Here's Our First Look at Apple's New 'FineWoven' Apple Watch Bands

[nathansz]

There is evidence plants are sentient as well. Is killing them ok?

There is evidence that plants may have cognition but not necessarily consciousness.

It is an interesting subject to be sure as is all of consciousness studies. I highly recommend subscribing to the Journal of Consciousness Studies if the topic interests you.

For explanations of why animals are conscious but plants (and incidentally computers) likely are not Christof Koch's The Feeling of Life Itself and Rodolfo Llinás' I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self are great places to start.

Regardless, while it’s not impossible that plants may be conscious, we know that animals are so we should treat them as such.

 

[nathansz]

Conflating slavery with eating meat reveals a confusion of the mind that is beyond the ability to comprehend.

To not see the connection reveals a confusion of the mind that is beyond the ability to comprehend.

It only makes sense if you take human life to have more intrinsic value than other animal life. There is however no logical reason to do so.

 

[rcread]

Whatever that material is, I bet it can be made into something that's not ugly.

 

[Razorpit]

There is evidence that plants may have cognition but not necessarily consciousness.

It is an interesting subject to be sure as is all of consciousness studies. I highly recommend subscribing to the Journal of Consciousness Studies if the topic interests you.

For explanations of why animals are conscious but plants (and incidentally computers) likely are not Christof Koch's The Feeling of Life Itself and Rodolfo Llinás' I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self are great places to start.

Regardless, while it’s not impossible that plants may be conscious, we know that animals are so we should treat them as such.

I think we’ve reached peak thread.

 

[VulchR]

...
Unless Apple has a patent on the fastening device then there is nothing illegal about them. I could not find any patent relating to the lugs, just design patents for a few styles; though I would suspect they might have one for the attachment.

I was thinking trademark infringement.

 

[jlc1978]

I was thinking trademark infringement.

How so? Apple doesn’t have trademarks on the bands as far as i can tell, and advertising them as Apple-compatible doesn’t violate Apple’s trademark. So unless they copied Apple’s labeling on the clasp or a claim to be Apple bands and ship in a copycat box I don’t see how the bands could be illegal counterfeit products. IANAL, so I could very well be missing something and be wrong.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

They weren't killing cows to make watch bands and phone cases, it was using byproducts from already dead animals. I guess you're happy they will toss those parts of poor Bessie into the trash instead of putting them to use though?

While obtaining the skin doesn’t add any emissions as you’ve said, the tanning process adds 20% to the carbon footprint in addition to raising the cow, making faux leather more environmentally friendly. That said, the longevity and biodegradability is a concern with leather alternatives.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

It's just pleather 😂...but I'm sure the Apple tax will be thrown in for good measure..

It’s made from microtwill, so it should be less of a leathery texture and feel more like a fabric.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

It’s made from microtwill, so it should be less of a leathery texture and feel more like a fabric.

The description says it has a suede feel to it, looking forward to feeling up my pacific blue case on the way and seeing.

 

[cmcbhi]

While obtaining the skin doesn’t add any emissions as you’ve said, the tanning process adds 20% to the carbon footprint in addition to raising the cow, making faux leather more environmentally friendly. That said, the longevity and biodegradability is a concern with leather alternatives.

"making faux leather more environmentally friendly."
Cite your source, please.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

"making faux leather more environmentally friendly."
Cite your source, please.

Sure. Here’s a source:

Leather:
Including cattle farming: 110kg of CO2/Sq Meter produced
Emission after slaughterhouse only: 17kg of CO2/Sq Meter produced

Faux leather:
Emissions including incineration: 15.8kg of CO2/Sq Meter produced

 

[cmcbhi]

Cattle will be farmed and slaughtered whether the hide is used or not.
So, 17kg/Sq meter vs 15.8 (16 is within margin of error) or a 6% difference. Probably/in margin of error.

Fun fact from your own source carbon footprint:
Artificial leather 15.8 kg/Sq Metre, as you said. But
Textile 20.6 kg/Sq meter!
Remind me what those new "Fine Woven" cases are made from.

 

[nathansz]

Cattle will be farmed and slaughtered whether the hide is used or not

But they don’t have to be. The point remains that the industrial raising of animals for slaughter is a massive unnecessary contributor of carbon emissions

any move to use less animal products is a positive

It also helps to de-normalize the use of animal products

This is the direction society is heading whether anyone likes it or not

 

[nathansz]

So, 17kg/Sq meter vs 15.8 (16 is within margin of error) or a 6% difference. Probably/in margin of error.

