Wifi should be completely off. It's a big current drain usually, and if you're in standby there will never be a need for periodic transmits (I hate that smart phones refuse to understand this as they want "instant" connection to the access point so they suck up more battery life than they should).
My guess is that they don't really know how to get to low power mode. It's not something commonly done. Most engineers grew up in the PC oriented world where power saving wasn't even a concept, and "instant on" tube televisions were common. It's only now that we're getting to have more devices with batteries that power is more important and people are learning how to manage it. But even then we're still mostly in a "rechargeable battery" mode which means engineers assume someone is recharging overnight and there's no need to try and get lower even lower.
It's on though. Still sucking up a whopping 340mA. Ok, not that whopping but only a slight dip in power. 10mA for a power LED seems like a lot to me, but I'm working on low power devices too long maybe.
Pedantic or not, if the manual says it's "off" then it should be off and not lying about it. The power drop is far too small to actually be in "standby" mode.
Then again, these devices aren't made for people who care about power or privacy. They're designed for people who want the latest gadget.
I'm not sure. Many of these web sites are operated by people who don't control the advertisements themselves. They outsource the ad job to a third party then wait for revenue to trickle in. They may not even have the skills to do the blocking if their tech skill level is just enough to customize wordpress.
Except that this still consumes the bandwidth. This is why I use adblockers to make my network go faster and the pages load quickly. Why should I download several megabytes of useless data just to see a three line email reply?
I am not denying them revenue. I am paying real money to my ISP and Yahoo webmail is a part of what I am paying for. I am well within my rights to block their ads.
You know, since I have Yahoo as a part of my ISP and is for webmail only, I don't ever recall clicking any accept to any Yahoo EULA anyway. Could they prove it in court? Where is the contract if they are asked to present it in court?
EULAs are not legally binding in all countries. A contract is not a contract if both parties have not agreed to them, and a "click ok to continue" does not always constitute legal agreement to the terms. The US is beholden to its corporations and not its citizens, so any immoral laws in that country do not necessarily apply elsewhere (and yes, I put most click-to-continue EULAs into the "immoral" category).
Webmail is convenient so that you can check your personal email while at work. Especially if the service only provides POP3 but not IMAP (which seems common for some bizarre reason).
However cable television subscribers are not required to actually watch those advertisements. There is no message that says "your programming will be suspended until you stop leaving the room to pee during commercial breaks." And even on DVRs you are allowed to fast forward past the commercials (despite lawsuits trying to prevent this).
No, we may not necessarily care about the companies per se. But we do care about our coworkers, we may care about the customers, and we usually care about quality of the products we make. Even at the base pragmatic level where the inner voice says "don't screw this up because you'll have to keep maintaining it for a few years." Of course some workers are an exception to this, but in general I tend to see that actual employees will spend more effort making sure things are done right.
I'm not a social media person. You can't get upvotes without commenting and you can't comment without upvotes. So that leaves asking questions and hoping someone upvotes that? The only time I ever want to comment is when someone has answered completely wrong and everyone is agreeing with that. So I have to figure out the social media game before I can say "you're wrong, you can't divide by zero".
Are they moving? The executives and shareholders are actually packing up their bags and taking their families to a new country? That's fine with me. The article sounded like it was more of a shell game with names and titles changing on paper. The name "Pfizer" may move to Ireland but the people are not, except for a few token people to run the new umbrella corporation.
Then Pfizer should move to Ireland. All executives should live there. The headquarters should be there. The only thing in the US that should remain is their foreign sales office. But they're going to play the games on paper, they'll keep the big executives here but claim that they're just part of a subsidiary of Pfizer. So no one is actually leaving, jobs aren't shuffling around except for a few management reorgs, it's business as usual but with a lower tax rate.
Well based upon citizenship. If they don't like the duties that comes from citizenship then they can move away and renounce it. They're already getting a marvelous deal in the US, they're rich and pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their workers do. "Pfizer" is really people, share holders and executives. You may think a corporation is just an amoral automaton but there are real people making the decisions who are quite happy to accept all the benefits that come from their fellow citizens paying taxes.
Security is expensive. So maybe this device doesn't work, but at least it's inexpensive and saved someone some money. Stop thinking of the children and start thinking of the profits!
Except that over the years we've enacted a lot of treaties that means we can't tax the products that come into the US, we can't add tariffs, we can't do anything to protect our workers because it is illegal to do so. We've abdicated control of our economy to the international corporations. The most we can do is try to convince our citizens to buy locally produced and engineered goods rather than always buying the cheapest products.
