As a contractor/consultant I work in a multitude of environments. When management asks me about IDEs here's what I have to say.

1.) The ideal IDE user works on a stand-alone program, on the same platform as deployment. Productivity problems multiply manifold with IDEs when, for example, Java development is on Windows but production deployment is on Linux.
2.) The ideal IDE user works on homogeneous code with no heterogeneous requirements for legacy run-time integration. I've seen companies spend lots of productivity resources pulling third-party packages of a different language into the IDE. Usually the only ones capable of pulling this off are the most senior of engineers. Their productivity gets wasted doing build integration work on behalf of the IDE.
3.) The ideal IDE user works on a project slice only. Too many companies require, in effect, the entire source tree to be compiled because dependencies spun out of control and everything depends on everything else. Again, senior engineers are the only ones capable of solving the IDE failures and their productivity gets wasted.
4.) The ideal IDE user works on small code bases.
5.) The ideal IDE user is not required to run build scripts to build a project.

As a contractor, by the nature of the work, I cannot depend on any particular IDE to be installed at any site. Also it is incumbent on me to use VI and Emacs in production. Good luck finding any production box with Visual Studio installed.

I rarely work on stand-alone programs, I work on distributed software. As a systems program my code runs on multiple machines. While it is possible to attach to foreign processes on 10-20 machines, IDEs are very poor in doing so. Emacs, on the other hand, can fork as my shells as quickly as you like.

As a contractor I work on legacy code nobody else wants to touch as full-time help. I have to integrate legacy and new code.

As a contractor I have written Perl scripts that cobble together the legacy code and new code to create the entire production environment. This is not uncommon. An IDE is not a an ideal environment for complicated build script required to get the run-time working. They are very hostile to the work spaces that need to be checked in and swapped with other developers.

I've seen senior developers waste days on why code compiles and runs in production, but doesn't run in the IDE environment. I've seen tons of productivity wasted by each developer trying to integrate legacy code with each build.

As a contractor I have to say that as a lowest common denominator, Emacs and VI are always productive since they are found everywhere. In an Ideal setting, perhaps someone using an IDE is more productive than myself, but I'm a senior engineer and I doubt if I'm the target for any productivity debate about an IDE. IDEs, as has been noted here, best serve the less than senior developer who is working on code that is ideally completely written and maintained by them. Most Fortune 500 companies do use IDEs, but arguing that an IDE is always more productive is flat out false. In fact, I think if you wanted to pin the notion of a "religion" on the camps, the IDE camp is for more zealous than the Emacs and VI camp: I can use an IDE easy enough and that zealotry has killed productivity as it is not based on reason, but emotionally attachment to the bells and whistles that are not required. When it comes to refactoring, etc. I have personal Perl scripts that make any IDEs capabilities look like child's play. Perl is the ultimate refactoring and reporting tool in the right hands.

Finally, as you may have noticed, much of the productivity that gets lost by the use of an IDE is that of senior developers fixing the nasty integration issues. The trade off of lost senior development productivity due to IDE maintenance vs. the gain of productivity of the more numbered typical developer by use of said IDE is a management call. I have to say though, as a senior developer, I do not relish being brought in to fix IDE bugs on behalf of those who claim superior productivity because the lost productivity is not their time.

Lisp always reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon. There is a six-year-old sitting in a classroom with one of Larson's typical frumpy teachers with big glasses at the blackboard. The caption reads, "Teacher, may I be excused? My brain is full."

Having gone the Engineering route of getting my CS degree, I have to say that nothing quite fills the brain like Lisp. Not Quantam Mechanics, not Special Relativity, Not Word Problems, Not Linear Transformations, and Not Shakespeare.

At Berkeley they use Lisp to weed out the less than committed, as the very first programming class a Freshman takes one takes is in Lisp. It was quite effective at getting Freshman to drop like flies.

