Either you have a VirtualPC machine that only runs on Windows (trough VMware for windows or Virtual PC) or you have a VMWare machine that you can run on any host
=> you have to open your VirtualPC machine with vmware and then save it as a vmware machine, and you can run it on linux.
Well, Virtual PC will only run on Windows, AFAIK. I was hoping this player could turn those VPC VMs into VMware VMs and let me host them under linux. Alas, VMware Player (under Windows) just looks at my VPC VMs, starts to load them, then quickly gives up with just a "can't open.. " !!!
This looked great, but the verbage on the web site is a little misleading. I downloaded and installed it thinking "Great! Now I can load up those MS Virtual PC Images I've been using for testing (and supporting those legacy VB6/Access applications), and I don't have to boot to Windows anymore!"
When it didn't work, I had to dig around the site, eventually downloading the "VMwarePlayerManual10" PDF file, where on page 3 I found:
Microsoft Virtual PC and Virtual Server Virtual Machines (Windows Hosts Only)
On Windows hosts, VMware Player can run Microsoft Virtual PC and Virtual Server virual machines. When you open a Virtual PC virtual machine in VMware Player, it automatically creates a VMware-compatible configuration file (.vmx), while preserving the original Virtual PC (.vmc) configuration file. You can save the VMware-compatible virtual machine.
But can I then load up the VMX in the Linux version of the player? It doesn't seem to like it very much - I guess it just doesn't work.
Crap! I guess I have to plunk down some $ and re-create thost images in VMWare if I want to do that - easier just to keep booting into windows - it takes hours to install and configure Windows on a new virtual machine...
Oh, I thought you meant they were throwing people in jail for *criticizing* republicans... Apparently, you meant they go to jail for *protecting* republicans (or their lackeys). NM
It is common for a woman to be completely covered from head to toe in some Muslim cultures.
It is common for a man to wear a mortification belt in some christian cultures.
Interesting comparison. So, maybe I should start, say, a "Sunni Awareness Network" or some-such, describing the questionable aspects of the religion and warning people about their "agressive recuitment" tactics and other onerous aspects - similar to the way ODAN site talks about Opus Dei (the sect you are referring to).
Do you think anyone would get upset? Would you donate to my organization?
Actually in America if you stridently critisize republicans you can lose your job. Especially if your job is in the media, or in education or the govt. One the American taleban targets you and the talking heads on fox news and talk radio start braying your job is on the chopping block.
Where's my "Bullshit" mod? What the fuck are all those New York Times reporters still doing with jobs?
How the hell is this a troll? Because you don't agree with the opinion, you mark it a troll?
Not even the mayor of Norleans took responsibility for his own incompetence. Telling people that they would get help to evacuate - then leaving 850 buses to be flooded and destroyed instead of making any attempt to get people out. And then he passes the buck. Yea, FEMA was fucked up and dropped the ball, but the other leaders could have done a lot more.
Even the mayors hindsight is bad. He was asked in an interview what he would have done different. His answer? "screamed lounder" !@!?!?!?
This is why the Supreme's made their decision... they were reviewing a state law and a state court case, not a Federal law. This only affects those states who's takings clause allow for takings for public benefit.
I call bullshit. The supreme court doesn't review state law - they took this case because the defendants claimed the state was violating the constitutional protection of property. The constituion only allows emminent domain for public *use*.
Too bad the supremes got this one so wrong. In case you haven't heard, the latest development in this case is that the homeowners who fought the seizure are being charged back-rent to 2000, when the case first started. They are also only being offered compensation for their property based on 2000 values. Seems like the town (and the developers that paid off [err.. I mean, influenced] the town leaders) want the land for free.
Obviously, you've never tried to play on battle.net with 2 players (computers) behind the same firewall. Can't be done without bnetd.org.
Too bad about all the other stuff that will never get made. "Thank you for your payment. Right through here, please. Stay on the path... that's right... don't worray about the blood... go ahead, it's ok..."
