I didn't realize Lockheed was still quietly working on an X-33 derivative, but Google turned up some recent test flight reports. Thanks for the tip!
I'm also fascinated by the Delta Clipper approach. I'd be happy to see a fly off between the two approaches - unlikely, of course, given the upcoming president's view of budget priorities. *sigh*
I agree with you in principle; Obama should definitely validate the actual need for existing programs (military and domestic), and kill those we can live without. I disagree, though, that the F-35 is "bleeding edge" (its focus has always been on affordability as an export fighter set to compete with the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen, and the multi-national Eurofighter rather than "performance at any cost"), or that it can be replaced by "incremental upgrades" to the existing fleet.
The F-35 has strong international support from US allies who have helped fund and execute the program (including the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, and Singapore). It is the only potential replacement for the badly aging AV-8B Harrier II, and will also replace the F-16, A-10, EA-6B, and F/A-18 (except the Super Hornet model, for which it serves as a stealth-capable adjunct).
in favor of re-capitalizing with incremental improvements to exiting proven systems
This argument just doesn't work well for the F-35. While we could arguably replace existing F-16 inventories with the F-16 Block 60, and just buy more F-18 E/F Super Hornets for the Navy, we'd be left with two problems that make your suggestion impractical.
"Incremental improvements" to the Harrier II would be cost-prohibitive, and likely wouldn't solve the major supportability issues it faces. Remember, a STOVL aircraft lives or dies on weight. Cutting weight is hard. Adding weight in a mid-life upgrade is easy. Cost-wise, an "incremental improvement" to the Harrier II is equivalent to a re-design - and we've already paid for a redesign in the F-35. (Same basic problem in the long run with the A-10, though we have more time in that aircraft's instance.)
Second problem is more severe - you can't "incrementally upgrade" an existing aircraft to stealth. Other than the (expensive and non-exportable) F-22, the F-35 is the only fifth generation stealth fighter available to the allied military. The value of stealth has been proven thoroughly and repeatedly; GIYF.
Just as you have to eventually forsake upgrading your beloved IBM XT and buy a new freaking machine, it's time to replace Harrier II's and their generational cohorts with a new platform for the next 50 years - which explains the strong international support behind the F-35.
The F-35 is already in low-rate production after 12 years of competition and detailed design work, and is only 4 years from initial deployment in the USA and UK. Killing it now would be incredibly foolish - and I don't think Obama is foolish in the least.
(All of the F-35 info above I pulled from Wikipedia, of course.)
Or at least make the attempt, sure. Trying to obtain power is what politicians do.
In the USA, the most effective approach AFAICT is by following the rules in public, and trying to adjust the rules to your advantage as subtly as possible to avoid too much backlash (e.g., excluding third parties from debates and public financing, gerrymandering congressional districts). I haven't noticed any particular difference between R's or D's in that respect.
But when it comes to whining about a loss, the D's seem to have a consistent edge in my experience. Well, until this election.:-)
Let's see. When a Democrat is in the White House, it's the Republican congress' fault. When the Democrats control congress, it's the evil Republican president's fault. And when the Democrats control the White House and congress, it's the mere karma-damaging presence of a Republic minority that is to blame.
parâ...tiâ...san -noun an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Stop fooling yourself. You're a Democratic partisan.
the Republicans of the 1990's responded to the Reform Party's success in 1992 by becoming seriously responsible fiscally. The Democrats haven't done so since at least the early 1960's.
No, the Republicans responded to Perot (for whom I voted), by doing a full court press of propaganda while calling anybody who dared actually act on it "RINO".
The fallacy of your argument is most clearly revealed here. Despite all the vitriol and extreme partisanship you can muster, their results speak louder than your words. They balanced the budget, a feat the Democrats haven't accomplished in my lifetime.
Sure. Have you ever actually read the constitution? You should, if only to learn that congress governs the purse.
