internet of things Greenpeace slammed Samsung for not being environment friendly. Samsung responded by introducing "Upcycling"

[captain_to_fire]

Sources: Greenpeace, Engadget, Bitcoin, Github (Samsung), Motherboard

 

Quote

From Greenpeace GGE2017_Samsung.pdf:

 

Samsung currently occupies a critical position of influence over whether our devices are designed and built for the planet. Samsung is both the world’s largest manufacturer of smartphones and is also one of the largest manufacturers of memory, displays, and the integrated circuits that serve as the engines for our electronic devices, making the company a critical supplier to many of the other companies in this year’s Guide, including Apple. Unfortunately, in neither Samsung’s product lines nor the operation of its factories did we find much evidence that reducing Samsung’s environmental impact has been been made a priority by the company’s leadership. Samsung has not kept pace with the efforts of Apple to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint and transition its factories to renewable sources of energy, and has seen its emissions rapidly climb as a result. (Emphasis added)

So Samsung got slammed by Greenpeace but instead of whining and calling Greenpeace fake news, they acted like adults and showcased the ways to repurpose old Galaxy smartphones as show from their Github account. Samsung said that recycling will just produce more waste and more costs when breaking down an old smartphone so they instead encourage re-purposing which they call "Upcycling".

Quote

Upcycling is a great way to keep old devices alive and it can't easily happen without the original manufacturer's support. "The challenge with keeping old electronics running a long time is software," Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, told me over the phone. "With phones in particular, the old software is insecure and doesn't run the new apps. So the question is, if you have this perfectly functional piece of hardware that doesn't have good software anymore and you want to keep it running for ten years, how do you do that?" 

 

Wiens and iFixit are good at answering that question. His site is an open source resource for people looking to fix their electronics themselves. Wiens and his team are helping Samsung repair old S3s to use for the upcycling project. "You couldn't really do this as a third party," he told me. "What [Samsung] built is a layer between the hardware and you being able to install anything you want on it. It's a step lower than jailbreaking, it's removing Android entirely."

 

Samsung's upcycling project has a placeholder github with a video explaining its process. "They're setting up a maker magazine style portfolio of projects," Wiens explained. The site will work by allowing users to download software that removes Android and opens the devices up to other forms of software. From there, users can browse a wide variety of homebrew software and projects.

 

The platform will be open, so users can make and upload their own projects and software once it launches. In an example from a Samsung promotional video, a user downloaded fish monitoring software to an old Galaxy S3 and ordered the sensors for the water right from the website. After it's all set up, the user has a device that monitors the PH balance and heat of the fish tank. It even allows the pet owner to snap pics of their swimmers or turn the lights on and off.

Together in partnership with iFixit, they encourage owners of older Samsung phones to use them as IoT devices like a fish tank monitor using an old Galaxy S3, smart pet bowl, an arcade gaming console, and other new ways.

One crazy DIY is that it can be used for Bitcoin mining when Samsung strung 40 Galaxy S5's and as it turns out, it can be more efficient in mining than a desktop PC according to Samsung.

Quote

Although scant technical specifications have been made available regarding the rig, Samsung has reportedly claimed that eight Samsung Galaxy S5s can mine with superior energy efficiency compared to a standard desktop computer.

 

The mining rig was unveiled during a recent Samsung developer conference held in San Francisco. The rig is the brainchild of Samsung’s Creative Lab – an internal hub for innovation and development within Samsung that is located at the Samsung Digital City in Korea.

So they compared the performance of a Galaxy S5 vs an Intel core 17-2600 but unfortunately, I can't find any tests results of these chips that uses the same benchmark and I'm skeptical if an ARM chip like the Snapdragon 801 used by the GS5 is faster than a Sandy Bridge locked i7. Personally I have a bad experience with the Snapdragon 801 because my old LG G3 is constantly thermal throttling but it's probably because it has to power a QHD resolution. Also, wouldn't collecting 40 pieces of old Samsung phones be more cumbersome than just building a dedicated PC for mining?

 

Nonetheless it's a great initiative from Samsung and I hope other companies follow the suit. To be honest, I don't think Apple is following Samsung's steps since they don't want people hacking iOS to do crazy things like DIY IoT and I don't think the jailbreaking community is interested as many of them just submit bugs to Apple and get paid. I was thinking of re-purposing my old Galaxy Note 2 but the wifi no longer works at this moment and it's having awful screen burn in and whites are becoming yellow.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by hey_yo_

[lobster_zoidberg]

Greenpeace is a disgrace and so irrelevant that nobody will care. 

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, lobster_zoidberg said:

Greenpeace is a disgrace and so irrelevant that nobody will care. 

Said by who?

[jagdtigger]

I wonder who paid them to do this...

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

I wonder who paid them to do this...

Samsung? They just responded to the Greenpeace report by doing the Upcycling initiative.

