Each has its place. I have used both and find perl excellent for quick small filter scripts. Python, on the other hand, is much nicer when it comes to very large interactive applications - where Perl falls down.
If they can get the shell to parse something like this correctly: grep.py -v ^happy sad.txt | more
I will be happy.
To the uninitiated, under the MS Windows (DOS) command line, the shell does not handle the pipe properly - passing the '| more' to my program's argv list, instead. Additionally, the ^happy (which is regular expression syntax for 'look for happy only at the begining of the line') search parameter gets passed in the argv list as just 'happy' - forcing me to surround it with double quotes to force the ^ to be included. A program in application space should not have to handle these things (which must be happening with dos executable programs) - the shell should do it instead.
This works fine under any *nix shell on Sun boxes as well as Linux machines. If they can get these basic things right, I will be impressed (it's about time, too).
Progress is not breaking continuity with everything that came before - forcing everyone to change so they can communicate with you (and so you can sell more software, by the way).
Its not about fear. Its about the immorality of forcing everyone to change without a significant benefit for the overall community. Its about the lack of choice in the equation, because the 3000 pound gorilla can do what he wants for his benefit, to hell with everyone else. What you see in my eyes is outrage - its not fear.
XML is good. Plain text is even better. Portability above bells and whistles.
Excuse me. I thought the discussion was about disk imaging tools - not backup tools.
There are several uses for this:
1. poor-man's mirror 2. transfering a system to another machine.
That is what the discussion was about, and dd is the best tool for that job. Its about picking the right tool that fits the job - not being satisfied with a 'one size fits all' solution that falls appart when you try to do anything out of the ordinary.
Finally, 'your type' is about classifying everything and everyone into neat little boxes. Fortunately, everyone does not fit into your boxes. You should really see a doctor about that xenophobia. Don't fear the 'many small CLI tools' paradigm - try it out and make an effort to understand it, instead of bashing it.
My question has two parts: Do you view the enterprise as ultimately, the gateway into the home desktop, and, how much resistance do you anticipate from corporate decision makers who are used to the 'home computer' 'point and click' paradigm?
This is precisely why I am going to have myself cremated.
To make it even harder for the ghouls, I am going to have my ashes spread at various places on earth (perhaps a small capsule sent to the moon?).
This serves several purposes:
1. No need to buy a burial plot - which saves space for someone else. 2. I can become part of some of the places I always wanted to go but wasn't able to.
If I can type a command in less than 2 seconds - and then walk away from the machine while it does what I wanted, and the application is free, I don't see how any commercial software can compare to that - either on price or ease of use. Nothing beats the command line for speed and ease of use - unless you are a monkey.
And for the other guy who wanted to point out the pedigree of 'dd' in such detail: get a life. I guess I need to preference everything with 'GNU/Linux' or '*nix' to make you happy. What I said was not untrue: dd is a linux tool. It is also a Unix(c) tool, and a GNU hurd tool, and its probably been compiled other OSs that I am not aware of atm.
I hate to echo what has already been said, but this needs to be hammered home:
Why not give up that overpriced POS operating system - and find freedom and ease of administration in the *nix fold.
If you are stuck using the unmentionable OS - then I feel sorry for you, and will light a candle and say a prayer for your safe passage from the dark side.
As an aside, isn't it funny that the most easy to use and useful tool for backing up your drive images is itself a linux tool?
Well boys and girls, I hope we learned our lesson today:
When you find someone's wallet - keep it, because they will only bring you up on charges for stealing it when you try to return it anyway. You might as well run up a bunch of charges while you're at it...
A cynical approach to life is much more rewarding than believing everyone has common sense and decency.
Don't believe what your mother told you - she lied.
My point still stands: you do not have a choice about what can and can not be supported in all cases.
At any time Microsoft can deem a particular API as unsupported, or change a particular API as they see fit - and there is nothing you can do about it (a famous example is Microsoft's abusive half-way support of Java in J++).