You can renounce citizenship, that solves the tax problem.
But for these corporations, they're not really leaving the US. They're just moving papers overseas. The CEOs are not uprooting their families and immigrating to somewhere else. It's only that the new parent company is in Ireland, a sleight of hand with the taxes.
You can't easily define "domestic" versus "worldwide" profits. Profits come from more than just sales. What we have is essentially income tax for corporations. If I earn money overseas and am not taxed by a foreign entity then I have to pay taxes on it here. For individuals this means you can't use the loophole that you were paid in a different country even though you lived in the US (yes this is slightly broken as it applies even to ex-pats who have not renounced citizenship). So it's essentially the same rule should apply for corporations - if you want to be called a "US company" then you need to pay US tax rates. If the companies don't like it then they can take their headquarters and move it overseas also, since they've long since moved all their actual workers overseas.
Note also that this company is going to pay taxes in Ireland. Not in high tax parts of Europe. They chose Ireland specifically because it's a low tax state trying to attract more companies, not because the US is the one and only undesirable tax location. The US has a much better corporate tax deal than many other countries, it's just not the minimum that the major shareholders want.
But it's the US. Poor people have to pay taxes, rich people have access to loopholes. That's why it's unpatriotic, because it shirks the shared responsibility that is a part of being a citizen. If taxes are too high, then this is a problem that should be fixed across the board and not just for mega corporations.
It's not just about security though. Outsourcing does not give you workers who care about your company. Their transients, a few bugs won't bother them. A security hole isn't worth patching. Billable hours is the only thing that will matter. Your company is trying to make something new and unique and the guy at the other end of the phone says "yes, sure, we can do that, we're the expert in that!" and then 24 months later they've vanished and you've got nothing to show for it.
Then the workers will want to start standardizing so that they can migrate their jobs more easily, requesting that certificates take the place of interviews and evaluations.
Slashdot Mirror
By my records, you only did 38 of those things.
Wifi should be completely off. It's a big current drain usually, and if you're in standby there will never be a need for periodic transmits (I hate that smart phones refuse to understand this as they want "instant" connection to the access point so they suck up more battery life than they should).
My guess is that they don't really know how to get to low power mode. It's not something commonly done. Most engineers grew up in the PC oriented world where power saving wasn't even a concept, and "instant on" tube televisions were common. It's only now that we're getting to have more devices with batteries that power is more important and people are learning how to manage it. But even then we're still mostly in a "rechargeable battery" mode which means engineers assume someone is recharging overnight and there's no need to try and get lower even lower.
It's on though. Still sucking up a whopping 340mA. Ok, not that whopping but only a slight dip in power. 10mA for a power LED seems like a lot to me, but I'm working on low power devices too long maybe.
Pedantic or not, if the manual says it's "off" then it should be off and not lying about it. The power drop is far too small to actually be in "standby" mode.
Then again, these devices aren't made for people who care about power or privacy. They're designed for people who want the latest gadget.
I'm not sure. Many of these web sites are operated by people who don't control the advertisements themselves. They outsource the ad job to a third party then wait for revenue to trickle in. They may not even have the skills to do the blocking if their tech skill level is just enough to customize wordpress.
Except that this still consumes the bandwidth. This is why I use adblockers to make my network go faster and the pages load quickly. Why should I download several megabytes of useless data just to see a three line email reply?
I am not denying them revenue. I am paying real money to my ISP and Yahoo webmail is a part of what I am paying for. I am well within my rights to block their ads.
You know, since I have Yahoo as a part of my ISP and is for webmail only, I don't ever recall clicking any accept to any Yahoo EULA anyway. Could they prove it in court? Where is the contract if they are asked to present it in court?
EULAs are not legally binding in all countries. A contract is not a contract if both parties have not agreed to them, and a "click ok to continue" does not always constitute legal agreement to the terms. The US is beholden to its corporations and not its citizens, so any immoral laws in that country do not necessarily apply elsewhere (and yes, I put most click-to-continue EULAs into the "immoral" category).
Webmail is convenient so that you can check your personal email while at work. Especially if the service only provides POP3 but not IMAP (which seems common for some bizarre reason).
No, you see the ads even if you pay unless you use some sort of ad blocking service.