(It should strike you as odd that when Clinton had a Democratic congress, the budget was unbalanced, then the Republicans took control of congress, and the budget was balanced. Think about it hard, especially what is the same and what is different in those two cases, and the light will dawn.)
Finally, care to bet on the deficit level in 2012? Will you still be blaming Republicans and glorifying Democrats then? Please don't change accounts; I hope to enjoy continuing our discussion at that point!
All your bluster and bold-faced assertions don't change reality. The crappy bailout was forged by Bush, Pelosi and Reid, and rammed through both houses by the latter two over public protest. Claiming the Democrats are virgin pure and it is all the big, bad Republicans' fault is a fantasy or a delusion, take your pick. In light of your deification of the Democratic party, I'd say both.
"This apparent eagerness of the Democratic Party politicians to reach an early accommodation with the Bush administration created (in light of persistent reports of popular opposition to the bailout program) a propaganda vacuum and opportunity, into which the House Republicans quickly moved, raising objections, refusing to support the deal and presenting themselves as defenders of the ordinary taxpayer's interests."
It was about writing hate and bigotry into our state constitution.
Or perhaps it was about republican forms of government - at least to some people.
I think it would have been really great if gay marriage supporters had proposed their ideas, debated them successfully in the public square, and won at the ballot box. You know, that old "democracy" concept.
Instead, they had 5 judges suddenly "discover" a new right in a 159 year old document - a radically different interpretation than thousands of earlier interpretations, precedent be damned. So sure of this new discovery were they, that they couldn't wait 6 months for confirmation at the ballot box before thrusting their views on an unwilling public - and the unwilling public slapped them right back.
At some point, the Imperial Judiciary will need to realize that they can't just keep on making stuff up. If the constitution is wrong, follow the constitutional processes and change it. Instead, we have the current spectacle of three pro-gay marriage groups asking this same set of justices to declare the newly amended constitution unconstitutional.
Jefferson's grave can't handle the spinning much longer.
the Democrats are the fiscally conservative party and have been for about 30 years
Well, let's check the facts (try page 22) just for grins. In the past 30 years (your timeframe), Republicans have controlled congress for 12 years and Democrats 18 years.
Republicans balanced the budget 4 of their 12 years, for a 33% score. Democrats balanced the budget 0 of their 18 years, for a 0% score.
So. By what definition would this make Democrats the "fiscally conservative party" over the past 30 years??
Granted, 33% looks good only against a pitiful 0%; we ought to boot both parties out, and try something different. But regardless of their current backsliding (to use an old Southern Baptist term), the Republicans of the 1990's responded to the Reform Party's success in 1992 by becoming seriously responsible fiscally. The Democrats haven't done so since at least the early 1960's.
Riiiight... which is why Republicans voted 2-to-1 against it, while Democrats strongly supported it. Conservative Republicans support more government spending, and liberals are fiscally conservative, black is white, hate is love, and it's 1984 all over again. Got it. [rolls eyes]
there was this massive bailout of Wall Street backed by financial conservatives.
Wow, you're the first person I've seen who considers Pelosi and Reid "financial conservatives"! So you consider the Republicans who shot down their first bailout attempt "financial liberals"?:-D
If an election came down to a few votes in one state, I would HOPE the losing candidate would challenge it. In many states (including Florida), such a challenge is required by law.
It's not the challenging that grates, it's the petulant claims 8 years after they won that somehow Republicans must have "stolen" the election from Gore. That's childish and divisive, IMHO. Grieve and get over it, like the Republicans appear to be doing. Neither candidate lost anywhere CLOSE to as badly as mine...
There have also been far viewer stories on fairly large groups of people that were suddenly unable to vote for some reason.
You get MSNBC in The Netherlands? Cool!
If you got Fox News, of course, you would have seen the exact opposite - numerous stories on a group called ACORN that registered EVERYONE to vote - dead folks, non-citizens, people who had already registered 19 times, Disney characters, hamsters, people likely to vote Republican - ok, I made that last one up. I guess Democrats really take their "big tent" philosophy seriously.:-D
What you won't find on either network, though, is news about Republican lawsuits. I think jcnnghm (538570)explains it best below, so I'll let you read his conclusion; I'd mod it insightful if I could.
