maggiekb at January 23rd, 2014 12:22 — #1
randywalters at January 23rd, 2014 12:31 — #2
This is a profoundly significant issue; thanks for bringing this story to our attention.
duncancreamer at January 23rd, 2014 13:00 — #3
How come when I post to Facebook, it only ever wants to put in the pictures that don't relate with the story? Is that a boingboing issue or a facebook issue?
peter_henry at January 23rd, 2014 13:41 — #4
ratel at January 23rd, 2014 13:57 — #5
On the plus side, all those frustrating glaciers will be gone in a decade or so, and the desperation and chaos will throw modern concerns about pollution and the future generally out the window. On the down side, there may be a much smaller market for iPhones.
maggiekb at January 23rd, 2014 14:19 — #6
Actually, I disagree. I don't think the sentence structure here has Greenland acting on itself. Admittedly, this is a tricky example and I'm not a grammarian. I could be wrong. But your link doesn't clear that up, it just states the basic rules that led me to use lay in the first place.
pitkataistelu at January 23rd, 2014 14:47 — #7
It's not a big deal, this difference is clearly on the way out. But from a prescriptivist viewpoint I must agree with @Peter_Henry: the use is intransitive, there is no object. Replace "lay" with near-synonym "put" and you'll see that it doesn't make sense.
ambiguator at January 23rd, 2014 16:02 — #8
Tech is artificially cheap.
Instead of paying for it in dollars, we pay in human suffering and pollution.
Fortunately for developed nations, most of that suffering and pollution happens in China, so we can comfortably ignore it.
Maybe we should keep talking about Apple et al's labor practices, instead of looking for new labor markets to exploit.
peregrinus_bis at January 23rd, 2014 16:30 — #9
Also the areas of Africa which supply minerals and metals. They suffer. Very badly.
space_monkey at January 23rd, 2014 18:12 — #10
So, after all the glaciers melt, they can just strip mine the newly exposed interior cheap.
woodchuck45 at January 23rd, 2014 18:34 — #11
The post's wording implies that there's a more expensive, less earth-damaging method that could be used to mine these metals. Perhaps going that route and marketing it as a premium (as well as a popular pressure to boycott/ban the Chinese product) in a manner akin to "conflict-free" diamonds or "fair-trade" coffee could help both sides.
maggiekb at January 28th, 2014 12:22 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.