What? You never been with women who are into tentacle-rape hentai?
No, I prefer women who are interested in real flesh penis, thank you very much.
And who do you bring along to provide that? Or do you just put up with comments like "well, yea, it does look a little like a man's penis, only smaller..."
... read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.
This is a fallacy, and a dangerous one. The Bill of Rights only serves to enumerate the important personal rights that everyone wanted explicitly spelled out.
If you want to know what your rights are, you have to read the whole constitution. Every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is a right "reserved" to the states or the people. It says so right there. Of course there are plenty of people that want you to think that those things spelled out in the bill of rights is all you get - and they even keep whittling away at those (how absolute is the right to property when your property can be "arrested" and taken from you?).
And it's gone way too far. I'm shocked at the recent supreme court decision that the feds are within their power to regulate a plant that is grown and used within a single community over the objections of state law. In no way is that "regulating interstate commerce". How do you even come up with that? They weren't even *selling* it! I mean, where do you draw the line? If that is considered a "legitimate exercise of federal power", then when is it overextended? Never, according to Stevens (and the other 5 traitors on the bench).
Better make sure that more justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas are nominated as replacements when the time comes, or you soon won't have any rights left.
I can't help feeling that the Suprume court was a little wary of making a ruling that would not only remove copyright on works between 75 and 95 years old, but may also be used to invalidate older copyright laws, possibly right back to the first extension.
Which was my point - Larry felt that way, too, so he didn't even bother arguing the point. It was still a more legitimate argument (constitutionally) than "but they make enough money as it is..." or "120 years is too much like unlimited time". It may sound *reasonable*, but loopholes in the law cannot be closed because their exploitation doesn't seem reasonable.
When the court upholds laws like asset forfeiture based on the premise that the property is not taken, but it is arrested for its participation in criminal activity, it's hard to imagine the court considering reasonablness in any of its decisions.
Because Larry's argument at the Supreme Court was legally unsound. He made the extremely difficult, and essentially doomed to fail, argument that adding twenty years repeated is not "for a limited time".
If he had, on the other hand, argued that it was against all economic sense then we might have had a better outcome.
Actually, the argument that he should have made (and that I think the Supreme Court would have been receptive to), was that the extension to copyrights for works already in existence took away the public's right to those works. This essentially broke the contract, and the "payment" to the public domain for allowing the copyright holders to have a monopoly was put off for another 20 years. This violates the constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws.
They didn't make this argument because they thought supremes would reject it since it would effectively invalidate ALL the retroactive extensions, most of which had gone unchallenged. But it was a better argument, and I think it would have worked. The court obviously thought congress was overreaching it's bounds, but there was no challenge based on the ex post facto restrictions, so they couldn't rule on it.
I'd be interested to know what the justifications the judges are using to make such a ruling.
Uhh... Gee, I don't know. "Lack of evidence" seems to fit pretty well. If the police had used some reasonable method of gathering evidence, like, say filming a roadside sobriety test showing the guy stumbling around, falling over trying to touch his nose, etc., then maybe that would have helped with a conviction. To just say "the magic 8-ball said he was drunk" seems to fall short.
Should a rape suspect be able to get off because he questioned how the DNA scanner works, and the court can't provide an answer?
First of all, it's not the court's job to provide the answers - it's the job of prosecution. And if the prosecution can't provide adequate evidence that the "DNA scanner" (if such a thing actual existed) provides credible evidence, then they have no right trying to use that evidence, and the court should rightly ignore it.
'ignorance of the law, and by extension ignorance of the tools used in law enforcement, is no excuse'.
Sure, ok. And when the police show up at your door and say "ok, we have a report here that says you are a terrorist", well, don't question it. Hey, the company that makes the data mining software says it's providing reliable lists of proven terrorists!
Specifically their open source LDAP implementation in C# is awesome
Agreed. I've been using it for several months now to tie in our ASP.NET apps to eDir for identity management.