Actually, I hadn't read a single news story or even vanity post claiming that the 2008 election was stolen. I searched New Republic at your suggestion and finally located one solitary thread - as I write this, 13 replies asserted "scams" of some type, mostly ACORN related (only 1 person flatly said that the election was "stolen"); 16 asserted the voters just made a "bad" choice; 5 blamed the economy, McCain or the Republican party in general; and 17 were not directly related to the loss (including an oddly amusing short thread as to whether Texas such secede again).
No, I don't think Republicans are responding to this election as Democrats did in 2004, for two reasons. First, no single state would have swung this election, as Ohio would have in 2004. And second, Republicans don't seem as whiny to me as Democrats, possibly because Democrats rely on others (usually the government) to solve problems, and Republicans (used to, at least) rely on individual initiative. Of course, that last observation might be slightly controversial...;-)
Or you can examine the race against historical precedent. Here's the difference in popular and electoral vote percentages the last 7 elections (that is, the first number is the difference between the higher and lower percentage of popular votes, the second the difference between the higher and lower percentage electoral votes):
Obama's two numbers are fairly consistent with the electoral college "distortion" you mention above, and also shows this election was a return to normalcity (to coin a phrase) after two very anomalous elections.
You're seriously misreading conservatives. If you've ever made the effort to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and you should if only to understand those you hate, you'd know that conservatives adore Ms. Palin; it's McCain they can't stand.
In any event, the popular vote was 52% to 47% - relatively close, and rather comparable to the 2004 election. Obama's much stronger electoral vote showing in 2008 than Bush's in 2004 is a testament to Obama's skills as a campaigner (and perhaps a little luck) - he managed to carry virtually every battleground state by a slim margin, without losing any of his expected-to-win states. Masterfully played, indeed.
They vote in the primaries (which are not mentioned in the constitution), but not in the presidential election (which is). The District of Columbia had the same problem, and we had to amend the constitution to give'em their 3 electoral votes (and they went >90% Obama).
Like most citizens, I'd be happy for Puerto Rico to become a state of the USA, or an independent country, whichever they prefer. Unfortunately, polls show no clear consensus among Puerto Ricans as to whether they want to be a state, nation or commonwealth.
But at least it gives people something to complain about.:-)
The Republicans will quickly realize that McCain lost because he didn't start his campaign early enough. They'll correct that problem by starting NOW... campaigning for the election of 2016.
(Congrats to Obama. He's one of the best campaigners I've seen in more years than I'll admit to surviving.)
But I seem to remember that you could kill UAC in Vista, also.
Geeks can. Windows 7 provides a simple slider that normal people can change.
Of course, 'sucks less' is faint praise indeed. It remains to be seen if exceeding a remarkably low bar is sufficient to reverse their slipping market share.
One thing which I know I've heard described for Windows 7 was the ability to run an older version (like Vista) in a virtual machine.
This is true but misleading. Windows 7 is "Vista with lipstick" - it's completely compatible with Vista, according to Microsoft. Most importantly, Vista drivers should require zero changes, one of the "Vista killers" with regard to the huge base of XP drivers.
IMHO, Windows 7 (I have a copy!:-) sucks significantly less than Vista. It's lighter (though nowhere near as light as Linux), more configurable (you can kill the UAC at last!), and has a few nice UI improvements (the integration of the task bar and quick launch bar seems pretty usable).
Indeed (and as much as it pains me to say it), Microsoft had several sessions at PDC on programming COM objects. People still do such things, rather surprisingly, and Microsoft continues to support them.
And while the current Azure beta requires managed code (aka,.NET), they mentioned plans during the Monday keynote to eventually support unmanaged code.
