It's "decentralized" while its main players are still mostly middle-class individuals and small-mid sized businesses. If a Goldman-Sachs or Citi got involved and sucked up most of the transaction validation/mining, they could falsify transactions.
I suggest you read the bitcoin literature to dispel those naive assumptions you have about the medium (not sure if its really a currency as they claim). Those who bring the biggest coordinated resources to bitcoin can apparently manipulate bitcoin. Its algorithms assume that everyone is more or less equal (or if very rich, altruistic or unambitious).
Bitcoin isn't a model of integrity either. Years ago I read their docs about how coins are mined and transactions are processed: The entire bitcoin scheme is based on the idea that the computing power of all the un-allied bit players would overwhelm the power available to establishment banks (and such) if they were to join the currency. Coordinated bias can be introduced into the mining/processing operations essentially distorting or vetoing or delaying the requested transactions of bit players... and very large players apparently can attempt this and get away with it. The veracity of bitcoin transactions depends on vast data centers not being used against it. (As such, the currency is probably not very compatible with unchecked disparities in wealth and resources-- ironically, that would be libertarian capitalism).
Another weakness is, or course, the poor assumption of secure computer systems. Most people cannot manage that very well.
Yet another is that most people (indeed, most techies) don't understand crypto and so claims about cracking bitcoin-related algorithms can be spread, resulting in panic or lack of stability.
And finally: There is no physical enforcement against nefarious actors trying to counterfeit/undermine it (see first point). Nor is there fiat enforcement, so merchants and creditors can adopt then leave the currency over and over on a whim (and people expecting to pay in bitcoin can be caught out-- you can't sue anyone for not accepting payment in bitcoin).
Just dump the IP addresses entirely for your applications. Anonymizing networks like Tor and I2P do this automatically, switching the 'address' to a node identification key. If your node has the key, then any other node looking for that key will find you, no matter what your current IP address is. The key validates 'who' your systems are, so the IP address or domain doesn't even matter.
Tor cannot do this as seamlessly as I2P for a couple or reasons:
1) Tor is really only designed for browsing and doesn't handle non-TCP, non-HTTP protocols well. I2P supports UDP as well as TCP, and has the topology for larger, non-Web page data flows.
2) You can easily set the number of hops in I2P... all the way down to zero. This actually makes the (usually slower & anonymized) I2P connection faster than some of the above mentioned solutions involving the expense of a relay system (which is 1-hop, and assuming SSH gets balky more often due to the way TCP deals with latency)... (I think with Tor, you are forced to go through their anonymizing relays).
The down side is that -- although I2P handles IP sockets -- its not the same thing, so you need to take a couple steps to make SSH or other programs utilize it (similar to using torify as a wrapper). Also, the only mobile platform I2P runs on is Android. And remember that using I2P like this bestows no anonymity on your SSH connection (although that limit would not extend to other apps you use with I2P, as long as you don't also configure them to use 0 hops-- the default is 3 hops).
Infowars is like a great big blender without much selectivity: The smoothies that come out are always 'interesting', but the lovely strawberries and steaks that went in to it also had some rat turds thrown in as well.
It fascinates me how the moment property and industrial extraction are mentioned as an imminent possibility, all the hallowed posturing about peace in space goes flying our the window and one of the first sub-threads is a discussion about whether guns w/bullets will work in space.
If it comes to that then the escalation likely won't stop until eventually asteroids are directed against targets on the Earth.
Space adventurism leads to a different outcome than the ones shown in popular science fantasy (and most of it *is* fantasy).
1) Build a conventionally-designed desktop OS (perhaps from Linux or BSD components): It would have an SDK with a clearly defined but rich set of interfaces/libraries making it easy to write programs that run on just about any installation of that OS without getting tangled in a lot of fuss. To that end, apps would be fully contained in each of their own app directories (like GoboLinux and OSX) and there would be a default IDE along the lines of Xcode and Visual Studio. Most apps need only check the OS version to satisfy their dependencies.
3) Add desktop sharing capability to X11 or the freeNX protocol (not sure now, but this still wasn't done a couple years ago when I last checked). Currenty X11 systems can only share a screen between two or more people by inefficiently tossing bitmaps around (using VNC). Windows and OSX have had the abstraction layers to do this efficiently for about a decade.
4) Write a great CAD program to compare with AutoCAD (though this may be tough even for a PhD level project).
