That's not quite right and I assume you mean ROI and not ROE. It gets a lot more complicated than just $3,000/$38,000. A true bean counter would use discounted cash flows. For the sake of argument, and to make the math easier, let's assume that the solar panels will still operate at 100% for 20 years and then have to be completely replaced. The current risk-free ROR is roughly 4%. In other words you can take the same $38,000 invest it and get a promised 4%. Initially the panels look like a better deal. Now comes the factor of risk. What is the risk of rising electricity prices? What is the risk that the prices will fall? If they fall too much then your ROI is actually less than the risk-free investment making this a bad decision financially. What if the panels fail after the warranty expires? On year 10 you now have to dump another $20,000 into your system. There are plenty of other examples and ways to mitigate the risk through insurance, etc. You also need to evaluate other options. Could one spend less than $38,000 on various other improvements including new windows, insulation, better appliances, etc, and still gain the $3,000/year? If so then that's a better deal. You can look at the many various ways, including trying to estimate the environmental cost. But that's how a business would decide. For a person this analysis can never quantify the "coolness" factor. I buy plenty of things that are financially stupid but I get a lot of enjoyment out of them and I work hard for it, so who cares.

FTA: Giroux said earlier planning budget estimates and timelines had to be changed because "we did not have the full picture of how complex this project would be." He noted a state audit in 2007 of troubled information technology projects identified inadequate planning as the source of most problems.

Seems like a classic case of the bubbles don't turn into code.

As someone once told me, the faces may change, but the assholes stay the same. To this day I'm still learning new and relevant ways of using that quote. Previously I never though about oppressive governments, it's mostly applied to management, bad teachers, etc.

I think it's silly to argue whether or not computers or people are better in a crisis. To say that a computer can multitask and process more information is an incredibly gross understatement. However note that the general rule of thumb in aviation is to blame the pilot as, in theory, they should have been able to recover from nearly all of the problems What scares me is does the pilot ever have the option of overriding what the computer thinks it knows? For example, UA 232 where the bird lost all hydraulics. There are situations where the software may overreact if it can't assess what exactly is wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. Not allowing the pilot to try something that is unorthodox seems foolish. Keep in mind pilots receive as much training or more training than a surgeon, fortunately their highly trained emergency skills are rarely needed.

lies, damn lies and data.gov!

The government is an easy target to pick on, but they do have some really useful sites such as thomas.loc.gov and census.gov. Data.gov is a great concept, my only concern is will it change every time a new president takes office? Just as the various executive orders are issued and rescinded based on who's in power, will they also tinker with what data, data.gov will own?