[AlTech]

24 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Sources: Greenpeace, Engadget, Bitcoin, Github (Samsung), Motherboard

 

So Samsung got slammed by Greenpeace but instead of whining and calling Greenpeace fake news, they acted like adults and showcased the ways to repurpose old Galaxy smartphones as show from their Github account. Samsung said that recycling will just produce more waste and more costs when breaking down an old smartphone so they instead encourage re-purposing which they call "Upcycling".

Btw, the term upcycling isn't a Samsung term.

 

People following the industry for a while who are engineers etc have been wanting upcycling to happen in phones for a while.

Quote

Together in partnership with iFixit, they encourage owners of older Samsung phones to use them as IoT devices like a fish tank monitor using an old Galaxy S3, smart pet bowl, an arcade gaming console, and other new ways.

 

One crazy DIY is that it can be used for Bitcoin mining when Samsung strung 40 Galaxy S5's and as it turns out, it can be more efficient in mining than a desktop PC according to Samsung.

 

i7-2600

Quote

but unfortunately, I can't find any tests results of these chips that uses the same benchmark and I'm skeptical if an ARM chip like the Snapdragon 801 used by the GS5 is faster than a Sandy Bridge locked i7.

They're not saying it's faster.

 

The S5 cluster has better performance per watt with mining but the i7 is still overall faster and consumes loads more power when doing so.

 

Quote

Nonetheless it's a great initiative from Samsung and I hope other companies follow the suit. To be honest, I don't think Apple is following Samsung's steps since they don't want people hacking iOS to do crazy things like DIY IoT and I don't think the jailbreaking community is interested as many of them just submit bugs to Apple and get paid. I was thinking of re-purposing my old Galaxy Note 2 but the wifi no longer works at this moment and it's having awful screen burn in and whites are becoming yellow.

 

 

They could also collect people's old Samsung Devices when they upgrade and then factory reset them, check for damage and then sell them to other customers as refurbished parts.

 

E.g. when S9 comes out, if you're tired of your S8 you should be able to give it back to them/sell it to them and then they could certify it as refurbished and sell it for a cheaper price than the new one.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Samsung? They just responded to the Greenpeace report by doing the Upcycling initiative.

Or some of their competitors, it apparently backfired on them .

[captain_to_fire]

13 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Or some of their competitors, it apparently backfired on them .

Samsung could as well lobby Greenpeace since they too have deep pockets but they didn’t. 

15 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

E.g. when S9 comes out, if you're tired of your S8 you should be able to give it back to them/sell it to them and then they could certify it as refurbished and sell it for a cheaper price than the new one.

This has been done already for many years. https://www.gazelle.com/trade-in 

 

Although I think it would be better for them to extract precious metals from their old Galaxy phones just like this one in Taiwan 

 

[elfensky]

42 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Said by who?

@lobster_zoidberg

[mr moose]

45 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Said by who?

Me,  Greenpeace do more damage to this planet and the human race than most people realise.  They deeply oppose nuclear (one of, if not the,  the greenest energy technologies we have) and they oppose GM food crops, which require less land, less water and less pesticides plus are nutrient enriched and drought hardy for third world countries.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/?utm_term=.f1391a6da688

 

 

 

[Agosto]

Sooo

Will I be able to use my old SGS+ to control, for example, a small greenhouse LED illumination?

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Me,  Greenpeace do more damage to this planet and the human race than most people realise.  They deeply oppose nuclear (one of, if not the,  the greenest energy technologies we have) and they oppose GM food crops, which require less land, less water and less pesticides plus are nutrient enriched and drought hardy for third world countries.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/?utm_term=.f1391a6da688

 

 

 

Because we still do not know what are the long term effect of them? What you listed are only benefits and short term observations. But GM is a dangerous thing to do. Now we only see the upsides but its very possible that in the long term we will pay for it dearly. "You are what you eat..." as they say.

[captain_to_fire]

17 minutes ago, Agost said:

Sooo

Will I be able to use my old SGS+ to control, for example, a small greenhouse LED illumination?

It could 

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Me,  Greenpeace do more damage to this planet and the human race than most people realise.  They deeply oppose nuclear (one of, if not the,  the greenest energy technologies we have) and they oppose GM food crops, which require less land, less water and less pesticides plus are nutrient enriched and drought hardy for third world countries.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/?utm_term=.f1391a6da688

 

 

 

Damn I didn’t know that. Thanks for that information about their shenanigans. But yes I’d rather have newer generation nuclear power plant than burning fossil fuels which is more detrimental. It’s sad that they’re opposing GMOs because it’s one of humanity’s biggest achievements. Without GMOs insulin and growth hormone would be very expensive. With GMOs, crops are more resilient to extreme weather conditions and pests and would no longer require toxic pesticides and by adding genes requiring to synthesize nutrients to crops, we can solve malnutrition. 

 

But then Greenpeace has been at the forefront in raising concerns about companies spilling toxic substances into oceans thus killing marine life (e.g. Exxon Valdez oil spill) and deforestation which has a very negative consequence especially on mountains leading to flash flooding and landslides. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by hey_yo_

[kilgore_T]

greenpeace have incredibly suspect motivations these days

[captain_to_fire]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

But GM is a dangerous thing to do. Now we only see the upsides but its very possible that in the long term we will pay for it dearly. "You are what you eat..." as they say.

