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.
Someone ordered 3 Apple 23" screens
- Thread starter Applenewb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
photoshoped! it has to be, i don't know how anyone would benefit, it would use more time and contribute to more waste to have that... i'm sure he does all the presentation stuff himself on those computers, he did have a big 17" pb in his movie i believe...
Ummmmm why would it be photoshoped? Don't you know Mr. Gore invented the intraweb?
They look 23", and can the Mac Pro (I'm assuming that's what he's using...) handle 3 30" displays?
I have not tried it yet, but the 7300 can run one, and you can put 4 7300's in a MP. A 1900 can run 2 30" screens, but I seem to remember it is difficult to put 2 1900's in. Not positive about that though.
nope they are 20" maybe 23". He is 6'1" head size of 9" and his head fits in just over twice, three time would have been 30". If I had my more precise tools handy I could be sure.
Televisions/Monitors are measured on the diagonal, not vertically. I admit I've never seen an ACD in person but using my 32" LCD TV as perspective those look 30" to me.
Really? wow thanks. lets do the measurements again. Oh wait they're the same, maybe I had thunk this before.
ok whoops I'm eating some serious crow. I reran the tests with more precise tools and methods and got them to be 30".
Well I'm not sure about Al Gore's needs, but I can think of plenty of people who could and would need 3 and even more huge displays like that. It would be a waste for you because you're just an average consumer. It doesn't "waste time" in lots of applications especially in science or high end graphic design.
And that isn't photoshopped - he really has that. And they are 30s.
and slightly off topic, but the Gores pay extra to get all their power from renewable sources (from the article itself), so no polar cap melting implicated here.
Yeah but when you're using $30,000 in electricity a year (or as one article put it - "more than twice the amount in one month that an average American family uses in an entire year") it might be a little nicer to the environment if you both reduced your consumption AND offset your usage. Not doing too well by the whole REDUCE part of the environmentalist philosophy.
Sourced also so I'm not talking out my ass: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450
He is using renewable enery sources, I dont think he should be hassled for that. Most people are using fossil fuels for their power.
I would consider myself an enviromentalist, however if someone is using sources that don't harm the environment and does'nt hinder someone elses access to power that is fine by me.
Conservation is relevant for non-renewable sources which most of us use, therefore it makes sense to conserve not only to make sure we don't run out of oil but also as we find alternative sources.
That is just my opinion. If we find sources that are seemingly unlimited, who cares how much anyone uses?
I would consider myself an enviromentalist, however if someone is using sources that don't harm the environment and does'nt hinder someone elses access to power that is fine by me.
Conservation is relevant for non-renewable sources which most of us use, therefore it makes sense to conserve not only to make sure we don't run out of oil but also as we find alternative sources.
That is just my opinion. If we find sources that are seemingly unlimited, who cares how much anyone uses?
nice set up, certainly worth it for his needs, judging by the amount of paperwork in that office!
The problem here is when you are purchasing offset credits there are numerous positions to drop the ball. For example, were everyone in LA to suddenly get a conscience and 'offset' their energy consumption by paying to reduce pollution or to plant carbon-reducing trees in Ecuador, the net net is that pollution in LA still goes up because energy is being consumed there while a small plot of land in Ecuador (which the sequence of events goes - lush rainforest that was removing CO2 emissions to barren land that's used for subsistence farming to large companies threatening farmers and grabbing up the land to plant non-native species so they can sell 'offset credits' to the Gores) is less polluted (though obviously it would have been even less polluted had the rainforest been left to stand).
The net net of what I'm saying is a) there are facets of 'offsetting consumption' that aren't taken into account, b) reducing global pollution/consumption while concentrating local pollution doesn't help anyone, c)reducing consumption reduces the pressure of exporting our pollution and helps remove the increase in local pollution (win-win). That's why the Gores 'offsetting' their consumption is bad...