Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DAM Pops Energy Star's Bubble

Posted by Soulskill on from the one-dam-problem-after-another dept.

Martin Hellman writes "Last month we discussed a major problem with the EPA's Energy Star program. A Sony TV that was advertised to draw less than 0.1 watts in standby mode was actually drawing 15 watts — 150 times the stated value. A lack of information in the user manual and a poor response from Sony led me to suspect the problem was with the Electronic Program Guide feature, but a lack of information in the User Guide and a lack of response from Sony made it impossible to be sure — or to turn off the EPG. At current prices, that power consumption cost me about as much as a subscription to TV Guide magazine! The EPG was not as free as the on screen instructions would have you believe. Now, Device Guru reports on the resolution of that issue. As suspected, the problem was with the EPG, and there is a way to turn it off — now documented in that story. The problem is probably not unique to Sony or TVs that claim Energy Star compliance (devices are self-certified by the manufacturers!), so picking up a power meter is likely to have a good return on investment. As a result of this waste of power, the EPA is planning for future versions of the Energy Star requirements to limit the amount of time a TV can spend in Download Acquisition Mode (DAM) as the time for acquiring the EPG is known."

147 comments

  1. Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

    INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
    You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

    CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
    Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

    HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
    Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

    FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
    Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

    MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
    Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most

    1. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can't there be a way to filter out comments that have "N**GER" in it say more than two times?

    2. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by sorak · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Mod parent up. He is asking a legitimate question about how to prevent troll-posts from appearing. Even if you feel that such a policy (a limitation on how many times one can use the N-word in a single post), is censorship, his question isn't "trolling"

    3. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it must be at least seven words away from the word "guy".

    4. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hilarious. You ask for a filter on the string "N**GGER", but the comment to which you replied doesn't contain that string even once!

    5. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I used to use the word nigger a lot. We had some niggers next door who would do stuff like steal the neighborhood's bikes, occasionally harbor a garage full of strange cars or ATVs, do burnouts in the street, congregate in my back yard, fight dogs in their own, and generally behave in a loud fashion whenever the temperature rose above 75 degrees. Those jobless niggers had a swat team kick their back door in twice in the past year.

      Except, generally, the niggers next door where fair skinned with blond hair. There was an occasional black person over there, and the color was never a problem -- the problem was the behavior. Nigger described this better than any other word I could conjure.

      I explained this once to a good friend of mine that I've known my entire life, who happens to be a black man who is both better educated than I and who has been around the block a few more times. He told me that, though he appreciated the fact that my use of nigger was not racially descriptive, that it was still an ugly word. I explained to him a bit more about the situation with the niggers next door, and he agreed with me that their behavior is not something that should be socially-acceptable in what is otherwise a very decent neighborhood.

      He told me that the a more descriptive and less hurtful term might be that they were doing some gangsta shit, or perhaps that they were up to some nigga shit, but that using nigger, no matter how good my intentions were, was probably the wrong thing to do.

      I've been using those terms since, except right now to illustrate a point.

      Is my use of the word "nigger" in this post, as a description and pontification of how I learned to better use English, a troll which should be automatically modded down? It's offtopic in an energy discussion, for sure, but I'm not trolling. I'm just relaying a snippet of my life for those who will read it.

      For this reason, we need human moderators, not automated an censor.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    6. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      In communist Germany, first they came for the naggers,
      And I didn't speak up because I did not nag.
      Then they came for the nudgers,
      And I didn't speak up because I did not nudge.
      Then they came for the teen-agers, and gerbils.
      Then they came for me, but by that time there were
      NO GERmans left to speak up.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    7. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is still offensive. *nothing* you described deviates from calling someone a 'redneck' either.

      Calling them low income, uneducated, drug dealing morons still conveys everything you want to convey..unless you wanted to convey they were *black*, in which case you refute your own argument.

      I will say installing a filter for known uses, such as more than one of the phrases "Installing your N*****", "Housing your N*****" etc, seems a reasonable thing to do, since most of these posts are pretty much canned.

      But if such a filter were installed just for N***** and it caused me to miss your ever so informative piece of garbage...sign me up now...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by sorak · · Score: 1

      And you could have said the exact same thing without using the N-word at all. I don't agree with your point about calling the people next door n****rs, and would feel that you were being a troll, if you decided to use another ethnicity into a synonym for "criminal".

      I personally don't care if the GPs suggestion is put in place or not (and doubt if it ever will). The policy GP proposed was that the frequency of the word be limited to two more than what you would expect to hear in any reasonable conversation.

      My objection was that the GP was modded "troll" for making a suggestion that people disagree with. That is censorship as well, but of a different kind. GP was suggesting that we censor words, and modders were censoring ideas. I would rather the idea be brought up and shot down, than modded down.

      I think it is also very telling that my post was modded "troll" twice, because of the horribly offensive things I said (I have no complaints about those who modded it off-topic).

    9. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by KoldFusion77 · · Score: 1

      Sure. But the most amazing thing about this post was that it proves cousin humping inbred Jed can indeed spell.

    10. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by adolf · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      You didn't read my post. The folks next door were white. My description of them as being niggers was, therefore, not racial.

      Words are good. All of them. Some of them are more powerful than others, and some of them are more hurtful than others. But all words (all of them) are good.

      We have truly reached a new low in society if wherein it is suggested that one cannot discuss a word if such a discussion involves use of that word. If you, sir, see my discussion of the word "nigger," in pontification of how I learned how not to use the word "nigger," then you sir are as blind and stupid as the bigotry which you seem to attempt to renounce.

      So blind, in fact, that you cannot see that I am trying to prevent further abuses of the term. Where are we, kindergarten? Should I really write "n*****" instead of "nigger" on such a liberal forum as Slashdot?

      Were you in Salem in 1692, I expect that you'd have been one of the ones in the streets with a torch or a pitchfork.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    11. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by sorak · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      You didn't read my post. The folks next door were white. My description of them as being niggers was, therefore, not racial.

      I read you post and got that. But calling someone a "white nigger" is still an insult to black people, even if the person you meant to insult is actually white. The fact that you went from saying "stop acting like a nigger" to "stop acting like a nigga" does not change anything.

      We have truly reached a new low in society if wherein it is suggested that one cannot discuss a word if such a discussion involves use of that word.

      Correction: If it involves repeated use of the word.

      If you, sir, see my discussion of the word "nigger," in pontification of how I learned how not to use the word "nigger," then you sir are as blind and stupid as the bigotry which you seem to attempt to renounce.

      I can only assume that the purpose of gratuitous use of the word in a way that accomplished nothing, was intended to provoke people. And now you're playing the innocent victim because somebody called you out on it.

      So blind, in fact, that you cannot see that I am trying to prevent further abuses of the term.

      No, you aren't trying to prevent further abuse. you're trying to rewrite the dictionary so that people don't mind being called niggers. Unfortunately, that word is tied in with another time in America. Trying to divorce a racial epithet from its connotations is pointless. You can't put a happy face on an atrocity and expect the people affected by it to just smile and move on.

      Were you in Salem in 1692, I expect that you'd have been one of the ones in the streets with a torch or a pitchfork.