Conversely, you can do something about unsupported items under open source: maintain it yourself and fold it into the new releases. That is not an option under the Windows upgrade path - unless you find particular pleasure in jumping through the Microsoft hoop every time your code becomes obsolete.
Burn me once - shame on you. Burn me twice - shame on me.
Most, if not all, services on a *nix box reside in user space - not within the kernel; well behaved applications take input from standard input and provide output via standard output - in addition to using local sockets for IPC to allow the network ports to be redirected appropriately. Thus inserting a filter between the application and its input datastream (a wrapper) is relatively simple without having to alter the application itself at all in most cases.
What can take a few hours writing a script under *nix, will take waiting for several things to happen outside of your control:
1. Microsoft to recognize and acknowledge the problem. 2. Microsoft to put resources into building the fix into their code base. 3. Microsoft doing regression testing to validate the fix. 4. Microsoft releasing the fix.
In every case system administrators and end users do not have the ability to do anything in the meantime except sit on their hands and wait.
Additionally, the real focus of Microsoft's FUD is businesses who have system administrators anyway; any *nix system administrator worth his salt will be able to create a stop gap executable if the service in question is needed, and no prepackaged fix is forthcoming. Again - not even possible for your windows system administrator - because he does not have the possibility of having the source code.
This is why security through obscurity is bogus, and why depending on a single opaque source for fixes is dangerous and potentially costly for your organization.
I can't believe you don't see the benefit of having source code over and above the Microsoft way of doing things. Before you put it down again, open your mind. Try *nix - and I mean really try it, understand the tool making and interprocess communication paradigm inherent in *nix, learn how to write a shell script, learn some introductory Python or Perl, try your hand at building a simple GUI with either language's TK module, load Zope and build a simple web enabled application - and I guarantee you will wonder why you spent all these years mucking about with proprietary windows APIs.
A potentially better solution...and another...
on
Home Directory In CVS
·
· Score: 1
Here is a better solution that will work with multiple different types of machines:
1. Set up CFengine on all of your boxes (microsloth windows too). 2. Configure a master system with all of your working files. 3. Configure your slave systems to query the master and copy over new/changed files.
Once you have this set up properly, it takes care of itself. As an added benefit it makes managing multiple machines a snap.
You can even have it kick off an application/script (like CVS) when something changes - to capture it in your archive if you like (so you can roll back as needed).
I love revision control, but managing it by hand is a pain in the behind.
Ultimately, I want to not have to worry about locations of files at all - depending instead on meta-data to provide searchable, annotatable links into the actual files with overlays of my own notes, similar to the 'Annotea' project module in the W3C AMAYA web browser (this is pretty cool - you can 'annotate' documents without altering their content - even documents on other servers; the system keeps 'RDF' xpointers and xlinks on your home system, and amaya renders your notation links in the web page as you view it).
You do not have any choice about what can and can not be supported under Microsoft products.
On the other hand, under open source you can modify the operating system to meet your needs, or, more commonly, find a project that is already undertaking the modification that you want.
This is clearly the difference between choice, and lack thereof. I know what I prefer; you, on the other hand, must prefer paying exhorbitant 'upgrade' (read extortion) costs every few years to maintain interoperability.
I started out as a Dos/Windows user from day 1 (actually I really started out as a TI 99a user - but that is another story). I have also managed and used all of the windows operating systems from Win 3.1 up to the present Win XP. When I didn't know any better, I used to think the DOS command line was the best thing since sliced bread, and batch files were my scripting nirvana.
Then I started using *nix. I loaded Linux for the first time in 1992, and have been using it ever since. I was also a Unix system administrator during my career, and was using Sun systems in college before that. I learned the tool building paradigm of Unix, and absorbed awk, sed, perl, python, lisp, java, and a host of tools unheard of in the Microsoft world. Things that I spent hours accomplishing with Windows and DOS, I was accomplishing in minutes with Linux.