I tried using the microsoft classes they provide for ldap stuff, but it's so damn Active Directory -specific that it's almost useless. Add to that the fact that you can't do things like explicit binds and I would have been rolling my own code without that ldapcsharp component.
I have found a couple of bugs working with it, but nothing show-stopping. Unfortunately their mailing list doesn't work very good: a lot of stuff shows up on their archive that never makes it to my inbox. Or people are posting to the site instead of being on the list. There just doesn't seem to enough traffic to make it useful.
I've seen a few other projects make use of it, too, like this one.
I have to agree that they can leave the impression their are hiding some of their best tech. I don't remember how I found that project, but it wasn't easy.
I wish this could happen in Utah. I see only one drawback, it puts the government in control of what you can see and do online
I'm not worried about that happening. If they really want that, Comcast, Verizon, and most of the other providers will hand them all of that they want quickly and with no questions asked, anyway.
I would welcome and encourage any effort to create public bandwidth. Around here, even though I live in a populous area, Verizon refuses to install the equipment to offer DSL or anything else to there own custermers, because they would rather maintain their monopoly rather than risk some 3rd party being able to take a few of their POTS customers.
if your boss says nasty things about you which are not true, you can sue him for defamation and all sorts of other nasty discriminatory things - ESPECIALLY if it causes you to not be hired.
... If you have the money to hire an attorney, do the legwork, and get everyone involved to admit what happened! Usually, you don't even why you were turned down for a job, even if you press the hiring company. How many times have you gotten a rejection letter that says "so-and-so told us that you were a lazy shit, and so we have selected another candidate..." ??!?
The only reason I found out about this was because a friend at the old company was in the boss's office when she got the phone call. I couldn't get ANY information from the company that decided not to hire me, so I still HAD NO CASE!!
The worst part of this situation is that your boss is going to bad-mouth you to anyone that calls for a reference in the future. There is nothing you can do about this - he will do it, and he will also blame every bad thing that happens on you for six months to a year after you are gone. If possible, try to use a different name on your resume and any application, such as an HR person, your boss's boss, or anything else that makes sense within the organization.
I was in a similar situation with a previous job, and discovered that my former boss was totally ripping on me when she was called about a reference. Luckily, she was only my boss for about 6 months, so I used my previous boss's name (and his existing contact information) after that, and never had another problem.
And he CANNOT withhold your paycheck. He will open himself up not only to a lawsuit from you (that you will win), but also to fines and sanctions from the DOL or your local labor board (if any).
Apparently, the flow control mechanism of TCP doesn't work well when the latency goes to 40 minutes."
Ok, I admit I didn't RTFA, but this is just stupid. Why would anybody even thing about sending an interplanetary spacecraft out expecting to communicate with it using a determanistic protocol. Is this a joke, or what? The engineering that goes into designing anything that will be sent off-planet is incredible. Even satellites are designed with systems that not only deal with the few-second latency, but also account for the relativistic influences on time differences due to gravity.
Ok, maybe this is a joke, but it's poor attempt at one if it is. I mean, 40 minutes! It's only, what, 9 minutes at light-speed to the sun. Who TF is he talking about communicating with?!?!?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Virtual PC will only run on Windows, AFAIK. I was hoping this player could turn those VPC VMs into VMware VMs and let me host them under linux. Alas, VMware Player (under Windows) just looks at my VPC VMs, starts to load them, then quickly gives up with just a "can't open.. " !!!
then killjoe said: I never said jail,
Maybe you should read the posts you're posting, fucktard.
When it didn't work, I had to dig around the site, eventually downloading the "VMwarePlayerManual10" PDF file, where on page 3 I found:
But can I then load up the VMX in the Linux version of the player? It doesn't seem to like it very much - I guess it just doesn't work.
