I can't say how VirtualBox does it but VMWare gives you three options:
- a "bridge" mode where your physical network card is split into two virtual ones, one goes to the host and one to the guest, which then acts like any other member of the outside LAN
- NAT, at which point you'd do the routing yourself and be in control of everything
- Host-only, which I believe gets rid of any possibility of the LAN seeing the VM. If I am reading correctly it sets up two virtual interfaces, one on the host and one on the guest, configured to see each other. I am not sure why you couldn't route that as well, but maybe someone can fill in the gaps I'm leaving.
But my main point is that as long as VirtualBox lets you do NAT from guest to host then it's up to you what traffic you do and don't let through.
You could look into a hypervisor, like ESX or XEN, so you wouldn't be running two full OSes. But they tend to be aimed at the server market and I don't know what their hardware compatibility lists look like.
It's a small point but I have to wonder what benefits you're getting from the setup you've described. VMs use more storage, more memory, and force you to wait through multiple boots. Maybe you're just waking them up, but in my experience (which I have to admit is just VMWare + XP on OSX with 2GB RAM) it's about the same.
Obviously there is the sense of cleanliness, but having to go between VMs to access different files, as well as having multiple copies of the same programs, seems like it would mitigate that. If you are using snapshots for backups or retaining a fixed image, you could try something like Acronis for that, and you would not have to deal with the overhead of multiple OSes. There are other approaches as well: a main clean OS and one just for testing software (though there are programs like Sandboxie that work well for that).
I don't mean to criticize as opposed to suggest. Whatever works works. But it does seem like you're losing a lot to gain to gain a little. Perhaps you have some killer hardware, though. Or maybe you work from home and don't have the physical separation of "work computer" and "home computer".
I agree somewhat but I'm not sure I'd put all of the responsibility on the buyer. What I would say is that Comodo owes current customers their money back, since they've been sold snake oil. Buyer beware up to a certain point, but I don't know that someone should reasonably be expected to do the legwork the author did. Comodo advertised a legitimate cert, right? That's what they should be selling.
Buyer beware works when the product is too good to be true. Are all third-party certs too good to be true? Maybe. But we can at least say in this case that they have some value (1-prevents attack, 2-comforts visitors because of #1). In Comodo's case #1 was shown to be non-existent and #2 is greatly diminished.
Of course, I've never had to go shopping for a certificate but I always got the impression that Comodo was one of those backwater CAs. Buy cheap and buy twice:)
The sole purpose of a CA is to see if the identity of the recipient matches the certificate
Quoted for emphasis. That is the only damn thing they are supposed to do, their raison d'être. It is the thing that separates buying their product from self-signing. I wonder how plausible a class action suit is, given that they've caused all of the certificates they've sold to be worthless.
...which they won't, at least not in the US, unless the government gets involved. BoA has the balls to call SiteKey two-factor authentication. I guess their logic is that your account number is one factor and the password is another, or something like that.
It can be pretty hellish in Windows, too. Granted, it's nothing on the level of having to set up configs for X, but I think dual monitor setups are one of those things that by their nature will never be pretty. My Mac gets it right on the whole as far as resolutions but there's still plenty of issues with individual apps and where they choose to put their dialogs.
If you're saying it's difficult because it's the CLI, I have to disagree. Confusing GUIs are very easy to make and *all* graphical OSes are full of them. What you trade in fanciness at the shell you gain in precision.
Ever notice how Excel balks when you try to save a CSV file, then prevents you with multiple yes/no dialogs, then acts like you never saved the file when you go to close? (Clearly, MS Office is not ready for the desktop.)
I mean, I agree with you on the whole. There's plenty of room for improvement. Configuring X by hand is like being transported back to pre-plug and play days. But dual monitor setups is one of the first places I'm willing to cut any OS some slack.
Scrivener (OS X) has two different views, "outliner" and "corkboard". It looked interesting to me but I can't say I have direct experience with it. There are in fact a lot of writing programs for Macs with interesting interfaces...maybe have a look at Ulysses as well.
I suppose that with any device-based organizational system you have to adapt yourself to them, there probably isn't anything as immediately familiar as using your desk, but if you can internalize a process that does essentially the same thing, you might get as much or more done and have some space for coffee mugs and bobble-heads:)
My guess is they'll try to say that it's only a certain brand of management techniques. Check wise.org to see what I mean. I have no doubt that this is all about WISE and whether or not it's a legitimate form of business management or just a way for Scientology to get its foot in the door at people's offices.
OTOH, the article on Wikipedia says that their incorporation papers say "Its purposes are to promote and foster the religious teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in society", so maybe I'm wrong and they won't try and separate out the religious part.