Just like any tools, they’re double edge swords. Fire can be used to cook or burn a house. Uranium-235 can be used to generate electricity for decades or build an ICBM. While what we know about GM is just at the tip of the iceberg, why should we let the negative side of a scientific discovery throttle it’s potential for the good. Without GMs insulin would be very disgusting and expensive and millions of diabetics will die. Without GMOs, crops will require pesticides which are toxic and yield would be very low. Without GMOs, we might as well throw research for incurable diseases away. 

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Just like any tools, they’re double edge swords. Fire can be used to cook or burn a house. Uranium-235 can be used to generate electricity for decades or build an ICBM. While what we know about GM is just at the tip of the iceberg, why should we let the negative side of a scientific discovery throttle it’s potential for the good. Without GMs insulin would be very disgusting and expensive and millions of diabetics will die. Without GMOs, crops will require pesticides which are toxic and yield would be very low. Without GMOs, we might as well throw research for incurable diseases away. 

The problem with this double edged sword is that we do not know the kons. We should first test it in a closed environment to get a clear what the risks are in the long run if there is any and how badly it can end. If you didnt watched Splice i think you should.

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Because we still do not know what are the long term effect of them? What you listed are only benefits and short term observations. But GM is a dangerous thing to do. Now we only see the upsides but its very possible that in the long term we will pay for it dearly. "You are what you eat..." as they say.

 

That's not how GMO's work,  we know exactly what chemicals are in the GMO foods,  there is no downside to eating them.

[jagdtigger]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

That's not how GMO's work,  we know exactly what chemicals are in the GMO foods,  there is no downside to eating them.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/09/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transfered-to-humans-who-eat-them-2/

 

And this is just one article, you can find the rest with google. We know too little about this whole GM thing. How it will affect other species when they eat said GMO. For instance the diseases that are less threat to the GMO's, this increased resistance could cause said disease to mutate and become stronger. We arent going back to step one, but even further back because now there is no way to defend the original organism from that disease. I want Pandora's box to remain closed thank you...

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/09/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transfered-to-humans-who-eat-them-2/

 

And this is just one article, you can find the rest with google. We know too little about this whole GM thing. How it will affect other species when they eat said GMO. For instance the diseases that are less threat to the GMO's, this increased resistance could cause said disease to mutate and become stronger. We arent going back to step one, but even further back because now there is no way to defend the original organism from that disease. I want Pandora's box to remain closed thank you...

 

GMO's have been on our tables for the last 40 years, there is little to no evidence of human illness or change due to GMO foods.  That article you posted doesn't actually change anything.  In fact all it does is emphasize how little a GMO's NOEL is.  

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

GMO's have been on our tables for the last 40 years, there is little to no evidence of human illness or change due to GMO foods.  That article you posted doesn't actually change anything.  In fact all it does is emphasize how little a GMO's NOEL is.  

Well in my country they arent allowed so doubt it... Plus dont forget how study's with undesired results can be suppressed. Just because there is no public info about any illness caused by them doesnt mean its not exist, or we just didnt discovered the connection...

Edited November 1, 2017 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Well in my country they arent allowed so doubt it...

Not being allowed and being bad are two different things, remember being gay is not allowed in lots of countries.

 

Countries make laws and keep laws that are based on all sorts of fear and misinformation.  I am going to put my faith in the scientific consensus of the entire scientific community over a bunch of assuming greenies and some crunchy mums.   

[captain_to_fire]

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

-snip-

I read the article and the thing is, just because free floating DNA from food is found in the blood would it mean that it’ll integrate to our own genome. White blood cells like neutrophils, macrophages and dendritic cells will most likely ingest that and destroy it and the harsh acidic environment plus digestive enzymes called DNases will cleave and reduce DNA into individual purines and pyrimidines. The only way for a foreign DNA to be introduced to our own genome is either via viral infection (e.g. Herpes Simplex 1&2, HIV, etc) or through genetic engineering via Recombinant DNA technology through restriction enzymes (old) or through CRISPR (new). 

 

So nothing to worry about DNA of GMOs free floating in the blood. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by hey_yo_

[Castdeath97]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Me,  Greenpeace do more damage to this planet and the human race than most people realise.  They deeply oppose nuclear (one of, if not the,  the greenest energy technologies we have) and they oppose GM food crops, which require less land, less water and less pesticides plus are nutrient enriched and drought hardy for third world countries.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/?utm_term=.f1391a6da688

 

 

 

Plus, they are a bunch of careless morons. Still pissed off about them screwing up with the Nazca lines.

[mr moose]

Just now, Castdeath97 said:

Plus, they are a bunch of careless morons. Still pissed off about them screwing up with the Nazca lines.

What did they do to them? 

[Castdeath97]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What did they do to them? 

Ohh boy you wouldn't like it that is for certain. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30422994