From my vantage point, it is plain to see that the Microsoft products are not up to the task of being a general purpose workstation/server operating system. When compared to industrial strength Unix and Linux distributions, it is a toy - and should be advertised as such.
I think the key distinction we need to understand is the ability of an end user to ameliorate security problems and other bugs when they manifest themselves. In *nix, usually the source code is available for modification, or a work around can be accomplished quickly with a scripting language because of the clear text interprocess communication mechanisms available. On the Microsoft side of the house, we are clearly dependent upon the good will and scheduling of Microsoft to get the fix implemented - and there is not much we can do to alter the outcome. So, the choices are independent ability to fix things, as needed - or Big Brother Knows Best; I know what I prefer.
Given the above, Microsoft is never the 'right tool for the job', unless your job is a toy application that is expected to be obsolete within a few years. The simple measure of this is to look at all the DOS applications that are currently being used by end users, versus *nix applications (albeit in GNU form) - *nix wins hands down. Don't believe I haven't tried using various DOS and Windows tools - but they just don't have the overall flexibility and usefulness that can be plentifully found under *nix.
What really boggles me about this whole issue is how people can be screwed by MS a thousand times over (non backwards compatible file formats, blecherous incomplete implementation of java, a malformed central configuration repository that causes complete system meltdowns when corrupted - that end users are not shown how to backup out of the box, etc...the list goes on and on), and yet come back smiling for more! What is really amusing (sad, really) is how I see some people rationalize that they were the ones at fault: "It was silly of me to build my spreadsheets in MS Works 1.4 back in '85 - what was I thinking! I should have copied all those entries across to Excell back in '95". To me this is a red flag that I am being taken for a ride. I woke up. I hope you do too.
Just because Microsoft is the most successful company at amassing a fortune, does not mean that their approach is technically superior. In fact, since they have catered to the least common denominator, their approach, while certainly 'new' when compared to Unix, is definitely not superior.
I use Windows NT and XP on a daily basis in my work. I also was an original DOS user back in the 80s, and migrated up through various windows distributions including Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME. There is not much I don't know about the windows implementation from a practical hands-on standpoint.
I also use Unix on a daily basis at work - in the form of Sun Solaris, and SCO Unixware, and Linux (Slackware, Redhat). I loaded my first Linux box (a 486) at home back in 1992 - always having at least one Linux box in my stable, only recently converting all of my home machines over to Linux.
I have been a system administrator and a software developer on both platforms.
Over years of comparisons I came to the conclusion that having a full featured workstation and server machines was more important than foregoing a few video games not available for Linux. In this time of freely available and configurable operating systems, I see no advantage to having Microsoft over Linux. I have not regretted my decision.
One of the major reasons I switched completely was because of Microsoft's 'all or nothing' business practices. I believe this is a key element that has led more and more technically savvy people away from the Microsoft operating system. I am probably stating the obvious here, however, I believe that if Microsoft had tried to build tools that were truly compatible with existing standards and tried to work with the existing internet and development community (that has a long history, and a longer memory) instead of trying to co-opt and conquer them, then I think you would not have seen all the backlash against Microsoft and the resultant anti-trust case.
It boggles the mind that so many people posting on this site don't get it; I can only surmise that they are either ignorant of other options, or willfully misrepresenting the facts based on some vested interest (Microsoft employee or OEM?)
The problem is they don't sit there and talk about walking all over the software developers in those terms.
They are lawyers and bankers, so they sit there and say something like:
The lawyers say, "We have the legal right to market our own code. Since we own Unix and Unix equals Linux, then we have the legal right to market Linux (which is really Unix)"
The bankers say, "Great! This will put even more money into our, for a better term, 'retirement fund'"
Re:so, when will we see GNU's version
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I thought 'NONADS' would be more descriptive.
The more microsoft morphs to become like linux, the less people will be inclined to throw away their money when they can get better functionality for free.
