[mooty]

Something is bugging me about Apple's congratulations for Gore and his Nobel prize... I know I know, he is on the board, but it bugs me that they will go on about being "green", when they do the following:

- Release Apple TV's which require another mac to be powered on if you aren't synching content
- Release Leopard which

Enables searching over multiple macs - which need to be powered on to be worthwhile

Multiply this then you have alot of computers on in your home, all doing nothing, eating up energy whilst you don't use them.

Isn't this encouraging you to use up more electricity rather than encouraging us to be more frugal, so we can help Al?

[EDIT]Yes, I realise these things NEED electricity to operate, I am not expecting Apple to dream up some new way to do this!

I am simply saying that for Apple to applaud Al Gore for his work on the environment, and to actively add to the problem by encouraging us to leave electrical items powered on 24/7, they are contradicting themselves.

[torifile]

Are you being facetious?

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by mooty - Release Apple TV's which require another mac to be powered on if you aren't synching content

How would you suggest they stream content otherwise?

- Release Leopard which Enables searching over multiple macs - which need to be powered on to be worthwhile

Again, same thing.

Multiply this then you have alot of computers on in your home, all doing nothing, eating up energy whilst you don't use them. Isn't this encouraging you to use up more electricity rather than encouraging us to be more frugal, so we can help Al?

Nobody says you have to use those features. They are options, not requirements.

For you to pull contents from an electronic storage device, yes, you have to use electricity.

I really hope you're joking.

[jdcfsu]

Yeah, but at the same time Apple has been reducing the power consumption on all of their machines over the years. So while you have mulitple computers on, your total power use wouldn't be any more then a single Dell/Gateway/etc PC (given that the typical PC has ~ 300w power supply). The Mac Mini uses 25w IRC which is crazy little.

[mooty]

possibly...

it just bugs me that apple applaud the man for his work in bringing global warming to the forefront - because its a big issue, when they're just adding to the problem (albeit in a small way)...

Heck, you forgot something on your home mac - its okay, you leave it on 24/7, with .mac you can use "back to my mac" to get it...

[mooty]

LOL - I realise you need electricity for these things, I am saying that for Apple to even dream these solutions up, yet at the same time, applaud Al Gore for his work seems a little strange...

I digress, over here in the UK we are told "Don't leave your TV on standby, its a huge waste", we are actively encouraged not to waste energy - I thought it was the same everywhere? If so, then Apple's solutions are actually part of the problem - they are encouraging you to waste energy, even if you have a choice...

[autodata]

I totally agree. Also, including all of the ports on each computer totally encourages the use of peripheral devices, leading to even more energy use. Of course, Safari really exposes Apple's shameless hypocrisy since it creates a wider internet audience, leading to a greater need for more and more computers to provide services over the internet.

It's absolutely contradictory that Apple engages in such devious practices while applauding Al Gore's environmental advocacy.

[mooty]

Originally Posted by autodata I totally agree. Also, including all of the ports on each computer totally encourages the use of peripheral devices, leading to even more energy use. Of course, Safari really exposes Apple's shameless hypocrisy since it creates a wider internet audience, leading to a greater need for more and more computers to provide services over the internet. It's absolutely contradictory that Apple engages in such devious practices while applauding Al Gore's environmental advocacy.

You can be an ass about it, but your "examples" are fine if you are USING the computer... I am talking about computers, several of them, being left on, 24/7 - doing NOTHING other than sporadic spotlight searching or alike!

[chucker]

Actually, the Apple TV is a perfectly fine, but rare, example of how Apple is not being anywhere near as environmentally friendly as they ought to be. Not only does it lack any kind of power switch (you'd have to plug out the cable); its stand-by mode also draws almost as much power as its regular mode.

[ghoti]

Mooty has a point, and it's not a moot one . They are of course in the business of making shiny electronics, and those use power. But they could make some better decisions, for example making people not charge their iPhones and iPods on the computer. I'm sure lots of computers stay on over night just so they can charge some gizmo. With FireWire, at least you could put the computer to sleep while still providing power to the port. And there are other examples.

Also, autodata's point is not so far off. Every time you google for a website that you have a bookmark for (or that you could have a bookmark for because you go there often), you use resources. And those are quite significant, a Google search uses quite a bit of computing and thus electrical power. Of course you're going to say "But the servers are there anyway!", but you're adding to their load and you're adding to the motivation for Google to build even more data centers with even more servers using power 24/7.

All these little decisions have consequences, and with hundreds of millions of users, they add up.

[jdcfsu]

At the same time you cant tell people to stop using Google because it'll lead to further energy use and the fact that iPods and the like charge using the computer is far better then requiring a second AC plug to get it charged.

When it comes down to it there are far better ways to save the environment then worrying about an ELECTRONICS companies use of ELECTRICITY, especially when they do better then a lot of companies in that regard. Al Gore is on the Board at Apple. There is no way they weren't going to publicly congratulate him because they happen to make products that use electricity which rely on fossil fuels which therefore are killing the planet...

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by ghoti Every time you google for a website that you have a bookmark for (or that you could have a bookmark for because you go there often), you use resources. And those are quite significant, a Google search uses quite a bit of computing and thus electrical power. Of course you're going to say "But the servers are there anyway!", but you're adding to their load and you're adding to the motivation for Google to build even more data centers with even more servers using power 24/7.

But they're all solar and shit.

[Banana]

Erm, I do not get this whining about wasting the energy.

The net balance will, always, almost without exceptions be *deficit*. Heck, the best you can hope for is equilibrium, but never more than that. See: Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Even if we were all living in caves, we'd be still using energy to keep warm and club an wild animal for tonight's dinner, and a ridiculous amount of solar power would be wasted as heat, which is irreversible.

The real reason, as I see it, to be concerned about our energy usage is mainly because of pollution effects associated with it. Global warming is driven by power plants (not sure what the extent, but I'd imagine it is a big player here). Of course, this could be pretty much solved had we built a couple more nuclear power plants.

But then those "environmentalists" got their panties in knots so we closed what we had down and buried radioactive wastes. Now we're digging it up because it's leaking into our rivers when it has several other uses. But one rem is enough to trigger a hysteria (OMGZ!!1! MY B@BY W!33 bE 3ree eyed!!1! OH NOES!).

So right now we're sitting around with computers drawing power from coal burners complaining how it's not green? What a crock of shit.