You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't.
You did not say "run OS X virtually" or any such wording, you said How about virtualization? Let's now look at virtualizing OSX, Google is your friend...
That's 5 of Google's more than 150,00 results. Are you again going to say I didn't understand what you meant?
You apparently didn't bother to *read* any of the links you gave, otherwise you'd find out that all of them are illegal methods as they are violations of the EULA, and your last link even explains why they are illegal. Again, you can't virtualize OS X client prior to Lion at all, you can virtualize OS X Server and OS X Lion client, but only if you are running on OS X as a host OS, ie not VMWare ESX or Citrix XenServer, or Microsoft Hyper-V, or any other bare-metal hypervisor, in other words, a useless non-feature.
In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out.
Just like you didn't spend the fives seconds to Google virtualize OSX. You didn't bother doing what you accuse me of not doing, Google terminal services osx. When I just did Google suggested "terminal services osx" and "terminal services osx client". I'm sure you're competent enough to look at some of the results yourself, if not I see no reason to continue.
Falcon
Again, you clearly didn't bother to give even a cursory glance at the results. Half of them are forum posts asking if OS X will ever have the ability to host terminal services (because it doesn't at the moment), and the other half are TS *clients* for accessing *Windows* terminal servers. The one relevent link, iRAPP, explicitly says that in order to conform to Apple's EULAs, they only allow multiple connections to OS X Server, not Client, which misses the entire point of having terminal services in the first place, and again makes it nothing more than VNC with a few more bells and
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac.
How about virtualization? How about terminal services? How about configuration management?
Virtualizing? Let's see. There'e VirtualBox, VMWare's Fusion 4, and Parallels. I don't have it setup right now but I'm going to try to use VirtualBox so I can run my dualboot Ubuntu installation in a virtual machine while running OSX. If that does not work then I'll try Fusion 4. OSX has terminal. Being based on FreeBSD many of the commands are the same as in Linux. Look at that, there's even Open Source configuration management software that runs on OSX.
Falcon
You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't. Try virtualizing more than two instances of OS X on the same server by any method without violating the EULA. Oh wait you can't. Try doing anything remotely useful with OS X and virtualization, the single most important and transformative technology in the IT world today. Oh wait you can't.
In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out. Terminal services refers to the ability to have one server host multiple remote login gui sessions, each with their own desktop and user settings. I refrained from calling it "Remote Desktop", because you'd probably come back with Apple Remote Desktop, misunderstanding the conversation yet again. ARD is just VNC with a few bells and whistles thrown in.
Lol what? Hyper-V plus SCVMM is pretty damn good. I'll grant that it's not as good as a fully decked out VMWare solution with vCenter, but its a hell of a lot less expensive too. OS X on the other hand can't do virtualization at all. Its against the EULA. Sure there's some token attempt (two total virtual instances per physical machine! We're cooking with gas now!), but its not even worth mentioning.
Configuration management can be done with OS X server.
No. Configuration management is more than just managed preferences and ARD. Where is the OS X equivalent of SCCM? Where is the automated image creation and deployment workflows? Where is the automated software packaging and deployment? Where is the support for Intel AMT style boot to shutdown remote control?
I'll give you terminal services, but windows sucks pretty bad at that, too.
If Windows sucks at terminal services, then everybody does, because Windows is the undisputed best in the market by far.
Look, I'm not saying Macs aren't great computers for single person use, they are. In fact, I'd say they are better for that purpose than other brands. But they simply have no place in a large enterprise environment. I welcome the day when Apple changes that, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
So you agree then that if I get past you and mix my labor with your computer, it becomes mine? Wonderful, let me go call some guys. A single semi-automatic shouldn't be much of a problem at all.
The whole "taxation is theft" line is horseshit. All taxed individuals *do* consent. The laws allowing taxation are all a matter of public record. No one is stopping anyone from leaving the country and renouncing their citizenship. Every moment that they decide to continue to reside in this country is a tacit consenting to be subject to taxation.
