How come Safari and Opera got left off the list? I know the Redmond answer already: they aren't popular enough and therefore aren't something a user would be interested in. Perhaps they aren't listed because they would skew the results away from IE8. Even if the results weren't skewed, leaving out other browsers leaves the door open for people to speculate why those browsers were left off the list. Isn't Microsoft bribing people to use IE8 with that $10,000 scavenger hunt thing? I can see the scripting now... if (IE8) { runScam(noobUser); } else { showPage(); }

I wonder why the iPhone doesn't see more patches and updates. If the iPhone OS is a branch of Mac OS why isn't the phone patches as much as the desktop OS? Do Windows Mobile machines patch every Tuesday? I never updated my CrackBerry. Perhaps Apple doesn't want the iPhone to appear to need patches more often than it's competitors.

With the iPhone OS being a branch of Mac OS X, wouldn't it make sense for Apple to issue more frequent security updates for the phone? Leopard is already at a .7 update, plus a number of security updates and rumors of 10.5.8 around the corner. Is there a reason not to have more frequent updates for the iPhone? I wonder if people would be turned off by having to update the software on their phone every month or so? I've never owned a Windows Mobile smartphone; do those devices participate in patch Tuesday? I know that when I carried a crackberry, that thing never updated sofware, it was still running the same OS the day I turned it back into the IT team. I wonder if Apple's not pushing security patches to the phone because people aren't used to patching their phone and it would somehow tarnish the iPhone reputation as a consumer electronic device.

By cleaning up destitute neighborhoods you could raise adjoining property values and increase citizens' home equity and therefore increase their wealth. Uncle Sam is going to do stupid things with our money, if he replaces crappy parts of town with green open spaces, we'll have a nicer view during our commute and maybe increase our home's value. Letting the buildings rot and become havens for crime only benefits criminals.

That's very true. A lone tall building in an arboreal setting would be a destination for tourists. I had to go looking for Paul Revere's house in Boston and found it unceremoniously sandwiched between buildings in a downtown block. With proper landscaping you could mitigate some of the wildfire risk. The government could charge for access to the historical sites, like they do for state parks, and use the funds for maintenance.

This seems like a win-win scenario. Construction companies get hired to demolish the old buildings, which stimulates the economy and if the right buildings get the axe, old run down buildings full of lead paint and asbestos insulation go away and are replaced with meadows, forests or new greener buildings. The catch would be all the geezers coming out of the wood-work to save all the "historical sites"