However cable television subscribers are not required to actually watch those advertisements. There is no message that says "your programming will be suspended until you stop leaving the room to pee during commercial breaks." And even on DVRs you are allowed to fast forward past the commercials (despite lawsuits trying to prevent this).
And I PAY for this email service through my ISP. If they block the mail of paying customers then they're certainly not within their rights.
No, we may not necessarily care about the companies per se. But we do care about our coworkers, we may care about the customers, and we usually care about quality of the products we make. Even at the base pragmatic level where the inner voice says "don't screw this up because you'll have to keep maintaining it for a few years." Of course some workers are an exception to this, but in general I tend to see that actual employees will spend more effort making sure things are done right.
I'm not a social media person. You can't get upvotes without commenting and you can't comment without upvotes. So that leaves asking questions and hoping someone upvotes that? The only time I ever want to comment is when someone has answered completely wrong and everyone is agreeing with that. So I have to figure out the social media game before I can say "you're wrong, you can't divide by zero".
Are they moving? The executives and shareholders are actually packing up their bags and taking their families to a new country? That's fine with me. The article sounded like it was more of a shell game with names and titles changing on paper. The name "Pfizer" may move to Ireland but the people are not, except for a few token people to run the new umbrella corporation.
Then Pfizer should move to Ireland. All executives should live there. The headquarters should be there. The only thing in the US that should remain is their foreign sales office. But they're going to play the games on paper, they'll keep the big executives here but claim that they're just part of a subsidiary of Pfizer. So no one is actually leaving, jobs aren't shuffling around except for a few management reorgs, it's business as usual but with a lower tax rate.
If I had over $2 million in total assets, I wouldn't need to worry about it. These are rich people pretending to whine about financial hardships.
Well based upon citizenship. If they don't like the duties that comes from citizenship then they can move away and renounce it. They're already getting a marvelous deal in the US, they're rich and pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their workers do. "Pfizer" is really people, share holders and executives. You may think a corporation is just an amoral automaton but there are real people making the decisions who are quite happy to accept all the benefits that come from their fellow citizens paying taxes.
Security is expensive. So maybe this device doesn't work, but at least it's inexpensive and saved someone some money. Stop thinking of the children and start thinking of the profits!
We will win luxuriously. Atlantic Cities for everyone!
Except that over the years we've enacted a lot of treaties that means we can't tax the products that come into the US, we can't add tariffs, we can't do anything to protect our workers because it is illegal to do so. We've abdicated control of our economy to the international corporations. The most we can do is try to convince our citizens to buy locally produced and engineered goods rather than always buying the cheapest products.
You can renounce citizenship, that solves the tax problem.
But for these corporations, they're not really leaving the US. They're just moving papers overseas. The CEOs are not uprooting their families and immigrating to somewhere else. It's only that the new parent company is in Ireland, a sleight of hand with the taxes.
You can't easily define "domestic" versus "worldwide" profits. Profits come from more than just sales. What we have is essentially income tax for corporations. If I earn money overseas and am not taxed by a foreign entity then I have to pay taxes on it here. For individuals this means you can't use the loophole that you were paid in a different country even though you lived in the US (yes this is slightly broken as it applies even to ex-pats who have not renounced citizenship). So it's essentially the same rule should apply for corporations - if you want to be called a "US company" then you need to pay US tax rates. If the companies don't like it then they can take their headquarters and move it overseas also, since they've long since moved all their actual workers overseas.
Note also that this company is going to pay taxes in Ireland. Not in high tax parts of Europe. They chose Ireland specifically because it's a low tax state trying to attract more companies, not because the US is the one and only undesirable tax location. The US has a much better corporate tax deal than many other countries, it's just not the minimum that the major shareholders want.
But it's the US. Poor people have to pay taxes, rich people have access to loopholes. That's why it's unpatriotic, because it shirks the shared responsibility that is a part of being a citizen. If taxes are too high, then this is a problem that should be fixed across the board and not just for mega corporations.
That's why it's called "unpatriotic", companies who care more about profits than their country or their workers.
It's not just about security though. Outsourcing does not give you workers who care about your company. Their transients, a few bugs won't bother them. A security hole isn't worth patching. Billable hours is the only thing that will matter. Your company is trying to make something new and unique and the guy at the other end of the phone says "yes, sure, we can do that, we're the expert in that!" and then 24 months later they've vanished and you've got nothing to show for it.
Then the workers will want to start standardizing so that they can migrate their jobs more easily, requesting that certificates take the place of interviews and evaluations.