I'm going to guess that some of that money per computer is going to be used for software licenses . . . I don't know. Even with an education discount, there's more than just the cost of the hardware.

How does 120 years equal a century and a half? You have children at 30 when the book was written. Grand-Children 30 years after the book was written, Great-Grand-Children 60 years after, Great-Great-Grand-Children 90 years after, and Great-Great-Great-Grand-Children 120 years after. If you die at 70, copyright would last another 70 years, so your copyright would expire 110 years after the book was written, 10 years before your Great-Great-Great-Grand-Children are born.

If you want to believe even part of the article, then the main cause for Apple being the most to blame, is that Apple is forcing Foxconn into these conditions. Apple repeatedly demands cheaper prices, which forces the suppliers to cut safety, eliminate breaks, mandate longer shifts, etc.

It would be interesting to compare the other areas and employees of Foxconn, to see if they are all treated the same way, or if it's just the Apple production lines that are inhumane.

Personally, I've never bought an Apple product, can't stand them, and don't want anything to do with them. I like the fact that my phone and tablet have a micro-sd card slot, and that I can load my own apps that I develop. I don't need to be told what I should and shouldn't do with hardware that I own, and that maybe a one-size-fits-all OS doesn't really. For a more informed point of view, check out Steve Wozniak's comments on why he loves Android.

Back to my original point, I'm sure not every factory in China operates the way Apple is portrayed in the article. In other words, just because something is made in China, or is sold at Walmart, doesn't mean it was created with slave labor in sweatshop conditions.

The Lenovo tablet was designed to enable note taking, with an intelligent stylus that communicates with the tablet, and handwriting recognition software as well. My girlfriend has one and likes it quite a bit:

http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/tablet/thinkpad/

Well, he did steal a few people's identities, as well as who knows how many people's cellular accounts. Running up tens of thousands of dollars in cell phone bills for all of those people, with cell rates around $1 a minute.

I don't think what he did was deserving of the punishment and poor treatment he received, but he did cause problems for a lot of people.

Another thing not mentioned in his book is how many people might have lost their jobs for being too trusting to the "engineer calling from the IT security department of their company", because the company didn't have better policies in place. I'm certain some of those people he social-engineered had to have been fired, and from the stories, some of them probably deserved it.

But let's not boil it down to taking trophies for personal use when it was a lot more than that.

Right, don't try and remove carbon dioxide from the air, in fact, don't even look at the viability of it. There's absolutely no reason anybody would ever need to know how to do that.

Not at all. CO2 traps heat, specifically IR radiation. Therefore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. But there are many variables that relate to how much CO2 is in the air.

Also, where is the source for your claim that CO2 went up while temps went down? Or did you just make this up?

I'm sorry, what does Forbes magazine have to do with Climate Science?

Is it that they represent and cater to the type of organizations that need GW, and specifically AGW to not be true?

How many climate experts, you know the people who study this stuff for a living, believe in AGW? 97%

I'll do the math for you. That means 3% of climate experts don't believe or aren't sure about AGW. You'd think that number could be higher with Big Oil and conservative politicians bribing people to say differently . . .

Of all the notable scientists who believe GW is natural, including astronomers, geologists, and petroleum engineers, not a whole lot of them them offer any type of real proof, but they are listed here: 3%

Idiotic coward that can't post non-anonymously:

Since you obviously have no clue, I'll try to explain it for you. Global warming is talking about average temperature. It isn't talking about Siberia becoming a tropical zone. Slightly warmer average temperatures of only a couple degrees can melt vast amounts if not all of the polar ice caps and the ice shelves, etc. This causes much more (and much colder) moisture around the globe.

Basically, you have more hurricanes and floods when it's warm, and massive blizzards when it's cold. You're like the idiot on Faux News who showed a horrific blizzard and said, "What happened to global warming? We could use some more of that right now."