I'll second the Colemak recommendation. Its a lot more balanced between the L/R hands and doesn't make your right pinky reach upward or downward for letters (the Qwerty 'P' becomes semicolon, and the slash stays put) so most of the time all your right pinky has to worry about is 'O' on the home row. Going by the analysis at the CarpalX site (which evaluates many different layouts), Colemak gives you about 13% more efficiency overall than Dvorak gives over Qwerty.
Colemak is also the second most popular alternative and seems to be closing in on Dvorak. Apple and most Linux distros are including it as standard. Over at Geekhack (keyboard enthusiast site) there are noticeably more Colemak users than Dvorak users.
I do know this much: If I were a farmer, I would not want the burden of having to test my crops each season for patent violations trying to take hold on their own.
These farmers took that burden and tried to turn it into an opportunity. But of course, according to the legal system *every* seed on every lot now has to meet with Monsanto's approval.
A new study finds that adding Corexit 9500A to Macondo oil—as BP did in the course of trying to disperse its 2010 oilspill disaster—made the mixture 52 times more toxic than oil alone. The results are from toxicology tests in the lab and appear in the scientific journal Environmental Pollution.
Then they'll remove the option to run any native (non-script) code that does not have an approved digital signature. That will eliminate option A.
Option B, in their eyes, has been proven to be non-viable especially since some of the largest Office-to-OO conversion projects have recently failed. They are convinced OO/LO are only good enough for marginal users (determined techies, grannies, etc.).
This is why MS wants a DRM standard for web pages, so that Office Live will be just as controlling of the user (and her wallet) as the installed 2013 version.
And to think I just paid for my second (personal) Windows licence in 20 years. Between their DRM HTML initiative and this new Office licensing I'm tempted to tell Lenovo I want a Windows refund.
I think these recent moves are a consequence of some prominent OpenOffice projects, esp. the city of Munich, giving up and switching back to MS Office. The OO/LO brands have taken a huge hit and now MS is behaving like there is no longer any alternative in the market.
Those are x86 systems based on Linux (though not really a "Linux distro" thank goodness). ChromeOS is really starting to gain traction now, and it could reinvent the PC the way iOS/Android reinvented the smartphone and tablet.
The important thing about ChromeOS and Android and the moribund Linux desktop distro class is not that they use Linux or FOSS but that they are things that MS doesn't own, yet they can run on standard x86 hardware. The issue is whether any non-MS OS will be a hassle to install on a PC.
I think both you and the grandparent are being myopic about the Linux distro issue. Yes, the slipshod distro scene is almost laughable as a threat against Windows on the desktop. But that is not the only type of alternative and Google-backed stuff is quite credible. There ought to be a Godwin's law for PCs: Someone in a discussion about computers is bound to fixate inappropriately on desktop Linux.
And I still do not understand how Microsoft get to control this.
It seems like MS took the initiative on this, while the Linux camp assumed their users would expertly guard their systems and wouldn't have a need for runtime code signing. But most computer users aren't experts, and even many experts would rather have the code they run automatically verified by signatures, too, if its available.
But I don't understand why the Linux Foundation expects their OS to be an exception to secure boot (or something like it)... and that's what this signed pre-bootloader is, an exception that is being granted for people who want to run Linux (which will now cause Linux desktops to be associated with a big, scary boot-time message saying something to the effect of "this OS might not be secure").
Ultimately I think we'll see one or two distros like Ubuntu cut deals with vendors like Dell to have an Ubuntu-specific cert pre-installed on certain models.
The Finance sector has grown too big for its britches in terms of its share of GDP and no doubt in other respects, and that's half the problem right there. I say reenact Glass-Steagal and deploy your idea-- but targeted mostly at financial institutions. Other types of corporate business could be taxed at a fraction of the rate for financial services, though I would consider adding an exception of some sort for businesses that are identified as engendering natural monopolies such as cable telecom.
The burden/threat to society that TBTF carries will vary from industry to industry, but Finance is special in that it becomes an embodiment of the trust we have in society to operate smoothly and fairly. When they become too big and then fail, all of the trust we have for doing business with just about anyone else evaporates.
This is a statute bought and paid for by industry that interferes with YOUR basic civil liberties.
Large piles of money are more efficient money-making machines, and the more efficient they get the more inequality they engender. It has everything to do with free market economics, which holds that the political sphere should follow the lead of private capital and not stand as a check against the latter.