It seems to me that Microsoft is tightening their ties with government in an attempt to influence the upcoming DRM war. What better way to do that than to have an inside man to set internet security policy, to control all access of electronic resources into the home, and to control the most important search portal. There are probably other evidence to support this view - but I don't have the time to 'google' it all for you (kind of ironic, if it wasn't so scary in a 'big brother is watching you' sort of way...)
To paraphrase Frank Herbert, "he who controls the access, controls the universe"
What about taking the basics of the W3C Amaya project and turbocharging it?
This tool looks at it from the other side - you keep your own local annotations - or you can save public annotations that others can see.
The neat thing about this tool is it keeps all the meta data seperate from the document itself - which remains pristine - so you could annotate any web page or file on any system you can touch.
The tool as it stands now is very crude. I could see somthing like this becoming the basis for personal information management in the short future.
"...such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC..."
I call bullshit on this argument. Don't even try to convince me that if someone had a gun in those airplanes that they would not have been able to stop a bunch of razor toting fanatics.
The biggest fallacy is the assumption that 'times are different' and therefore protections we enjoyed in earlier times do not apply. Again - bullshit.
I have news for you, people have not changed all that much, and one bullet in the forehead will kill you as fast in 1895 as in the year 2003. The destructive power of an airliner was available since the first one flew back in the 1920s. The only difference is the will of someone to try to use it. That does not justify flushing the Constitution down the toilet to make ignorant people feel 'safe'.
Actually, the new hybrid gas/electric cars use dynamic braking - like diesel locomotives - to reclaim some of the energy and store it in the batteries.
So, your idea wasn't so far off; energy can be translated - however you lose something in the translation.
Slashdot Mirror
Each has its place. I have used both and find perl excellent for quick small filter scripts. Python, on the other hand, is much nicer when it comes to very large interactive applications - where Perl falls down.
If they can get the shell to parse something like this correctly:
grep.py -v ^happy sad.txt | more
I will be happy.
To the uninitiated, under the MS Windows (DOS) command line, the shell does not handle the pipe properly - passing the '| more' to my program's argv list, instead. Additionally, the ^happy (which is regular expression syntax for 'look for happy only at the begining of the line') search parameter gets passed in the argv list as just 'happy' - forcing me to surround it with double quotes to force the ^ to be included. A program in application space should not have to handle these things (which must be happening with dos executable programs) - the shell should do it instead.
This works fine under any *nix shell on Sun boxes as well as Linux machines. If they can get these basic things right, I will be impressed (it's about time, too).
Progress is not breaking continuity with everything that came before - forcing everyone to change so they can communicate with you (and so you can sell more software, by the way).
Its not about fear. Its about the immorality of forcing everyone to change without a significant benefit for the overall community. Its about the lack of choice in the equation, because the 3000 pound gorilla can do what he wants for his benefit, to hell with everyone else. What you see in my eyes is outrage - its not fear.
XML is good. Plain text is even better. Portability above bells and whistles.
Excuse me. I thought the discussion was about disk imaging tools - not backup tools.
There are several uses for this:
1. poor-man's mirror
2. transfering a system to another machine.
That is what the discussion was about, and dd is the best tool for that job. Its about picking the right tool that fits the job - not being satisfied with a 'one size fits all' solution that falls appart when you try to do anything out of the ordinary.
Finally, 'your type' is about classifying everything and everyone into neat little boxes. Fortunately, everyone does not fit into your boxes. You should really see a doctor about that xenophobia. Don't fear the 'many small CLI tools' paradigm - try it out and make an effort to understand it, instead of bashing it.
Your focus is now on the enterprise desktop.
My question has two parts: Do you view the enterprise as ultimately, the gateway into the home desktop, and, how much resistance do you anticipate from corporate decision makers who are used to the 'home computer' 'point and click' paradigm?
This is precisely why I am going to have myself cremated.
To make it even harder for the ghouls, I am going to have my ashes spread at various places on earth (perhaps a small capsule sent to the moon?).
