New Voyage coming in November _ rumour [FALSE]

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

Actualy, once the battery is fully charged, most devices stop charging and start working from the AC.
So you're not constantly charging the battery.

If you look at your cellphone, you'll see once it reaches 99-100% it'll stop charging, and whatever you use, will be used from AC, not from battery.

My husband's cell phone says unplug to save power when it is charged.

[ProDigit]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

My husband's cell phone says unplug to save power when it is charged.

Have you ever measured the powerdraw of a cellphone charger charging a charged phone?
I did.
My Killawat meter can measure upto 0.5W. Anything below is registered as '0W'.
While I'm sure it's not 0W, even if it was 0.5W, do you know how much it costs you to keep it plugged in 24/7 for a whole year?

In USA the math is very simple.
As a rule of the thumb, you look at the wattage the device uses.
Take that number, and that's the amount of dollars you pay, leaving it plugged in 24/7 for a whole year.

In other words, if you have a 60W lightbulb, and keep it burning for a whole year, 24/7, never turn it off,
it'll cost you roundabout $60 that year on electricity.

That being said,
If the charger with phone on fully charged, or even without phone, was plugged in 24/7, it will cost you less than $0,5 per year on electricity.

Not worth the cost of unplugging and risking battery loss over here...

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

Have you ever measured the powerdraw of a cellphone charger charging a charged phone?
I did.
My Killawat meter can measure upto 0.5W. Anything below is registered as '0W'.
While I'm sure it's not 0W, even if it was 0.5W, do you know how much it costs you to keep it plugged in 24/7 for a whole year?

In USA the math is very simple.
As a rule of the thumb, you look at the wattage the device uses.
Take that number, and that's the amount of dollars you pay, leaving it plugged in 24/7 for a whole year.

In other words, if you have a 60W lightbulb, and keep it burning for a whole year, 24/7, never turn it off,
it'll cost you roundabout $60 that year on electricity.

That being said,
If the charger with phone on fully charged, or even without phone, was plugged in 24/7, it will cost you less than $0,5 per year on electricity.

Not worth the cost of unplugging and risking battery loss over here...

Hey thanks for that tip. Especially since electricity we pay for is done in kilowatts not watts.
Oh wait at 15 cents a kilowatt or 1000 watts can you double check your math.
Oh and except for the hall light none of my lights are over 23watts.

Well now I have met some people that would tell you to spend $1000 because you need to save energy in the amount of less than 1 kilowatt a year.
Heck it cost more energy than that to build the refrigerator.

I told that person if they thought I needed a new refrigerator that bad, they could buy it for me.

So Yea sometimes the savings is not worth it.
Rather like unplugging your cable box to save pennies. If it goes out because you are constantly powering it down, you will owe cable at least $200.

[ProDigit]

at 0.5Wh running a whole year, or 8760 hours, and 15ct per KWh, you'd be using up:
"4,380W" (or <4,4kW) * $.15 = $0.657; which is slightly more than the $0.5 I predicted.
Electricity over here costs 11ct/kW.

Now, if you'd only leave your phone plugged in charged status for 12 hours a day, it'll become about $0.33 on electricity for an entire year.
Worth it?


Your math should be multiply the watt rating by 1.5 (for 15ct/kW)to get your annual budget.

A 23W bulb would use 23 * 1.5 = $34.5 per year, leaving it on 24/7.
If you only leave it on 8 hours a day, it'll use only 1/3rd of the amount above, or ~$11.5 a year.

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I haven't visited them since I've seen them use parts of my posts around here as a part of their articles.

Am I such a genius then? No, but on some things, I have a very outspoken opinion, such as DRM. Sometimes I extrapolated these opinions and the arguments underpinning them to their logical extreme to make a point of what *could* happen in the worst case.

GoodEReader / Michael Kozlowski has repeatedly presented some of those posts as 'rumours within the ebook community', and once even as a fact of what *would* happen in the near future.

I call that clickbait.

I believe they just wanted traffic on their site while making this delirious attempt at crowdfunding what imho is going to be nothing but vaporware.

[shanghaichica]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I didn't know about their pirate past.

Honestly, I just don't like them because they seem clueless half the time. When they've reviewed something I'm familiar with (the Nook I own or a couple of Android comic reader apps) they make basic mistakes and don't tend to cover stuff in depth. When they review something I'm not familiar with, I just assume it's done with the same lack of care they used on other videos.

yet they seem to waffle on for ages in their review videos but don't end up saying anything useful.

[pdurrant]

This rumour has definitely proved to be false.

Thread reopened by popular demand.

[pdurrant]

OK, re-opened by request. Although I'm not sure why people want to discuss (even further!) a rumour that is 100% false.

[pdurrant]

Perhaps we could discuss the false rumour (I'm just making it up now) that Amazon will be launching a 300ppi full-colour liquavista-based Kindle on 1st April 2016?

[Cinisajoy]

Hey Paul,
Because we are bored, or procrastinating cleaning a deep fryer.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

or procrastinating cleaning a deep fryer.

OK, that's a reason I can understand.

[barryem]

I think the key to enjoying goodereader.com and Michael Koslowski's antics with his Peter is to realize that they're just a couple of 10 year old kids playing at being bloggers. They're just making it all up as they go along because that's the game they're playing.

When I was a kid we played cowboys and indians, shooting each other dead with cap pistols. They're playing a different game but they're playing it pretty much in the same way.

Now think about a scene where a few kids are playing cops and robbers and a bunch of grownups in uniFORUM are mocking them, saying things like "that's not a real gun, silly" and "he's not really an indian, you fool". Which group, the kids playing or the adults taking it seriously, are the most worthy of ridicule?

Barry

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think the key to enjoying goodereader.com and Michael Koslowski's antics with his Peter is to realize that they're just a couple of 10 year old kids playing at being bloggers. They're just making it all up as they go along because that's the game they're playing.

When I was a kid we played cowboys and indians, shooting each other dead with cap pistols. They're playing a different game but they're playing it pretty much in the same way.

Now think about a scene where a few kids are playing cops and robbers and a bunch of grownups in uniFORUM are mocking them, saying things like "that's not a real gun, silly" and "he's not really an indian, you fool". Which group, the kids playing or the adults taking it seriously, are the most worthy of ridicule?

Barry

And how is this getting a deep fryer cleaned?
Love your analogy.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think the key to enjoying goodereader.com and Michael Koslowski's antics with his Peter

What is his Peter, exactly?

[Cinisajoy]

@eschwartz, I so read those two quotes together wrong.