I attended PDC this year. Miguel gave a talk about / demo of Mono and its future on Wednesday evening to an enthusiastic standing-room only audience. At one point, a Microsoft leader in the back (couldn't see who it was) yelled out, "Microsoft loves Mono!".
More interesting was "The Future of C#" talk earlier in the week, where the future of C# was revealed to be... Python. No kidding. C# 4.0 will include a static type of "dynamic" (the jokes just write themselves), which uses Jim Hugunin's (of Jython / IronPython fame) Dynamic Library Runtime (DLR) to do duck typing et. al. C# 5.0 virtualizes the C# compiler so that an executing C# program can compile and execute C# code on the fly. I thought the C# developers were going to break their hands in wild applause as the speaker demonstrated a command line written in a prototype C# 5.0 from which statements executed dynamically - like you get when you type "python" at a command prompt. It was a bit surreal; these guys need to get out more.:-)
The punch line is that Miguel demonstrated the use of the DLR and compiler virtualization in the current version of Mono.
I know his reputation isn't sterling in these parts, but there's certainly nothing wrong with his coding skill. His was also one of the most entertaining talks at PDC (and the only one with the demos hosted on Linux).
Well, I've replied to this twice, and both replies were lost. I hate being away from home and a good Internet connection.
Your suggestion is a good one, of course, but it has some downsides. One is that an application whose configuration data is not backwards compatible will be unusable should I boot to the previous OS. Another is that, to boot to the previous OS, I would have to compress the current OS and reload the previous OS; with my preferred approach, either image is just a grub option away. I also view each 6 month's OS upgrade (I use Ubuntu) as an opportunity to try new configuration settings; and re-installing applications in Linux is so trivially easy, I rather enjoy it.
But I do appreciate the suggestion on a very reasonable alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
(PLEASE be the X-33 with composite fuel tanks)
I didn't realize Lockheed was still quietly working on an X-33 derivative, but Google turned up some recent test flight reports. Thanks for the tip!
I'm also fascinated by the Delta Clipper approach. I'd be happy to see a fly off between the two approaches - unlikely, of course, given the upcoming president's view of budget priorities. *sigh*
I agree with you in principle; Obama should definitely validate the actual need for existing programs (military and domestic), and kill those we can live without. I disagree, though, that the F-35 is "bleeding edge" (its focus has always been on affordability as an export fighter set to compete with the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen, and the multi-national Eurofighter rather than "performance at any cost"), or that it can be replaced by "incremental upgrades" to the existing fleet.
The F-35 has strong international support from US allies who have helped fund and execute the program (including the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, and Singapore). It is the only potential replacement for the badly aging AV-8B Harrier II, and will also replace the F-16, A-10, EA-6B, and F/A-18 (except the Super Hornet model, for which it serves as a stealth-capable adjunct).
in favor of re-capitalizing with incremental improvements to exiting proven systems
This argument just doesn't work well for the F-35. While we could arguably replace existing F-16 inventories with the F-16 Block 60, and just buy more F-18 E/F Super Hornets for the Navy, we'd be left with two problems that make your suggestion impractical.
"Incremental improvements" to the Harrier II would be cost-prohibitive, and likely wouldn't solve the major supportability issues it faces. Remember, a STOVL aircraft lives or dies on weight. Cutting weight is hard. Adding weight in a mid-life upgrade is easy. Cost-wise, an "incremental improvement" to the Harrier II is equivalent to a re-design - and we've already paid for a redesign in the F-35. (Same basic problem in the long run with the A-10, though we have more time in that aircraft's instance.)
Second problem is more severe - you can't "incrementally upgrade" an existing aircraft to stealth. Other than the (expensive and non-exportable) F-22, the F-35 is the only fifth generation stealth fighter available to the allied military. The value of stealth has been proven thoroughly and repeatedly; GIYF.
Just as you have to eventually forsake upgrading your beloved IBM XT and buy a new freaking machine, it's time to replace Harrier II's and their generational cohorts with a new platform for the next 50 years - which explains the strong international support behind the F-35.
