Googling, I found this. It sounds like the screen lock vulnerability described.

I'd hope that we in the first world can reduce our resource usage without a drastic decrease in quality of life. By sustainable I meant that there wouldn't necessarily be an increased number of people consuming at first world levels. I agree that that doesn't address the concern that our current consumption levels are not sustainable in the first place. Increasing lifespan need not make that much of a difference, though. (If our lifespans are finite, a birth rate of just over 2 is ultimately stable.) As more succinctly put in a modded down comment, how many children you have is more important to your resource footprint than how long you live.

If you correspondingly reduce the birth rate, the problem goes away. Many parts of Europe would already be at a sustainable level. A problem is that birth rate reductions seem to lag death rate reductions leading to large population increases in some parts of the world. A healthier old age where people can still be productive and less of a drain on health care resources would alleviate the dependency load problem much of the first world is/will be facing.

No, farm subsidies have a small effect on lowering food prices, but a large effect on transferring wealth to farmers. This is a variation of the broken window fallacy. For example, subsidized corn ends up being used for purposes where there are better alternatives. Consumers are of course always going to need food, but they might choose a different mix in the absence of subsidies and use some of the wealth that went to domestic agriculture for other purposes.

Old age is a big time killer too. How many of the 11,000 gun violence death were accidents? How many of the car deaths were homicides? Generally we distinguish between accidental/incidental (side effect) and deliberate.

Or put those claiming it isn't a pollutant in a 10% CO2 atmosphere for 1/2 hour.

Or do the reverse and run Windows in a VM where necessary.

If you're reading here there's a good chance your aren't running Windows and just came for the Schadenfreude.

At the risk of sounding like a code Nazi, don't do this! Match on country and id.

Huh? If a free market existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. Copyrights and patents are incompatible with a free market.

I assume you are referring to climate scientists. I still have quite a bit of respect for academic science. I think the peer review process has a strong track record of sorting out fraudulent science. Scientists have a much cleaner record than business leaders and politicians, so I'm more inclined to trust them than naysayers which are often from the latter two groups.

According to the National Geographic piece, most climate scientists are skeptical about extraterrestrial warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm Most of the the zealotism seems to be among the global warming deniers. They'll jump on anything that appears to refute anthropogenic warming without doing any investigation. Seems like more an excuse to further their own beliefs and behaviours than true skepticism.

I live in Calgary, and bought a non-refurb Aspire One with Linux about a month ago at a local retailer. (Quickly ditched Linspire for Kubuntu.)