Crap! I guess I have to plunk down some $ and re-create thost images in VMWare if I want to do that - easier just to keep booting into windows - it takes hours to install and configure Windows on a new virtual machine...
Oh, I thought you meant they were throwing people in jail for *criticizing* republicans... Apparently, you meant they go to jail for *protecting* republicans (or their lackeys). NM
Interesting comparison. So, maybe I should start, say, a "Sunni Awareness Network" or some-such, describing the questionable aspects of the religion and warning people about their "agressive recuitment" tactics and other onerous aspects - similar to the way ODAN site talks about Opus Dei (the sect you are referring to).
Do you think anyone would get upset? Would you donate to my organization?
Where's my "Bullshit" mod? What the fuck are all those New York Times reporters still doing with jobs?
WTF?
Victor? Is that you? I didn't know you read slashdot, Mr. Chavez!
Not even the mayor of Norleans took responsibility for his own incompetence. Telling people that they would get help to evacuate - then leaving 850 buses to be flooded and destroyed instead of making any attempt to get people out. And then he passes the buck. Yea, FEMA was fucked up and dropped the ball, but the other leaders could have done a lot more.
Even the mayors hindsight is bad. He was asked in an interview what he would have done different. His answer? "screamed lounder" !@!?!?!?
I call bullshit. The supreme court doesn't review state law - they took this case because the defendants claimed the state was violating the constitutional protection of property. The constituion only allows emminent domain for public *use*.
Too bad the supremes got this one so wrong. In case you haven't heard, the latest development in this case is that the homeowners who fought the seizure are being charged back-rent to 2000, when the case first started. They are also only being offered compensation for their property based on 2000 values. Seems like the town (and the developers that paid off [err.. I mean, influenced] the town leaders) want the land for free.
Obviously, you've never tried to play on battle.net with 2 players (computers) behind the same firewall. Can't be done without bnetd.org. Too bad about all the other stuff that will never get made. "Thank you for your payment. Right through here, please. Stay on the path... that's right... don't worray about the blood... go ahead, it's ok..."
And my move is every time I see some ignorant fuck from Missouri, they only thing I'm going to "show" them will be my hairy ass. Fucktards.
No, I prefer women who are interested in real flesh penis, thank you very much.
And who do you bring along to provide that? Or do you just put up with comments like "well, yea, it does look a little like a man's penis, only smaller..."
Redundant? It was funny!! Ok, so it was only funny because it was redundant - still funny.
This is a fallacy, and a dangerous one. The Bill of Rights only serves to enumerate the important personal rights that everyone wanted explicitly spelled out.
If you want to know what your rights are, you have to read the whole constitution. Every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is a right "reserved" to the states or the people. It says so right there. Of course there are plenty of people that want you to think that those things spelled out in the bill of rights is all you get - and they even keep whittling away at those (how absolute is the right to property when your property can be "arrested" and taken from you?).
And it's gone way too far. I'm shocked at the recent supreme court decision that the feds are within their power to regulate a plant that is grown and used within a single community over the objections of state law. In no way is that "regulating interstate commerce". How do you even come up with that? They weren't even *selling* it! I mean, where do you draw the line? If that is considered a "legitimate exercise of federal power", then when is it overextended? Never, according to Stevens (and the other 5 traitors on the bench).
Better make sure that more justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas are nominated as replacements when the time comes, or you soon won't have any rights left.
Which was my point - Larry felt that way, too, so he didn't even bother arguing the point. It was still a more legitimate argument (constitutionally) than "but they make enough money as it is..." or "120 years is too much like unlimited time". It may sound *reasonable*, but loopholes in the law cannot be closed because their exploitation doesn't seem reasonable.
When the court upholds laws like asset forfeiture based on the premise that the property is not taken, but it is arrested for its participation in criminal activity, it's hard to imagine the court considering reasonablness in any of its decisions.
