Kind of. But if you want network connectivity for an Arduino, the cost starts to add up very fast. In contrast, you can get a Pi with a built-in ethernet port, or stick in a cheap WiFi dongle.

They recently released the A+, which is $20. You can get USB Wifi dongles for under $10, add $5 for an SD card, so for about $35 you've got a dev board with WiFi. Compare that to the Arduino ethernet shield, which by itself is over $45. The WiFi shield is even more.

The only thing comparable I can think of is the Electric Imp - I've been playing with one over the past few weeks. It's $25 for the unit, which includes built-in WiFi, and $12 for a breakout board. They provide an online IDE that is very easy to use. However, the whole platform is web-hosted, which makes me pretty uncomfortable.

I wouldn't put too much stock in an analysis that confuses kW with kWh (it's probably just a typo, but these things matter). FWIW I live in a state with the fourth highest average electricity costs in the country, so I'm very sensitive to electricity costs. But it's not fair to compare a year's usage at idle vs a year's usage at full load.

If they wanted to make this realistic, they should have estimated the average time one of these public hotspots is used, and then compared that additional cost to the average home usage of the private hotspot (while noting that at some points the usage may overlap, and so the electricity cost may be shared between the two).

Comcast gave me their Technicolor POS modem that came with a public hotspot. It was a terrible router in general, so I took it back and got an older model that has been far more reliable, plays nice with my own router, and doesn't have a public hotspot (or WiFi at all).

Concur that my initial Googling for R topics was sometimes frustrating. But lately I've had little difficulty. Stackoverflow or the R mailing list archive are usually the top results. Not sure if I've adjusted or what.

My experience is that if you have any experience programming, R makes far more sense than other common packages, like Stata or SPSS. After all, it's an actual programming language. My biggest adjustment was learning how to not use loops.

Don't even get me started on SAS.

So wait, we're assuming that they're all criminals to begin with?

Not necessarily. I've no idea about remote starters; the window deal could probably be accomplished with basic electronics, though sounds like a pain. But you can get RPM readouts and many other stats through the ODB II interface required for all normal cars in the U.S. since 1996. There are bluetooth and USB adapters available; I imagine you could probably put together a project with an Arduino that would display RPM readout on whatever display device you want. It's probably already been done.

I'm an apartment dweller, so many of the home upgrades aren't possible for me, though when I do buy appliances, energy efficiency is a top concern (recently got a front-loading washer). Line-drying was a no-brainer - why pay when the sun and air will do it for free :-)

Just replaced an energy-hogging server with a low-power version (about 30 watts with little load, 45 with heavy load). It's normally on S3 suspend, and I use WOL to wake it whenever I need it, including remotely (it also wakes itself twice daily, once to do a backup, and once to update a household energy usage chart online).

Now that one surprises me. I do have an electric range/oven, and I would have thought that pan-frying would use less electricity than baking - especially since I'm usually baking for at least 30 minutes, whereas cooking in a pan can often be done in 20 minutes or less. I get that the heat is well-retained in the oven whereas a lot is lost on the range, but I don't have a way to actually measure the stove's usage. I do generally put baked items in before the oven's preheated and turn off the oven before the time has elapsed, except when I'm doing breads.

IIRC, the four most expensive states for electricity in the U.S. are Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Connecticut. I live in the latter, and pay 22 cents per kWh, though I chose a slightly more expensive option - I could get it for 21 cents / kWh.

I moved from Virginia, which matches the national average of 12 cents per kWh, and it was built into my rent. Since moving I'm dramatically reduced usage - down to less than 200 kWh per month for a two-person household. All the low-hanging fruit is taken, though - not sure what I'd cut if rates were double.

This whole thing is a Tom Coburn-style piece of propaganda. It is an NSF GRANT to researchers at a UNIVERSITY. This has nothing to do with the federal government or NSA studying anything.

If you don't know how the NSF funding process works, grant proposals are peer reviewed in a competitive process by scientific experts for their merit and potential contributions. Obama had nothing to do with this. Presidents have better things to do than review grant proposals.

This only has to do with the government in that NSF provides money, and these researchers happen to be a public (state, not federal) university. You know when we all complain about lack of government support for basic research? That is a lot of what the NSF does.

Very disappointing that an FCC commissioner is trying to create a fake scandal based on what are essentially outright lies. Now THAT deserves your attention.

Read more here.

One could argue that a true free trade proponent would not engage in trade negotiations, since it does not really matter what the other party does - even if they continue to impose tariffs and quotas, you will be better off if they are able to sell to you without restriction.

Of course that's politically impossible, but also the quid pro quo of an agreement can be used to convince the other party (who may not be convinced of the value of free trade) to open their market more than they otherwise would have.

Finally, today's "free trade agreements" have very little to do with tariffs and quotas, and have far more to do with regulatory harmonization. Where the U.S. is concerned, this basically means trying to convince other countries to adopt our regulatory system as it stands at the time of the negotiation, without much thought given for how well it functions, whether it might change, and whether there might be goods reasons for other countries to have different systems.

There is some place for secrecy in negotiation. If our negotiators are trying to get the best deal for us, they don't want to reveal what concessions they are willing to make until they have a sense of the concessions other parties are willing to make.

The problem is that, at least in the US, the trade negotiating agency has its priorities set by a limited number of industry advisory groups, and these groups are not representative of US interests. The composition of the groups is about 20 years behind the times, so as a result you have a trade agency pushing for copyright restrictions without thinking about how they will affect the technology industry.

The trade agency also expends a disproportionate amount of bargaining capital on intellectual property, thus reducing what it is able to accomplish in other areas, such as labor and environmental standards.

Finally, the trade agency writes its own interpretation of US law into free trade agreements. It's usually pretty close to what US law actually says, but sometimes it misinterprets it, or US law changes and the FTA text ends up saying something completely different.