      No, I'd probably be running from those people. I assume that you'd be the guy running down the street yelling "n****r" at the top of his lungs.

    12. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by adolf · · Score: 1

      No, I'd probably be running from those people. I assume that you'd be the guy running down the street yelling "n****r" at the top of his lungs.

      And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. You're afraid of words. I understand; myself, I'm afraid of spiders.

      I'm really very sorry.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
  2. Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a little like hiring the A-team to eradicate your rat infestation. You're paying a premium to save money in the long run, but the long run simply isn't long enough to justify the short-term expense.

    Do you work in the credit industry?

    1. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's a little like hiring the A-team to eradicate your rat infestation. You're paying a premium to save money in the long run, but the long run simply isn't long enough to justify the short-term expense.

      No, this is simply misleading advertising/fraud. Sony claims the TV meets standard X, and it doesn't.

      Summon the lawyers, and file a class action lawsuit.

      Odds are pretty good many other TV manufacturers do the same thing.

    2. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The extra-amount paid ($10?) is more than made-up for over a TV's 20-year-lifespan.* Of course that assumes the programmers actually did a good job with the energy-saving features. My DTVpal (made by Dish) turns on every 6 hours to update its program guide, which is just ridiculous, and defeats the "5 watt maximum" requirement imposed by the FCC. The guide can wait to be updated until the next time I watch television.

      I prefer how my large-screen TV operates. When it's off, it's off. If you want to turn it back on, you have to physically press the big button; it doesn't even respond to a remote. Absolutely zero parasitic power drain.

      *
      *(20 or more years for my sets anyway. I still have my original Atari TV from the 1970s.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by poetmatt · · Score: 0

      I agree and disagree. I agree that having the TV actually turn on does indeed make it violate the requirement, and is basically a waste of power. Manufacturer's intent might not have been "Scam" but it is something that could use a fixing.

      Meanwhile, your large-screen TV does not operate with 0 power drain when it's off. A completely off TV draws some sort of wattage, and TV's have their own form of standby if they are new.

    4. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Eevee · · Score: 1

      The guide can wait to be updated until the next time I watch television.

      It can wait if you aren't recording a show with an external device or the providers never change program schedules without warning. The market for the DVDPal, however, does includes people who record shows and have to live with providers who change programs without warning. Is six hours too often? Yes. But there needs to be some sort of scheduled updates for unattended recording.

    5. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mine does.

      I use a fucking power strip on it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by DavidTC · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The real problem here is the single-wattage power converters.

      So that every slight power trickle turns the thing on full. Which is a real hassle when the device has a remote control (Although that has mostly been fixed.) or a clock like a microware (The entire concept there just pisses me off. Microwaves do not need to know the time.)

      Or, now, downloading information from the internet, or an internal timer to record TV shows.

      If every device that wanted to do that simply came with the equivalent of a 100mA 4.5v wall wart in addition to the real power supply, (But built in, obviously, off the same power connection.) we'd save a lot of power. But it would cost a good three or four dollars more, so that's never going to happen.

      Computers have actually done this for years, although they do it a little too much. (Powering random USB devices while off is a bit silly.) But their power supplies all have a mode where instead of supplying 450 watts at five or six voltages, they only supply a few watts at 5v, and it seems to be a microscopic power drain.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      You jest, but that's what I do too. All my console systems, TV, ethernet switch (for those devices), speakers, everything but the alarm clock get turned off via the power switch at night. Why pay for something that I'm not going to be using for the next 7+ hours?

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    8. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plus, you don't have to worry about lightning. (Assuming you don't care about a 7 dollar alarm clock.)

      I was actually going to get one of those kill-a-watt measuring devices to see if it would be worthwhile to install power strips on my microwave and see how much various chargers were drawing when not hooked up, or when hooked up but the device is fully charged. I have a theory they're sucking power, and I could just leave the strip on for an hour a day when everything's plugged in.

      But I discovered those things were like 100 dollars. I thought they'd be more along the lines of the cost of multimeters, which are like 10 bucks for cheap ones.

      Hey, Obama, hear that? How about a rebate for those things for those of us trying to save energy? Or, I hear in a few places, you can apparently borrow them from the public library. How about federal grants for that?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, where are you trying to buy them from? I can get the lower-capacity one for $20, and a higher-capacity one for $40 (sorry, I can't remember the specs) - and I'm in Canada. (For those who don't know, electronic gadgets are generally at least 10% more expensive up here in my experience).

      Here you go, ThinkGeek has them for $25. Mind you, those only have one plug on them - you can plug a power strip into them, but you'd have to make sure you don't overload it.

            --- Mr. DOS

    10. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I was trying to buy them at Home Depot, which was the only place I could find them. This was about a year ago. I think they were $89.99.

      I didn't realize they had insane markup there, thanks.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      For ease of use, I have a remote-control powerstrip that I can turn off from a distance.

      Well, put on standby.

    12. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by hjf · · Score: 2, Informative

      what? first: a 100mA 4.5V wall-wart uses 0.45W at full-load and inefficiency load makes it use 0.9W. even on 1% load it still draws about 50% of its rating.

      second: where do you get the single-wattage power converter idea???? at least Philips TVs, even the cheapest one sold for about USD 150 here in Argentina has dual power supplies. A so-called "burst" psu which makes it use less than 0.5W on standby. That's the "standby" psu. It also has a full-power psu. the microprocessor is constantly going into "sleep" mode to save even more power, it uses so little energy that you can unplug it and the standby led will stay on for a couple of minutes (!). Newer models don't even have a standby led to save even more power (it turns itself off after a few seconds).

      Philips audio sets also have "eco-power": they even turn off the VFD and don't show the time while on standby.

      (Disclaimer: I work as an authorized philips repair technician. I learned all that in training)

    13. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I have one of those Kill A Watt devices. I discovered leaving the TV turned on is no worse than a ~70 watt lightbulb. Not a big deal. (Figure 60 cents a month.) The big guzzlers are the refrigerator, stove, and heater. Around 1000 watts each and 10,000 for the heat pump.

      One surprise was the microwave which is sucking 5 watts all day long. I now unplug it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>The market for the DVDPal includes people who record shows and have to live with providers who change programs without warning.

      The DTVpal will update itself if Heroes moves to 10pm instead of its usual 9pm, but the external VCR or DVR will still be recording 9pm. The DTVpal might as well stay off until the user turns it back on, and then update.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by DRACO- · · Score: 1

      I got mine for 24 bucks at palm harbor, an import hardware store.

      I've seen them at frys for 29.

      --
      Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
    16. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by hansonc · · Score: 1

      I'd love to start a class action lawsuit so an attorney can get rich while I get a $5 off coupon on my next $2000 HDTV. Where do I sign up?

    17. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Fridges can guzzle quite a lot while they are cooling but they shouldn't be spending much time doing that and afaict should be averaging less than 100W. If they are averaging much more than that then there is probablly something wrong with them (or they keep getting left open)

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    18. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      a 100mA 4.5V wall-wart uses 0.45W at full-load and inefficiency load makes it use 0.9W. even on 1% load it still draws about 50% of its rating.