No, it's illegal if you have monopoly level marketshare. Bundling is illegal when it is an attempt to use your marketshare to compete, rather than the strength of your product. That is obviously not the case with Apple.
Finally, Wizards has ensured the demise of their original cashcow, Magic: The Gathering, through an unending stream of expansions and rules changes & negations. This is further eroded by the fact that it attempts to be a game and a collectible object: you force consumers to pay repeated costs for the same game, both through randomized packs of cards, and by a continual "revision" of the game. Gamers must continuously pay money to Wizards and retailers in order to remain "tournament legal". Why pay $20-$30 per month to Wizards for a card game, when a kid can pay $15 a month to Blizzard Entertainment and still hang out and be cool with his friends?
That's nonsense. The fact that they keep coming out with expansion is *precisely* what keeps the game alive. They come out with new cards, change up the tournament formats, and all of a sudden, the players have to actually design, build, and test new decks rather than using the same old Psychatog deck that they ran in Extended 4 years ago. This applies even in formats like Type 1 where you can use any card ever printed.
Fundamentally, the fun of the game isn't in the game itself, it's in the metagame. Keeping up with the meta, finding ways to exploit and overcome the decks you expect to see at the tournaments, these are the things that keep people coming back to the game.
The only valid Lorentzian reference frames are ones you can transform to from another valid reference frame. Since the transformation equations don't work at v=c, there is no valid reference frame that has a velocity of c relative to another valid frame, or in other words, light has no reference frame.
Fat Tire is disgusting. It was okay 4 years ago, but they got bought out by Miller and changed the recipe. Fat Tire is an American interpretation of Belgian beers anyway. It pales in comparison to good Frisian and Lambic ales. Get Chimay if you want a good intro to Belgian beers.
Uh no. Fat Tire is in no way a belgian. Its an amber ale. New Belgium's belgians are the Abbey and the Trippel (and the Frambrozen if you are counting Lambics). I wouldn't say its digusting, but it certainly is pedestrian. Although I haven't had it since they got bought out. The Chimays are nice, but personally I think the Unibroue Maudite and Trois Pistoles are the best Belgians on the market.
Intrinsic rights are a myth created by people who want to elevate they own idea of what rights we as a society should be giving ourselves to the position of a revealed truth.
And out here in the real world, as opposed to the Randite fantasy land you apparently live in, intentionally making false negative claims that result in damages (such as AMD chips not being powerful enough to run 10 concurrent connections) is libel or slander, and is *quite* actionable.
As other comments mentioned, most competitive tournament play is done in the T2 or Extended formats which only allow the last 2 years or 6 years of cards respectively. Also, even in the formats where you can use cards back to the beginning (T1 and Legacy), Wizards keeps a close watch on what cards are causing problems and maintains the banned and restricted list well enough to preserve balance.
There's apparently an internal Magic league in the design department of Wizards designed to help these kind of broken things float to the surface. Most of the time it works well enough. It kept them going well up until Mirrodin, where they were 100% blind to the fact that they had printed Skullclamp, the most overpowered card since Memory Jar.
The problem cards that have come out of WotC recently (Skullclamp, and to a lesser extent, Umezawa's Jitte) were all the result of modifications to the card *after* being playtested.
You could argue that the match outcome is as protected by copyright as the set and costume designs, theme tune and so forth.
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. The outcome is not protected by copyright anymore than the basic plot outline of a novel is protected by copyright. Its perfectly legal to tell someone that The Lord of the Rings is about a fight between good and evil, and that good wins in the end. Oh, and there's wizards. Facts about a copyrighted work are not part of the copyrighted work itself, even if the author/artist/etc. created those facts.
So $36,000 for two years worth of misery for you? There are plenty of people who, if you pissed them off sufficiently, would consider that well worth the ruin it would cause you.
Again, you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension here. Universal Binaries are what are technically known as 'fat' binaries. In other words, they are a file which contains more than one executable file concatenated together. In this case, it's a file which has the i386 binary and the ppc binary within it, padded to fit the encapsulated 'files' on filesystem block boundaries (4096 bytes) and with a header up front that says where they are.
