Silverlight just like Flash was only ever going to be temporary anyway. They were both technologies trying to do the same thing of abstracting the GUI to something that crosses OS versions, platforms, etc. Once Flash started giving way to HTML5, the writing was on the wall for Silverlight. Soon, I imagine, we will have native apps for things the need deeper/privileged access to the platform (phone, tablet, desktop, whatever) and web-style HTML rendering for everything else.

Personally, I think that the downhill slide started when the GPL became more about protecting the philosophy and less about protecting the programs. Keeping open source open is all well and good, however, forcing folks to open up their goodies is not good. One person's freedom to share their code is just as valid as another person's freedom not too. Of course, having said that it is important to note that the person who does not share their code is going to have to work that much harder to ensure that their users are getting(and kniw that they are getting) a good,reliable deal. We have all seen examples of both great and sucky closed source and open source software.

Look, it is not just about marketing and it has never been just about marketing. Yes, Apple is great at marketing its stuff. However, if that was all it was good at then you would not have any repeat customers -- nor would you have a loyal fan base of Apple users. Not only that, but you would not have Apple as the highest rated consumer electronics company http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+customer+satisfaction+rating&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official for multiple years in a row. You just can't buy that with marketing. Apple knows that it is not about the hardware and it is not about the software -- rather, it is about the intersection of hardware/software/environment that hits the sweet spot for many, many users. Apple users are not, as a whole, clueless sheep. We have just decided that the sum of the parts that go into an Apple system is much better than the sum of the parts of other systems. Simple. I like my Apple stuff. I like it enough that I buy other Apple stuff. It does not matter what other folks think because the systems I have fulfill my needs. You are welcome to go find stuff that fits your needs, but that does not mean that either one of us is dumb. We all make choices based on our needs and at this point in time Apple systems fit a whole bunch of people's needs.

No. What's sad is that you can't see the fact that if there had been no Apollo, then there would be no COTS. The money that was spent on the early NASA programs laid the foundation for all that has gone since. From the hardware and computer advances to all of the trained personnel ... it has all added up to get us where we are today.

I agree that NASA is doing some truly amazing things today and I am really, really hoping that Bigelow gets his hotels in orbit and that SpaceX is successful and that Virgin manages to launch a bunch of customers into low-earth orbit. However, credit has to be given to the Mercury, Apollo and Gemini programs (not to mention the Soviet/Russian programs)-- they paved the way.

Sir (or ma'am ;-), I greatly wish I could give you a 'Hell Yes!' and a + to the moderation. For several years now the US has been reduced to focussing on the next quarter and no longer looks at the big picture. You can see this in Wall Street, in the budgets for technology companies, in the lack of University R&D... etc. If it isn't shiny and available-right-now it is beyond our attention span and seen to be without value. Even in my own field of supercomputing I see this (folks don't want a bleeding-edge system ... they just want big clusters).
    We are, I think, currently living on the fruits of fundamental research that was done in the 60s and 70s. Since then, we have been (to stretch another analogy) eating our R&D seed-corn and not planting for 10, 15 or more years out. It will definitely bite us in the butt soon.

Get off my rapidly-melting Alaska lawn!

I'm definitely with you on this (and wish I had some mod points). At work I use a mix of OSX, Linux, Solaris, Cray-flavored Linux and a bit of Windows. I can get work done in all of those, but I really prefer the look and feel of OSX. That does not make me a sheeple, just a person who prefers working in OSX.
    In a way, I think that much of the bashing is due to the echo-chamber effect. That is, folks who are trying to call attention to themselves so they push harder and harder on things -- no matter how slippery the logic. Kinda like politics I s'pose. Anyway, for some reason, Google is still seen as an underdog fighting the 'good' fight but, in reality, they are a corporation with an agenda just like any other corporation.
    Not to say that Apple is all sweetness and light, but they have always been an 'Appliance' company that strives to provide the best in hardware and software. This can be seen as far back as the Apple //c (I still remember people complaining about the fact that it had no expansion slots :-)

First; who will be administering this program? Under what authority could an organization possibly 'certify' systems that are located around the world?
Next; How often would these certificates need to be updated? Every time a vendor issues a new patch?
Third; What kind of crazy-ass DRM would be needed to keep folks from just spoofing the certificates?

    Unfortunately, this is the kind of simplistic easy-to-follow proposal that our congress-critter really go for... yeesh.

Woot! A skill level that is finally right for me! :-)

Here in the interior of Alaska we have to plant trees close together in our campgrounds. That keeps the mosquitos with the larger wingspans from getting through. Heck, some of them have their own landing strip at the airport. Our mosquitoes are big -- scary big.