Lisp hurts the brain. There is something not quite right about thinking in lambda functions. Or at least normal in the typical notion. Far be it from me to promote being normal, I'm a big fat weirdo, but the Lisp crowd, it seems to me, is a religious cult and has always used the language as an Elitist barrier. A computer science definition of machismoism: you must claim Lisp is the end all, be all. Paul Graham certainly fits into that elitist crowd. If normal is meant to mean not wanting to aspire to be part of some elitist crowd simply because one's brain is perceived superior by some arbitrary standard, count me normal. Or count my brain as full.

Welcome aboard. It is difficult for me to imagine my life without having known D&D and the subsequent games.
I look forward to more gaming and will think of Dave and Gary from time-to-time.
Maybe name a character, Garar. Or Arn Ax.
Welcome.

<two-cents>
I read all the comments and mostly they were centered around the license and Visual Studio, the IDE.
I'd just like to add:
What is an ASP? What is an IDE?
Emacs and Java,Ruby,SQL,Perl,PHP,C++,bash,csh,Python,HTML,Javascript,/etc/text,XML,"language of tomorrow" forever!
Real programmers don't use an IDE. We have brains. Which probably explains why I've never heard of ASP. Or Microsoft.
</two-cents>

The biggest problem with any sort of confined fusion (Hohlraum,
reverse-pinch, tokamak, etc.) is that there are no known materials
that can withstand the neutron bombardment for very long. Let's say
it all works... how do you get the heat from the plasma to
electricity? Somewhere some material is needed that can withstand the
neutrons but conduct/transmit the heat. NIF is a laser physicist's
wet dream of a science fair project and an engineering marvel, but as
a practical means of making useful power, precious little R&D has been
invested in even thinking past the "Okay, we got ourselves a net
positive energy output. What now?" Yes, cool science and an
understanding of nature will no doubt come from this effort and I
can't naysay it on it's own terms (and in the meanwhile it's been
funding a goodly portion of the optics industry). But the "2050 plan"
of both ITER and NIF still have "a miracle occurs here" in them as to
materials and turning the heat into electricity. And I'm sure it
involves making steam and spinning turbines like we've done since the
time of Hero (ca AD 1100?).

The pipeline from university R&D to products that are good for society
is delicate and gets broken easily. Steve Chu might have a chance to
help smooth things out - it's a very tough job to decide where to
spread your money and NIF has been going for a long time. We need
programs like this. But the proportions are off, since nearly nothing
is spent on conventional fission, and the US isn't aggressive in solar
like Spain and Germany (okay, Kaaleefohrnia being an exception, but
that's an Austrian anyway).

If you look at most great literature the writing was not done to make piles of money.

In fact, I think it is interesting to note that while music and video are subject to much pirating, books have remained relatively pirate proof.

How many artists historically are not "discovered" until long after they are dead? History is full with artists who died paupers only to be discovered later.

I'd actually make the counter argument. I believe copyright is tyranny. It encourages owners of the copyrighted material to wring every last cent out of existing owned property and ignore new and emerging artist. Bands such as the Beatles would never happen today because the record companies only want to pay a solo artist, such as Britney Spears. Lastly and sadly, proof that copyright is tyranny is evident in the top grossing touring bands each year over the last 30 years. Rarely is it a new band, most generally top grossing touring bands are from the 1960s, 70s and 80s. That's because the record companies make piles of money promoting artists who have deep catalogs replete with greatest hits albums. Copyright law as it exists today in the US is tyranny of the worst kind, handicapping the youth. I have a brother who records. He can't even get a local radio station to talk with him because they are locked into only playing copyrighted material pre-approved by the big media conglomerates.

We are not free because of copyright laws today, we are imprisoned.

On a more serious note, automatic weapons are illegal to buy in many states. Yet you can buy the various pieces and put them together and still make your own.

In a similar manner, what if cell phone manufacturers sold the hardware sans software? Couldn't some hack in China sell the software without the click? I'm thinking of DVDFab here which is illegal to sell in the U.S.

Is this really a problem? I don't get it. As the cameras in cell phones get more sophisticated, one will be able to stand far enough away to where the sound won't be heard anyway. Also, unless a lot of money is spent making the camera lens and the phone speaker one and the same then one will always be able to cover the speaker by hand; and it seems some cell phone manufacturer could make that operation trivial to sell more phones.