The F-35 is already in low-rate production after 12 years of competition and detailed design work, and is only 4 years from initial deployment in the USA and UK. Killing it now would be incredibly foolish - and I don't think Obama is foolish in the least.
(All of the F-35 info above I pulled from Wikipedia, of course.)
...as soon as you realize that nobody who actually knows what's really going on is allowed to post about it on Slashdot.
Or at least make the attempt, sure. Trying to obtain power is what politicians do.
In the USA, the most effective approach AFAICT is by following the rules in public, and trying to adjust the rules to your advantage as subtly as possible to avoid too much backlash (e.g., excluding third parties from debates and public financing, gerrymandering congressional districts). I haven't noticed any particular difference between R's or D's in that respect.
But when it comes to whining about a loss, the D's seem to have a consistent edge in my experience. Well, until this election. :-)
Let's see. When a Democrat is in the White House, it's the Republican congress' fault. When the Democrats control congress, it's the evil Republican president's fault. And when the Democrats control the White House and congress, it's the mere karma-damaging presence of a Republic minority that is to blame.
parâ...tiâ...san -noun an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Stop fooling yourself. You're a Democratic partisan.
the Republicans of the 1990's responded to the Reform Party's success in 1992 by becoming seriously responsible fiscally. The Democrats haven't done so since at least the early 1960's.
No, the Republicans responded to Perot (for whom I voted), by doing a full court press of propaganda while calling anybody who dared actually act on it "RINO".
The fallacy of your argument is most clearly revealed here. Despite all the vitriol and extreme partisanship you can muster, their results speak louder than your words. They balanced the budget, a feat the Democrats haven't accomplished in my lifetime.
'Nuff said.
Sure. Have you ever actually read the constitution? You should, if only to learn that congress governs the purse.
(It should strike you as odd that when Clinton had a Democratic congress, the budget was unbalanced, then the Republicans took control of congress, and the budget was balanced. Think about it hard, especially what is the same and what is different in those two cases, and the light will dawn.)
Finally, care to bet on the deficit level in 2012? Will you still be blaming Republicans and glorifying Democrats then? Please don't change accounts; I hope to enjoy continuing our discussion at that point!
Nothing sadder than a blind political fanbois.
All your bluster and bold-faced assertions don't change reality. The crappy bailout was forged by Bush, Pelosi and Reid, and rammed through both houses by the latter two over public protest. Claiming the Democrats are virgin pure and it is all the big, bad Republicans' fault is a fantasy or a delusion, take your pick. In light of your deification of the Democratic party, I'd say both.
"This apparent eagerness of the Democratic Party politicians to reach an early accommodation with the Bush administration created (in light of persistent reports of popular opposition to the bailout program) a propaganda vacuum and opportunity, into which the House Republicans quickly moved, raising objections, refusing to support the deal and presenting themselves as defenders of the ordinary taxpayer's interests."
It was about writing hate and bigotry into our state constitution.
Or perhaps it was about republican forms of government - at least to some people.
I think it would have been really great if gay marriage supporters had proposed their ideas, debated them successfully in the public square, and won at the ballot box. You know, that old "democracy" concept.
Instead, they had 5 judges suddenly "discover" a new right in a 159 year old document - a radically different interpretation than thousands of earlier interpretations, precedent be damned. So sure of this new discovery were they, that they couldn't wait 6 months for confirmation at the ballot box before thrusting their views on an unwilling public - and the unwilling public slapped them right back.
At some point, the Imperial Judiciary will need to realize that they can't just keep on making stuff up. If the constitution is wrong, follow the constitutional processes and change it. Instead, we have the current spectacle of three pro-gay marriage groups asking this same set of justices to declare the newly amended constitution unconstitutional.
Jefferson's grave can't handle the spinning much longer.
the Democrats are the fiscally conservative party and have been for about 30 years
Well, let's check the facts (try page 22) just for grins. In the past 30 years (your timeframe), Republicans have controlled congress for 12 years and Democrats 18 years.