      I believe you missed what I was saying. I know power supplies are wasteful with minor loads. That's why I said devices that regularly draw large amounts of power should have another power supply, roughly as powerful as a random wallwart, that runs the device in standby.

      I'm failing to see how you didn't grasp this when you immediately went on and stated that's what Philips TVs have. It's illogical to say 'You don't know what you're talking about with separate power supplies being a good idea...oh, and people already do that.'?

      As for your insistence that Philips TV currently have such a system: Good for them. I didn't implied they didn't. The 'Energy Star' initiative has been very good for TVs and, as I said, the problem with them in their standby mode (So you can use the remote) has mostly been fixed. Some with separate power supplies, some with capacitors and batteries.

      That doesn't mean it's been fixed in, for example, microwaves. Or DVD players. Or refrigerators, which often suck power even when the compressor isn't running.

      Those things often have one power supply still, and run it 24/7 at 1% of their load, drawing, as you said, 50% of their normal power.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by RudeIota · · Score: 1

      $89.99? They weren't and they aren't. I bought one a year ago at Home Depot for the same prices listed here. You must have seen a different brand or something. ;)

      --
      Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    20. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

      I have one of those Kill A Watt devices. I discovered leaving the TV turned on is no worse than a ~70 watt lightbulb. Not a big deal. (Figure 60 cents a month.)

      Lessee here...

      70 W * 24Hr/Day * 30 days/month* .001 kW/W = 50.4 kWh / month

      Damn, you're only paying 1.2 cents per kwh?

    21. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I was figuring 10 hours a day, and limited only to weekends (since I'm at work during Monday-to-Friday).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little like ....

      It's a lot more like the "EPA estimated mileage", which is a load of crap. So scientific that they can't even calibrate it with real life tests in a real car. They can't even directly measure the amount of fuel used in the test. Instead, they sniff the exhaust and "calculate" from the combustion products how much they guess they used.

      Then they let these idiots advertise, "We have six cars that get over 30 mpg" (fat chance) when my 86 Toyota Corolla was getting 33 mpg when the original engine went at 220,000 miles.

      What progress, guys.

    23. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Summon the lawyers

      I'm out of mana! Does anyone have a potion?!

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    24. Re:Buying a low-power TV to save on costs by hjf · · Score: 1

      Chillax dude... don't get so defensive.

      I doubt it has anything to do with Energy Star cause those TVs are designed in Europe. All decent quality electronics stuff (as opposed to cheap chinese-designed) draw really little power, and that includes microwave ovens, dvd players, microwave ovens... even cordless phones.

      A good way to know if it's an "efficient" power supply is the "finger test". You let it run in stand by for a whole day, then touch the supply. If it's cold then it's very efficient: even 1W of power in those almost-airtight cases will get pretty warm in a few hours.

      My laptop comes with a 90W supply, no fans or anything. It's amazing how cool it stays compared to an inefficient desktop PSU which will die if it has no fans (yes, the brick gets really hot to the touch, 50C). And when I unplug it (laptop-side), it quickly cools down.

      LOL! And I don't know what kind of refrigerator you have. I have a really old-school one with a thermostat. When it's off, it's off. It disconnects the compressor and no power runs through it or anywhere else on the fridge. I've seen the new models with lots of LEDs and buttons and I keep asking myself "why?"... "party mode"? "vacation mode"? dude, who the fuck uses those "features"?

  3. Why would the EPA bother changing the requirements by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could require devices to generate energy while on standby (by vapourizing invisible pink unicorns), and manufacturers could keep self-certifying their devices as compliant.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. My freezer has the same problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    My Freezer has an energy star rating also, but I see that it too, downloads TV listings and so is exempt. Same with my toaster. It is supposed to draw 0 Watts when not toasting, but because it's downloading TV listings, it draws 1500 watts continuously and glows like a red pepper. I also have a blender, Energy star rated, but because it downloads TV listings it too draws 1500 watts and glows red hot also... make is kinda hard to chop up ice cubes!

  5. Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by krischik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do whe have:

    1) Rootkits by Sony BMG.
    2) Non existent customer service and end of live / support in less the 6 month by Sony Ericsson.
    4) Insistence on prohibitory memory stick by all Sony departments.
    5) Lying on Energy Star Rating by Sony Electronics.

    Well Sony is on my the list of evil corporation for quite a while now and it does not look they are getting of the list any soon.

    Martin

    1. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by kramer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not only that, but they are probably responsible for stealing your third argument!

    2. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't here wankers like you moaning about Pioneer doing the same thing across their entire range.

    3. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't here wankers like you moaning about Pioneer doing the same thing across their entire range.

      We will be if it's true, now that you've mentioned it. But as the GP points out, Sony has some additional evil elements that tend to really piss us off, all the more so because Sony used to be our hero. After all, they were the outfit that won the court decision that affirmed the legality of the VCR, home taping, and time shifting.

      Sad thing is, there's probably a good chunk of Sony's current management that regrets having done that.

      Sony, frankly, sucks.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by SolidAltar · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mod parent up

    5. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't here wankers

      "hear".

    6. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by kbdd · · Score: 1

      Yes, Sony really is evil :-)

    7. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I just patented the act and the process of making the third argument. There can be no third argument in any discussion unless a license is aquired from the foundation of ACs. A licensee will obtain the license at a reasonable portion of their moderation powers. Any unauthorised use of the third argument can lead to a criminal prosecution and punishment (such as a troll or a flamebait moderation) as required by the TRIPS agreement.

    8. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know what's really going to make the your head asplode?

      Sony TVs come with a printed version of the GPL and LGPL!
      (also the license statements for OpenSSL, FreeType2, Expat, Curl, Popt, and libjpeg)

      ...and, yes, they provide the link to the source code.

      They're evil, but they're in compliance with the GPL.
      They're evil, but they're in compliance with the GPL.
      They're evil, but they're in compilance with the GPL.

      *BOOM*

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    9. Re:Yet another reason not to buy Sony any longer. by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      3) They shut down Lik-Sang * through multiple lawsuits in different languages in different European countries for selling *Sony's* PSP (japanese model) in Europe.

      The lawsuit claimed that these devices (made by Sony) were untested and therefore unsafe for the European market. Just this last week I prevented someone from buying two very large screen Sony flatpanels (combined cost of ~$6,000 or more) and instead educated them on the different brand choices from which they bough instead (doing my part!).

      * Lik-Sang was one of the best places to import hard (or nearly impossible to find) games and game accessories. They had one hell of a dreamcast accessory section too...

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  6. Meter the meter by rxmd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Picking up a power meter is likely to have a good return on investment.

    Remember to pick only Energy Star-compliant power meters, though!

    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
    1. Re:Meter the meter by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      Hey, did you hear that Sony's started making their own Kill-A-Watts to be packaged with new TV's? ;)

            --- Mr. DOS

  7. Everything On A Switch by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is why I have all of my electronics go through a wall switch. TVs, amps, cable boxes, game systems, etc... all continue to draw power even when off. Flip the wall switch on your way out and you have a low-tech way to fight this problem.

