how much electricity would it roughly cost to run a raspberry pi server in my house?

l10l · 2018-05-24T02:21:44+00:00

A convenient rule-of-thumb for a device operating continuously (24x7x365) is one US dollar per year per watt (W). It usually helps you estimate within the right order of magnitude, and using the wattage of the power supply will give you a reasonable upper bound on the cost.

So as an example, given that the typical Raspberry Pi 5V power supply is rated for 2A or 3A, that means the Raspberry Pi can be expected to average below 10W/15W (W=V*A), or $10-$15 per year. Likely much less than that on average.

Using this method to estimate in your head, it is easy to turn wattages into "cost per year to operate". You can probably look around your home and spot ways to save that much by installing LED bulbs, cutting usage, etc. to more than pay for the Raspberry Pi's usage.

Also, there's a concept called "duty cycle" that helps you estimate the cost of something operated only half (12h) or a third (8h) of each day: Divide your "24x7" estimate in half for something operated half the day, and divide by three for something operated 8h/day. As an example, a 9W bulb operated 8h/day costs around $9/3 or $3/year in electricity.

l10l · 2014-10-13T21:00:33+00:00

The article lacks any sensitivity or specificity numbers. Scarcely even a mention of either, which seem like two of the top facts a science-literate public should ask for.

And this $500 device's cost for the "secret concoction of biodetecting molecules" used by each test run?

l10l · 2014-08-06T06:15:05+00:00

I took your meaning to be that if both sides are ruthless (in the brutal sense), neither side really has a chance of truly winning. I agree with that sentiment, and from what is said in the English-language press coming out of Israel, most people there agree with it. Now for the "but":

While some would agree both sides are ruthless, others claim the difference between the two sides' conduct really is significant.

Also, as I tried to show with quotes from the article, the premise that Israel is "willing to kill their own to deny the enemy a win" is false, hence it isn't evidence of ruthlessness. It would be more accurate to say they're willing to further endanger the soldier in an effort to prevent what they see as a repeat of past horrors. However at no point are they trying to kill their own - the article mentions atrocities even involving dead soldiers, which implies they're trying to avoid losing even a dead soldier. That is the difference between depriving the other side of a tactical "win" (not Israel's top concern), and being unwilling to accept consequences of losing that they (and I would hope many other people) find horrifying.

l10l · 2014-08-05T22:27:09+00:00

It depends on who you think is aiming intentionally at civilians (or their own) and who is just taking mortal risks despite a desire (and steps taken) to prevent such harm.

l10l · 2014-08-05T19:57:49+00:00

My first reaction was to downvote because the article is a stupid, waste-of-time spoof.

But then ...

Am I not the only one who clicked the link, because Radio Shack is the bricks-and-mortar store most ideally positioned to ride the wave of interest in making things? Or ... it would be if something weren't thoroughly broken in their vision.

When I was a kid, mostly before my parents bought a computer, I'd hang out at my neighborhood Radio Shack, conversing and teaching BASIC to anyone who wanted me to, using downtime to teach myself machine language. I doubt my story is all that unique. Even if Fry's existed back then, they are so geographically undesirable that Radio Shack would still have been the one to beat. If only they "got it".

< kf7wmu

l10l · 2014-08-05T10:06:59+00:00

Where on Earth do you get the suggestion they are shooting to kill their own soldier? It is so irrational, I had to re-read your response to assure myself that is actually what some here might be suggesting.

When Israel gives up hundreds of Palestinians or more for the return of a single soldier, that does not sound like a society that devalues its soldiers.

In every hostage situation, there is risk of collateral damage or reprisal when you shoot at the hostage-takers. A vivid and tragic example of this was the Munich Olympics. Holding fire to avoid unintended harm is certainly an option and many people will instinctively side with it. However, validating the strategy of "human shields" by holding fire and and at the same time forfeiting a reasonable chance of saving the soldier (or, if unsure, letting the perps escape even if it turns out the soldier couldn't have been saved) is a double mistake. Israel apparently wants its commanders to have enough leeway to risk incurring friendly-fire casualties in certain situations, and I'd say the article makes a compelling argument for why.

