You're right!
I just got an arduino from Sparkfun delivered today.

I'm old enough to remember Heathkit kits. They always had a good reputation for quality, but I remember them as being too expensive for me to afford. The Arduino is very affordable and I've found some excellent tutorials about it on YouTube.

Maybe Heathkit could package some arduino-based kits and not only help gain the interest of a new generation of tinkerers, but also bring back those who got left out when surface-mount parts pushed the DIP package into obscurity.

This is simply not newsworthy.

That's why you won't ever read about this in the New York Times. At least that's the excuse they've using for years to cover up anything that makes them look bad or doesn't push their agenda.

bid

That's so SICK AND DISGUSTING...I might have to bit $150 :)

Another search engine will come along and then that'll be the flavor of the month for a while, and it's no skin off my back either way.

Looks like a lot of people agree with you.

Only question - does the Kin come in "Feces Brown"?

Why, yes it does. All you have to do is scrape the outer coat of paint off that turd of a phone.

...denialists' conspiracy theories

No bias there?

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Jones, Mann, et al have engauged in FRAUD? Not just any kind of fraud, but a massive fraud that makes Bernie Madoff's scam look tiny. Just like Bernie, climate "scientists" like Jones and Mann have said their science doesn't need to be questioned because of their renowned reputations. Actually, they may be worse than Madoff, because AFAIK, Madoff didn't go out of his way to smear critics.

Jones, Mann, and their fellow science-nazis should be cooling their heels in jail cells right next to Madoff.

I think Pamela Jones (PJ) of Groklaw should be mentioned.

Other than the tweaking of some peoples' overly-developed sense of aesthetics, and a few access roads and power lines, I don't see much damage being done.

That's easy to say when hundreds of square miles of other peoples land is being destroyed to please some peoples sense of "green" correctness. And what's this crap about a "few access roads and power lines"? Just for this one project, they are going to need HUNDREDS of roads and HUNDREDS of power conditioning sub-stations, and HUNDREDS of miles of transmission lines.

...and it has the added benefit of guaranteeing that no additional development will occur on the land, indefinitely...

That's because it will have already been developed! Hundreds of square miles to generate less power at lower reliability (the wind doesn't always blow) and much higher cost than a natural gas plant could produce on 160 acres (that's a quarter square mile for the "green experts" out there who may not know). You advocate destroying hundreds of square miles to placate a "green" sensibility, and yet still have the gall to accuse other people of having an "overly developed" sense of aesthetics!

What hypocrisy.

Most of west texas has been used for cattle for decades now. All the old growth has been destroyed. The grasslands have been destroyed. And most native species have been destroyed. Cattle are far worse to the environment than wind turbines.

That's ridiculous. Have you ever been to west Texas? Have you visited the wind farms already there and seen for yourself the impact they have? Not to mention the prairies being destroyed in Kansas and other states.

But hey, you have no solutions, so why not condemn everyone else's!

I guess you missed the "natural gas power station" part of my comment while you were showing your hypocritical nature by accusing me of being a Foxitic Limboid (I love that phrase!), which I am not. I don't watch Fox news, nor listen to Rush Limbaugh -- but I'm glad that YOU obviously do since you seem to know what they say.

And the hypocrisy is the point -- the remote, uninhabited arctic wasteland is off limits to development, but west Texas and other prairie lands are all available for destruction because it's for "green" energy.

Texas has a LOT of land that's not particularly good for animals, humans or plants over about 3 feet tall, and is perfect for wind farms.

Well, that's easy for you to say. Do you share the same opinions about the landscape of the arctic wildlife preserves?

Those wind farms really scar the countryside, and the maintenance roads that link them further destroys the ecosystems you so readily condemn. Don't forget about the intra-farm transmission lines and support structures. These things destroy hundreds of square miles to produce the power of one natural gas power station. Of course, it's on somebody else's land, though, isn't it? I guess there's no price some people are not willing for someone else to pay.

And funny that coal was mentioned, because it is the most favored fuel under the new "green energy" bill passed by the US House of Representatives. It is going to be massively subsidized for decades to come, while the cleanest fuel (natural gas) is the most punished -- both in power generation and industry. But, hey, who cares if "green energy" as portrayed in the popular press works or not... it's _GREEN_, and these wind farms go to ELEVEN!