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

[Castdeath97]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What did they do to them? 

Ohh and after they had the decency to step all over it and screw it up, they had the decency to say this in their apology:

 

"The peaceful protest by Greenpeace in the area of the Nazca lines was to demonstrate the impacts of climate change and honour the historical legacy of this town who learned to live with the environment without affecting it, .." (From the same source)

 

HOW THE FIRE TRUCK DID YOU THINK STEEPING OVER IT AND SCREWING AROUND WITH IT IS GOING TO HONOR ANYTHING?!

[jagdtigger]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.   

Science can make mistakes too you know... I take the wait and see approach on this.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Science can make mistakes too you know... I take the wait and see approach on this.

Not as many mistakes as fear, misinformation and assumptions.

 

6 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

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

 

 

 

 

Typical, they just don't get it,  absolutely no fucking clue how their actions effect anything or anyone.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, mr moose said:

Not as many mistakes as fear, misinformation and assumptions.

And blind faith...

[LAwLz]

I feel like this thread has derailed a bit...

 

I think this is a really cool thing Samsung are doing. With a bit of luck we will be able to install something like a Debian based GNU/Linux distro on it. Replacing my Raspberry Pi 2 with my Galaxy S4 would be pretty nice. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And blind faith...

 

Huh? the scientific method is the exact opposite of blind faith.  Not to sure what they taught you in science at school but I wouldn't send my kids there.

[RagnarokDel]

2 hours 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".

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.

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.

 

Whoever that women is in the first video, she has an annoying voice. Jesus Christ.

[jagdtigger]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Huh? the scientific method is the exact opposite of blind faith.  Not to sure what they taught you in science at school but I wouldn't send my kids there.

That would be a big mistake. Science isnt all knowing and almighty so you shouldn't have blind faith in them. Just look at how many theories were busted even though at the time of writing they were accepted by the community... Just because we didnt found anything yet, that does not mean we didnt overlooked something. We introduce a change into the ecosystem, this change can and will affect many things that is connected to said organism. Everything has cons and pros. Like a coin, you cant have one side without the other. And if something do not have any cons ATM now that is suspicious, and potentially dangerous(always expect the worst, that way you get way less "surprises" along the way)...

[Urishima]

2 hours 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...

That is a load of crap. Free floating foreign DNA from your food is always found in your body, GMO or not. Free floating chunks of DNA can do fuck all, it's just random biomatter to be processed by your body. It takes specialized 'organisms' to fuck with your DNA. Viruses, you might've heard of them.

 

All you offer is pointless, backwards, unsubstantiated fear-mongering.

[Dash Lambda]

I was really surprised when I played the video and they talked about how you can service your devices and mentioned iFixit. This is Samsung, not exactly the worst about it but they do make mainstream, flagship-class consumer devices... Giving the nod to iFixit is really out of character.

In a very good way, of course.

 

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

-snip-

GMOs are pretty well understood, actually. All we're doing is more effective forms of what we've done since the dawn of agriculture. An example I always bring up is the fact that our bananas are absolutely nothing like they were originally, and they're genetically tailored to the point where most of them (on a genetic level) are practically clones. Of course faster changes to organisms present more risks than gradual selective breeding and whatnot, but we're not really at the point where it's dangerous, and with the way food is regulated I don't think it will be.

What GMOs actually do is solve certain very important problems more effectively than we've ever been able to do.

3 hours 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.

Ehhh... Sort of. It's not like electronics or mechanical engineering where we know exactly what it'll do, how it does it, why it does it, what it can't do, etc. We still don't even have a good way to directly modify genetics, and even with the not-so-good ways we need to poke around a bit before we have a good idea of what does what. GMOs aren't inherently dangerous, but almost no field in biology and medicine is totally complete.

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

-snip-

The blind faith thing isn't how science works, it's how people work. Scientific knowledge is presented with justification, and when people don't understand what that justification means they rely on people who purportedly do to tell them it's sufficient. I honestly think the whole thing is just because the educational philosophy of most of modern civilization is lopsided. We put way too much emphasis on humanities and whatnot, and way too little on how the world actually works.

That's why I always say people should go as far as they can in math and science in school, regardless of their actual focus. It's not that everyone will use, say, numerical integration techniques or photo-spectroscopy in day-to-day life, it's that they can judge claims and arguments correctly.

[captain_to_fire]

20 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I was really surprised when I played the video and they talked about how you can service your devices and mentioned iFixit. This is Samsung, not exactly the worst about it but they do make mainstream, flagship-class consumer devices... Giving the nod to iFixit is really out of character.

In a very good way, of course.

It's actually nice that Samsung and iFixit collaborated. I wonder if I can turn my old Galaxy Note 2 into a door lock control. I don't have an aquarium so fish tank monitor is out.

[Castdeath97]

17 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

That's like protesting diary processing hazards by doing random acts of gallon smash in an actual grocer's

Don't give them any ideas! I can see them doing this...

[captain_to_fire]

I hope someone does F@H or Ethereum mining with those 40 pieces of old Galaxy S5's

[dizmo]

Interesting. It'd be pretty cool to see a company like Honeywell get behind the initiative and make it so that you can use your older Note mounted to the wall as a thermostat. They could sell enclosures for $25, giving a nicer look and likely similar profit margins to their current products. 