    The only downside is that the digital cable box takes a few minutes to start. Actually, come to think of it, it's more of an upside since I get tired of waiting and go do something more productive instead of watching TV.

    1. Re:Everything On A Switch by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      What is the wear and tear on the devices to keep powering down like that? These devices are designed to be always-on, so you may be risking reduced life-span and more frequent hardware replacement by saving a few pennies by using a kill switch.

      I have a Toshiba DVR which has failed twice due to power failures. The extended warranty has paid itself off, but this doesn't seem like something that should fail. Unfortunately it does, so I question the wisdom of your plan in the long run.

    2. Re:Everything On A Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I obviously turn off the devices first. At that point they are supposed to be drawing very little power. If they are drawing enough power, even when off, that powering up and down is going to harm then why have an off button on the device at all?

    3. Re:Everything On A Switch by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 1

      The internal batteries (for the clock and such) in those devices are not going to like it, especially not if they are turned off like that for prolonged periods of time.

      As for the digital cable box, I'm wondering how much energy is wasted that way.

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    4. Re:Everything On A Switch by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      I recognize the likelihood that the DVR's problems stem from being powered down while on, but when it takes more than a minute to start up, I am not so quick to judge anyone who leaves the machine on all the time.

      It wouldn't be too hard to put a rechargeable LiON battery in the set to provide backup power in the case that main power suddenly went out. If the device can detect when main power goes out, it can switch over to battery power to perform a safe shutdown instead of doing whatever bad things it does that forces me to take it in for repair/replacement.

    5. Re:Everything On A Switch by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      This is why I have all of my electronics go through a wall switch. TVs, amps, cable boxes, game systems, etc... all continue to draw power even when off. Flip the wall switch on your way out and you have a low-tech way to fight this problem.

      The only downside is that the digital cable box takes a few minutes to start. Actually, come to think of it, it's more of an upside since I get tired of waiting and go do something more productive instead of watching TV.

      That's great so long as those devices are capable of preserving their configuration when disconnected from the line. If your cable box, say, only has a supercap for memory backup, it may lose its setup after a few hours.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Everything On A Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      These devices are designed to be always-on,

      A cunningly good idea!

      yours,
      CEO of your local Electricity Supply Corporation

    7. Re:Everything On A Switch by Angostura · · Score: 1

      I do the same. In the UK at least it is possible to get cheap remote-control power switches that plug into your mains socket, which avoids all the scrabbling behind sets. The ones I have use a multi-channel set up, so you can have one set of sockets go off at one push of a button, and another set of sockets set to go off with another button.

    8. Re:Everything On A Switch by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      if all one's computer stuff is on a power strip, why not put your other gadgets on a power strip too? :)

      Or, go the low-tech way and simply unplug the thing.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    9. Re:Everything On A Switch by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      You shouldn't be flipping a DVR on and off. Not only is that harmful, as DVRs are computers with filesystems and whatnot that can lose integrity, but it defeats the purpose of having a DVR. (And many of them can't be shut down correctly in any easy manner.)

      It's your TV that really needs to be on a power switch, along with possibly your amp. (My damn stereo has a light to indicate it's off. Yeah, thanks for that.) And DVD players, many of which don't even have the concept of 'off'. And VCRs that aren't used for recording if you still have one of those around. And don't forget AV switches...don't need to switch around if nothing's turn on.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:Everything On A Switch by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      What we need is a programmable 'IR relay' power strip like that.

      They need to have an IR sensor, that you program for each plug by aiming the remote of the thing plugged into that outlet at it and pressing 'power'. So that when it senses that, it turns said device on...and five seconds later, it repeats the IR signal to actually turn the device on. (Might be nice to be able to program the delay.)

      And then it waits and cuts power off when it gets the signal again.

      Of course, there are ways around this. A lot of existing TVs actually turn back on if you unplugged them when they were on. Mine, on a power strip, does. Flip back on the strip and it's on. This combined with the fact I use other devices for tuning and sound, means I don't actually use the remote or power button for it at all. (Well, I turn it off if I'm just listening to music.) And unlike a lot of power features, you can probably test this in the store, although you should ask permission before unplugging display models.

      I've also seen stereo amps that had a power-out on the back that came on when they were turned on, intended for TVs that automatically came back on.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Everything On A Switch by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Mine does lose its setup, but I generally have to power cycle it once a week to regain a signal that has suddenly cut out, so I don't really see it as an additional burden.

      It's Comcastic!

    12. Re:Everything On A Switch by jelle · · Score: 1

      Buy a kill-a-watt and see for yourself.

      http://www.google.com/products?q=kill-a-watt

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    13. Re:Everything On A Switch by antdude · · Score: 1

      Better than flipping off. Just unplug it!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    14. Re:Everything On A Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You shouldn't be flipping a DVR on and off. Not only is that harmful, as DVRs are computers with filesystems and whatnot that can lose integrity, but it defeats the purpose of having a DVR. (And many of them can't be shut down correctly in any easy manner.)

      It's your TV that really needs to be on a power switch, along with possibly your amp.

      Agreed, cutting power to a DVR is not a good thing.

      But I am afraid to put my TV on a wall switch, or anything else that can cut the power to it.

      I have a 52" DiLA television, which runs on a very hot mercury bulb. When I turn off my TV, a fan runs for 5 minutes or so to cool the bulb down and keep it from melting the innards of the TV set.
      If my power goes out suddenly, or a light switch accidentally gets gets turned off by the gandkids, the fan cannot cool the bulb down, and my $2500.00 TV goes dark for good, because the $200.00 mercury bulb just melted the innards.
      And if the innards do manage to survive, the bulb surely won't. How many times do I want to replace that $200.00 bulb ?

      So, my solution from the start was to put the TV on a Uninterruptable Power Supply. I am pretty dang sure that the UPS has saved this TV several times over the last 3 years during lightning storms and other power outages.
      I've also got the satellite receiver on the same UPS, for it's own protection.

      A great benefit of this is that it's handy when the power goes out, my TV / Sat box are still on.
      I can still see the weather radar on channel 13.
      And, if the power hasn't come back on in 5 or 10 minutes, I power down the Sat receiver and the TV the way they are supposed to be turned off, the fan in the TV keeps running until things cool off, and everything is good.

      As an aside, I haven't had to replace that bulb in the TV since I bought the set new, and I attribute that to the fact I have it on that UPS that keeps a steady supply of power to the set.
      I see in forums that others with this particular TV plugged into the wall outlets have had to replace their bulbs within 15 months, give or take a few months.

      Other than that, though, everything else in the house gets shut down and turned off.

    15. Re:Everything On A Switch by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Sadly I don't know the name of it (I'm at work, it's at home) but I have a 6 way extension with a master socket. The TV plugs into the master socket and when the TV is turned off (I spliced a switch into the cable so I could switch the damn thing off) the extension senses the master socket is not drawing power and cuts off power to the other sockets.

      As a bonus it does surge protection too so all in all is a nice simple solution and about £ 10 well spent.

      Then again I only watch TV for about 3 hours a month so could probably just get rid of it altogether :)

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  8. Odd that you say that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I really do not know that much about consumer electronics(tv, stereo) anymore. When we went to several different stores, I was surprised that all of them said that Sony no longer has the customer service and their equipment tends to fail quickly. Picked up a Samsung instead.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Odd that you say that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't really surprising. Most people are pissed at Sony for one thing or another, most in GP's list.