Universal Binaries aren't two executables concatenated into one big file. They are separate files that are sitting in a special kind of folder (a package) that the Finder presents as one file. On the filesystem level, they are most definately separate.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't.
You did not say "run OS X virtually" or any such wording, you said How about virtualization? Let's now look at virtualizing OSX, Google is your friend...
That's 5 of Google's more than 150,00 results. Are you again going to say I didn't understand what you meant?
You apparently didn't bother to *read* any of the links you gave, otherwise you'd find out that all of them are illegal methods as they are violations of the EULA, and your last link even explains why they are illegal. Again, you can't virtualize OS X client prior to Lion at all, you can virtualize OS X Server and OS X Lion client, but only if you are running on OS X as a host OS, ie not VMWare ESX or Citrix XenServer, or Microsoft Hyper-V, or any other bare-metal hypervisor, in other words, a useless non-feature.
In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out.
Just like you didn't spend the fives seconds to Google virtualize OSX. You didn't bother doing what you accuse me of not doing, Google terminal services osx. When I just did Google suggested "terminal services osx" and "terminal services osx client". I'm sure you're competent enough to look at some of the results yourself, if not I see no reason to continue.
Falcon
Again, you clearly didn't bother to give even a cursory glance at the results. Half of them are forum posts asking if OS X will ever have the ability to host terminal services (because it doesn't at the moment), and the other half are TS *clients* for accessing *Windows* terminal servers. The one relevent link, iRAPP, explicitly says that in order to conform to Apple's EULAs, they only allow multiple connections to OS X Server, not Client, which misses the entire point of having terminal services in the first place, and again makes it nothing more than VNC with a few more bells and
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac.
How about virtualization? How about terminal services? How about configuration management?
Virtualizing? Let's see. There'e VirtualBox, VMWare's Fusion 4, and Parallels. I don't have it setup right now but I'm going to try to use VirtualBox so I can run my dualboot Ubuntu installation in a virtual machine while running OSX. If that does not work then I'll try Fusion 4. OSX has terminal. Being based on FreeBSD many of the commands are the same as in Linux. Look at that, there's even Open Source configuration management software that runs on OSX.
Falcon
You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't. Try virtualizing more than two instances of OS X on the same server by any method without violating the EULA. Oh wait you can't. Try doing anything remotely useful with OS X and virtualization, the single most important and transformative technology in the IT world today. Oh wait you can't.
In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out. Terminal services refers to the ability to have one server host multiple remote login gui sessions, each with their own desktop and user settings. I refrained from calling it "Remote Desktop", because you'd probably come back with Apple Remote Desktop, misunderstanding the conversation yet again. ARD is just VNC with a few bells and whistles thrown in.
Windows can't do virtualization properly.
Lol what? Hyper-V plus SCVMM is pretty damn good. I'll grant that it's not as good as a fully decked out VMWare solution with vCenter, but its a hell of a lot less expensive too. OS X on the other hand can't do virtualization at all. Its against the EULA. Sure there's some token attempt (two total virtual instances per physical machine! We're cooking with gas now!), but its not even worth mentioning.
Configuration management can be done with OS X server.
No. Configuration management is more than just managed preferences and ARD. Where is the OS X equivalent of SCCM? Where is the automated image creation and deployment workflows? Where is the automated software packaging and deployment? Where is the support for Intel AMT style boot to shutdown remote control?
I'll give you terminal services, but windows sucks pretty bad at that, too.
If Windows sucks at terminal services, then everybody does, because Windows is the undisputed best in the market by far. Look, I'm not saying Macs aren't great computers for single person use, they are. In fact, I'd say they are better for that purpose than other brands. But they simply have no place in a large enterprise environment. I welcome the day when Apple changes that, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac.
How about virtualization? How about terminal services? How about configuration management?