Actually, the argument that he should have made (and that I think the Supreme Court would have been receptive to), was that the extension to copyrights for works already in existence took away the public's right to those works. This essentially broke the contract, and the "payment" to the public domain for allowing the copyright holders to have a monopoly was put off for another 20 years. This violates the constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws.
They didn't make this argument because they thought supremes would reject it since it would effectively invalidate ALL the retroactive extensions, most of which had gone unchallenged. But it was a better argument, and I think it would have worked. The court obviously thought congress was overreaching it's bounds, but there was no challenge based on the ex post facto restrictions, so they couldn't rule on it.
I'd be interested to know what the justifications the judges are using to make such a ruling.
Uhh... Gee, I don't know. "Lack of evidence" seems to fit pretty well. If the police had used some reasonable method of gathering evidence, like, say filming a roadside sobriety test showing the guy stumbling around, falling over trying to touch his nose, etc., then maybe that would have helped with a conviction. To just say "the magic 8-ball said he was drunk" seems to fall short.
Should a rape suspect be able to get off because he questioned how the DNA scanner works, and the court can't provide an answer?
First of all, it's not the court's job to provide the answers - it's the job of prosecution. And if the prosecution can't provide adequate evidence that the "DNA scanner" (if such a thing actual existed) provides credible evidence, then they have no right trying to use that evidence, and the court should rightly ignore it.
'ignorance of the law, and by extension ignorance of the tools used in law enforcement, is no excuse'.
Sure, ok. And when the police show up at your door and say "ok, we have a report here that says you are a terrorist", well, don't question it. Hey, the company that makes the data mining software says it's providing reliable lists of proven terrorists!
I'm shocked, I tell you - shocked!
Agreed. I've been using it for several months now to tie in our ASP.NET apps to eDir for identity management.
I tried using the microsoft classes they provide for ldap stuff, but it's so damn Active Directory -specific that it's almost useless. Add to that the fact that you can't do things like explicit binds and I would have been rolling my own code without that ldapcsharp component.
I have found a couple of bugs working with it, but nothing show-stopping. Unfortunately their mailing list doesn't work very good: a lot of stuff shows up on their archive that never makes it to my inbox. Or people are posting to the site instead of being on the list. There just doesn't seem to enough traffic to make it useful.
I've seen a few other projects make use of it, too, like this one.
I have to agree that they can leave the impression their are hiding some of their best tech. I don't remember how I found that project, but it wasn't easy.
I'm not worried about that happening. If they really want that, Comcast, Verizon, and most of the other providers will hand them all of that they want quickly and with no questions asked, anyway.
I would welcome and encourage any effort to create public bandwidth. Around here, even though I live in a populous area, Verizon refuses to install the equipment to offer DSL or anything else to there own custermers, because they would rather maintain their monopoly rather than risk some 3rd party being able to take a few of their POTS customers.
The only reason I found out about this was because a friend at the old company was in the boss's office when she got the phone call. I couldn't get ANY information from the company that decided not to hire me, so I still HAD NO CASE!!
I was in a similar situation with a previous job, and discovered that my former boss was totally ripping on me when she was called about a reference. Luckily, she was only my boss for about 6 months, so I used my previous boss's name (and his existing contact information) after that, and never had another problem.
And he CANNOT withhold your paycheck. He will open himself up not only to a lawsuit from you (that you will win), but also to fines and sanctions from the DOL or your local labor board (if any).
Ok, I admit I didn't RTFA, but this is just stupid. Why would anybody even thing about sending an interplanetary spacecraft out expecting to communicate with it using a determanistic protocol. Is this a joke, or what? The engineering that goes into designing anything that will be sent off-planet is incredible. Even satellites are designed with systems that not only deal with the few-second latency, but also account for the relativistic influences on time differences due to gravity.
Ok, maybe this is a joke, but it's poor attempt at one if it is. I mean, 40 minutes! It's only, what, 9 minutes at light-speed to the sun. Who TF is he talking about communicating with?!?!?