Interesting. I have thought about this too. This is in no way a defense of Scientology, which I consider to be a glorified scam, but I have to wonder about the testimony you hear from the excommunicates or what-have-you...they were crazy enough to join a cult. But now they're rational and trustworthy? Maybe. Or maybe not.
The ISPs increasingly have their own on demand video services. They don't give a crap about you stealing, they want to make sure that if you use the bandwidth you're using it on the part of the network they can squeeze ad revenue from.
How long before "kicked off the net" becomes, "we'll let you back on if you pay us double"?
Crap, I misread the original post. It wasn't a troll at all, just someone saying that English is a more appropriate cross-European language than Chinese. Even better.
Not only did the vote fail, it never even happened. There was no decision and eventually someone moved to adjourn and continue the discussion later, and it was that vote which failed. Congress didn't care enough about it to keep the discussion going.
Not only did the OP get trolled *hard*, but he managed to throw himself under the urban legend bus:)
Why is this flamebait? I'm genuinely curious. I thought the idea sounded familiar as well, now I know why.
But the -1 makes me think there's more to it...is there a patent application from MS or something similar that says theirs came first? Or is this one significantly different somehow?
It strikes me as being similar to the old (untrue but still funny) story about NASA spending its own money to develop the Fisher Space Pen, while Russian astronauts used pencils.
I have no trouble with the touch screen on my iPhone. The common widgets are sized so that there isn't anything you would need a stylus for (the typing isn't bad, you get used to it after a few minutes). It's been a while since I've used Windows Mobile but at the time I got the impression that there's no way you could get around without a stylus. Rather than strip away unnecessary buttons and information, everything is left on the screen but made really really tiny.
That said, this idea seems to be sort of in-between a touch screen and having external dedicated controls. I can't think of any myself but I don't doubt there will be a few applications that this suits well.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't say how VirtualBox does it but VMWare gives you three options:
- a "bridge" mode where your physical network card is split into two virtual ones, one goes to the host and one to the guest, which then acts like any other member of the outside LAN
- NAT, at which point you'd do the routing yourself and be in control of everything
- Host-only, which I believe gets rid of any possibility of the LAN seeing the VM. If I am reading correctly it sets up two virtual interfaces, one on the host and one on the guest, configured to see each other. I am not sure why you couldn't route that as well, but maybe someone can fill in the gaps I'm leaving.
But my main point is that as long as VirtualBox lets you do NAT from guest to host then it's up to you what traffic you do and don't let through.
You could look into a hypervisor, like ESX or XEN, so you wouldn't be running two full OSes. But they tend to be aimed at the server market and I don't know what their hardware compatibility lists look like.
It's a small point but I have to wonder what benefits you're getting from the setup you've described. VMs use more storage, more memory, and force you to wait through multiple boots. Maybe you're just waking them up, but in my experience (which I have to admit is just VMWare + XP on OSX with 2GB RAM) it's about the same.
Obviously there is the sense of cleanliness, but having to go between VMs to access different files, as well as having multiple copies of the same programs, seems like it would mitigate that. If you are using snapshots for backups or retaining a fixed image, you could try something like Acronis for that, and you would not have to deal with the overhead of multiple OSes. There are other approaches as well: a main clean OS and one just for testing software (though there are programs like Sandboxie that work well for that).
I don't mean to criticize as opposed to suggest. Whatever works works. But it does seem like you're losing a lot to gain to gain a little. Perhaps you have some killer hardware, though. Or maybe you work from home and don't have the physical separation of "work computer" and "home computer".
* were also laws, whoops
He'd be a dictator if there was also laws that said only banks can lend money and only doctors can give health advice.
Oxygen tanks for everyone?
Wait...no just a tax credit so people could choose whether or not to buy an oxygen tank.
I agree somewhat but I'm not sure I'd put all of the responsibility on the buyer. What I would say is that Comodo owes current customers their money back, since they've been sold snake oil. Buyer beware up to a certain point, but I don't know that someone should reasonably be expected to do the legwork the author did. Comodo advertised a legitimate cert, right? That's what they should be selling.
Buyer beware works when the product is too good to be true. Are all third-party certs too good to be true? Maybe. But we can at least say in this case that they have some value (1-prevents attack, 2-comforts visitors because of #1). In Comodo's case #1 was shown to be non-existent and #2 is greatly diminished.
Of course, I've never had to go shopping for a certificate but I always got the impression that Comodo was one of those backwater CAs. Buy cheap and buy twice :)
The sole purpose of a CA is to see if the identity of the recipient matches the certificate
Quoted for emphasis. That is the only damn thing they are supposed to do, their raison d'être. It is the thing that separates buying their product from self-signing. I wonder how plausible a class action suit is, given that they've caused all of the certificates they've sold to be worthless.
