PSA - wall warts using power when they're not being used (still plugged in)

Ed Pawlowski,

FACTS.

All I need to do is point to EXACTLY what you write o To prove that all you _can_ do, is troll, Ed Pawlowski.

Simple test of fact, Ed Pawlowski.

Point to _any_ post, in this thread, where you added on-topic technical value.

Name just one.

I love that all you worthless trolls point to me as your problem set, simply because I pointed to EXACTLY what YOU posted.

You have to admit, that's pretty funny. o If it wasn't so sad.

The sad thing is that you're incapable of adding adult value. o Everyone knows this, Ed Pawlowski ... except you.

You may be right. Those other people never took the time to tell me though. Very thoughtful of you to point it out.

You are OK Arlen G, those other guys are jerks.

Just the value of pointing out what a nasty old man you are.

Read page 68 of

-------------------------------------------------- "The truth about chargers

Modern phone chargers, when left plugged in with no phone attached, use about half a watt. In our preferred units, this is a power consumption of about 0.01 kWh per day. For anyone whose consumption stack is over

I don’t think so. Obsessively switching off the phone-charger is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny a gesture it is."

--------------------------------------------------

There are power strips with individual switches for those really obsessive about that 0.01KWH per day, i.e.

Also read

He mentions set-top boxes. I decided to measure my Comcast set-top box vampire power. Indeed he is correct. My set-top box (no DVR) draws 11.3W when off, and 11.9W when on. That's 1KWH every four days or so, or about 100KWH/year. At 25¢/KWH that's $25 per year.

Plugging in phone charges to measure standby power is difficult. While that book mentions 0.5W standby, my Ubio inductive charger draws 0.0W on standby, about 6.5W when charging my iPhone with its Qi case (my iPhone doesn't have built-in inductive charging). Obviously it's drawing something when the phone isn't being charged, but my "Kill A Watt" device only measures down to 1/10 of a watt.

When I take new device out of the box I immediately attach a tag indicating what it's for.

We have another issue in California now. Because solar has become so popular, at peak production time houses are feeding more power back onto the grid than the grid can handle plus there's no good way to store the vast amounts of excess electricity being generated. The grid was not designed for two-way transmission of electricity, nor was it designed for storage. The utilities are changing the payment structure, moving the peak payments you get for solar to discourage too much power from being fed back onto the grid at peak production time.

It used to be that it was really stupid to have batteries like a Tesla Powerwall if you had solar because you didn't want to be using your valuable KWH to charge a battery, you wanted to be selling them back to the utility (in California we get the RETAIL value of KWH as credit, not the wholesale value). But now it's beginning to make sense to have batteries for financial reasons, as well as to deal with the PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoffs). What you're not allowed to do is to charge your batteries with solar during peak solar production time then feed that electricity back onto the grid during peak value time.

'uneducated"? *That* must be why my Silicon Valley employer paid me all that money, so I could retire at an very early age!

Hint: That was in yet another part which you cowardly silently snipped and dodged.

Yes, and when people pointed out that your reference was not helpful because it was 17 years old, totally outdated and therefor irrelevant, you rewarded them with your usual vitriol and childish personal attacks.

So - as usual - *you* *did* play silly childish games and - as usual -

I only posted facts. That you - apparently - don't *like* those facts, doesn't make them any less facts, nor does it make them "incessant worthless trolls".

No, you did not *point* to my words, you *quoted* them and then went on your usual dodge and divert spiel, drew in all kinds of totally irrelevant nonsense and - as usual - *never commented on what I actually wrote*.

As I've proven above, it wasn't and yes *yours* was, like it always is.

Deafening silence duly noted. Implicit admission of failure to deliver the goods duly noted.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NL.

BTW, I advise you to get your money back on your DSM qualification/ diagnosis. Yes, you exhibit one of the symptoms, total lack of social skills. But you do not exhibit any of the 'positive' symptoms. So get a second opinion.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

This post is probably the best post that you trolls will ever read.

This post assumes you own a mind that comprehends an adult topic. o Bear in mind this isn't my first rodeo with you worthless trolls.

FACT: o We proved you've never, in your entire life, ever authored a thread, to this newsgroup, that added on-topic value. o We proved (simply by pointing to your own posts), that you trolled mine.

