News Microsoft and Nintendo hate the world

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/11...te_the_world/1

According to Greenpeace that is, which ranks the company as one of the worst polluters in the industry in a report released recently.

[Fod]

let's be slightly less sensationalist here: the reason nintendo scored 0 is because there was no data they could find - not because nintendo go out of their way to pollute the world.

in all fairness, nintendo should really be communicating this sorta stuff better. but for everyone to just blindly report 'omg greenpeace scored nintendo 0' shows unprofessionalism, at the very least.

edit: after actualy reading bit's article i take back some of what i said - you covered the fact nintendo didn't have any data. i just assumed it would be the same as what i've been reading everywhere else.

[Naberius]

Why don't those sad losers go and get a proper job. The amount of gases they expel just moaning about people must not be good for the environment either.

[The Chugnut]

The world's best known terrorist organisation has spoken.

Next PETA will be up in arms about cruelty in Nintendogs.

[jsheff]

This is a joke, it's become a massive "news" piece all over the place. As far as I remember, the Wii uses around 17W full load. How is THAT not environmentally friendly compared to the X360 and PS3? And they score it 0 because they have no data? Why not give it a "N/A" and average the rest of the scores. Which should also all be N/A! Apparently Nintendo signed up too close to the deadline for marking and as such could not give greenpeace the required data in time. But surely Greenpeace should have realised that labelling a company as the most environmentally unfriendly company in HISTORY simply because they didn't have the data could be somewhat detreimental to Nintendo's profits? I have a feeling the next time the marks are released Nintendo will have completely all of a sudden from out of nowhere be marked higher than Microsoft. Has anyone here had any trouble with their Wii? Gamecube? N64? SNES? Heck, even my NES still works.

[mclean007]

Originally Posted by jsheff

But surely Greenpeace should have realised that labelling a company as the most environmentally unfriendly company in HISTORY simply because they didn't have the data could be somewhat detreimental to Nintendo's profits?

Unlikely, given they are selling Wii consoles as fast as they can make them. Personally, I'd be half inclined to buy something made by a company on the Greenpeace 'blacklist' just to kick mud in the faces of some smug beardies.

[jezmck]

Originally Posted by the article

but there of levels

wtf? proof-read it, joe!

[Silver51]

Does this mean that I have hazardous chemicals in my Wii?

\^.^/

[DougEdey]

Originally Posted by Silver51

Does this mean that I have hazardous chemicals in my Wii?

\^.^/

I have hazardous chemicals in my Wee, dunno about your Wii tho

[Darth Joules]

"Greenpeace stole my hubcaps!"
"Then they sat on their porch and drank beer all day."
"They're not all they're cracked up to be,"
"They do a little more than save fish from the sea."

....from a little known Punk ditty.

[Captain Slug]

Well, I hate pretentious lists.

[specofdust]

Greenpeace are hardly a reputable organisation. They've been shown to pull numbers out of their arses on more than one occasion. Basicly, I don't trust anything an organisation like that says.

Greenpeace just deciding that Nintendo is terrible for the environment, simply because the japenese company won't release information to a group they almost certainly hate (Greenpeace ain't particularly popular over in the land of the rising sun) doesn't mean squat. And if Greenpeace are just deciding that Nintendo must be terrible, simply because Nintendo refuse to tell them about their business practises - then that's no more than petty sniping. They could equally choose to say "we don't know, so we'll assume they're the best", but they're being petty, chilidish, vindictive and no doubt anti-corporate too.

This sort of thing makes me want to go hunt whales.

edit: Actually, no, it doesn't. Whales seem pretty cool. This sort of thing makes me want to shoot stupid reprobate hippies in the face with harpoons.

[MrBurritoMan]

I have said this before on a different topic and yet it comes up again.

why do the people at bit-tech keep on referencing this greenpeace list?

it not only is a very poor way of measuring a companies actual use of "toxic chemicals" but they fail to mention exactly what these chemicals are. this list is only good for those companies who are at the top of it to use as a PR campaign. greenpeace has turned from an organization who protected the environment in the 70s and 80s to a politically driven smear campaign under a flag.

i can't believe that people refer to their shady statistics as fact.

as far as that whole climate change fiasco read this:

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=140113

[outlawaol]

My gas guzzeling behemoth car ranks in at -23.. so where is my harsh rating from the tree huggers? (I made up my own rating cause my car gets about that per mile)

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by outlawaol

My gas guzzeling behemoth car ranks in at -23.. so where is my harsh rating from the tree huggers? (I made up my own rating cause my car gets about that per mile)

I could call you an idiot, if it would make you happy? Just because the hippies are annoying as hell, and long term climate change being caused by humanity still seems debatable to an extent, there are some things that are clear.

Fuel is running out. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased significantly and still are, and this is probably bad. Fuel costs lots of money, the less we use, the more money we have.

[outlawaol]

Originally Posted by specofdust

I could call you an idiot, if it would make you happy? Just because the hippies are annoying as hell, and long term climate change being caused by humanity still seems debatable to an extent, there are some things that are clear.

Fuel is running out. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased significantly and still are, and this is probably bad. Fuel costs lots of money, the less we use, the more money we have.

I would exchange that car right now if someone where to do it with one of those hybrid's. Or that uber small compact car that (I think) Chrysler released just recently. I am dead serious. But you know what? No one would do that in their right mind because my old car is dated, and worthless to everyone but me. My car is completely paid for, done and done. I love not having a monthly payment in addition to gas. I care about the environment, but sociecty is blind to reality. I cant afford a $25k hybrid, therefore I drive what I can afford. When hybrids are cheap and used, then I'll get one. But thats a long way down the road. If you where to calculate out the monthly payment of a hybrid, the cost to drive it, maintinance and so on. I am sure it would be more then I have spent already on this car in its entireity (including gas). The surplus supply of low MPG cars is at a high, and the demand of cheap cars is at a high. 2+2 in my economics.

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by outlawaol

If you where to calculate out the monthly payment of a hybrid, the cost to drive it, maintinance and so on. I am sure it would be more then I have spent already on this car in its entireity (including gas).

Thats quite an assumption and, while I'm not saying you're wrong, you'd be better off doing the math before you made such bold and possibly foolish claims since you seem to care about the environment as much.

Everything requires sacrifice.

[outlawaol]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

Thats quite an assumption and, while I'm not saying you're wrong, you'd be better off doing the math before you made such bold and possibly foolish claims since you seem to care about the environment as much.

Everything requires sacrifice.

That was a typo (dyslexic) on my part, it *should* read. "I am sure it would be less then...."

I will also break down what I've spent on this car plus gas;

Cost of car: $900 Literally
Cost per month in gas: roughly $200-220
220x12months (about how long Ive owned it) + $900 + $120 title= $3660

Alot less, clearly, then a hybrid.

[Fod]

yes, but, you are obviously driving some peice of piss rustbucket, for $900.
also: insurance? tax? or does daddy pay for these things?

[outlawaol]

Originally Posted by Fod

yes, but, you are obviously driving some peice of piss rustbucket, for $900.
also: insurance? tax? or does daddy pay for these things?

I call it my granny mobile. But looks on a car dosnt bother me anymore. Up until I smucked a deer with it, it was a really decent looking car. Buick Roadmaster, go look it up and educate yourself before making stupid comments. V8 5.7L aint nothing to "piss" about.

I pay for my stuff, and fixed my "piece of piss rustbucket" after I killed that deer. I should've put that price in there for that, my bad, add on $200.