Parallels 2.0 does not recognize the firewire port; Parallels technical support seemed less than enthusiastic about adding firewire support when I asked them about it, and I don't recall seeing that firewire is not supported in their literature. I don't see this in Parallels 3.0. So you need to be sure that your guest OS will have access to all of the hardware devices on your machine if this is a concern: it might not if Parallels doesn't support it.
Also, the idea that virtualization has "no overhead" is expensive marketing hype: the idea that virtualization reduces power consumption is the exact opposite of the truth. My MacBook runs hotter with Parallels running that it does without it.
Power consumption goes up with virtualization generally. Consider this ZD Net article on the hidden costs of virtualization (the silent enemy). Anyone considering virtualizing a server farm needs to include the cost of increased power and A/C consumption in their calculations.
My response to the doubleclick deal has to add the following entries
to my/etc/hosts file. It's most gratifying to see blank spaces
formerly occupied by distracting advertisements. Initially I defined
ad.doubleclick.net to be the localhost address in/etc/hosts,
and then found the other addresses below at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/categories/rant/2 002/04/23.html.
"No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind."
This confusion about tangible and intellectual property is typical among apologists for intellectual monopoly. The claim that intellectual property is like real property is spurious, since property rights concern the right of the owner to exclusive use, and intellectual property is a government grant to create a legal monopoly over all copies of an idea.
For a careful critique of the conventional notion of intellectual property, see Against Intellectual Monopoly by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
Instead of grandstanding to curry favor with a few movie and recording industry executives, so that he'll have a place to work after he resigns, Gonzales ought to read Against Intellectual Monopoly, by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. And then he should resign.
As the previous poster failed to cite a source on intellectual property that/.-ers would find useful, allow me: Against Intellectual Monopoly by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. I also recommend the Against Monopoly blog.
The previous poster writes, "Take just 10 minutes to get educated."
A judicious selection of readings from "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is ideal for educating oneself about intellectual property, in the ten minutes generously alloted for this purpose by the previous poster.
For example, Boldrin and Levine demolish the conventional claim of intellectual property apologists that intellectual property is just like real property. Boldrin and Levine point out that property rights have to do with the right of the owner to exclusive use, whereas intellectual property is a government grant to create a legal monopoly over all copies of an idea.
The use of patents by monied intellectual monopolists to impede innovation for their own profit is ancient. Microsoft belongs to a long line of rent seeking intellectual monopolists, which includes such historical figures as James Watt, who spent more time protecting his monopoly on the steam engine and prosecuting inventors with superior designs than he spent on development; and Marconi, whose contribution to the development of radio was the introduction of the ground wire.
The original poster is unwittingly correct: if/.-ers were to follow his advice, they would be only "marginally more intelligent." But why should they settle for that, when they could read Against Intellectial Monopoly, and be brilliant?
A representative from Red Hat involved in the development of software for the OLPC gave a talk at my institution. He mentioned that the OLPC was the reason he was working at Red Hat, and he stressed that software contributions to the OLPC had to be in the public domain: work on the OLPC was necessarily a labor of love. The OLPC was running a stripped down Fedora, but with Windows and the price hike, I don't see the attraction for open source deveopers. Why contribute code to a proprietary closed-source monopoly? The OLPC is becoming the OLPY: one laptop per yuppie.
It was big news in February that MIT is not migrating to Vista. That's still true, and other universities, such as CUNY, aren't interested in upgrading their Windows boxes to Vista.
Recently there was a panel discussion at the CUNY Graduate Center entitled, Intelligent Design under the Microscope. Eminent biologist James E. Darnell was the first speaker; he noted that among scientists, evolution is accepted as scientific fact and is not a matter of scientific debate. The evidence from microbiology is overwhelming: the same biological structures have been used repeatedly over millions of years. From his textbook, Molecular Cell Biology:
Even scientists brought up in the evolutionary tradition have been surprised to learn in recent years just how closely the genes of different species are related. During evolution, genes have been conserved to such an extent that some human genes will function in a yeast cell and quite a few will function in a fly cell. Clearly, one feature of evolution is the maintenance unchanged of many aspects of cellular life even while great changes in external form and capability are occurring. Recent progress in determining the sequences of all the genes in a variety of organisms is revealing the subtle changes that have fueled evolution.
I recently acquired a Mac Book Pro. There was one Windows program I wanted to run on it, and having read a good review of Parallels Desktop for Mac in Information Week, I installed Parallels and XP on it (see below). Thanks to the virtualization provided by Parallels, Windows is just another application on the Mac (likewise under z/VM on the IBM z series).