This serves several purposes:
1. No need to buy a burial plot - which saves space for someone else.
2. I can become part of some of the places I always wanted to go but wasn't able to.
If I can type a command in less than 2 seconds - and then walk away from the machine while it does what I wanted, and the application is free, I don't see how any commercial software can compare to that - either on price or ease of use. Nothing beats the command line for speed and ease of use - unless you are a monkey.
And for the other guy who wanted to point out the pedigree of 'dd' in such detail: get a life. I guess I need to preference everything with 'GNU/Linux' or '*nix' to make you happy. What I said was not untrue: dd is a linux tool. It is also a Unix(c) tool, and a GNU hurd tool, and its probably been compiled other OSs that I am not aware of atm.
I hate to echo what has already been said, but this needs to be hammered home:
Why not give up that overpriced POS operating system - and find freedom and ease of administration in the *nix fold.
If you are stuck using the unmentionable OS - then I feel sorry for you, and will light a candle and say a prayer for your safe passage from the dark side.
As an aside, isn't it funny that the most easy to use and useful tool for backing up your drive images is itself a linux tool?
Well boys and girls, I hope we learned our lesson today:
When you find someone's wallet - keep it, because they will only bring you up on charges for stealing it when you try to return it anyway. You might as well run up a bunch of charges while you're at it...
A cynical approach to life is much more rewarding than believing everyone has common sense and decency.
Don't believe what your mother told you - she lied.
$humor="off"
My point still stands: you do not have a choice about what can and can not be supported in all cases.
At any time Microsoft can deem a particular API as unsupported, or change a particular API as they see fit - and there is nothing you can do about it (a famous example is Microsoft's abusive half-way support of Java in J++).
Conversely, you can do something about unsupported items under open source: maintain it yourself and fold it into the new releases. That is not an option under the Windows upgrade path - unless you find particular pleasure in jumping through the Microsoft hoop every time your code becomes obsolete.
Burn me once - shame on you. Burn me twice - shame on me.
Most, if not all, services on a *nix box reside in user space - not within the kernel; well behaved applications take input from standard input and provide output via standard output - in addition to using local sockets for IPC to allow the network ports to be redirected appropriately. Thus inserting a filter between the application and its input datastream (a wrapper) is relatively simple without having to alter the application itself at all in most cases.
What can take a few hours writing a script under *nix, will take waiting for several things to happen outside of your control:
1. Microsoft to recognize and acknowledge the problem.
2. Microsoft to put resources into building the fix into their code base.
3. Microsoft doing regression testing to validate the fix.
4. Microsoft releasing the fix.
In every case system administrators and end users do not have the ability to do anything in the meantime except sit on their hands and wait.
Additionally, the real focus of Microsoft's FUD is businesses who have system administrators anyway; any *nix system administrator worth his salt will be able to create a stop gap executable if the service in question is needed, and no prepackaged fix is forthcoming. Again - not even possible for your windows system administrator - because he does not have the possibility of having the source code.
This is why security through obscurity is bogus, and why depending on a single opaque source for fixes is dangerous and potentially costly for your organization.
I can't believe you don't see the benefit of having source code over and above the Microsoft way of doing things. Before you put it down again, open your mind. Try *nix - and I mean really try it, understand the tool making and interprocess communication paradigm inherent in *nix, learn how to write a shell script, learn some introductory Python or Perl, try your hand at building a simple GUI with either language's TK module, load Zope and build a simple web enabled application - and I guarantee you will wonder why you spent all these years mucking about with proprietary windows APIs.
How about a Python version:
# Acme Vote Counter
import random
n = random.randint(1,16200)
print "\n\n Votes Cast: ", n
return printed
Here is a better solution that will work with multiple different types of machines:
1. Set up CFengine on all of your boxes (microsloth windows too).
2. Configure a master system with all of your working files.
3. Configure your slave systems to query the master and copy over new/changed files.
Once you have this set up properly, it takes care of itself. As an added benefit it makes managing multiple machines a snap.