  9. price of TV GUIDE by farnham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can get a subscription to TV Guide for eleven dollars ans a quarter?
    are you sure that' snot an introductory rate?
    that's at my local average of 8.55 cents per kilowatt hour.

    --
    pending committee review
    1. Re:price of TV GUIDE by CoolVC · · Score: 1

      hell, you can buy the whole company for a dollar

    2. Re:price of TV GUIDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to add the fuel fee, the "regulatory compliance fee", The "fee processing fee" and the "because we can" fee.

      I got caught in that trap, too. It looks like my electricity is $0.09 per kWh, but it's actually ~$0.17 per kWh, and that's without folding in the "fixed" fees and charges.

  10. Zero power consumption by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

    DVD-player, TV, cable-box and Wii are on the same energy block, one master-plug in the wall-socket enables/disables all of it. It's unplugged 8 hours per day, and several hours per day: I guess it's the best/cheapest solution .

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    1. Re:Zero power consumption by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Erm, you should really use a power strip with an on/off switch instead of plugging and unplugging.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  11. Somehow, I doubt it. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Picking up a power meter is likely to have a good return on investment.

    Well, only if you can use it to test new appliance BEFORE you buy them. Otherwise, you're going to be spending a lot of time buying things and returning them.

    Frankly, my time is worth enough that spending more than three or four hours shopping for a new TV (or any other appliance) is a bad idea. Which means that buying something, then wasting time analyzing the power usage, returning it, buying another one, repeat endlessly is a complete waste of time and money.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, only if you can use it to test new appliance BEFORE you buy them. Otherwise, you're going to be spending a lot of time buying things and returning them.

      Or, you use your results to file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. You'll get millions, while everyone else gets a coupon redeemable for a new TV.

    2. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, only if you can use it to test new appliance BEFORE you buy them.

      Which may very well prove nothing. If the device only wakes up every few hours to download new information, you might not even detect the extra power drain when running your test in the store.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by jshackney · · Score: 2, Funny

      Frankly, my time is worth enough that spending more than three or four hours shopping for a new TV (or any other appliance) is a bad idea.

      Just a little ribbing, but I'd think you have a little more free time than you let on.

    4. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Or not detect it at all anyway, if the device has decided not to download it not hooked up to cable.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Frankly, my time is worth enough that spending more than three or four hours shopping for a new TV (or any other appliance) is a bad idea.

      I could see that spending extra time sweating relatively small stuff would be counterproductive, but unless you have a very good relationship with a store that lets you return things because "I didn't like it", you probably need to spend more than 3 hours deciding when you are buying something that will last 10 or more years.

      I have quite literally spent 3 hours helping a friend pick out a new home-theater receiver because he needs to answer the question "will it work with my existing stuff?" One of the only ways to find out is to read the manual for each model. Worse, the same manufacturer doesn't always keep features consistent, so a "better" model might not have features that lesser models have.

      Without the Internet, this would have been 10-12 hour job, as the only way would be to go to stores and ask to read the manual.

    6. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Why don't you join Consumer Reports, then ask them to start including power consumption (both on and off) in their television specs and ratings? They are a non-profit third-party organization that does this kind of testing for us.

      I'm a consumer reports member. I just sent the following note to them:

      Energy consumption is a major factor when considering electronics purchases. As a recent story illustrates (http://www.deviceguru.com/hdtvs-dam-pops-energy-stars-bubble/), a device could consume significantly more energy than advertised, even when it has "earned" an energy star rating. Could you please start to test electronics (especially televisions) with a power monitor device? It would be trivially easy to do so then report the power consumed when on AND off. While other ratings like home appliances are tested for power consumption, I see no data for televisions.

      This way, for a small fee, you can make an informed decision before making the first purchase. And by using a third-party non-profit testing organization to hone your buying decisions, you are helping the market drive quality without added government regulation.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:Somehow, I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not a lot of posts. I could post that much in an hour. There's a difference between free time and time spent on a task like buying a TV.

  12. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    They could require devices to generate energy while on standby (by vapourizing invisible pink unicorns), and manufacturers could keep self-certifying their devices as compliant.

    That, or use magic pixie dust.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  13. 15 Watts isn't _that_expensive by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 0

    was actually drawing 15 watts... At current prices, that power consumption cost me about as much as a subscription to TV Guide magazine!

    A constant draw of 15 watts is (15/1000)*24*30 = 10.8 Kwh/month. Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.

    --
    Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    1. Re:15 Watts isn't _that_expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's 25 bucks a year, then - not that much, maybe, but also not free, either.

      Would you mind if I snuck into your house once a year and took a 20 and a 5 from your wallet?

    2. Re:15 Watts isn't _that_expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends: would you bring me a TV Guide every 6 hours?

    3. Re:15 Watts isn't _that_expensive by hwstar · · Score: 1

      20 cents a kWh? On my last bill, San Diego Graft and Extortion had a top rate of 31cents a kWh!

    4. Re:15 Watts isn't _that_expensive by rbochan · · Score: 1

      ...Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.

      So yes, roughly $25 per year. Per device.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    5. Re:15 Watts isn't _that_expensive by Smurf · · Score: 1

      ...Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.

      So yes, roughly $25 per year. Per device.

      So if your household income after taxes is $35,000 (quite low, specially in those places where electricity costs 20 cents/Kwh), this is 0.07% of your income. Ouch! Also, if your monthly electric bill averages $180 (very conservative if they charge 20 c/kWh), that's 1.15% of the total bill.

      Per device.

      If you have more than two devices on which you can't turn EPG off, you most certainly earn way more than $35,000, even after taxes.

      Now, most places in the US charge FAR less per kWh, frequently under 10 cents. In those cases, it is still cheaper than a cheap $19 subscription to TV Guide. (Normally you get it for $40/year, I'm being generous here).

  14. Time is a factor -- Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume it's only drawing 15 watts while downloading program info. If that takes a whole minute per day, the average power draw is about 0.01 watts, ten times better than the claim. Even if downloads took 10 minutes per day, that only brings it up to the 0.1 watt level.

    1. Re:Time is a factor -- Do the math by internewt · · Score: 1

      by Anonymous Coward on 08-02-09 15:37 (#26772571)

      I assume it's only drawing 15 watts while downloading program info. If that takes a whole minute per day, the average power draw is about 0.01 watts, ten times better than the claim. Even if downloads took 10 minutes per day, that only brings it up to the 0.1 watt level.

      RTFA - the TV seemed to be in programme download mode 75% of the time it is in sleep, and when in that mode it draws 20W.

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    2. Re:Time is a factor -- Do the math by russotto · · Score: 1

      While 75% of the time is by any standard WAY too often to be updating the program guide, 10 minutes a day is too little. To get 12 hours of ATSC program data takes an average of 1.5 minutes for each channel. And since programs change, you'll probably want to do this fairly frequently -- I'd say at least every three hours (which will get you a new guide table each time as well), and probably every hour would be desirable. Still, even assuming 10 channels, that's only 25% of the time, not 75% of the time.