Republicans balanced the budget 4 of their 12 years, for a 33% score. Democrats balanced the budget 0 of their 18 years, for a 0% score.
So. By what definition would this make Democrats the "fiscally conservative party" over the past 30 years??
Granted, 33% looks good only against a pitiful 0%; we ought to boot both parties out, and try something different. But regardless of their current backsliding (to use an old Southern Baptist term), the Republicans of the 1990's responded to the Reform Party's success in 1992 by becoming seriously responsible fiscally. The Democrats haven't done so since at least the early 1960's.
Riiiight... which is why Republicans voted 2-to-1 against it, while Democrats strongly supported it. Conservative Republicans support more government spending, and liberals are fiscally conservative, black is white, hate is love, and it's 1984 all over again. Got it. [rolls eyes]
there was this massive bailout of Wall Street backed by financial conservatives.
Wow, you're the first person I've seen who considers Pelosi and Reid "financial conservatives"! So you consider the Republicans who shot down their first bailout attempt "financial liberals"? :-D
If an election came down to a few votes in one state, I would HOPE the losing candidate would challenge it. In many states (including Florida), such a challenge is required by law.
It's not the challenging that grates, it's the petulant claims 8 years after they won that somehow Republicans must have "stolen" the election from Gore. That's childish and divisive, IMHO. Grieve and get over it, like the Republicans appear to be doing. Neither candidate lost anywhere CLOSE to as badly as mine...
There have also been far viewer stories on fairly large groups of people that were suddenly unable to vote for some reason.
You get MSNBC in The Netherlands? Cool!
If you got Fox News, of course, you would have seen the exact opposite - numerous stories on a group called ACORN that registered EVERYONE to vote - dead folks, non-citizens, people who had already registered 19 times, Disney characters, hamsters, people likely to vote Republican - ok, I made that last one up. I guess Democrats really take their "big tent" philosophy seriously. :-D
What you won't find on either network, though, is news about Republican lawsuits. I think jcnnghm (538570)explains it best below, so I'll let you read his conclusion; I'd mod it insightful if I could.
You first.
Actually, I hadn't read a single news story or even vanity post claiming that the 2008 election was stolen. I searched New Republic at your suggestion and finally located one solitary thread - as I write this, 13 replies asserted "scams" of some type, mostly ACORN related (only 1 person flatly said that the election was "stolen"); 16 asserted the voters just made a "bad" choice; 5 blamed the economy, McCain or the Republican party in general; and 17 were not directly related to the loss (including an oddly amusing short thread as to whether Texas such secede again).
No, I don't think Republicans are responding to this election as Democrats did in 2004, for two reasons. First, no single state would have swung this election, as Ohio would have in 2004. And second, Republicans don't seem as whiny to me as Democrats, possibly because Democrats rely on others (usually the government) to solve problems, and Republicans (used to, at least) rely on individual initiative. Of course, that last observation might be slightly controversial... ;-)
I'm not saying her press was "good"
I hereby nominate this as understatement of the year.
Or you can examine the race against historical precedent. Here's the difference in popular and electoral vote percentages the last 7 elections (that is, the first number is the difference between the higher and lower percentage of popular votes, the second the difference between the higher and lower percentage electoral votes):
18.3 95.2 1984
07.8 58.7 1988
05.3 37.6 1992
08.5 40.9 1996
-0.5 00.0 2000
02.4 06.3 2004
06.2 36.3 2008
Obama's two numbers are fairly consistent with the electoral college "distortion" you mention above, and also shows this election was a return to normalcity (to coin a phrase) after two very anomalous elections.
You're seriously misreading conservatives. If you've ever made the effort to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and you should if only to understand those you hate, you'd know that conservatives adore Ms. Palin; it's McCain they can't stand.
