The Barisieur alarm clock automatically brews coffee while you wake
It’s no secret the first five minutes of consciousness for many of us each morning involves brewing a cup o’ joe. Well to help get a jump-start on things, designer Joshua Renouf has developed a striking alarm clock that starts the process before you even get out of bed. Using induction heating and stainless steel ball bearings, the Barisieur boils water for pour-over brew, giving off the aroma of your favorite beans as you rise to start the day. There’s even a cooled slot for a spot of milk and storage for sugar and extra grounds. Renouf plays up the ritual of loading the unit before nodding off as an activity that helps alert the body that it’s time to catch some shut-eye. Though there’s only one for now, plans are in motion to produce the multitasker that’s said to retail for £150-£250 (around $250-$420). While a retail option is in the works, we should have ample time to stash away our loose change.

Filed under: Household
Via: BoredPanda
Source: Joshua Renouf
.CPlase_panel display:none;
New York hotel tried to charge $500 fines for negative online reviews

Big brands and colossal companies spend small fortunes to protect their online reputations, so what’s a small boutique hotel to do when it’s worried about bad reviews? Well, for an object lesson in what not to do, consider the case of Hudson, NY’s Union Street Guest House. By now, the broad strokes have been well established: the company had a ridiculous policy featured on its website, under which bad reviews were punishable with $500 fines. Here’s the offending bit, before the hotel excised it from the web:
If you have booked the Inn for a wedding or other type of event anywhere in the region and given us a deposit of any kind for guests to stay at USGH there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review of USGH placed on any internet site by anyone in your party and/or attending your wedding or event. If you stay here to attend a wedding anywhere in the area and leave us a negative review on any internet site you agree to a $500. fine for each negative review.
Naturally, the press found out and thoroughly poked at the hotel while disgruntled guests and trolls torpedoed the establishment’s rating on Yelp. In a bid to calm those ravenous reviewers, though, the hotel may have committed the greatest sin of all: lying to cover its butt. You see, after the offending policy was removed the from website, a representative from the Union Street Guest House posted a response on Facebook (which, curiously, has also since been deleted) to refute the accusations:
The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced.
Here’s the thing, though: that doesn’t actually appear to be the truth. According to an email conversation obtained by Engadget from a former guest, the USGH has attempted to fine at least one newly married couple for a scathing review left by one of their guests. From an email dated October 30, 2013:

One would hope that over time, the hotel would just suck it up, learn its lesson, and move on. Not quite. An email sent the next month after more critical online feedback from the same guest illustrates just how seriously the Union Street Guest House considered this policy:

