Comment Re:Windows Phone will become the best (Score 1) 267
Comment Re:Failing of VMware? (Score 1) 417
Comment Re:Alternative improvement idea (Score 1) 163
Comment Re:More Distractions (Score 1) 511
Comment Re:So (Score 1) 775
Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 499
Comment you don't own your hardware anymore (Score 1) 499
Comment Re:Not like you can't re-rent (Score 1) 174
Comment Re:This whole "famboyism" meme is a load of bull (Score 1) 272
an absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.
Nice appeal to ignorance there.
Comment Re:Hint: There is no Sandbox. (Score 1) 244
You mean a VM where each process looks like it has the processor/memory to itself (AKA x86 protected mode)? We already have VM sandboxes. They're called a PROCESS. Taking this concept to an absurd level of regression (full os virtualization) and then coming up with some convoluted way to let all the parts communicate again (necessary if you want it to do anything useful) adds absolutely nothing to the security aspect other than a high degree of obfuscation.
You guys and your delusional layer cake security schemes. Things do not run on the machine like that. You can add all the boxes and layers to your diagrams all you want; but, in reality it's all flat where the only difference between all your security contexts are some integer values in memory.