When it comes down to it, money is power but a lot hinges on how pervasive that power is. But I digress a bit.
Since this story deals with phones that are under contract anyway (and is not the kind of civil liberty issue you think it is), the real threat comes from the conflation of DMCA copyright protection (criminal penalty) with the protection of phone contracts (civil penalty). But breaking your phone contract has nothing to do with copyright. The courts are misapplying the law due to their usual post-Reagan thirst for persecuting average folks.
I travel overseas frequently and wish to purchase a local SIM to communicate with my local business partners. Now, according to this ruling, it is illegal for me to unlock my phone to use the local, problem.
Yes, and all because the new interpretation of the law assumes that unlocking a phone involves piracy (taking someone else's copyrighted data). The DMCA was intended to protect copyrights (hence the 'C' in DMCA) in the digital domain.
On second thought, this may be a misapplication of the law.
Letting you joke about it is how they convince the populace that they're still free. Say what you want about us; We're thick skinned. We bought our thick skins with your freedoms and your taxes. Thanks!
I've given this some thought, and especially in light of the nasty overreaction of the police to Occupy Wall St and its branches, I've come to a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, but all of that magnanimity lasts only as long as people feel the cornucopia is still spilling forth its riches. We are indeed a police state (otherwise the police would not revel in surveillance and militarization), but one that hasn't recently experienced hard, systemic resistance from a population that sympathizes with radicals.
After the market tumble in 2008, we started to go down that road just a little bit.
Go back to pre-1980's rules about about media outlet ownership and equal-time, and you might stand a chance of cutting the head off the snake.
Media ownership yes, equal time NO for reasons that should be obvious: Guaranteeing a broadcast-level soapbox to every crackpot and scoundrel is a recipe for intensifying the crazy-making obfuscation we have today.
Cut the conglomerates down to size, hold them to a standard of reporting significant events accurately (and don't renew their licenses if they don't), and move the cable infrastructure under the same rules as used for broadcasting over the air (based on the public right-of-way and investment that cable was founded on). I call that a good outline for Media Reform.
Going beyond that into telecom, draw clear lines around what it means to be a Common Carrier, put the lions share of ISPs into that ring and force them to spin off their content businesses. No studio or large scale publisher should own the lines going in and out of our houses.
but those billion malnourished generally don't live in a place with good air freight service, well-maintained highways, and refrigerated trucking.
Agreed, but many of those places have transportation (where it exists) that is configured to remove produce and resources onto boats headed for regions like Europe, North America and increasingly China. As you pointed out, that can also work in reverse WRT food... but I don't believe that is the case for all materials in general.
As I see it, any country that is not heavily bought-up by globalist Wall St. banks and aligned with NATO would inevitably appear as a threat to the West if they reconfigured their infrastructure to be self-sufficient and more self-serving. Self-sufficiency for an emerging region would necessarily have to stonewall the influences of the global banking system, because the system has a record of opportunistically creating crises which put the land and resources of so many developing countries on sale to Western corporations at fire sale prices. When the financial empire convulses because of mismanagement at its center, its the fringes that are most quickly abandoned because of a lack of familiarity or personal involvement by wealthy investors-- then they are lined up for 'austerity' programs which have much more to do with rent seeking by foreign actors than with self-sufficiency.
Its based on Linux and uses some newer virtualization features in CPUs to increase system security, and is able to enforce (and represent) security context in the GUI. They even tout a feature (anti-Evil Maid) that foils attackers with physical access (though they say nothing is perfect).
They say that garden variety VMs like VirtualBox and VMware increase security to some extent, but that they were mainly designed to make computing more convenient and efficient (i.e. they are not the most secure usage of virtualization technology). Qubes seems to have the goal of making high security convenient, so I will surely be trying this out soon.
"There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America. In a globalised food system, where we are all buying food in the same international market place, that means we're taking food out of the mouths of the poor."
In this context, a food evacuator for pampered fat people seems like the height of absurdity as if were something taken directly off the page of a Monty Python or Yes Men script.
Slashdot Mirror
It's "decentralized" while its main players are still mostly middle-class individuals and small-mid sized businesses. If a Goldman-Sachs or Citi got involved and sucked up most of the transaction validation/mining, they could falsify transactions.