 

I don't get the whole mining comparison. Yes, it's more efficient, but who mines with a CPU? 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, hey_yo_ said:

It's actually nice that Samsung and iFixit collaborated. I wonder if I can turn my old Galaxy Note 2 into a door lock control. I don't have an aquarium so fish tank monitor is out.

It has an IR blaster, right? Why not turn it into an overpowered remote and TV guide?

[HalGameGuru]

One of the Co-Creators of Greenpeace did an interview on Stefan Molyneux's podcast talking about how he no longer supports his own organization as he has come to realize they caused far more damage to the environment than they fixed by opposing nuclear power and how they now are blatantly hypocritical in doing things like running diesel boats in their at-sea protests of fossil fuels/whaling/industry/capitalism.

[vorticalbox]

6 hours ago, lobster_zoidberg said:

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

so irrelevant that it made a report against a massive company and that company made meaningful changes he uses of it. 

 

I would say that's relevant.

[dalekphalm]

41 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I don't get the whole mining comparison. Yes, it's more efficient, but who mines with a CPU? 

I actually laughed out loud when I got to the part where they were comparing 40 S5's against an i7-2600... like, wtf?

 

Sure, against a really old CPU, the S5's are more efficient. But that's like saying carrying people up 20 stories via 10 dudes spinning a rope lever system is more efficient than carrying people up 20 stories on your back. Both suck compared to an Elevator.

 

In this case, the elevator is a 20W ASIC device that will fucking smoke both the S5's and the i7.

 

You don't Bitcoin mine with CPU's, or even GPU's these days.

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

so irrelevant that it made a report against a massive company and that company made meaningful changes he uses of it. 

 

I would say that's relevant.

Greenpeace is "relevant" in that people know who they are, they're publicly visible.

 

That doesn't stop them from being a terrible organization that does far more harm than good.

[Commodus]

My concern is that this comes across as a distraction, or at best a short-term PR move while Samsung thinks about longer-term solutions.

 

Upcycling is great, but it doesn't change Samsung's lack of transparency, its virtually non-existent environmental goals and products that sometimes aren't very eco-friendly.  And the "recycling creates more waste" thing doesn't really hold water.  Products eventually have to be tossed out, and they need to be kinder to the planet when you do toss them out.

 

Greenpeace is a flawed organization in many ways, but it's hard to dispute these particular conclusions on a basic level.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

That would be a big mistake. Science isnt all knowing and almighty so you shouldn't have blind faith in them. Just look at how many theories were busted even though at the time of writing they were accepted by the community... Just because we didnt found anything yet, that does not mean we didnt overlooked something. We introduce a change into the ecosystem, this change can and will affect many things that is connected to said organism. Everything has cons and pros. Like a coin, you cant have one side without the other. And if something do not have any cons ATM now that is suspicious, and potentially dangerous(always expect the worst, that way you get way less "surprises" along the way)...

 

You should probably refrain from talking about science until you understand what it is.

 

5 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

.

Ehhh... Sort of. It's not like electronics or mechanical engineering where we know exactly what it'll do, how it does it, why it does it, what it can't do, etc. We still don't even have a good way to directly modify genetics, and even with the not-so-good ways we need to poke around a bit before we have a good idea of what does what. GMOs aren't inherently dangerous, but almost no field in biology and medicine is totally complete.

 

 

 

I was saying almost the opposite, we do know exactly what is in them (at a chemical level),  Not having an absolute total understanding of the effect each chemical is not unique to GMO's.

[jagdtigger]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You should probably refrain from talking about science until you understand what it is.

Look who is talking... If you cant understand that there is no such thing that has only flip sides then im done here.

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Look who is talking... If you cant understand that there is no such thing that has only flip sides then im done here.

 

Oh Please,    the scientific method by it's very nature is used to remove human bias,  anything that fails to do that is not considered scientific.  There is no flip side, it is a method for attaining knowledge.   Data is data, it is not contradictory, evidence is when the data points to A or B, because when it points to neither we don't refer to it as being scientific evidence.   You need to learn the difference between an unknown and scientific evidence/consensus.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Oh Please,    the scientific method by it's very nature is used to remove human bias,  anything that fails to do that is not considered scientific.  There is no flip side, it is a method for attaining knowledge.   Data is data, it is not contradictory, evidence is when the data points to A or B, because when it points to neither we don't refer to it as being scientific evidence.   You need to learn the difference between an unknown and scientific evidence/consensus.

Look an unknown factor is never good, especially not when you eat it... With all the "good" things they done with those GMO's there is a real chance that somewhere those caused some serious drawbacks(and im not only talking about us humans). Sorry but GM is still a dangerous science and it shouldn't leave laboratories...

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Look an unknown factor is never good, especially not when you eat it... With all the "good" things they done with those GMO's there is a real chance that somewhere those caused some serious drawbacks(and im not only talking about us humans). Sorry but GM is still a dangerous science and it shouldn't leave laboratories...

The unknown factor applies equally to everything you consume.   Now again, we have been consuming GMO's for 40 years, It is a heavily researched and monitored field, there is no "real" chance.  You are talking out of fear, not understanding.    Please show me the evidence that they are "dangerous" Because after 40 years we don't even have correlations let alone actual evidence.