On what basis would you claim that is within the margin of error?

You’ve basically been shown that leather produces more emissions but have decided “nah, not really, basically the same”

 

[cmcbhi]

On what basis would you claim that is within the margin of error?

You’ve basically been shown that leather produces more emissions but have decided “nah, not really, basically the same”

Anyone who claims that they can reliably measure 0.02 kg of carbon dioxide reveals a massive ignorance of experimental science. That’s 0.02 out of 15.8 or 0.1%. You are not that accurate.

 

[cmcbhi]

But they don’t have to be. The point remains that the industrial raising of animals for slaughter is a massive unnecessary contributor of carbon emissions

any move to use less animal products is a positive

It also helps to de-normalize the use of animal products

This is the direction society is heading whether anyone likes it or not

Sorry, but cattle WILL be slaughtered whether you approve or not.
‘Many of us will not stop eating our steak, barbecue, bacon and brisket no matter what you prefer. Your textile belts, shoes and clothing have a larger carbon footprint (see source above) than leather.
‘Sorry, Charlie.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

Sorry, but cattle WILL be slaughtered whether you approve or not.
‘Many of us will not stop eating our steak, barbecue, bacon and brisket no matter what you prefer. Your textile belts, shoes and clothing have a larger carbon footprint (see source above) than leather.
‘Sorry, Charlie.

Yeah we don't tell them to stop eating their bean curd sandwich, so why can't they let us enjoy our beef in peace.

 

[nathansz]

Anyone who claims that they can reliably measure 0.02 kg of carbon dioxide reveals a massive ignorance of experimental science. That’s 0.02 out of 15.8 or 0.1%. You are not that accurate.

That only makes sense if they were measuring based on a single square metre of product, which is obviously not the case

No one is measuring .02 kg of carbon. They are taking a massive measurement and then dividing it per square metre of product

Anyone who doesn’t understand that reveals a massive misunderstanding of stastistical analysis

Or more likely a bad faith attempt to make information they don’t like seem faulty

 

[nathansz]

Your textile belts, shoes and clothing have a larger carbon footprint (see source above) than leather.

They actually don’t. The animal still needs to be raised and killed whether it gets eaten or not.

So it’s 110kg vs 20kg

 

[nathansz]

why can't they let us enjoy our beef in peace.

Because it’s cruel, unnecessary and terrible for the environment

It’s also terrible for your health. WHO classifies beef as a carcinogen, processed beef especially so, on par with tobacco and asbestos

 

[Razorpit]

They actually don’t. The animal still needs to be raised and killed whether it gets eaten or not.

So it’s 110kg vs 20kg

This doesnt‘t make sense. Any animal raised for food will be killed and eaten. Since man learned to farm this is how it’s been.

Because it’s cruel, unnecessary and terrible for the environment

It’s also terrible for your health. WHO classifies beef as a carcinogen, processed beef especially so, on par with tobacco and asbestos

It’s life. Life is not terrible for the planet. It is what the planet has evolved to, a life supporting system, with tasty steamers, ice cream, and glorious butter. And I didn’t even get to the bacon.

We get it, you don’t like the meat industry, but as others have put it, it’s fantastic for your health, much better than any over engineered plant based cheeseburger want-a-be could ever hope to be.

 

[PBaller2]

But it still dies in the end just to satisfy your desires

And?

 

[PBaller2]

Firstly, humans were not “designed” at all.

Secondly, humans do not need to eat meat

It’s that simple. Case closed. No further discussion required

Of course we were designed aka evolved over thousands of years of natural selection.
Don't need to but some animals are very tasty when prepared correctly.

 

[PBaller2]

You are totally wrong. Let me quote from scientific American:
Killing animals and eating meat have been significant components of human evolution that had a synergistic relationship with other key attributes that have made us human, with larger brains, smaller guts, bipedalism and language. Larger brains benefited from consuming high-quality proteins in meat-containing diets, and, in turn, hunting and killing of large animals, butchering of carcasses and sharing of meat have inevitably contributed to the evolution of human intelligence in general and to the development of language and of capacities for planning, cooperation and socializing in particular.

Hear Hear!

 

[nathansz]

Of course we were designed aka evolved over thousands of years of natural selection.

If you understood anything about natural selection you would understood that it has nothing to do with the word “designed,” that it has been ongoing for much more than thousands of years, and is continuing currently.

Humans will evolve to not industrially raise animals for slaughter or we will perish