      Cable set-top boxes have it easier, since they get information on all the channels from a separate stream.

  15. Cable / sat DVR and boxes should go in to a low po by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Cable / sat DVR and boxes should go in to a low power mode. When not needed You can spin down the HDD when it is not needed and how about put the cpu in a sleep mode / CPU throttling.

  16. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by roaddemon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Invisible unicorns? Sure. Pink unicorns? No problem. But invisible pink unicorns? Now you're just making stuff up -- everyone knows that invisible doesn't have a colour.

    As an aside, what colour is a mirror?

    F

  17. Infidel ! by Mornedhel · · Score: 2

    You don't have the faith, do you ?

    --
    This /.-related sig is a stub. You can help Mornedhel by expanding it.
    1. Re:Infidel ! by roaddemon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Awesome: "the faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

  18. Recent "Green plug" debacle by Animats · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We had an article recently on "Green Plug", the USB power scheme. that's something else that went wrong. They made it way too complicated, requiring software handshaking between the power source and device.

    Instead of GreenPlug, all that's needed is a low-power mode for USB power:

    • USB power sources should turn off their power supply when the resistance at the output is > 1 megohm. In "power supply off" mode they should draw < 10uA from the power line.
    • Devices charging from USB ports should present > 1 megohm resistance across the power lines when not in need of power.

    That's all that's needed. Just some micropower electronics. No special "GreenPlug protocol", no software handshaking. USB power sources don't even need the data pins (good for security). But, of course, the GreenPlug people wouldn't have any "proprietary technology" to sell.

  19. There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Seriously, guys. Even Craigslist has a flagging mechanism.

    Couldn't have it as part of moderation? I know I've been market as troll for stuff that I honestly have not intended as troll of flamebait, but the parent post is different. It is racist, hateful, and offensive.

    This isn't merely contrarian or unpopular speech, it is vulgar and hateful and has no social importance. It is profane and disgusting.

    1. Re:There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      That entirely depends on your point of view. To you it seems profane and disgusting, to others who go along with either the humour or the satire of the post, it seems either humourous or astute.

      Not everyone thinks being racist is bad. I think Slashdot allows people of all points of view to post.

    2. Re:There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That entirely depends on your point of view.

      Really? Can you find any defensible argument for top post?

      To you it seems profane and disgusting, to others who go along with either the humour or the satire of the post, it seems either humourous or astute.

      How can a degrading racist rant like that be, in any way, "humorous" or "astute?"

      Not everyone thinks being racist is bad.
      Yea, and not everyone thinks murder is bad.

      I think Slashdot allows people of all points of view to post.

      This is not a debate between Linux and Windows, this is an issue of hatred against a race of people for nothing more than the color of their skin.

    3. Re:There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is not a debate between Linux and Windows, this is an issue of hatred against a race of people for nothing more than the color of their skin.

      I think this is where you are missing the actual point of the posting.

      What I mean is that racism is nothing to do with the post.

      They are just trying to be a dick and get a rise from you, which they have.

      Congratulations you just encouraged them.

    4. Re:There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That entirely depends on your point of view. To you it seems profane and disgusting, to others who go along with either the humour or the satire of the post, it seems either humourous or astute.

      Not everyone thinks being racist is bad. I think Slashdot allows people of all points of view to post.

      I rather agree with you. However, when I see the same post repeatedly on multiple articles, month after month, while I see the humor, it gets kind of old.

      If it were posted with the intention of being funny, I wouldn't mind. However, I think it's just being autoposted.

    5. Re:There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That entirely depends on your point of view.

      Really? Can you find any defensible argument for top post?

      To you it seems profane and disgusting, to others who go along with either the humour or the satire of the post, it seems either humourous or astute.

      How can a degrading racist rant like that be, in any way, "humorous" or "astute?"

      Not everyone thinks being racist is bad. Yea, and not everyone thinks murder is bad.

      I think Slashdot allows people of all points of view to post.

      This is not a debate between Linux and Windows, this is an issue of hatred against a race of people for nothing more than the color of their skin.

      Offensiveness and humor are not exclusive. Yes, something can be racist and funny at the same time. Or it can be racist and not have any redeeming value. Or it could just be funny.

      One of the kinds of people I hate most are those who will completely discount a valid viewpoint because it has one little thing they think is politically incorrect.

      By the way, racism is an opinion held by someone you don't agree with. Murder is an action that has a deleterious effect on another person. They aren't equivalent.

      In a similar vein, I think voting for Obama is bad, too. But hey, you're free to call me a racist because I didn't vote for him.

    6. Re:There has to be a way to flag this stuff! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Yes, something can be racist and funny at the same time.

      To a racist bigot.

      One of the kinds of people I hate most are those who will completely discount a valid viewpoint because it has one little thing they think is politically incorrect.

      I'm pretty sure this is NOT one of these cases.

      By the way, racism is an opinion held by someone you don't agree with.

      No, "racism" is an expression of hate by sick and ignorant people.

      Murder is an action that has a deleterious effect on another person. They aren't equivalent.

      You've obviously not been on the receiving end of racism which, at times, ends in murder.

  20. Same with Panasonic by Exp315 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had exactly the same experience with my Panasonic TV. I put a power meter on it shortly after I bought it and discovered that it was drawing 20 watts when off instead of the promised 0.1 watts. I figured that the problem might be the EPG, and discovered with experimentation that the undocumented method of putting in a Zip code of 000000 disabled it and solved the problem.

  21. Measure everything!! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.

    It may be $0.18 ~ $0.20 for the electrical charge, but on my bill there is delivery and fuel charge. My electricity, in total, comes to a bit over $0.25 a kWh.
    "
    I recently used a "Watts Up" and went through my whole house. Wall warts (transformers) are nasty. Some just sit and use 10~15 watts doing nothing. So if you leave it plugged in and turn the device off, it still sucks up power.

    All "switchers" are not created equal either. Some laptop and monitor sitching power supplies may draw 60w when on, but draw 10w when
    "off"

    I went through my house and brought my electric bill down from $220 to about $180 a month.

    1. Re:Measure everything!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wall warts (transformers) are nasty. Some just sit and use 10~15 watts doing nothing.

      I've seen this, and I don't really understand it. My knowledge of electronics is rudimentary, but shouldn't it be possible to use the DC power output as a switch, which is open when unplugged or the device is turned off? No connection there, no drawing power from the wall.

    2. Re:Measure everything!! by thogard · · Score: 1

      All measuring devices have limits and I've found most power meters tend to get very sloppy on their lower ends and that can often be in the range of 10 w. If the power factor is nasty (as it often is with low power loads), the meter will give huge errors. What seems to work best is find 10 of your worst wall warts and plug them all in one power strip and measure them that way. Pull one and and see how the rating drops. You can also use a 60w incandescent bulb as a base load since they are very consistent and have a pf of 1.00.

      If you have an older style wheel meter, its only compensation for power factor (if any) will be lead/lag. Switching supplies have other power factor issues that newer digital meters account for and bill you for.