You can even have it kick off an application/script (like CVS) when something changes - to capture it in your archive if you like (so you can roll back as needed).
I love revision control, but managing it by hand is a pain in the behind.
Ultimately, I want to not have to worry about locations of files at all - depending instead on meta-data to provide searchable, annotatable links into the actual files with overlays of my own notes, similar to the 'Annotea' project module in the W3C AMAYA web browser (this is pretty cool - you can 'annotate' documents without altering their content - even documents on other servers; the system keeps 'RDF' xpointers and xlinks on your home system, and amaya renders your notation links in the web page as you view it).
The point I was trying to make is this:
You do not have any choice about what can and can not be supported under Microsoft products.
On the other hand, under open source you can modify the operating system to meet your needs, or, more commonly, find a project that is already undertaking the modification that you want.
This is clearly the difference between choice, and lack thereof. I know what I prefer; you, on the other hand, must prefer paying exhorbitant 'upgrade' (read extortion) costs every few years to maintain interoperability.
I started out as a Dos/Windows user from day 1 (actually I really started out as a TI 99a user - but that is another story). I have also managed and used all of the windows operating systems from Win 3.1 up to the present Win XP. When I didn't know any better, I used to think the DOS command line was the best thing since sliced bread, and batch files were my scripting nirvana.
Then I started using *nix. I loaded Linux for the first time in 1992, and have been using it ever since. I was also a Unix system administrator during my career, and was using Sun systems in college before that. I learned the tool building paradigm of Unix, and absorbed awk, sed, perl, python, lisp, java, and a host of tools unheard of in the Microsoft world. Things that I spent hours accomplishing with Windows and DOS, I was accomplishing in minutes with Linux.
From my vantage point, it is plain to see that the Microsoft products are not up to the task of being a general purpose workstation/server operating system. When compared to industrial strength Unix and Linux distributions, it is a toy - and should be advertised as such.
I think the key distinction we need to understand is the ability of an end user to ameliorate security problems and other bugs when they manifest themselves. In *nix, usually the source code is available for modification, or a work around can be accomplished quickly with a scripting language because of the clear text interprocess communication mechanisms available. On the Microsoft side of the house, we are clearly dependent upon the good will and scheduling of Microsoft to get the fix implemented - and there is not much we can do to alter the outcome. So, the choices are independent ability to fix things, as needed - or Big Brother Knows Best; I know what I prefer.
Given the above, Microsoft is never the 'right tool for the job', unless your job is a toy application that is expected to be obsolete within a few years. The simple measure of this is to look at all the DOS applications that are currently being used by end users, versus *nix applications (albeit in GNU form) - *nix wins hands down. Don't believe I haven't tried using various DOS and Windows tools - but they just don't have the overall flexibility and usefulness that can be plentifully found under *nix.
What really boggles me about this whole issue is how people can be screwed by MS a thousand times over (non backwards compatible file formats, blecherous incomplete implementation of java, a malformed central configuration repository that causes complete system meltdowns when corrupted - that end users are not shown how to backup out of the box, etc...the list goes on and on), and yet come back smiling for more! What is really amusing (sad, really) is how I see some people rationalize that they were the ones at fault: "It was silly of me to build my spreadsheets in MS Works 1.4 back in '85 - what was I thinking! I should have copied all those entries across to Excell back in '95". To me this is a red flag that I am being taken for a ride. I woke up. I hope you do too.
Windows NT does not support USB - I consider that a bug.
Stable does not equate to useful, in all cases.
Windows is making strides in stability every day because of it's open design and collaborative development process...
I can't believe you just wrote that.
'Windows Operating System development' and 'collaborative development environment' is an oxymoron.
Just because Microsoft is the most successful company at amassing a fortune, does not mean that their approach is technically superior. In fact, since they have catered to the least common denominator, their approach, while certainly 'new' when compared to Unix, is definitely not superior.
