It Turns out Apple isn't so Green After All...

You may remember how apple has branded itself many times in the past with its clean, green, energy efficient image of long battery lives, smart production, and environmentally-conscious computers. The new macbook pro was advertised with images of green grass, blue skies, and bright sunshine in every Apple store, and they vowed to help recycle old computers. Well... they didn't quite cover all their bases on their green front; it turns out much of this effort was simply Greenwashing.

A report issued today by Greenpeace ranks tech companies by how "green" they are, based on an index that takes into account the kind of energy they use to power their data centers, manufacturing plants, and other facilities. Most of their energy use went into the data centers used to feed though all internet traffic used by Apple and its products, such as iTunes. As it turns out, a whopping two thirds of the energy for these data centers is provided by coal, arguably the dirtiest fuel used worldwide. The cleanest marks went to Google and Yahoo, who have made huge strides in making their data centers and operations more efficient.

We need companies to be smarter about their energy use. When you upload a video to Youtube, do you wanna feel guilty for adding more carbon emissions to the environment? Apple should take Facebook's lead, and disclose the information about their data centers, and start using more renewable energy, such as Solar Power, Wind, and Geothermal, to feed their huge hunger for energy. It's the responsible and smart thing to do, for the company that paints themselves as responsible, user-friendly, and efficient.
Source

Computers Replacing Doctors?

A computer program that predicts and tells you whether or not you're sick:

How do you feel about that? Telling a very complex computer algorithm (think of it as a very smart "I'm Feeling Lucky" Google search) your symptoms, and in return it tells you what you may have and whether or not you require hospitalization. Its the aim of the Heritage Provider Network. The aim of this is to cut costs of hospitalization, which i agree is a big point of the healthcare issue in our country, but I feel like it may stray from its focus. Using a scientific program can't really be substituted for a real doctor's opinion, and although doctor's may be and are wrong at times, often they can do a better job at diagnosing and treating a patient than an artificial intelligence. Also, why spend so much money developing a computer program that may or may not cut costs for hospitalization when we can simply rework the existing healthcare system that overpays doctors and sinks so much of our money into malpractice insurance and pharmaceutical fees.

Tell me what you think: Good idea, or bad science?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215314/Health_provider_seeks_algorithm_that_can_predict_illness?source=rss_news