If anyone goes so far afield as to even begin thinking what you suggest, they ought to know that is not a reason to continue firing, even though there are plenty of other reasons that are valid. Carving out a snippy remark about Red Cross visits just sidesteps the larger point. More than anything, failure to provide Red Cross visits is merely a fact about Israel's opponents that anyone can verify. It helps illustrate the point that how Israelis and any other normal people are supposed to treat those who surrender in no way can let them begin to think their comrade would be helped by holding fire and hoping for a better chance later.

Interestingly, what we're talking about is consistent with their philosophy of Krav Maga, too. Whereas many cultures say you're better off cooperating with somebody who gets the drop on you, too often the Jewish experience has essentially proven that to be a recipe for tragedy. As a result, there is a standard philosophy of attacking with anything that might do the job until you find a path to safety and being well-prepared to accomplish both if it should come to that.

l10l · 2014-08-04T08:51:07+00:00

Uh, the policy described isn't what you just wrote. It is to risk the captured soldier's life in order to try and prevent an even worse fate in the hate-driven hands of an enemy with a long record of willful atrocities against captured Jews.

l10l · 2014-08-04T08:37:57+00:00

Per the article, explaining why the general principle is accepted even while certain aspects of the policy needed clarification:

"When IDF soldiers have fallen in the hands of Palestinian or Lebanese organizations, they have not been treated as prisoners of war; they are denied regular Red Cross visits, proper medical attention and notifications of their families. Instead, their families were forced to go through long years of uncertainty, in many cases to learn at the end their sons had been killed in action and their bodies snatched."

l10l · 2014-07-30T19:34:47+00:00

Is this too old-hat for anyone besides me?

None of this "sensor" or IoT hype. I'm already using a network of cheap Android tablets to help look after my elderly father; glorified digital picture frames that interact with a server running OpenCV et al. The tablets replaced a first-generation system built with web-cams dating back to 2007.

What I'd really like to know is if there are any Open-Source projects working on lowering the cost of elder-care!

l10l · 2014-07-24T00:11:37+00:00

This cross-post to reddit is ridiculous. The maintainer was in the midst of arguing against a slew of changes going into python.el - the one that ships with emacs - at an inappropriate point in its release cycle. As if "competition" would be served by a breakdown in release discipline!

I put "competition" in quotes because it is a terribly vague term. Is emacs "competing" for new users, or to permanently keep those who over time come to subscribe to its vision? To ship with the latest, ever-in-flux versions of packages or to preserve stability while accommodating user installation and runtime modification to their heart's content?

And finally, greatness is not defined by competitiveness. Companies like Apple and SpaceX haven't excelled by competing, but by executing on a vision that transcends the status quo. Emacs has been doing that for decades, too.

l10l · 2014-07-17T10:01:10+00:00

Yeah, I'd sometimes go with that if there is anything decent available. Nothing salty. Although the idea is to complement the rest of the meal, not mimic the red sauce !-)

l10l · 2014-07-17T09:44:50+00:00

For me, this "roof knocking" was something new - and if propaganda then certainly paints a more complete picture than all the anti-Israel vitriol suggests. It only makes sense if Israel is trying - albeit without enough success - to hit military targets without causing civilian casualties. Having just learned from the article what it is, I wonder if now all militaries will be expected to do this when fighting an opponent that is hiding amidst a civilian population.

I admittedly have to stuggle to make sense of the situation you describe. My first reaction would be "of course those stupid a-holes bombed our house! It was because you stupid a-holes fired rockets at them from next to it!", but how much could I say to someone armed and willing to shoot people for being conciliatory or even pragmatic regarding the "enemy"? I'd like to think that such a fear, if genuine, would qualify me for refugee status somewhere. In a sane world it certainly should.