ASSESSMENT: As I see it, Ed Pawlowski, you only have two choices, since you're actually incapable of ever authoring a thread of any on-topic value to this newsgroup (which, if you could, would have been your third option).

OPTION 1: o You, Ed Pawlowski, can _continue_ to incessantly troll threads other than those I author, and I will not feed you in the least (it's what I do now).

OPTION 2: o You, Ed Pawlowski, can continue to troll threads that I author in order to ask a question or provide on topic value, in which case, I will simply point out, as I did in this thread, that everyone you post is worthless.

You see, Ed Pawlowski, Carlos ER, Roger Blake, Frank Slootweg, et al., the decision _you_ need to make, is whether you will troll threads which I author in an attempt to ask for value or share value on the Usenet potluck.

Your choice, Frank, Carlos, Roger, and Ed Pawlowski. o Long ago, I made my decision on how I would respond to worthless trolls.

When you infest other threads than ones I care come to fruition o I ignore your worthless trolls.

When you infest a thread I author, which I care come to fruition: o I will simply point out that all you _can_ do, Ed Pawlowski, is troll.

I do that simply by pointing to _your_ posts. o Just as I proved all Frank Slootweg can do in this thread, is troll. o Just as I proved all Carlos ER can do in this thread, is troll. o Just as I proved all Roger Blake can do in this thread, is troll.

Stay out of my threads, trolls, and I will leave you along. o I've been doing that for decades; you just never noticed it. (because you're all too stupid to even realize this simple fact.)

Hi Frank Slootweg,

This post is probably the most poignant post about you o That you will ever read, in your entire life, Frank.

So listen well...

This post assumes you own a mind that comprehends an adult topic. o Bear in mind this isn't my first rodeo with you worthless trolls.

FACT: o We proved you've never, in your entire life, ever authored a thread, to this newsgroup, that added on-topic value. o We proved (simply by pointing to your own posts), that you trolled mine.

ASSESSMENT: As I see it, Frank Slootweg, you only have two choices, since you're actually incapable of ever authoring a thread of any on-topic value to this newsgroup (which, if you could, would have been your third option).

OPTION 1: o You, Frank Slootweg, can _continue_ to incessantly troll threads other than those I author, and I will not feed you in the least (it's what I do now).

OPTION 2: o You, Frank Slootweg, can continue to troll threads that I author in order to ask a question or provide on topic value, in which case, I will simply point out, as I did in this thread, that everyone you post is worthless.

You see, Frank Slootweg, Carlos ER, Roger Blake, Ed Pawlowski, et al., the decision _you_ need to make, is whether you will troll threads which I author in an attempt to ask for value or share value on the Usenet potluck.

Your choice, Ed Pawlowski, Carlos, Roger, and Frank Slootweg. o Long ago, I made my decision on how I would respond to worthless trolls.

I have a strategy for dealing with you common worthless trolls, Frank. o And I have tactics that fit that strategy to deal with your trolls.

STRATEGY When you infest other threads than ones I care come to fruition o I ignore your worthless trolls.

When you infest a thread I author, which I care come to fruition: o I will simply point out that all you _can_ do, Frank Slootweg, is troll.

I do that simply by pointing to _your_ posts, Frank Slootweg. o All I need to do is point to YOUR POSTS in this thread, Frank Slootweg. o To prove that you are a worthless ignorant common troll, Frank Slootweg. o Just as I proved all Ed Pawlowski can do in this thread, is troll. o Just as I proved all Carlos ER can do in this thread, is troll. o Just as I proved all Roger Blake can do in this thread, is troll.

Stay out of my threads, you worthless trolls, and I will leave you alone. o I've been doing that for decades; you just never noticed it. (because you're all too ignorant to even realize this simple fact.)

You can continue to troll everyone else; but if you troll threads that I care come to fruition, then expect me to point out that you are a common troll, Frank Slootweg - and - expect me to point to your own words, which you will call "whining" - but which is simply pointing to your actions.

What's "this newsgroup", Arlen? Ed has been invaluable on alt.home.repair for all the years I've been here. You, however, have been a pain in the ass every time you post.

Maybe you would find it more satisfying to avoid alt.home.repair and stick to comp.mobile.android.