Eventually, the hotel owner personally joined the fray and apologized to the guests for an less-than-optimal stay. He explained that although he was saddened by the situation, the staff wouldn’t issue a refund unless the negative reviews were pulled from the web. They weren’t. In the end though, the hotel was sort of telling the truth: according to the guest, the couple was never actually charged the $500 fine so the hotel didn’t actually enforce its paranoid edict. Of course, that’s not to say it didn’t try for months before apparently giving up the fight.
You can’t blame the folks at the USGH for trying to maintain a particular image. You can, however, blame them for being restrictive, overzealous and woefully misguided. We live in the future, where critiques and opinions streak across the web in an instant — learn from them, take them to heart, or ignore them, but know that you’ll never really control them.
We’ve reached out to the Union Street Guest House for comment, and will update this story if we hear back.
Source: New York Post
.CPlase_panel display:none;
Adobe Releases Guide on Transitioning Photos From Aperture to Lightroom [Mac Blog]
Back in June, Apple announced plans to discontinue development on both Aperture and iPhoto in favor of the new Photos app that will be added to both iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite in the future.
Adobe took advantage of Aperture’s discontinuation, announcing its own plans to create a tool to help former Aperture and iPhoto customers transition to Lightroom, Adobe’s professional photo editing software.
Adobe today released a guide [PDF] for users who are interested in making the switch from Aperture to Lightroom immediately, which can be accessed from the Adobe website.
In the guide, Adobe notes that a simple tool remains in development, but for users who don’t mind going through a detailed migration process, it’s possible to switch from Aperture to Lightroom immediately. The process involves creating a full backup, exporting original photos from Aperture, exporting TIFF versions of edited Aperture photos, and importing the content to Lightroom.
Adobe’s guide also includes links to learning more about how to use Lightroom and it points users towards Adobe’s Creative Cloud Photography plan, which offers access to Lightroom for desktop, web, and mobile along with Photoshop CC for $9.99 per month.
Users who don’t want to go through the hassle of exporting and importing files from Aperture to Lightroom can wait for Adobe’s migration tool to be completed.
While Apple is ceasing development on Aperture in favor of Photos, early screenshots of the app and information from Apple representatives has suggested that some of Aperture’s professional-grade features may make it into the Photos app. Photos will also include tools to allow users to import iPhoto and Aperture libraries into the new app.![]()
.CPlase_panel display:none;
Apple’s Arizona Sapphire Facility ‘Commencing the Transition to Volume Production’
Apple’s sapphire partner GT Advanced Technologies today announced financial results for the second quarter of 2014, acknowledging publicly that the companies’ facility in Mesa, Arizona is “commencing the transition to volume production.”
“The build-out of our Arizona facility, which has involved taking a 1.4 million square foot facility from a shell to a functional structure as well as the installation of sapphire growth and fabrication equipment, is nearly complete and we are commencing the transition to volume production,” Gutierrez continued. “We remain confident about the long-term potential of the sapphire materials business for GT.
Overall, GT reported a net loss of $86 million for the quarter, a result that is not unexpected given that the company is significantly restructuring itself as part of the Apple deal, essentially shutting down its sales of sapphire furnaces to other customers in order to devote all of those resources to setting up the Arizona facility for Apple. The facility is owned by Apple and being run by GT, with Apple providing some upfront financing to help get production rolling.
GT allocated over $45 million to “sapphire production ramp up costs” during the quarter, with the company stating that those costs relate to “production inefficiencies and inventory losses” associated with building out its facilities and are not part of ongoing operations for the company. That amount is up from just $1.9 million in the prior quarter, signaling the company’s massive move to launch production for Apple.
Apple has used sapphire for the camera lens cover on several iOS devices and for the Touch ID sensor on the iPhone 5s, but the company is pursuing a massive increase in sapphire usage for future products. The iPhone 6 display has been rumored to include a sapphire cover, but rumors are divided on whether the material will be included on all models or just higher-end models, as well as whether the entire cover will be full sapphire or a thinner lamination layer.
Apple’s rumored iWatch has also been speculated to include a sapphire cover, as the material is fairly common on high-end watches to minimize scratching.
(Image: GT sapphire furnace)![]()
.CPlase_panel display:none;
U.S. Department of Transportation to Pursue Ban on In-Flight Cell Phone Calls
The United States Department of Transportation has plans to pursue a ban on in-flight phone calls, reports The Wall Street Journal. In a speech last week at the International Aviation Club, general counsel of the Department Kathryn Thompson suggested restrictions were in the works, and a DOT spokesperson later confirmed the plans.
A spokeswoman confirmed that the DOT is developing “a notice of proposed rulemaking” for publication in December. “At this point, there is no final determination” as to what the notice or the final rule will say, said another spokeswoman.
The Department of Transportation’s move to pursue a ban on in-flight cellular phone calls follows an FCC proposal to overturn the current restrictions that prevent airline passengers from making phone calls and using cellular data while in flight.
The existing rules state that all cellular telephones on board an aircraft must be turned off when an aircraft leaves the ground in order to keep them from interfering with ground networks, but the FCC no longer believes in-flight interference is an issue. In 2013, the FCC officially relaxed its restrictions on the use of portable electronics in flight, allowing them to be used during landing and takeoff while in Airplane Mode.
After the FCC suggested it might permit cellular phone usage in flight, the Department of Transportation, airlines, and several other consumer groups expressed concern over the disruption voice calls could introduce if permitted in flight. Though airlines have largely been against in-flight cell phone calls, they believe the final decision on in-flight calls should be left up to them rather than in government control.
“Airlines aren’t clamoring to allow mobile-phone use during flight, and some have already said they’d prohibit it on their own flights,” said Jeffrey Shane, general counsel for the International Air Transport Association, and a former senior Transportation Department policy maker. But Mr. Shane said some carriers may want to explore passenger-friendly ways to introduce calls, such as in-flight phone booths or quiet zones.
The FCC is continuing to investigate the safety of allowing cell phone service on planes, and a ban on voice calls from the Department of Transportation, which supersedes any FCC decision, may result in a situation where customers are permitted to use cellular data in-flight for texting and web browsing but are banned from making voice calls. The Department of Transportation is expected to release more information on a potential ban in December.![]()
.CPlase_panel display:none;




