Its time for Apple to litigate (i.e., sue Greenpeace).
Really? Like what? At worst, getting slapped with a fine which is a fraction of the benefits derived by "embellishing"?
Or do you believe that the Data Center deal will be rescinded?![]()
No, I am not. None of those 3 steps have anything to do with the government or the Constitution. People say "free speech" constantly and apparently don't know what it means. You could look up the Amendments to see that they refer to acts of governments, not corporations.
Did you just get here? I know you didn't.
Apple has been the outcast and underdog and trailblazer and standing up for doing things in a way that they could be proud of since 1976.
Now that they have finally been widely accepted and respected for their values you quickly dump them into the same bin as IBM and Microsoft just because they turn a profit.
Apple was teased because it wasn't savvy like MS and now treated as if they always were.
Who voted for Greenpeace?
Greenpeace, masters of PR, have learned what so many other media whores have learned: Criticize Apple and you will get headlines.
Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.
Greenpeace over-exaggerating their claims???
Who would have thunk it?
Perhaps the push would have more appeal if they attacked the 99% of corporations that are doing NOTHING for the environment rather than attacking the one that is building a solar farm and a biofuel generator, disputing how much difference these efforts will make. The only reason they are attacking Apple is because it gets more public mindspace than attacking HP, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, GM, Ford or Chrysler would.52 people (substitute people with something else if you want to) voted this up. I wish there still was downvoting here. In these forums, it's always attack other mode for anyone in disagreement or conflict with apple. Some people don't care that the planet is in the disarray it's in. Apparently only apple and every other multinational should lobby people in power to get their way, just as soon as an environmental organization tries to push for some progress, they are attacked here.
Perhaps the push would have more appeal if they attacked the 99% of corporations that are doing NOTHING for the environment rather than attacking the one that is building a solar farm and a biofuel generator, disputing how much difference these efforts will make. The only reason they are attacking Apple is because it gets more public mindspace than attacking HP, Dell, GM, IBM or Microsoft would.
You're still not getting it. Greenpeace is picking the wrong target. There are far worse corporate environmental monsters out there than Apple. Greenpeace should focus their efforts on them. The reason they don't is because attacking Apple makes headlines, while attacking companies like IBM, Sun, and Google doesn't, and attacking companies like the Big Three automakers, which are infinitely worse environmental stewards than Apple, offends some of the people who tend to support Greenpeace.the reason they are building a solar farm and a biofuel generator is because greenpeace got on their case early enough.
In any case apple isn't doing anything either, they are offloading the environmental burden to component makers and assemblers. The one time they could do something about it, as in this case, it sure took a lot of push to get them to.... And if it suits the bottom line for epeat to go out of the window, out the window it goes.
As far as I can remember greenpeace hasn't appointed anyone to dictate to them what their priorities should be, and isn't it the role of government to refuse the occasional bribe now and then and enforce environmental policy?
I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?
I only looked up wiki articles when you told me to, not for understanding. But way to change the goalposts.Wrong. While libel is not protected speech, by definition, in Times v. Sullivan (1964) the Supreme Court raised the bar substantially over what kinds of speech can be considered libelous. They based their ruling in the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and press. Often it helps to know more about a topic than what you can glean from a quick reading of a Wikipedia article.
the reason they are building a solar farm and a biofuel generator is because greenpeace got on their case early enough.
There seems to be a lot of talk here about who is telling the truth. Apple say 20MW Greenpeace say 81MW. This is a massive difference so there has to be some reason for this. Looking at the permits for backup power generation at 41MW this would suggest that at the absolute outside the data center could use 41MW but not all the generators are used at the same time (an industry standard practice) so maybe 35MW would be an absolute limit.
That is total nonsense. I know it, you know it, and Greenpeace knows it as well. Apple doesn't do _anything_ because of Greenpeace. And all the plans for their data centre were done and finished long before Greenpeace opened their mouth.
And how exactly do you suppose would Greenpeace massively overestimating Apple's energy use cause Apple to build a solar farm? If Apple needed 80 Megawatt, why would they even bother to build a 20 Megawatt solar farm? Surely it is much more green to reduce usage from 80 MW to 60 MW without spending on a solar farm than to use 80 MW and build a solar farm?
You know what's total nonsense, defending one the most obscenely rich mega corporations in the world over an environmental group that is a force for positive change. That is absolute and total nonsense.
You know what's total nonsense, defending one the most obscenely rich mega corporations in the world over an environmental group that is a force for positive change. That is absolute and total nonsense.
I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?
As far as I can remember greenpeace hasn't appointed anyone to dictate to them what their priorities should be, and isn't it the role of government to refuse the occasional bribe now and then and enforce environmental policy?
I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?