So you agree then that if I get past you and mix my labor with your computer, it becomes mine? Wonderful, let me go call some guys. A single semi-automatic shouldn't be much of a problem at all.
Wonderful. I'm gonna go install a RAM chip in your computer and therefore mix my labor with your computer so your computer becomes my property.
The whole "taxation is theft" line is horseshit. All taxed individuals *do* consent. The laws allowing taxation are all a matter of public record. No one is stopping anyone from leaving the country and renouncing their citizenship. Every moment that they decide to continue to reside in this country is a tacit consenting to be subject to taxation.
No, it's illegal if you have monopoly level marketshare. Bundling is illegal when it is an attempt to use your marketshare to compete, rather than the strength of your product. That is obviously not the case with Apple.
Yes it does. It emulates the video card, sound card, usb controller, etc. It just doesn't emulate the processor.
That's nonsense. The fact that they keep coming out with expansion is *precisely* what keeps the game alive. They come out with new cards, change up the tournament formats, and all of a sudden, the players have to actually design, build, and test new decks rather than using the same old Psychatog deck that they ran in Extended 4 years ago. This applies even in formats like Type 1 where you can use any card ever printed. Fundamentally, the fun of the game isn't in the game itself, it's in the metagame. Keeping up with the meta, finding ways to exploit and overcome the decks you expect to see at the tournaments, these are the things that keep people coming back to the game.
The only valid Lorentzian reference frames are ones you can transform to from another valid reference frame. Since the transformation equations don't work at v=c, there is no valid reference frame that has a velocity of c relative to another valid frame, or in other words, light has no reference frame.
Uh no. Fat Tire is in no way a belgian. Its an amber ale. New Belgium's belgians are the Abbey and the Trippel (and the Frambrozen if you are counting Lambics). I wouldn't say its digusting, but it certainly is pedestrian. Although I haven't had it since they got bought out. The Chimays are nice, but personally I think the Unibroue Maudite and Trois Pistoles are the best Belgians on the market.
Integer factoring is only relevant to RSA public/private key type encryption. Its not relevant for DES/AES style encryption.
There is an aqua driver in the works for DarWINE. Once it is operational, it will make Windows windows look like they are native mac apps.
Intrinsic rights are a myth created by people who want to elevate they own idea of what rights we as a society should be giving ourselves to the position of a revealed truth.
And out here in the real world, as opposed to the Randite fantasy land you apparently live in, intentionally making false negative claims that result in damages (such as AMD chips not being powerful enough to run 10 concurrent connections) is libel or slander, and is *quite* actionable.
As other comments mentioned, most competitive tournament play is done in the T2 or Extended formats which only allow the last 2 years or 6 years of cards respectively. Also, even in the formats where you can use cards back to the beginning (T1 and Legacy), Wizards keeps a close watch on what cards are causing problems and maintains the banned and restricted list well enough to preserve balance.
The problem cards that have come out of WotC recently (Skullclamp, and to a lesser extent, Umezawa's Jitte) were all the result of modifications to the card *after* being playtested.
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. The outcome is not protected by copyright anymore than the basic plot outline of a novel is protected by copyright. Its perfectly legal to tell someone that The Lord of the Rings is about a fight between good and evil, and that good wins in the end. Oh, and there's wizards. Facts about a copyrighted work are not part of the copyrighted work itself, even if the author/artist/etc. created those facts.
It's a low brow version of religion with very violent people involved.. Both of those adjective clauses are redundant.
Yeah, Genndy Tartakovsky and Craig McCraken created both PPG and Dexter's Lab. Tartakovsky also created Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars.
An engineer sees a glass that is twice as large as it needs to be.
This new learning amazes me! Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.
So $36,000 for two years worth of misery for you? There are plenty of people who, if you pissed them off sufficiently, would consider that well worth the ruin it would cause you.
You mean like the Twisted Metal and Vigilante series?
Universal Binaries aren't two executables concatenated into one big file. They are separate files that are sitting in a special kind of folder (a package) that the Finder presents as one file. On the filesystem level, they are most definately separate.