Falling iPhone X demand leaves Samsung Display in the lurch

Apple’s decision to slash iPhone X production has reportedly left Samsung looking for new customers to sell its OLED panels to. Samsung ramped up production capacity in order to meet Apple’s demands, only to find itself sitting on excess production capacity now that Apple has reduced its iPhone X orders. While Samsung hopes to sell […]

(via Cult of Mac – Tech and culture through an Apple lens)

Cult of Mac

Review: SleepPhones Are the Solution for Falling Asleep to Music

My daughter likes to listen to music when she sleeps, but she has ruined numerous headphones doing so, and even broke an iPad which fell off the bed, because it was connected via a wired connection. AcousticSheep has a much better alternative with their SleepPhones ($ 99.95). These are fabric headbands with speakers and a Bluetooth receive built-in. You can choose from assorted materials and colors and despite the name, use them for running as well as sleeping.

Related: How to Time Yourself with Music on Your iPhone

There are a variety of options such as a wired or wireless connection, with or without microphone. The microphone could be handy if used while jogging. The electronics are removable for charging and washing. There is even a free companion app with sounds suited for sleeping. Now that I’m spoiled with Qi-based wireless charging, I would prefer if the SleepPhones could be recharged just by placing them on a platform.

Pros

  • Comfortable for sleeping or running
  • Assorted materials and colors
  • Variety of options (wired, wireless, with or without microphone)
  • Removable for charging and washing
  • Free companion app

Cons

  • Charging could be wireless

Final Verdict

If you want to fall asleep to music, the smart and safe option is to use SleepPhones from AcousticSheep. 

Topics: 

Master your iPhone in one minute a day: Sign up here to get our FREE Tip of the Day delivered right to your inbox.
iPhone Life articles by all authors about iPhone and iPad

Swapping Coal for Wood Is Bad for the Climate, and the EU Is Falling for It

Not Truly Renewable

On January 17, lawmakers in the European Parliament voted in favor of strengthening the European Union’s renewable energy goals. The resolution, which is not yet legally binding, sets a new target for member nations, asking that each meet 35 percent of its energy needs using renewable sources by 2030. The 2009-enacted target of sourcing 20 percent of energy from renewables by 2020 is still in effect.

While that seems like a step in the right direction, not everyone is in a celebratory mood. The Parliament’s decision failed to include an amendment that proposed a cut on the use of biomass sourcing and biofuel use, which a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supposedly support.

Renewable Energy Sources Of The Future [Infographic]
Click to View Full Infographic

According to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters the day after the resolution passed, bioenergy sources such as wood may actually be more harmful than coal in the short-term.

“[A]lthough bioenergy from wood can lower long-run CO2 concentrations compared to fossil fuels, its first impact is an increase in CO2, worsening global warming over the critical period through 2100 even if the wood offsets coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel,” wrote the researchers, who are experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Climate Interactive, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Lowell Climate Change Initiative, and the UMass Lowell Department of Environmental, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences.

The authors argued that the EU’s insistence “that biofuels are carbon neutral” mistakenly presupposed that forest regrowth can adequately make up for emissions from bioenergy production and combustion. “The neutrality assumption is not valid because it ignores the transient, but decades to centuries long, increase in CO2 caused by biofuels,” the study concluded.

Emissions Are Emissions

With the EU ranking third among the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, behind only China and the United States, this mistaken notion about biomass could prove fatal to the continent’s efforts to reduce CO2 levels to meet the Paris Climate Agreement’s targets. The short-term increase in CO2 from biofuels could jeopardize the EU’s current goal of cutting emissions by at least 40 percent in 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

“A molecule of CO2 emitted today has the same impact on the climate whether it comes from coal or biomass,” study author John Sterman, the Jay W. Forrester professor of management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, told Renewables Now. “Declaring that biofuels are carbon neutral, as the EU, UK, and others have done, erroneously assumes forest regrowth happens quickly and fully offsets the emissions from biofuel production and combustion.”

Land-use specialist Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin also noticed this flaw in the new plan.

“Enabling the combustion of roundwood [full trees] for energy production creates a climate-harming carbon debt for decades to come,” he told Nature. “That is a conceptual error that runs counter the climate-mitigation goals of Europe’s renewable-energy plans.”

The EU’s decision, however, is not yet enforceable. The EU Parliament still needs to negotiate the plan with national governments and the EU Council, which just set a 27 percent renewable energy target for 2030 in December. These negotiations could address the dangers of biofuels while leaving the 30 percent renewable energy target intact.

The post Swapping Coal for Wood Is Bad for the Climate, and the EU Is Falling for It appeared first on Futurism.

Futurism

Facebook shares are falling because Wall Street doesn’t know what to make of Mark Zuckerberg’s News Feed changes

The stock is down 5 percent

Facebook is re-thinking the way it works, and that will have repercussions for users, advertisers and publishers that use the network.

The overhaul, which will first show up in Facebook’s News Feed, will be a “major change,” says Mark Zuckerberg, who says users may end up spending less time on the site.

Wall Street believes him. And for now, Wall Street thinks this is not good news: Facebook shares dropped 5 percent overnight.

Why? Here’s one theory: “There is too much uncertainty relating to the economic impact of Facebook’s pending News Feed changes for us to be comfortable,” Stifel analyst Scott Devitt said in a note this morning, when he lowered his rating on the stock from “buy” to a “hold” — even though he thinks, “Facebook is doing the right thing for the long-term sustainability of the platform.”

Context: If you bought Facebook shares a week ago, that drop looks pretty scary.

 Screenshot via Yahoo Finance

If you bought them a year ago? No problem. You’re still up more than 40 percent.

 Screenshot via Yahoo Finance

Recode – All