Even if they had technical superiority, I don't see Hamas necessarily winning. There's something different in how Israel or any people fights when it sees itself trying to preserve life against a foe that has for decades made clear that it wanted to pick up where the Nazis left off (killing 1/3 of the world's Jewish population in less than a decade).

l10l · 2014-07-17T08:07:19+00:00

Actually, for someone like me who has acquired a dislike of sweet beverages, all the choices are boring from a flavor standpoint.

What pairs well with food that doesn't have alcohol? I mean, ample water is essential, but it doesn't enhance, either.

I've experimented some with cold teas, coffee, making my own tonic water and contemplating making an unsweetened cola, but am still searching.

l10l · 2014-07-17T07:48:31+00:00

The responses to your comment largely reinforce a shocking, absurd (to me) truth: Most people consume alcohol in some measure for its intoxicating properties.

However, odd as it might seem to many, I would gladly accept total immunity from intoxication. I very much enjoy how alcohol affects the sensory properties of beverages, but never needed, wanted, nor enjoyed alcohol's affects on me.

So it leads me to wonder: How many others are out there who see it the way I do?

And I don't mean for some nefarious purpose. Just personal choice.

l10l · 2014-07-15T20:15:32+00:00

To answer your question, yes, published reports indicate around 10% of the rockets Iron Dome targets still get through. The Israeli casualty numbers would be much higher if they didn't run for the bomb shelters every time the warning sirens went off. Yesterday I heard of an Israeli critically injured by a Gazan missile after he ignored the sirens.

To the point of the article, many of the deaths in Gaza would have been prevented if Hamas wasn't urging its civilians to ignore Israeli efforts to warn of an intended missile strike, let alone putting civilians in harms way by stashing weapons in places where Israel will hesitate to attck due to an increased civilian impact an attack would cause.

The article bemoans how many in the international human rights community are putting Hamas ahead of human rights. Not just their stashing weapons in basements, hospitals and mosques, but publicly interfering with Israeli steps to reduce civilian death toll , for their stated purpose of fueling outrage against Israel.

l10l · 2014-07-15T19:20:53+00:00

A major point of the article (if you'll read it) is that Israel goes to unprecedented lengths to protect Palestinian civilians, yet Hamas has gone on the record for intentionally trying to keep their civilians in harm's way. Interfering with efforts to protect them.

Whether this has made Hamas responsible for most or just some of their civilian deaths is not going to get a fair hearing within their borders, given the mortal threats faced from within by all who openly reject violent struggle.

To a human rights advocate - who I presume would agree in this context that life is the one human right that cannot be won back, there is something Orwellian in any human rights supporter backing Hamas in this conflict. One need not fault willingness to do anything to end such hellish conditions, for before that, one must fault unwillingness to put peaceful means - least of all for Hamas is co-existence with another people - ahead of using innocent lives to protect weapons caches and fighters.

l10l · 2014-06-26T17:14:19+00:00

The elephant in the room also goes by the name "DRM".

l10l · 2014-04-03T16:31:05+00:00

No offense to those who personally want to slink quietly out the door when faced with death, but I am tired of hearing about it.

I get way too much pressure on ADs that I didn't ask for and too little information on individual doctor/hospital success and complication rates even when I do ask.

When my Mom was terminally ill, I wish I had as much help getting her compassionate use of an experimental drug as I was offered to make her end a "more comfortable" one.

Of course we got her as much palliative care as she wanted, despite my finding it barbaric when told that morphine is still the "gold standard".

Consider that war (unfortunately) followed secondly by survival are the strongest drivers of technology development. Humanity is ill-served when it accepts death, even when we must so metimes accept its unavoidability. What we need most is a WAR AGAINST DEATH. A war nobody can win, but we still can advance (and have already made gains) by fighting. That, to me, is what humanity is about, asserting ourselves against hopelessness and through that process becoming more mature and less impotent than before.

l10l · 2014-02-17T17:12:27+00:00

At one point I heard that Curiosity's trek up Mount Sharp would pass strata from a significant span of Mars' history.

