Chalk this Infoworld writer up as yet another victim of history:

Twenty yeas from now a new generation of computer users will look back on the operating systems of today with the same bemused smile we look back at the cars of the late 1950s and early 60s. They had huge fins, were the size of a small yacht and burned up just about as much gas.

That’s right, I’m comparing Apple OS X 10.5, or Leopard, and Microsoft’s Windows Vista to those old behemoths — big and flashy and totally unnecessary.

Sorry, cars today are bigger and just as inefficient. Who needs fins when you can carry hundreds of pounds of roof-rack rails around. Hello, chrome spinners?

Conversely, as I’ve mentioned before, in raw terms cars of a hundred years ago were more efficient than those today:

“In 1908 Ford autos got 28 miles per gallon and today fuel efficiency for automobiles averages 25 miles per gallon. Is that progress?� asked Allen Hershkowitz, PhD, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council during a Nov. 9 lecture at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT).

So what does that tell you about the future of OS design? America needs Vista like a soccer mom needs an SUV, but we’re talking want here. Want is a whole different ballgame.

A Microsoft security executive released data Thursday showing that, six months after shipping Windows Vista, his company has left more publicly disclosed Vista bugs unpatched than it did with Windows XP.

Can we assume the unnamed executive is looking back with a bemused smile?

I have been stuck arguing with a friend from Texas about government. He is a big fan of less regulation, less government, less interference…the usual vapid tall tales of woe you can expect from stereotypical Texans.

I have just been trying to convince him, in my best Kansan conservative fashion, that his position is actually very anti-graft yet pro-regulation. In fact, as he complained about the manner in which legislators are able to spend money, I asked him “so, it seems you think they need more guidance, perhaps some regulation, on the allocation of funds?” Even more ironic is the fact that he is working with companies to help them navigate security regulations — he is making a living consulting with companies on how to abide by data protection regulations, and he is a hardliner at that.

My revelation of these contradictions to him seemed to have slowed things down a little, but then he countered with the argument that a legislator stealing money should not be considered corrupt if they do it in the open. Er, curve ball. I actually think he means that no one should be accused of breaking the law if they say they do not recognize the laws they are breaking, or there is “insufficient” evidence as determined by the accused. Hmmm, who does that remind me of…?

The logical twists and turns he has taken in order to find a way to argue against government makes me think his eventual position will be more like an overly salted pretzel rather than the well seasoned meal he thinks he is serving.

If I remember correctly, the last time I saw him he tried to convince me that the US was actually winning the Vietnam War but were defeated by liberals at home. More recently he has tried to suggest that there is no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause cancer, based on the premise that a lack of absolute certainty means scientific proof is inherently insufficient. He said this means we must accept prejudice as a natural condition and stop trying to make it seem like a bad thing. I told him that empiricism is certainly no proof that prejudice is natural, but rather the opposite when coupled with a value system, and to try and spin the two into a meaningless blend was to take a painfully shallow position. What possible point could someone have in trying to claim the word “prejudice” as a positive and natural human condition?

Alas, the one thing we seem to agree on is that diesel is the future transportation energy source of choice.

And that says a lot to me, given the distance of opinion we have on everything else.