I suggest you read the bitcoin literature to dispel those naive assumptions you have about the medium (not sure if its really a currency as they claim). Those who bring the biggest coordinated resources to bitcoin can apparently manipulate bitcoin. Its algorithms assume that everyone is more or less equal (or if very rich, altruistic or unambitious).
Makes me giggle, actually...
Bitcoin isn't a model of integrity either. Years ago I read their docs about how coins are mined and transactions are processed: The entire bitcoin scheme is based on the idea that the computing power of all the un-allied bit players would overwhelm the power available to establishment banks (and such) if they were to join the currency. Coordinated bias can be introduced into the mining/processing operations essentially distorting or vetoing or delaying the requested transactions of bit players... and very large players apparently can attempt this and get away with it. The veracity of bitcoin transactions depends on vast data centers not being used against it. (As such, the currency is probably not very compatible with unchecked disparities in wealth and resources-- ironically, that would be libertarian capitalism).
Another weakness is, or course, the poor assumption of secure computer systems. Most people cannot manage that very well.
Yet another is that most people (indeed, most techies) don't understand crypto and so claims about cracking bitcoin-related algorithms can be spread, resulting in panic or lack of stability.
And finally: There is no physical enforcement against nefarious actors trying to counterfeit/undermine it (see first point). Nor is there fiat enforcement, so merchants and creditors can adopt then leave the currency over and over on a whim (and people expecting to pay in bitcoin can be caught out-- you can't sue anyone for not accepting payment in bitcoin).
Just dump the IP addresses entirely for your applications. Anonymizing networks like Tor and I2P do this automatically, switching the 'address' to a node identification key. If your node has the key, then any other node looking for that key will find you, no matter what your current IP address is. The key validates 'who' your systems are, so the IP address or domain doesn't even matter.
Tor cannot do this as seamlessly as I2P for a couple or reasons:
1) Tor is really only designed for browsing and doesn't handle non-TCP, non-HTTP protocols well. I2P supports UDP as well as TCP, and has the topology for larger, non-Web page data flows.
2) You can easily set the number of hops in I2P... all the way down to zero. This actually makes the (usually slower & anonymized) I2P connection faster than some of the above mentioned solutions involving the expense of a relay system (which is 1-hop, and assuming SSH gets balky more often due to the way TCP deals with latency)... (I think with Tor, you are forced to go through their anonymizing relays).
The down side is that -- although I2P handles IP sockets -- its not the same thing, so you need to take a couple steps to make SSH or other programs utilize it (similar to using torify as a wrapper). Also, the only mobile platform I2P runs on is Android. And remember that using I2P like this bestows no anonymity on your SSH connection (although that limit would not extend to other apps you use with I2P, as long as you don't also configure them to use 0 hops-- the default is 3 hops).
Infowars is like a great big blender without much selectivity: The smoothies that come out are always 'interesting', but the lovely strawberries and steaks that went in to it also had some rat turds thrown in as well.
I..
Slashdot, where the first-person anecdote is still tirelessly trumpeted at evidence.
(Hint: Its not about you.)
BTW, never say "never".
The only specific one I recall them mentioning was FAT filesystem, but they've claimed to have many more that Linux/Android supposedly infringes on.
It fascinates me how the moment property and industrial extraction are mentioned as an imminent possibility, all the hallowed posturing about peace in space goes flying our the window and one of the first sub-threads is a discussion about whether guns w/bullets will work in space.
If it comes to that then the escalation likely won't stop until eventually asteroids are directed against targets on the Earth.
Space adventurism leads to a different outcome than the ones shown in popular science fantasy (and most of it *is* fantasy).
1) Build a conventionally-designed desktop OS (perhaps from Linux or BSD components): It would have an SDK with a clearly defined but rich set of interfaces/libraries making it easy to write programs that run on just about any installation of that OS without getting tangled in a lot of fuss. To that end, apps would be fully contained in each of their own app directories (like GoboLinux and OSX) and there would be a default IDE along the lines of Xcode and Visual Studio. Most apps need only check the OS version to satisfy their dependencies.
2) Restore mouse cursor feedback to Qubes AppVMs... http://www.qubes-os.org/
3) Add desktop sharing capability to X11 or the freeNX protocol (not sure now, but this still wasn't done a couple years ago when I last checked). Currenty X11 systems can only share a screen between two or more people by inefficiently tossing bitmaps around (using VNC). Windows and OSX have had the abstraction layers to do this efficiently for about a decade.
