It definitely is as authoritative as *I* thought, since the source I cited is quite simply *the only authoritative source* of this information.
I was already aware of the EPEAT rating process, but *all* of the products with EPEAT ratings are rated in the manner described. Apple is not unique in rating their own products, as ArsTechnica seems to imply.
The point I was making is that contrary to what The MacObserver claimed, the Retina display MacBook Pro is listed on the EPEAT website as having a gold rating. Whether or not the rating is deserved, and whether or not the glue is a recycling problem as claimed by some–those are issues that are yet to be determined.

Here's a more authoritative source: http://ww2.epeat.net/ProductDisplay.aspx?return=pm&action=view&search=true&productid=8667&ProductType=3&epeatcountryid=1

Minimum standards are designed to bring the worst of the worst up to the lowest acceptable standard (sort of like "No Child Left Behind.") But they also have a way of dragging down the best of the best. EPEAT is more than "long in the tooth," it's downright archaic by Apple standards. In recycling (even before they had a transparent recycling program) Apple has been way ahead of other computing device companies (and Greenpeace) for at least a decade. Their design decisions in packaging and product energy efficiency alone put them far ahead of everyone else long before anyone mentioned the term "CO2 footprint."

No.
Apparently Woz actually *could* have cared less, but on considering it, he decided that he cared so little that actually caring less would have been more trouble than it was worth.
Later he determined that he cared enough to remember the incident and that it had definite value after all (That's so "him.")

"Thermite is rather hard to ignite. Explosives are much easier." [Relatively] "hard to ignite" is a feature, not a bug (especially so for manned aircraft.)

I guess I missed that physics class.

I heard it reported that the software was the most sensitive part of the drone and that it was remotely destroyed on landing. Surprises me, as I would imagine the hardware was a pretty big deal too. In any case the US doesn't seem to concerned.

++ At least *someone* has heard of a design patent (and you've only been rated a 2!)
I don't know why I bother reading Slashdot any more—definitely not anything to do with patents anyway. Any patent related post is alway smothered by morons who haven't even bothered to learn the basic principles governing patents.
While Apples design suggestions are extreme, and probably not all that helpful to Samsung (but then Samsung should pay for their own industrial design efforts,) their basic point is correct. Apple has not patented the rectangle, or rounded rectangles, or flat screens, or colors, etc. They have protected their industrial design, brand, trade dress, etc. These design patents are part of that effort, and are very reasonable. Apple basically just wants to stop Samsung's wholesale counterfeiting of Apple's packaging, design, styling, etc. Samsung's knockoffs, if you will.
I mean, come on!:
http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

Amazing what one can get used to. About 25 years ago I had to endure 2 heroic root canals. Each one tooth required about 5 or 6 45 minute sessions a few days apart. Each session involving Novocain, dental dam and various combinations of gum surgery, drilling, filing, sealing, filling, etc. By the 6th session I was falling asleep in the chair, much to the annoyance of the endodontist.

The lion's share of medical expenses lay in Pharmaceuticals. Unsurprisingly the lions share of made in medicine go to the pharmaceutical companies (although insurance companies do well also.) This is largely a result of concentrating their energy on unethical and usurious schemes involving pharmaceuticals designed to maximize profits rather than concentrating on creating pharmaceuticals that are effective for sick people.

My case is:
I don't enable flash on my devices. That makes it a pretty fracking lame platform for getting me to use anything you have developed.

I immediately thought of The Ambiguously Gay Duo. No offense to the Steves. It just seemed to have comic potential.

Yes. It's surprising that he seems to gloss over this fact (and the physical evidence of many earlier major earthquakes in the area.) I assume the article does not present his argument well. As a geology grad and Illinoian who has experienced tremors in southern Illinois first hand, I will not be one to dismiss the dangers of the New Madrid fault anytime soon. Just two years ago I had pots in my kitchen cabinets rattle from a tremor in the area, and I live 350 miles away, near Chicago. I think his view (as presented) is definitely in the minority among seismologists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/technology/21cookie.html?
Good old Flash!

Robert M, I admire that you have put your thoughts out there and gone to the effort of showing your work. Thanks.
But, honestly. There is simply no comparison between what the MS de-blurr does and what a simple sharpening filter can do. And looking by looking at the images it's totally obvious (at least to anyone who has a threshold level of photography or image processing experience.) The MS de-blurr technique is a starting point for improving the original image capture intent, not an end point. The MS de-blurr technique enhances the amount of information captured instead of degrading poorly captured information. It can be processed further by *proper* post processing image enhancement techniques and get to a much better result than what you have done with a simple Sharpen filter.
In other words, run those sharpen filters on the MS de-blurred images to see a better comparison (although the filters you used are actually not a good choice to enhance the image.)
Don't think of this technique as a replacement for a tripod or proper image capture. Rather think of it as an additional free improvement to all the other techniques.
The really cool thing about the MS de-blurr technique is that it can use onboard hardware "for free" (at least for many smart phones) to improve image capture with little effort. It could be used to great effect with any camera (with adaptation, depending on additional hardware used) DSLR, point and shoots, etc., especially if it can be run on the raw data before processing into JPEG or TIFF. If the process is computationally too intensive, it can still be used very effectively in post processing if the image is captured RAW.
Sign me up.