...which they won't, at least not in the US, unless the government gets involved. BoA has the balls to call SiteKey two-factor authentication. I guess their logic is that your account number is one factor and the password is another, or something like that.
Serious answer: AFAIK practicing medicine without a license is illegal in most places. I'm sure it's the same with psychiatry.
So who validates the law?
Sylvester Stallone.
It can be pretty hellish in Windows, too. Granted, it's nothing on the level of having to set up configs for X, but I think dual monitor setups are one of those things that by their nature will never be pretty. My Mac gets it right on the whole as far as resolutions but there's still plenty of issues with individual apps and where they choose to put their dialogs.
If you're saying it's difficult because it's the CLI, I have to disagree. Confusing GUIs are very easy to make and *all* graphical OSes are full of them. What you trade in fanciness at the shell you gain in precision.
Ever notice how Excel balks when you try to save a CSV file, then prevents you with multiple yes/no dialogs, then acts like you never saved the file when you go to close? (Clearly, MS Office is not ready for the desktop.)
I mean, I agree with you on the whole. There's plenty of room for improvement. Configuring X by hand is like being transported back to pre-plug and play days. But dual monitor setups is one of the first places I'm willing to cut any OS some slack.
Scrivener (OS X) has two different views, "outliner" and "corkboard". It looked interesting to me but I can't say I have direct experience with it. There are in fact a lot of writing programs for Macs with interesting interfaces...maybe have a look at Ulysses as well.
I suppose that with any device-based organizational system you have to adapt yourself to them, there probably isn't anything as immediately familiar as using your desk, but if you can internalize a process that does essentially the same thing, you might get as much or more done and have some space for coffee mugs and bobble-heads :)
My guess is they'll try to say that it's only a certain brand of management techniques. Check wise.org to see what I mean. I have no doubt that this is all about WISE and whether or not it's a legitimate form of business management or just a way for Scientology to get its foot in the door at people's offices.
OTOH, the article on Wikipedia says that their incorporation papers say "Its purposes are to promote and foster the religious teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in society", so maybe I'm wrong and they won't try and separate out the religious part.
L is for the way you look at me
O is for the only one I see
V is very, very extraordinary
E is even more than anyone that you adore can
Interesting. I have thought about this too. This is in no way a defense of Scientology, which I consider to be a glorified scam, but I have to wonder about the testimony you hear from the excommunicates or what-have-you...they were crazy enough to join a cult. But now they're rational and trustworthy? Maybe. Or maybe not.
Don't forget Open Office (not entirely but for wizards and other things). And education.
Seriously, it's like saying "steak is dead". I don't know if I was trolled or what.
Yes, we are. Are you sure you're in the right place?
The metallic-black "Adamo" laptop will reportedly be thinner than the MacBook Air, although it's unclear whether it will be as light.
Sure, it depends on whether or not they loaded Vista onto it.
(kidding)
I guess I'm missing the point of this.
Me too, unless it's "selling replacement batteries".
You're talking about a bunch of guys who still remember lugging their Osbournes around. Of course their shoulders are sensitive.
The ISPs increasingly have their own on demand video services. They don't give a crap about you stealing, they want to make sure that if you use the bandwidth you're using it on the part of the network they can squeeze ad revenue from.
How long before "kicked off the net" becomes, "we'll let you back on if you pay us double"?
Crap, I misread the original post. It wasn't a troll at all, just someone saying that English is a more appropriate cross-European language than Chinese. Even better.
Not only did the vote fail, it never even happened. There was no decision and eventually someone moved to adjourn and continue the discussion later, and it was that vote which failed. Congress didn't care enough about it to keep the discussion going.
Not only did the OP get trolled *hard*, but he managed to throw himself under the urban legend bus :)
Truly a work of art.
Java isn't going anywhere
Do you own a cell phone, by any chance?
Why is this flamebait? I'm genuinely curious. I thought the idea sounded familiar as well, now I know why.
But the -1 makes me think there's more to it...is there a patent application from MS or something similar that says theirs came first? Or is this one significantly different somehow?
It strikes me as being similar to the old (untrue but still funny) story about NASA spending its own money to develop the Fisher Space Pen, while Russian astronauts used pencils.
I have no trouble with the touch screen on my iPhone. The common widgets are sized so that there isn't anything you would need a stylus for (the typing isn't bad, you get used to it after a few minutes). It's been a while since I've used Windows Mobile but at the time I got the impression that there's no way you could get around without a stylus. Rather than strip away unnecessary buttons and information, everything is left on the screen but made really really tiny.
That said, this idea seems to be sort of in-between a touch screen and having external dedicated controls. I can't think of any myself but I don't doubt there will be a few applications that this suits well.