4) Write a great CAD program to compare with AutoCAD (though this may be tough even for a PhD level project).
Oops... too many suggestions.
Good luck with whatever you choose!
I'll second the Colemak recommendation. Its a lot more balanced between the L/R hands and doesn't make your right pinky reach upward or downward for letters (the Qwerty 'P' becomes semicolon, and the slash stays put) so most of the time all your right pinky has to worry about is 'O' on the home row. Going by the analysis at the CarpalX site (which evaluates many different layouts), Colemak gives you about 13% more efficiency overall than Dvorak gives over Qwerty.
Colemak is also the second most popular alternative and seems to be closing in on Dvorak. Apple and most Linux distros are including it as standard. Over at Geekhack (keyboard enthusiast site) there are noticeably more Colemak users than Dvorak users.
I do know this much: If I were a farmer, I would not want the burden of having to test my crops each season for patent violations trying to take hold on their own.
These farmers took that burden and tried to turn it into an opportunity. But of course, according to the legal system *every* seed on every lot now has to meet with Monsanto's approval.
But I agree, BP used it to make the spill appear less severe on the surface.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/chemical-dispersant-made-bps-gulf-oilspill-52-times-more-toxic
Then they'll remove the option to run any native (non-script) code that does not have an approved digital signature. That will eliminate option A.
Option B, in their eyes, has been proven to be non-viable especially since some of the largest Office-to-OO conversion projects have recently failed. They are convinced OO/LO are only good enough for marginal users (determined techies, grannies, etc.).
This is why MS wants a DRM standard for web pages, so that Office Live will be just as controlling of the user (and her wallet) as the installed 2013 version.
And to think I just paid for my second (personal) Windows licence in 20 years. Between their DRM HTML initiative and this new Office licensing I'm tempted to tell Lenovo I want a Windows refund.
I think these recent moves are a consequence of some prominent OpenOffice projects, esp. the city of Munich, giving up and switching back to MS Office. The OO/LO brands have taken a huge hit and now MS is behaving like there is no longer any alternative in the market.
I noticed you mentioned Chromebooks...
Those are x86 systems based on Linux (though not really a "Linux distro" thank goodness). ChromeOS is really starting to gain traction now, and it could reinvent the PC the way iOS/Android reinvented the smartphone and tablet.
The important thing about ChromeOS and Android and the moribund Linux desktop distro class is not that they use Linux or FOSS but that they are things that MS doesn't own, yet they can run on standard x86 hardware. The issue is whether any non-MS OS will be a hassle to install on a PC.
I think both you and the grandparent are being myopic about the Linux distro issue. Yes, the slipshod distro scene is almost laughable as a threat against Windows on the desktop. But that is not the only type of alternative and Google-backed stuff is quite credible. There ought to be a Godwin's law for PCs: Someone in a discussion about computers is bound to fixate inappropriately on desktop Linux.
And I still do not understand how Microsoft get to control this.
It seems like MS took the initiative on this, while the Linux camp assumed their users would expertly guard their systems and wouldn't have a need for runtime code signing. But most computer users aren't experts, and even many experts would rather have the code they run automatically verified by signatures, too, if its available.
But I don't understand why the Linux Foundation expects their OS to be an exception to secure boot (or something like it)... and that's what this signed pre-bootloader is, an exception that is being granted for people who want to run Linux (which will now cause Linux desktops to be associated with a big, scary boot-time message saying something to the effect of "this OS might not be secure").
Ultimately I think we'll see one or two distros like Ubuntu cut deals with vendors like Dell to have an Ubuntu-specific cert pre-installed on certain models.
The Finance sector has grown too big for its britches in terms of its share of GDP and no doubt in other respects, and that's half the problem right there. I say reenact Glass-Steagal and deploy your idea-- but targeted mostly at financial institutions. Other types of corporate business could be taxed at a fraction of the rate for financial services, though I would consider adding an exception of some sort for businesses that are identified as engendering natural monopolies such as cable telecom.
The burden/threat to society that TBTF carries will vary from industry to industry, but Finance is special in that it becomes an embodiment of the trust we have in society to operate smoothly and fairly. When they become too big and then fail, all of the trust we have for doing business with just about anyone else evaporates.
This is a statute bought and paid for by industry that interferes with YOUR basic civil liberties.