I have been defenestrating Windows machines for years, but my experience with the Mac Book Pro and Parallels did it: I'm a Mac convert. Aside from cost, at this stage for many usres there is simply no reason to buy a Windows box when you can have a Mac and run Windows on it as a guest OS if necessary. I agree with the author: now that virtualization provides transparent Windows support, this is a turning point for furture of the Desktop.
Incidentally, rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I was eager to try out Parallels and used for that purpose an OEM copy of Windows that had been removed from a DELL machine, and then activated Windows XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program. But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me that I was some sort of criminal: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP." The Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional I received in the mail the following week contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation."
Microsoft's practice of treating paying customers like counterfeiting criminals is a further reason to think of Windows as just another app.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the idea that virtualization has "no overhead" is expensive marketing hype: the idea that virtualization reduces power consumption is the exact opposite of the truth. My MacBook runs hotter with Parallels running that it does without it.
Power consumption goes up with virtualization generally. Consider this ZD Net article on the hidden costs of virtualization (the silent enemy). Anyone considering virtualizing a server farm needs to include the cost of increased power and A/C consumption in their calculations.
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 img.x10.com
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 www.x10.com
127.0.0.1 x10.com
127.0.0.1 ads.addynamix.com
127.0.0.1 leadgreed.com
127.0.0.1 www.leadgreed.com
127.0.0.1 c1.zedo.com
127.0.0.1 ad.trafficmp.com
127.0.0.1 media.adcentriconline.com
This confusion about tangible and intellectual property is typical among apologists for intellectual monopoly. The claim that intellectual property is like real property is spurious, since property rights concern the right of the owner to exclusive use, and intellectual property is a government grant to create a legal monopoly over all copies of an idea.
For a careful critique of the conventional notion of intellectual property, see Against Intellectual Monopoly by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
Instead of grandstanding to curry favor with a few movie and recording industry executives, so that he'll have a place to work after he resigns, Gonzales ought to read Against Intellectual Monopoly, by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. And then he should resign.
The previous poster writes, "Take just 10 minutes to get educated."
A judicious selection of readings from "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is ideal for educating oneself about intellectual property, in the ten minutes generously alloted for this purpose by the previous poster.
For example, Boldrin and Levine demolish the conventional claim of intellectual property apologists that intellectual property is just like real property. Boldrin and Levine point out that property rights have to do with the right of the owner to exclusive use, whereas intellectual property is a government grant to create a legal monopoly over all copies of an idea.
The use of patents by monied intellectual monopolists to impede innovation for their own profit is ancient. Microsoft belongs to a long line of rent seeking intellectual monopolists, which includes such historical figures as James Watt, who spent more time protecting his monopoly on the steam engine and prosecuting inventors with superior designs than he spent on development; and Marconi, whose contribution to the development of radio was the introduction of the ground wire.
The original poster is unwittingly correct: if /.-ers were to follow his advice, they would be only "marginally more intelligent." But why should they settle for that, when they could read Against Intellectial Monopoly, and be brilliant?
A representative from Red Hat involved in the development of software for the OLPC gave a talk at my institution. He mentioned that the OLPC was the reason he was working at Red Hat, and he stressed that software contributions to the OLPC had to be in the public domain: work on the OLPC was necessarily a labor of love. The OLPC was running a stripped down Fedora, but with Windows and the price hike, I don't see the attraction for open source deveopers. Why contribute code to a proprietary closed-source monopoly? The OLPC is becoming the OLPY: one laptop per yuppie.
It was big news in February that MIT is not migrating to Vista. That's still true, and other universities, such as CUNY, aren't interested in upgrading their Windows boxes to Vista.
I have been defenestrating Windows machines for years, but my experience with the Mac Book Pro and Parallels did it: I'm a Mac convert. Aside from cost, at this stage for many usres there is simply no reason to buy a Windows box when you can have a Mac and run Windows on it as a guest OS if necessary. I agree with the author: now that virtualization provides transparent Windows support, this is a turning point for furture of the Desktop.
Incidentally, rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I was eager to try out Parallels and used for that purpose an OEM copy of Windows that had been removed from a DELL machine, and then activated Windows XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program. But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me that I was some sort of criminal: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP." The Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional I received in the mail the following week contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation."
Microsoft's practice of treating paying customers like counterfeiting criminals is a further reason to think of Windows as just another app.