I use Windows NT and XP on a daily basis in my work. I also was an original DOS user back in the 80s, and migrated up through various windows distributions including Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME. There is not much I don't know about the windows implementation from a practical hands-on standpoint.
I also use Unix on a daily basis at work - in the form of Sun Solaris, and SCO Unixware, and Linux (Slackware, Redhat). I loaded my first Linux box (a 486) at home back in 1992 - always having at least one Linux box in my stable, only recently converting all of my home machines over to Linux.
I have been a system administrator and a software developer on both platforms.
Over years of comparisons I came to the conclusion that having a full featured workstation and server machines was more important than foregoing a few video games not available for Linux. In this time of freely available and configurable operating systems, I see no advantage to having Microsoft over Linux. I have not regretted my decision.
One of the major reasons I switched completely was because of Microsoft's 'all or nothing' business practices. I believe this is a key element that has led more and more technically savvy people away from the Microsoft operating system. I am probably stating the obvious here, however, I believe that if Microsoft had tried to build tools that were truly compatible with existing standards and tried to work with the existing internet and development community (that has a long history, and a longer memory) instead of trying to co-opt and conquer them, then I think you would not have seen all the backlash against Microsoft and the resultant anti-trust case.
It boggles the mind that so many people posting on this site don't get it; I can only surmise that they are either ignorant of other options, or willfully misrepresenting the facts based on some vested interest (Microsoft employee or OEM?)
The problem is they don't sit there and talk about walking all over the software developers in those terms.
They are lawyers and bankers, so they sit there and say something like:
The lawyers say, "We have the legal right to market our own code. Since we own Unix and Unix equals Linux, then we have the legal right to market Linux (which is really Unix)"
The bankers say, "Great! This will put even more money into our, for a better term, 'retirement fund'"
I thought 'NONADS' would be more descriptive.
The more microsoft morphs to become like linux, the less people will be inclined to throw away their money when they can get better functionality for free.
Outrageous!
My tinfoil hat may be on too tight, however:
1. Microsoft Loses Antitrust case.
2. Bush gets into the Whitehouse and expected results of antitrust case become very wattered down.
3. Microsoft employee becomes chief of cyber security for the government - authors 'National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'.
4. Google is known to have former NSA people on the payroll.
5. Microsoft's 'trusted computing' strategy includes building an all in one DRM gateway.
6. Microsoft goes after Google...
It seems to me that Microsoft is tightening their ties with government in an attempt to influence the upcoming DRM war. What better way to do that than to have an inside man to set internet security policy, to control all access of electronic resources into the home, and to control the most important search portal. There are probably other evidence to support this view - but I don't have the time to 'google' it all for you (kind of ironic, if it wasn't so scary in a 'big brother is watching you' sort of way...)
To paraphrase Frank Herbert, "he who controls the access, controls the universe"
What about taking the basics of the W3C Amaya project and turbocharging it?
This tool looks at it from the other side - you keep your own local annotations - or you can save public annotations that others can see.
The neat thing about this tool is it keeps all the meta data seperate from the document itself - which remains pristine - so you could annotate any web page or file on any system you can touch.
The tool as it stands now is very crude. I could see somthing like this becoming the basis for personal information management in the short future.
" ...such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC..."
I call bullshit on this argument. Don't even try to convince me that if someone had a gun in those airplanes that they would not have been able to stop a bunch of razor toting fanatics.
The biggest fallacy is the assumption that 'times are different' and therefore protections we enjoyed in earlier times do not apply. Again - bullshit.
I have news for you, people have not changed all that much, and one bullet in the forehead will kill you as fast in 1895 as in the year 2003. The destructive power of an airliner was available since the first one flew back in the 1920s. The only difference is the will of someone to try to use it. That does not justify flushing the Constitution down the toilet to make ignorant people feel 'safe'.
Actually, the new hybrid gas/electric cars use dynamic braking - like diesel locomotives - to reclaim some of the energy and store it in the batteries.
So, your idea wasn't so far off; energy can be translated - however you lose something in the translation.