouldn't fight each other. Gun laws... I think are one, depending on the specific law. If one state hypothetically banned guns altogether, other states having guns would make that a problem. Maybe trade laws are hairier, but I think we shouldn't have all sorts of tariffs between states since that at least makes things really complicated. And I'm really glad we have the same currency, but some people aren't. Federal education standards... getting into more controversial territory, but there are arguments for them.
Last edited:
Well America. This is what you, (collectively), asked for. Let’s see how it works out. Cook though is a hypocrite with his disposable computers.
Ironic thing is that the richest in society are the ones that tend to be the least frugal. Wouldn't mind betting that the Cook household is far bigger with more fittings, (ie uses a lot more resources than necessary), than it needs to be.
Ironic thing is that the richest in society are the ones that tend to be the least frugal. Wouldn't mind betting that the Cook household is far bigger with more fittings, (ie uses a lot more resources than necessary), than it needs to be.
Last edited:
Slippery slope. I don't see how it benefits us as a whole to have radically different laws and norms from state to state. In that case we might as well be separate countries.
I don't think it benefits us, but it can't really be helped. There are ways the states can cooperate and be better off together than apart, but if some states try to force personal views upon the others, that's a violation.
I find it disturbing that you derive so much pleasure from the idea that he hurt her personally. I mean, I loathe the Clintons but I don't care one bit how she felt personally. Your apparent obsession with her emotional state of mind strikes me as very juvenile.
[doublepost=1496386350][/doublepost]
I suppose but then we really don't need the federal government. Maybe just a defense treaty and that's all. Everything else is, in one way or another, someone forcing something on someone else. I personally think our system of government is idiotic. The whole state versus federal battle, only two political parties, etc. It's as if the people who invented this dumb system wanted the country to be in a constant state of internal conflict.
China is the largest polluter, not the US. Check your facts before making false statements.
Maybe Donald Trump also should have stayed out of politics and focused on his many successful enterprises. I'm sure he could have helped Cook steer Apple in a more profitable direction. In contrast to the Apple people, Trump is a self made man who started from next to nothing and built a world spanning business from scratch. From the darkest corners of the USA to the faraway pillars of Moscow.
Politics and business do go hand in hand.
Yes, global warming is an issue that only the globalists care about.
Gimme a break!
Like the 8-10 Trillion dollar wars we've been waging, right? I'd consider that to be too much money, lol.
Wait. Are you being serious? Because he used it correctly... **facepalm**
"Apple CEO Tim Cook: Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Paris Accord 'Was Wrong for Our Planet'".
Really? Desktop headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one desktops like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should put emphasis on making brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.
Really? Desktop headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one desktops like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should put emphasis on making brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.
Cars and factories didn't exist 1000s of years either.
And carbon dioxide does make the air worse. What happens when you try breathing in a garbage bag?
Is he though? Apple tries to make it so that you replace your computer more often, and they try to make it so that you do it through their own Apple Store's or certified resellers. Same goes for all servicing on the phones, if you want to keep your warranty it must be done through certified service partners.
By doing it this way, Apple has much better control over the entire recycling process and that gives them a much better opportunity to do it in an environmentally friendly way.
How exactly would upgradeable notebooks be friendlier to the environment compared to the one's Apple is currently offering? The technology becomes more power efficient for every generation, having people shrug along their old computers with degraded batteries and higher power requirements is not benefitting anyone.
One can always argue that the whole “use and toss” mentality that we have going on is not good for the enviroment. But claiming that Apple is somehow doing worse for the environment just because their products are not easily upgradeable or serviceable for people outside Apple doesn’t really make much of difference.
This seems more like an argument people use because they don’t like the fact that they can’t easily upgrade their Apple products. They use “environment” as an excuse to get back user replaceable components even though it doesn’t really have anything to do with the environment.