Cindy Hamilton

Ed Pawlowski,

You have three choices, as I see your options, Ed Pawlowski: a. Continue to prove you are a worthless common troll b. Or go infest another thread, where I will leave you alone c. Or, better yet, author a thread of on-topic value to share

We've already proven you're incapable of the third option o As you've never once in your _entire_ life o Authored a thread to this newgroup o That added even a single iota of on-topic technical value

So, given that you're clearly ill educated, you have 2 options: a. Continue to infest threads which I care come to fruition (in which case, I will point to what _you_ write, as worthless) b. Continue to infest threads which I don't care come to fruition (in which case, you can happily troll as I will ignore you)

This isn't my first rodeo with you common worthless trolls, Ed. o You're too stupid to comprehend my strategy & tactics o So I outlined them, clearly, for you to possibly comprehend.

Hence, it's completely your choice, Ed Pawlowski (not mine). o Every time you troll threads I care about - I'll point it out.

I point out your worthless trolls - simply by pointing to what you write.

I like

c. Continue to tell you what a complete asshat you are. Ed's been doing yeoman service at that.

Cindy Hamilton

Sigh.

"Arlen Holder" ignores facts when it doesn't suit his agenda, and cites facts when it does. He is often correct but also often incorrect.

Stop denigrating others and you won't hear from me. You can't do that though. You have to show you are superior.

Very simple if you never want to hear from me.

Steve,

Grow up.

I ask you, of all people, to act like an adult. o You just said I "ignored facts" in this thread.

If there is a post, in this thread, where I "ignored facts" o Name just one

Yes, Steve, name just 1 post in this thread where I ignored facts. o Name just one

Steve, if you can't "name just one" post in this thread where your claim that I "ignored facts" shows to be true, what does that make you Steve?

Think about this, Steve. o You claim I "ignored facts"

And yet, you will fail this simplest of simple tests, Steve: o Name just one

I'm not afraid of facts like you proved to be in the Qualcomm case where you misread the terms royally (pun intended), which scares me that you didn't understand the most critical of the most important facts, Steve.

I easily proved you "ignored facts", Steve.

Again, I will prove you "ignored facts" Steve, if you can't "name just one".

Steve, Name just one post in this thread where you claim I "ignored facts". o Name just one

I'm not afraid of facts, Ed Pawlowski. o This thread was ruined the moment you trolls infested it.

FACT: I'm simply pointing you to EXACTLY what _you_ wrote, Ed Pawlowski.

FACT: You consider me pointing to EXACTLY what you wrote, a 'denigration'.

The facts are clear when you infest other threads, I ignore you. o When you infest threads I care about, I point to EXACTLY what you post.

You consider me pointing to EXACTLY what you post as "denigrating" you. o Think about that fact.

Why do you humor him? I finally got sick of his s*it and kill-filed him but I still see people replying to his endless drivel.

"Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference."

Filter him out and be done with it.

FSESSVO "poignant".

So listen well... and *for once in your life*, respond to what your 'opponent' actually *wrote*, *not* just another repeat of your off-topic irrelevat lunatic rants.

So here is another opportunity to finally do the *right* thing, use it wisely:

'uneducated"? *That* must be why my Silicon Valley employer paid me all that money, so I could retire at an very early age!

Hint: That was in yet another part which you cowardly silently snipped and dodged.

Yes, and when people pointed out that your reference was not helpful because it was 17 years old, totally outdated and therefor irrelevant, you rewarded them with your usual vitriol and childish personal attacks.

So - as usual - *you* *did* play silly childish games and - as usual -

I only posted facts. That you - apparently - don't *like* those facts, doesn't make them any less facts, nor does it make them "incessant worthless trolls".

No, you did not *point* to my words, you *quoted* them and then went on your usual dodge and divert spiel, drew in all kinds of totally irrelevant nonsense and - as usual - *never commented on what I actually wrote*.

As I've proven above, it wasn't and yes *yours* was, like it always is.

Deafening silence duly noted. Implicit admission of failure to deliver the goods duly noted.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NL.

BTW, I advise you to get your money back on your DSM qualification/ diagnosis. Yes, you exhibit one of the symptoms, total lack of social skills. But you do not exhibit any of the 'positive' symptoms. So get a second opinion.