Large piles of money are more efficient money-making machines, and the more efficient they get the more inequality they engender. It has everything to do with free market economics, which holds that the political sphere should follow the lead of private capital and not stand as a check against the latter.
When it comes down to it, money is power but a lot hinges on how pervasive that power is. But I digress a bit.
Since this story deals with phones that are under contract anyway (and is not the kind of civil liberty issue you think it is), the real threat comes from the conflation of DMCA copyright protection (criminal penalty) with the protection of phone contracts (civil penalty). But breaking your phone contract has nothing to do with copyright. The courts are misapplying the law due to their usual post-Reagan thirst for persecuting average folks.
I travel overseas frequently and wish to purchase a local SIM to communicate with my local business partners. Now, according to this ruling, it is illegal for me to unlock my phone to use the local, problem.
Yes, and all because the new interpretation of the law assumes that unlocking a phone involves piracy (taking someone else's copyrighted data). The DMCA was intended to protect copyrights (hence the 'C' in DMCA) in the digital domain.
On second thought, this may be a misapplication of the law.
due to solar and (lack of) el nino cycles coinciding. Its quite temporary and we're already coming out of it.
Letting you joke about it is how they convince the populace that they're still free. Say what you want about us; We're thick skinned. We bought our thick skins with your freedoms and your taxes. Thanks!
I've given this some thought, and especially in light of the nasty overreaction of the police to Occupy Wall St and its branches, I've come to a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, but all of that magnanimity lasts only as long as people feel the cornucopia is still spilling forth its riches. We are indeed a police state (otherwise the police would not revel in surveillance and militarization), but one that hasn't recently experienced hard, systemic resistance from a population that sympathizes with radicals.
After the market tumble in 2008, we started to go down that road just a little bit.
Go back to pre-1980's rules about about media outlet ownership and equal-time, and you might stand a chance of cutting the head off the snake.
Media ownership yes, equal time NO for reasons that should be obvious: Guaranteeing a broadcast-level soapbox to every crackpot and scoundrel is a recipe for intensifying the crazy-making obfuscation we have today.
Cut the conglomerates down to size, hold them to a standard of reporting significant events accurately (and don't renew their licenses if they don't), and move the cable infrastructure under the same rules as used for broadcasting over the air (based on the public right-of-way and investment that cable was founded on). I call that a good outline for Media Reform.
Going beyond that into telecom, draw clear lines around what it means to be a Common Carrier, put the lions share of ISPs into that ring and force them to spin off their content businesses. No studio or large scale publisher should own the lines going in and out of our houses.
Agreed, but many of those places have transportation (where it exists) that is configured to remove produce and resources onto boats headed for regions like Europe, North America and increasingly China. As you pointed out, that can also work in reverse WRT food... but I don't believe that is the case for all materials in general.
As I see it, any country that is not heavily bought-up by globalist Wall St. banks and aligned with NATO would inevitably appear as a threat to the West if they reconfigured their infrastructure to be self-sufficient and more self-serving. Self-sufficiency for an emerging region would necessarily have to stonewall the influences of the global banking system, because the system has a record of opportunistically creating crises which put the land and resources of so many developing countries on sale to Western corporations at fire sale prices. When the financial empire convulses because of mismanagement at its center, its the fringes that are most quickly abandoned because of a lack of familiarity or personal involvement by wealthy investors-- then they are lined up for 'austerity' programs which have much more to do with rent seeking by foreign actors than with self-sufficiency.
This looks interesting: http://qubes-os.org/
Its based on Linux and uses some newer virtualization features in CPUs to increase system security, and is able to enforce (and represent) security context in the GUI. They even tout a feature (anti-Evil Maid) that foils attackers with physical access (though they say nothing is perfect).
They say that garden variety VMs like VirtualBox and VMware increase security to some extent, but that they were mainly designed to make computing more convenient and efficient (i.e. they are not the most secure usage of virtualization technology). Qubes seems to have the goal of making high security convenient, so I will surely be trying this out soon.
"Recent estimates suggest that 16 per cent of the energy consumed in the US is used to produce food. Yet at least 25 per cent of food is wasted each year..."
"There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America. In a globalised food system, where we are all buying food in the same international market place, that means we're taking food out of the mouths of the poor."
In this context, a food evacuator for pampered fat people seems like the height of absurdity as if were something taken directly off the page of a Monty Python or Yes Men script.