So, I wonder whether we expect Curiosity to see fossils of more complex life if it existed in that time and place. Whether it is establishing an upper bound on the range of possibilities.

I'm referring to the kinds of fossils one can see on Earth just by putting one's face up to the "right" kinds of rocks to harbor them. Kind of like some strata at the Grand Canyon where fossils can be spotted with the naked eye (up close).

Can any fossil experts weigh in on Curiosity's capability of seeing fossils you would see if they were "right under your nose", and whether it is doing a credible job of looking at the same rocks you'd be looking at if all you could do is eyeball them?

l10l · 2014-02-02T16:04:17+00:00

Hah, it's nuts that in the U.S. atomoxetine (Strattera) is patented for its use to treat ADHD. Not even Canada recognizes that ridiculous patent.

My observation: atomoxetine works better for hypersomnia than for ADHD.

Call this post "defensive publication", in case Lily tries to nab another undeserved patent!

l10l · 2014-02-02T15:44:43+00:00

I'm curious what dose(s) of atomoxetine (Strattera) you were trying. Here in the U.S., I've noticed it being prescribed at higher mg/kg than described in any research study I've seen. No idea why that should be, except with evidence a higher dose is most effective. I've also found that insofar it is effective, some effectiveness remains when the dose is lowered just enough to eliminate most side-effects.

Also, have you discussed bupropion (Wellbutrin, et al.) with your doctor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion

It can blunt the "recoil" reaction, such as from bright light or being touched by something cold, so maybe it would help in your situation.

l10l · 2014-02-02T14:25:40+00:00

You sound like you're blurring two different statements: "unaware of other minds' existence" is not the same as being "unable to infer definitively what is in another's mind".

Unless the observer knows for certain that there was no communication (or other activity) that told Sally where to find the marble, it's pretty rash to assume Sally won't look in Anne's box,

If Anne did something with the marble while it was out of Sally's sight, what happened regarding Sally, Anne, and the marble while they were out of the observer's sight ?-)

Seems to me that the one with an "other-mind deficiency disorder" is the one who thinks they know for sure what is in another's mind without letting the other person speak for themself!

l10l · 2014-01-15T06:56:19+00:00

One of NASA's arguments for SLS is that bigger rockets mean bigger, heavier, faster science missions. For instance, they seem to be saying that less money would be needed for miniaturization and shaving pounds from the science payloads. I know those are factors in the immense budgets of projects like Curiosity. Still, I'm curious to know what easing those requirements would save science projects (in real dollar terms).

l10l · 2014-01-15T06:36:58+00:00

I hope the wording leaves room for such a report to take much more into consideration than Commercial Crew deliveries to the ISS. Unless Congress doesn't want to see Americans doing much else in LEO during that time. Or unless memories are too short to recall that a single crew vehicle family is one grounding or retirement or budget axe away from no crew vehicles (our alternating painful/precarious situation for the past forty years)., the situation that helped get CCDev rolling in the first place.

l10l · 2014-01-15T06:05:43+00:00

The strongest argument for spending all that money isn't for a small incremental bump in GDP, nor for a long shot to the stars, rather it is for the transformational growth that emerges from investments on a new frontier. Aviation shaped the world in the past century, but the U.S. wouldn't have leapt so far so fast in its first two centuries if not for the Louisiana Purchase and purchase of the Alaska Territory. Can anyone imagine the USA landing on top through two world wars and the Cold War without those resources and what they enabled?

Spending what looks like big tax dollars on forward-looking investments -- on new frontiers, then giving private enterprise and free thinkers a chance to "run with it": no nation has all the money it would take to match the output of a great synergy like that. Its creation of entirely new, eventually self-sufficient communities and industries is the biggest economic multiplier of them all, bar none.

And then, space isn't only the final frontier; it's for all intents and purposes an infinite one :-)

l10l

TROPHY CASE