Someone should post this on 4chan...

Do you want to run a pure virtual environment? Or do you want to boot an OS, and inside that, boot a VM with the other OS? do you have the ability to have a dedicated computer to be the "hypervisor" (so that it can manage the VMs)?

VMware 7 offers great graphical capabilities, altough you should be aware that right now no VM solution offers an 100% seemless graphical experience (altough we are getting there).

Anyways, XenClient might be the thing for you, as it claims to offer full HD graphics usage inside VMs. However, it's in an early stage, and they seem to be marketing it as mostly laptop oriented (if not laptop exclusive).

I have experience with virtualization, so I might help you out :)

Before that, you would have to pinpoint the actual JC himself... Of course, if he ever actually existed in the first place...

That's the exact, pinpoint moment when they switch sides from the "let's be rebellious and brake a window" attitude to the "that window is expensive and I'm gonna sue your for all you got"...

Really? Take people's homes and cars over piracy?! Wish for jail rape for copying songs?! I wonder if this "big rock star" would have the same attitude if his kids (does he even have kids?) were doing it (if?! I'm yet to meet a teen nowadays that doesn't do it).

Or perhaps, maybe, that's his exact position regarding drug abuse... How's that? Take the cars and homes and wish for jail-rape, for all the people caught with drugs, or using drugs, or selling drugs, or enjoying drugs. Now that's a crime with *real* consequences for other people, stuff that people might actually *die* from. I bet the "big rock star" agrees with me.

Isn't that the motto of the rock/metal bands? "Be rebel, fight the system", etc, etc?

So, all the "be rebel, fight the system, we are so hip and mean and evil and answer to no one, stick your tongue out, do the little horned sign with your fingers" stuff that you guys have been putting for decades is just a giant piece of fluff, hum? Is just a part of the "marketing", I presume, to get young (and not so young) people to buy your crap or watch your shows, right? That's nice. It shows a couple of things about the appreciation that some big names in music have for their fans. I understand, you don't need no fraking fans anymore, right? You're so filthy rich now that you won't need to do anything else for the rest of your life, even if you live to be 150 y.o.

It's always nice to see how big big big money and power corrupts anyone. And please, keep your dated and moldy music to yourselves. Fortunately I don't need no "big name in industry" to enjoy music, no matter what the genre.

I can't help myself but smile and nod my head in disapproval when I see someone like Gene or the guys from Metallica bashing filesharing and piracy... It's a bit like watching a Britney video, and then eventually watch her advocate "abstinence". It's called "hypocrisy".

That's why more and more I see music as an "act". It's like theater. It's make-believe. Sure, a song can be written in a moment of genuine anger, or love, or joy. But please, don't mistake the song for the emotion. Don't believe that every single time that a metal band plays a rock hard anthem that tells you to get angry at the "big man", they are actually that angry *all the time*, or that they are angry at all. In fact, changes are that they have become the "big man" themselves...

That's why I keep a prudent, skeptic distance when I sense that music is trying to "preach" something: be it something rebellious, shy/pure/happy, slutty, gangsta, or whatever.

My last CRT monitor had a maximum resolution of 1600x1200. It was launched in 2001. 10 years latter, it seems that the screen manufacturers think that "HD" (1920x1080) is a "good enough" resolution.

I don't know much about TFT/LCD low-level tech, but I have the feeling that we are getting lower resolutions that we should have, like if we were having crappy TVs instead of high-end monitors. Oh yeah, "HD resolutions" alows us to view media in a "cinematic aspect ratio" or something. Guess what: I use my monitor for more than "consume media". Try to work with big spreadsheets with a "cinematic aspect ratio". It's a monitor, not a TV, for heaven's sake!

I think that manufacturers finally "merged" the TV and monitor product. But in the process, they downgraded the experience for the computer user. The laptop and low-end monitors are a great example, having shoddy resolutions and unnecessary aspect ratios... Why would I want a "cinema" ratio for a supposedly "professional", business monitor or laptop? Not everyone is a video-editor or an "artist" or needs to "consume" media to do it's work...

... what the Facebook/Twitter/media-stuff profiles of the people involved in that company look like.

What was the expression? "Eat your own dog food",was it?

Usually, for me, a "power user" is someone that doesn't go "ohhhhhhh" when I press enter, instead of clicking "ok", or when I press "tab" and the cursor "magically" changes fields...

I think people are overreacting to this...

Come on, every single day I read stories about how the games industry is not fun any more, how EA and others are "souless corporations" that grind everyone, I read people complaining about lack of creativity, about DRM... And when we have a good old-fashioned, stunt, from a very nice and solid project, people start screaming and pointing fingers...

Granted, GOG are not developers, but I think that what they are doing is class A stuff: providing us with DRM-FREE versions of rock-solid games from ages gone, for cheap-steal prices, and with the cooperation of publishers, that's an amazing work!

Every single day I read a commend about how Steam is evil and it's "DRM" will "swallow our souls", but when someone actually rolls up their sleeves and puts together a very solid collection of old games, that you can download as much as you like, install as much as you like, and basically "keep forever", people only seem to notice them when they do a harmless stunt, and everyone comes bashing them.

And yes, the stunt was harmless. Yes, the site was gone. But you are supposed to have the games on your hard drive because you downloaded them already when you bought them!! And all the games I have from GOG sitting on my hard-drive didn't stop working magically. If GOG really got out of bussiness, I would be very sad, but I would still be able to play, reinstall, enjoy all my bought games. And I know some people were mid shopping, but come on, isn't it a bit of an overreaction, screaming "zomg, we can't trust them!!!"? I bet that most of the people that said it have their nice sweet facebook pages, and are probably not as vocal about all the issues that fb have, but hey, maybe I'm just being a troll... just say'in...

Anyways, I've been with GOG ever since I first heard about them (I believe it was a Slashdot story), and I'm a very very happy customer. I believe it's a very valid project and it was probably very hard to put together (I can imagine how many negative answers they got from publishers in the beginning). We should support companies like this, and that's what I intend to keep doing.

Rock on, GOG! You are awesome!

There is such a way: it's called "Software Restriction Policies". It's been around since Windows 2000 and it can be deployed by GPO... You can restrict by signature, by file name, by path, etc. It's part of Windows, it's "free", you just need to configure it.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457006.aspx

Oh, and you can block access to floppy, CD/DVD and USB drives as well. All with GPOs.

I'm no addressing specifically to you, but it gets on my nerves that people keep bashing MS, and they simply don't know squat about their products.

And it seems that the FBI, that would greatly benefit from this sort of security features, quite likely didn't have it implemented... "Incompetence" springs to my mind... If this incident involved linux in some way, everyone would say "it was shoddy configured, shoddy admins!", etc, etc... Since it involves MS products, the first reaction is "MS sucks". Well, I bet that, in this case, it was "soddy sysadmin" indeed.

Just my 2 cents...