    3. Re:Measure everything!! by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      I did a similar exercise with my modest apartment. I added extension cords with power switches and went from $30 down to $15-20 per month. I really recommend everyone to do this, it's so simple and the savings can be a large percentage of your total consumption.

    4. Re:Measure everything!! by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Your electricity has a delivery and fuel charge? Are you running generators off diesel or something?

    5. Re:Measure everything!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is California we have tiered pricing on electricity. Adding that extra 15 watts can bump your usage up into the next tier and REALLY raise the price. That 15 watts can end up being WAY more than $2/month. Don't forget that a higher bill means higher taxes too, it adds up fast.

    6. Re:Measure everything!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wall warts (transformers) are nasty. Some just sit and use 10~15 watts doing nothing.

      There's probably a (very?) large measuring error in there. The cheap power meters are only accurate for resistive loads like conventional bulbs. With switch mode power supplies without power factot correction (i.e. those that draw more current when the voltage is at the low end of the sinus swing) won't get accurate readings, and it appears that conventional transformers as found in the heavier, blockier "wall warts", which are almost purely inductive loads (their current draw is 90 degrees out of phase from the voltage) are even worse. The wall wart that came with the DSL-modem my ISP sent me is rated at 9V 1A - 9W. The cheap wattmeter from the coffee shop read 9W when in use, and 9W when the modem was disconnected, but the power supply didn't get nearly as warm.

    7. Re:Measure everything!! by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      If you're interested in doing this kind of thing -- and it sounds like you are -- a good resource are books written for RVers who spend a lot of time boondocking, i.e., out in the boonies on solar power and batteries. One thing you discover very quickly when you are cut off from unlimited electricity is that electrical appliances tend to be designed with the assumption that electricity will be cheap and plentiful where they're used, so they waste it profligately, often even when turned "off".

      Cutting your monthly electric bill by almost 20% is a perfect illustration of why people who do live where electricity is relatively cheap and plentiful should care about this. That's almost $500 a year in your case, which is for most people nothing to sneeze at.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    8. Re:Measure everything!! by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll improve your argument for you, and then proceed to sneeze at it.

      You say $500. I say: Let's increase that a little to $2 per day.

      I can look at this number, this $2 figure, and know that it's not worth it. Maybe if I lived by myself. But if I have to fight about it with the kids when they don't turn things off, if my wife hates it that the clock on the microwave doesn't work anymore, or that she's got to go and turn the thing on every time she uses it, then what you're suggesting will cost me quite a lot more than $2 in pain on an average day.

      Case in point: The exhaust fan in the bathroom costs me a lot more than $2 per day when left running during the winter time, as it pumps a few few hundred CFM per minute of 72-degree air outside, which gets replaced with 0-20 degree air. I value my peace more than I value my money, however, so I don't fight about it when it gets left on by accident. (I'd put a timer on it, which would help, but in the summer, there's no particular reason to ever turn it off. We don't have air conditioning and it helps circulate air and keep humidity down somewhat in the bathroom. The fan itself is pretty efficient. I'm not rewiring my switches twice a year to save a couple of dozens of dollars in the wintertime, though.)

      It's also a lot cheaper and more convenient to keep the current wife[1] and kids, than to get different ones. Just as it is to keep my (perfectly functional) non-Energy Star microwave, instead of buying a new one.

      [1]: I'll be certain, though, that when the current wife wears out, that the new model will be more energy efficient. Is there a federal mandate on Energy Star labeling for females, yet?

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    9. Re:Measure everything!! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I used to pay $0.25/kWh for my electricity (including delivery charges, etc).

      Yeah, I switched to energy efficient everything, and got my bill down to about $110/month... But that's still ridiculous.

      I moved one town over. Instead of N*Star, the town I now live in has a municipal power company. The electricity comes from the same place, but I only pay $0.11/kWh now, and the profit goes to my town to (presumably) be used for local infrastructure (what they actually waste it on is another story entirely).

    10. Re:Measure everything!! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      I moved one town over. Instead of N*Star, the town I now live in has a municipal power company.

      What town do you live in, and which did you move from? I'm running for treasurer for my town and that may be a good thing to research.

    11. Re:Measure everything!! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      From Acton, MA to Littleton, MA.

      Given the current price of copper, I'd expect that it would be a difficult thing to change in an established community right now without actually increasing prices though...

      I tried finding some reference for you, but NStar's impeccable customer service provides obfuscated schedules of rates. Delivery and service charges average out to about $0.10/kWh (don't forget to count that flat monthly service fee). If you add the variable basic rate charge in, that gets you up to $0.24/kWh in the winter.

      Two years after I moved, I was still fighting with their collections department. Their crews were on strike when I moved, so they didn't do a final reading of my meter until two months after I left. They insisted for quite a while that I pay the subsequent tenant's electric bill for those two months. Just browsing their website for the last 10 minutes reminded my how much I loath them.

      For comparison, in Littleton I pay $0.0829/kWh + a flat $5 fee per month with some fees and credits that essentially cancel each other out.

    12. Re:Measure everything!! by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      This is very similar to my "normal" point regarding such "wastes" of money when I happen to get into such a discussion. While I stipulate to the wasted resources overall, the money is mine to waste if I so choose and most of my power comes from renewable sources anyhow. Now, it would be great if they'd change this sort of device to save me money but, overall, wasting my time to turn them off and on is often pointless. There are a few items such as cell chargers and such that I'll bother with but these aren't all that common for me compared to, say, my microwave and such.

      That said, here's another interesting dilemma I discovered. I have a condo at the beach to which I go whenever possible, albeit less often than I'd like. I used to flip the breakers on my hot water heater and turn the thermostat to 45 degrees F whenever I'd leave since I figured it was pointless to leave them running and would, therefore, waste money. The dual inconveniences of a chilly condo for an hour at most and being unable to shower for a while were minor as I rarely needed a shower when arriving anyhow and chilly isn't a big deal. Well, one time I forgot to do this but didn't know it for a few months until I managed to get some free time and go back down. What I discovered when I looked at the power bill is despite a MUCH higher usage during that time, I still didn't pay more. On investigating, it turns out that there's a minimum charge which I paid regardless and my usage never goes over that and. Now, I still power the hot water tank off as it's just stupid to waste the power but I only drop the heat to 60 degrees F now.

      This is only a single anecdote, yes, and only speaks to the money out of my pocket instead of the still-valid point of wasted resources overall. I still find it instructive and hope others may as well.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
  22. Rules Don't Work! by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Instead of just making more rules which companies usually break anyway it would be wiser to establish a carrot and stick approach. Reward companies for turning in cheaters by giving them large sums of cash. Reward companies that produce energy saving products by giving them large sums. Fine the hell out of violating companies to get the money to give to the good companies. And please be heavy handed!

  23. No Energy Star - honest wasting power by DrTime · · Score: 1

    I've always known my 2 year old 42" LG TV uses a lot of energy for the TV Guide On Screen feature since the processor is never off. Reading this story made me find the box to see if it claimed an Energy Star rating, and to my surprise, LG was honest and there is none.

    This model comes with a built-in DVR and its disk drive never spins down, you can always hear the hum when it is quiet. But, I figure it is no more wasteful than the DVR in my previous set top boxes.