In any event, the popular vote was 52% to 47% - relatively close, and rather comparable to the 2004 election. Obama's much stronger electoral vote showing in 2008 than Bush's in 2004 is a testament to Obama's skills as a campaigner (and perhaps a little luck) - he managed to carry virtually every battleground state by a slim margin, without losing any of his expected-to-win states. Masterfully played, indeed.
They vote in the primaries (which are not mentioned in the constitution), but not in the presidential election (which is). The District of Columbia had the same problem, and we had to amend the constitution to give'em their 3 electoral votes (and they went >90% Obama).
Like most citizens, I'd be happy for Puerto Rico to become a state of the USA, or an independent country, whichever they prefer. Unfortunately, polls show no clear consensus among Puerto Ricans as to whether they want to be a state, nation or commonwealth.
But at least it gives people something to complain about. :-)
The Republicans will quickly realize that McCain lost because he didn't start his campaign early enough. They'll correct that problem by starting NOW... campaigning for the election of 2016.
(Congrats to Obama. He's one of the best campaigners I've seen in more years than I'll admit to surviving.)
But I seem to remember that you could kill UAC in Vista, also.
Geeks can. Windows 7 provides a simple slider that normal people can change.
Of course, 'sucks less' is faint praise indeed. It remains to be seen if exceeding a remarkably low bar is sufficient to reverse their slipping market share.
One thing which I know I've heard described for Windows 7 was the ability to run an older version (like Vista) in a virtual machine.
This is true but misleading. Windows 7 is "Vista with lipstick" - it's completely compatible with Vista, according to Microsoft. Most importantly, Vista drivers should require zero changes, one of the "Vista killers" with regard to the huge base of XP drivers.
IMHO, Windows 7 (I have a copy! :-) sucks significantly less than Vista. It's lighter (though nowhere near as light as Linux), more configurable (you can kill the UAC at last!), and has a few nice UI improvements (the integration of the task bar and quick launch bar seems pretty usable).
Of course, the licensing terms haven't changed...
Indeed (and as much as it pains me to say it), Microsoft had several sessions at PDC on programming COM objects. People still do such things, rather surprisingly, and Microsoft continues to support them.
And while the current Azure beta requires managed code (aka, .NET), they mentioned plans during the Monday keynote to eventually support unmanaged code.
I attended PDC this year. Miguel gave a talk about / demo of Mono and its future on Wednesday evening to an enthusiastic standing-room only audience. At one point, a Microsoft leader in the back (couldn't see who it was) yelled out, "Microsoft loves Mono!".
More interesting was "The Future of C#" talk earlier in the week, where the future of C# was revealed to be... Python. No kidding. C# 4.0 will include a static type of "dynamic" (the jokes just write themselves), which uses Jim Hugunin's (of Jython / IronPython fame) Dynamic Library Runtime (DLR) to do duck typing et. al. C# 5.0 virtualizes the C# compiler so that an executing C# program can compile and execute C# code on the fly. I thought the C# developers were going to break their hands in wild applause as the speaker demonstrated a command line written in a prototype C# 5.0 from which statements executed dynamically - like you get when you type "python" at a command prompt. It was a bit surreal; these guys need to get out more. :-)
The punch line is that Miguel demonstrated the use of the DLR and compiler virtualization in the current version of Mono.
I know his reputation isn't sterling in these parts, but there's certainly nothing wrong with his coding skill. His was also one of the most entertaining talks at PDC (and the only one with the demos hosted on Linux).
Well, I've replied to this twice, and both replies were lost. I hate being away from home and a good Internet connection.
Your suggestion is a good one, of course, but it has some downsides. One is that an application whose configuration data is not backwards compatible will be unusable should I boot to the previous OS. Another is that, to boot to the previous OS, I would have to compress the current OS and reload the previous OS; with my preferred approach, either image is just a grub option away. I also view each 6 month's OS upgrade (I use Ubuntu) as an opportunity to try new configuration settings; and re-installing applications in Linux is so trivially easy, I rather enjoy it.
But I do appreciate the suggestion on a very reasonable alternative.