    Nice thing about it being always on is that I have my computer turn the TV on and off with its wake up, shutdown, and sleep modes using the serial port control. Can't have everything.

  24. Real simple to unturnoffable TV-external switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really no text required as this is such a no brainer that I find it hard to believe even in this time of technological ignorance in the midst of plenty. Go to the store and buy one of those plug-in strips that have a switch on it. You do not have to fill in all the other spots, but you likely have the same problem with VCRs incorporating tuners, disc players incorporating tuners whether the previous devices admit to their presence or not; so you can use the remaining spots if necessary to plug them in as well. Then when you are not using the equipment, simply turn it off! Its your equipment and your power subscription!

  25. Simplw Solution by rossdee · · Score: 1

    An OFF switch

    I mean a real, cuts off the AC current off switch. TV's used to have them 20 -30 years ago.
    Power used while switched off = 0 watts.

    1. Re:Simplw Solution by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Although some TVs 30 years ago turned off completely, you have to go back considerably farther to get to the point where every TV was completely off when the switch was off.

      It was 1971 when RCA patented "instant on" for TVs.

    2. Re:Simplw Solution by Corson · · Score: 1

      Setup parameters would be lost in most of the appliances. My Cable TV digital box must be reset by the TV company if disconected for too long.

  26. Plain language? by Corson · · Score: 1

    It would be great if in the future such articles were written in "plain English" rather than in "technicalese", thank you.

  27. Same issue with a Sony KDL-46WL410 by kbdd · · Score: 1

    It turns out I had the same issue with my Sony KDL-46WL140 and the fix worked there too. In my case, not only was the TV drawing 16W all the time, but the EPG did not even work in my area. Thanks Slashdot!

  28. fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a little like hiring the A-team to eradicate your rat infestation. You're paying a premium to save money in the long run, but the long run simply isn't long enough to justify the short-term expense.

    You're shelling out cash for a product which claims a certain set of features. If the feature set is not as advertised, and the manufacturer knows it, it is fraud. It's no different than if Sony claimed to do 1080p, but only did 720i. If I'm giving you cash, I want to know what I'm getting.

    If Sony (or whomever) doesn't think the energy saving features were important enough to implement properly, they shouldn't have wasted resources to do a half-assed job in the first place, and they shouldn't have bothered to advertise said (supposed) functionality.

    Sony products are generally of good quality, and this is just ruining that good reputation.

  29. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    it is axiomatic that an invisible pink unicorn viewed in a mirror is mirror-colored.

  30. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by thogard · · Score: 1

    I have a bad habit if measuring claims made by manufactures and it appears that lots of them must have access to those invisible pink unicorns since their claims are way off. I find that CFLs are the worst offenders and often to take up to about 55% more power than they claim and while I can't measure a lumen from a non-consistent point source (I'm not even sure how it should be done), I can measure average light output in LUX after a bulb is 1000 hours old and I have yet to be impressed with the honesty on the product boxes.

    I have found that larger companies with a strong European market are doing much better with their standby power. My imac and Nokia chargers take so little power when the device is fully charged that is less than the error range of the instruments I use.

  31. Not in the manual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The specifications page at the end of the manual clearly states:

    * While the TV is collecting TV Guide data and/or during software update the power consumption is less than 30W.

  32. Re:Simple Solution by argent · · Score: 1

    I remember when we got our first TV that had "instant on". My dad, en electrical engineer, always hammered on us kids to turn the power off at the wall when we weren't watching. This was in Australia where we had a real honest-to-goodness power switch on every wall plug. I was boggled to discover a few years later that US power points were live all the time.

  33. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Informative

    As an aside, what colour is a mirror?

    Silver.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  34. It is documented by Westinghouse by Kainaw · · Score: 1

    I just purchased a Westinghouse television and it is documented, rather well, how to set the television to use less than 1 watt of power in standby. It includes a warning that this is not set as factory default because it takes up to 10 seconds for the television to turn on when in the low-watt standby mode - far too long for most people to wait.

    --
    The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
  35. doesn't work on RoadRunner anyway by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Locally, RoadRunner stopped supplying the data back around Thanksgiving 2008.

    Turning off a service the device cannot use seems like a good idea.

    There's no OFF on my Toshiba DVR, however.

  36. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by roaddemon · · Score: 1

    Really? I'm looking at a mirror now and I see blue, flesh colour, brown, and hazel. No silver. How can you tell it's silver if you can't see the colour?

  37. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by Eric3532 · · Score: 1

    As an aside, what colour is a mirror?

    A mirror reflects all colors with high and equal proportions therefore it must be white by definition.

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Get a power meter by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

    I bought a power meter recently and the results astouned me.

    My desktop PC uses almost 20 watts of power when turned OFF.

    Asus EPU does absolutely nothing (My system runs at around 160watts at idle regardless of whether the EPU is set to performance or efficiency).

    A gtx260 consumes 30 watts more at idle than an 8600gts, despite the gtx260 having a much lower idle power rating.

    I plan on testing everything in my house to find out where power is being wasted.

  40. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

    How can you tell it's silver if you can't see the colour?

    Because mirrors are made by applying a thin coat of silver to glass. The result is highly reflective but still imparts some of its own color onto the reflected light.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  41. GPL 2 or GPL 3? by krischik · · Score: 1

    Or: is the TV there system "tivoization"? If so then your head does not need to exoplode. Tivoization is an evil explotation of an loophole in GPL2 licence.

    Remember: Exploting loopholes in good things is normal behavior for evil corporations.

  42. Kill-A-Watt by lanner · · Score: 1

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/travelpower/7657/

    I have one of these. Note that you can get them cheaper than what ThinkGeek sells them for, but they have a nice web page.

    As an example, I metered some new 1U servers that I which indicates a range of 0.8 - 1.5A depending on system load. This is important, since we are at 14A of a 20A circuit in our data center. We are going to have to upgrade here soon.

  43. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

    As an aside, what colour is a mirror?

    Most of the ones I've looked at lately have been arse-coloured. Don't judge me, I'm just using the mirror the way it was intended.

    --
    Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
  44. Same for HP LCD, 132W in sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't hate just Sony, HP LP3065 (30" LCD) draws 15W completely turned off (60x more than stated) and 16-132W in sleep (66x more than stated). Funny thing is HP claims it's Energy Star, but "actual values may be lower or higher".

  45. Just switch off the _power_. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Just plug the television into a cheap old power bar (you know, the kind you probably have three of sitting around because you used to have your computer plugged into them but you don't trust their surge protectors any more because they're several years old), and switch the power bar off when you aren't using the TV. Then it'll draw zero watts.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  46. Re:Why would the EPA bother changing the requireme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hindsight is 20/20.

  47. (devices are self-certified by the manufacturers!) by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    I assume the exclamation point indicates that the author thinks that this is not only a problem, but that it's exceedingly obvious that it's a problem?

    Why?

    Is there evidence that manufacturers are cheating? (no) They problem is that the loophole in the requirements. So if the manufacturers aren't cheating, why not continue to stick them with the bill for compliance testing?